forum.sports-pro.co.uk A discussion forum devoted to people who want to talk about sports and sports betting! People without a sense of humour need not apply!!
Posted: Mon Aug 07, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: FINANCE
Please post here all your ideas, commitments (tentative or otherwise) and opinions about the financing of a co-ownership racehorse (initial costs and training fees). _________________ UNEXPECTED WINNER 2009 FLAT 10 TO FOLLOW COMPETITION!
When I am back up and running in a new job, I would hope I could possible afford £100 or less a month. Not sure how reasonable that would be. If it was less that would be brilliant.
I think talking about a retirement home is going a bit far at this time as we might end up with a 4-5YO NH horse that we want to sell on 2-3 years later to buy another one. _________________ Forest are Treemendous
I thought id replied to this already maybe on the wrong thread my bad!
The quoted prices of shares seems fine with me providing i get a job etc. It does depend when it would go ahead also because of the job etc. _________________ Wolves winner 20.1.08
To start with, offer ONE share per member and limit the shareholders to 40. This way everything is equal. If we fall short in membership others may take up the slack.
This gives us 10K in the pot and £1400 per month.
If after the meeting we decide to go ahead, we could always start the monthly payments immediately. If it takes a few months to get a horse we`ll already have money in the kitty.
Sky, entry fees are sometimes included in trainers' costs, sometimes not. One of the big advantages of an all-in deal like Richard Lee's is that the price covers everything apart from surgery and EIPH treatment.
As I built a cushion into the original costings, entry fees shouldn't be a problem, although I will flag this up for further discussion with trainers. I don't suppose (unless miracles do happen!) that we will want to be supplementing for the Derby! I don't think NH entries are that much, and even a supplementary for the Gold Cup (dream on!) runs to hundreds, not thousands! _________________ UNEXPECTED WINNER 2009 FLAT 10 TO FOLLOW COMPETITION!
OK - just assumed everything was in the thousands, but it sounds like there'll be enough and even if it's a few extra hundred here and there (for better races!!!) then I guess as a group we should be OK.
this accounts for 26 of the 40 shares. I have listed everyone who has shown an interest and tried to gauge how many shares they will likely have. It would be useful to know if people are looking for more or less shares based upon Jennys £250 up front fee per share and £35 a month per share quotes.
having been away for a while, have not had much time for the forum, but this seem like a really good idea and one that im interested, for the time being im interested in having 1 share but shall see how things go then who knows
we have 27 of the original suggested 40 share accounted for now. However some of those original yes's may be able to increase their share allocation from 2 to 3 based upon the original guestimate being around the £1000 mark.
No one has mentioned anything yet from this group so they will stay at 2 for the time being.
Glennie, thank you for this. It is really useful to keep a running total of possible shares, and I'd be eternally grateful if you could continue this task!! Will buy you a generous portion of your preferred drink (bottle of champagne, whisky, gin, state your preference!) when we meet! _________________ UNEXPECTED WINNER 2009 FLAT 10 TO FOLLOW COMPETITION!
I dont want to be a stick in the mud, but as I see it, we have 19 interested parties from within the forum. I still think one share each to start with. Then offer a second share if we are short of numbers, but the second share could go too a spouse,partner,friend, etc,etc or the individual if need be.
Glennie, remember the estimate £1000 for the purchase and one or two hundred a month was only a guide if we could only manage 10 or so members. The aim was always to get more members and reduce the cost individually. I for one do not see any advantage of having two,three or even four shares. My own feeling is to try and keep everyone equal, that way there is no arguments and no priorities.
WE MUST GET ALL INTERESTED PARTIES ON BOARD A.S.A.P.
Rapid, I understand your reasoning. However, the advantage of allowing people to hold more than one share, if they can afford it, is that as the number of shares (not shareholders) goes up, the price of each share comes down. By limiting ownership to one share, unless we can actually get 40 individual shareholders, which I doubt - although it is worth trying - we would probably, because of the increase in cost per head, make the whole scheme unworkable.
I know that there are potential members who would not be able to fund an increase in share price, and would as a consequence have to drop out, thus making the price of a share even higher, because of the lower numbers of shareholders available.
I do however think that everyone, whether they have one share or more, must be treated equally (that is, equal voice in decision making, and equal distribution of owners' privileges). This means that the only inequality would be if the share price were reduced because of prizes, and I think we have already so far pretty much agreed that in the lucky event of prize money this would go back into the pot to provide a cushion for unforeseen expenditure and to reduce the monthly contribution; those with more shares would benefit a bit more than those with fewer.
Thoughts, people, please!!
_________________ UNEXPECTED WINNER 2009 FLAT 10 TO FOLLOW COMPETITION!
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
