The 15% Surprise [Archive] - Chronicle Forums

lute

Dec. 12, 2004, 08:40 PM

I'll relate the facts as told to me, and invite your commentary.
I will withold my own opinion for the nonce.
Friends have a child who has been showing and training at a local H/J barn. Small time trainer. Child has inexpensive horse that has been safe but less than brilliant at showing.
Parents wish to upgrade to enable child to be more competitive. Confer with trainer, establish maximum budget, authorize trainer to begin search. Trainer offers several prospects; all of which are unsuitable, being either green or re-cycled local mounts, and all of which are priced (coincidentally) at the maximum budget number.
Parents decide to begin searching on their own. Contact agents. Find several quite suitable horses, and prepare to travel to try them.
Are then informed by trainer that if they purchase a horse on their own, they are obligated to pay trainer a 15% commission on the total purchase price of the new horse. If this is not paid forwith, both the old horse and the new one must vacate the barn immediately.
When parents asked why they should pay an onorarium for a transaction with which the trainer had no involvement, they were told
by trainer "because that's the way it's done in the horse show world".

lute

Dec. 12, 2004, 08:40 PM

missgrey

Dec. 12, 2004, 08:46 PM

bullsh*t, i would leave!!

hunterjumper1002

Dec. 12, 2004, 08:47 PM

I can't say in my entire time i've been in the horse world have i ever heard this. Would they consider moving their horse/horses? I'd get out of that barn as easy as that.

-sorry for short post, im about to leave-

Hucklebug

Dec. 12, 2004, 08:52 PM

Unfortunately, I have heard of this before, but I can say that I'd never ride with a trainer who did this. I would, however, pay a trainer a small "thank you" if I knew they put a lot of time and phone calls into horse hunting for me and I ended up finding one on my own--as a way of saying that you recognize the time they've spent on you. However, the idea that it's expected, and at such a high rate, is ridiculous. Also important to keep in mind however is that a trainer should approve a horse before it's purchased, even if you found it on your own...it's good to get a professional opinion on whether the horse actually is a good fit and whether the horse is reasonably priced, suitable etc. and whether the seller has a bad reputation for beign a swindler is more likely to be known to the trainer.

hntrrdr07

Dec. 12, 2004, 09:08 PM

I have never heard of that...I agree with the others that if the trainer started looking and the parents eventually found one on their own, some type of payment would be appropriate, but that sounds odd to me...15% on a horse the trainer didn't even find...maybe that is her way of charging for time spent 'approving' the horse...I'm interested to see what others have to say.

CBoylen

Dec. 12, 2004, 09:15 PM

Sorry, I'm on the other side of the fence. If one has a trainer, one pays them a commission upon purchase if one expects to keep the trainer. If the horse purchaser no longer wants to be affiliated with said trainer, by all means they should purchase their horse and go on their way. If they expect their trainer to train their purchase he gets to evaluate it and is paid accordingly. Frankly, I think the fact that the trainer is willing to keep the customer, even with a paid commission, is surprising, considering that they acted without him and are basically behaving in a manner that will quickly label them "nightmare customers" and make it difficult for them to find any trainer at all. That IS the way it's done.

khobstetter

Dec. 12, 2004, 09:20 PM

C Boylen...

exactly...........but I would ask if the 15% is firm and could they arrive at a middle ground.

Hucklebug

Dec. 12, 2004, 09:23 PM

CB--yes, but what we don't know here is whether they're upgrading from a 800$ pony to a $5000 pony or a 25K pony to a 75k pony. People don't shop (hopefully) for 75k ponies on their own, but people who buy 5k ponies do.

california rider

Dec. 12, 2004, 09:26 PM

first I have heard of this and disagree with the message. A lot of trainers want you to go through them and it is not just for the money.

On the other shoe though often well meaning parents and kids go out to avoid commission fees and bring home something unsuitable or not broke or no the right horse for the job. Then the trainer must make it work and when it does not the client sometimes blames trainer. If your in training with someone why would you NOT consult and use their expertise in helping you find the right horse???

I see both sides but more often than not a less than suitable horse is purchased. There is more to a horse purchase than one or two good test rides and a good vet check..

A trainer or agent (a good one) investigates the show history, talks to other trainers n the know about the horse, evaluates the horse personality, movement, suitability, style and conformation for soundness. A good agent uses their many years buying horses and evaluating them to make the best possible choice for you. All of this for 10-15% and the stress. Often it is not enough for what a good agent does!

;-)

SemiAutomatic

Dec. 12, 2004, 09:26 PM

Sorry, but C.Boylen... I have to disagree. Only in part that the trainer sounds like he/she is out to get money by showing them horses that aren't suitable for the rider. Not to mention if all the horses are at their maximum budget (seems a little fishy). From, what the person posted, they started going through the trainer and were unhappy with the horses the trainer was finding. I would certainly hope a trainer would have more connections for finding a horse than a client but somehow they managed to find a horse on their own and shouldn't have to give 15% to a trainer that didn't lift a finger to help.

I do agree that a "thank-you" should be given to the trainer for any effort he/she has put forward. BTW, a few phone calls is nothing and usually not time consuming (I do it all the time and it only takes me a minute or two to figure out if the horse is a possibly candidate for whatever I am looking for)

Just want to clarify that in most cases I think people should go through their trainer. I just don't like the trainers that ONLY care about money instead of finding the "right" match. (I am saying this trainer sounds like he/she is the first type= money hungry) Otherwise she/he would be showing them horses more suitable for the rider.

Box-of-Rox

Dec. 12, 2004, 09:27 PM

It does happen, and honestly it's why I would never buy a horse without my trainer--because if that's their policy, it makes it awkward. The parents should have asked before they searched on their own. However, just because it happens doesn't mean it's right, and it's one of the more annoying conventions.

As to only looking at the top of the budget--most trainers will do this, as well. However, more often than not, it's an "honest mistake" in terms of not being savvy. The parents say, top of the budget is 15K, or 150K, and the trainer asks around, and when other trainers ask what the range is, automatically every horse in the barn is priced at the top of that range.

Either way, the trainer seemed unable to find a suitable mount, and was clearly not forthright about their sale policies, with a first-time (or relatively newbie) family, so I think maybe it's just a bad trainer/client match.

CBoylen

Dec. 12, 2004, 09:29 PM

I'm afraid I don't see the difference SunnyBunny. It's a respect issue more than a money issue, although people who buy 5k ponies still have trainers who need to make money in order to run their businesses.

CBoylen

Dec. 12, 2004, 09:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SemiAutomatic:
Sorry, but C.Boylen... I have to disagree. Only in part that the trainer sounds like he/she is out to get money by showing them horses that aren't suitable for the rider. Not to mention if all the horses are at their maximum budget (seems a little fishy). From, what the person posted, they started going through the trainer and were unhappy with the horses the trainer was finding. I would certainly hope a trainer would have more connections for finding a horse than a client but somehow they managed to find a horse on their own and shouldn't have to give 15% to a trainer that didn't lift a finger to help. (I am saying this trainer sounds like he/she is the first type= money hungry) Otherwise she/he would be showing them horses more suitable for the rider. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If they're that unsatisfied with their trainer, and feel he or she was out to cheat them by showing them overpriced and unsuitable prospects, then they should take the horse they purchased on their own and leave, not stay and haggle over commission money. If that's the case the money is certainly not the problem.

BaliBandido

Dec. 12, 2004, 10:01 PM

Wow, I am going to wade in here. I think this is quite silly, what other business does this? Real estate, car dealers, stocks, etc etc? How is it that the horse business gets away with this.

Now its said that the trainer should get this money even if they did not find, or approve of said animal. Then what is the commission for? I agree that the trainer should be compensated for time spent at a rate that is equal to the hourly lesson rate (thats how I do it anyway)or some other pre-set fee. A commission is paid for the trainer to evaluate the animal for its suitablity for the job, the riders ability etc. You are paying for their knowledge of animals, industry standards, rider etc. Basically asking them to make a prediction on the sucess possible if horse is purchased for this set of clients. So if trainer does not perform those things why is a commision due. Pay for time spent and expenses (phone calls, videos etc) at an hourly rate.

As for keeping the client- it amazes me that someone who goes out on their own and purchases a horse is someone who should be ousted from a barn. If they buy a horse that is a puke, totally unsuitable for the intended purpose and they expect the trainer to 'fix' it, then tell them that you want no part of this, I mean as a trainer you are allowed to turn down horses/people that you do not feel you can or want to help. But to 'fire' them as a result of them making their own decisions?

When a trainer demands that level of control do they also offer the same level of responsibility should the horse that they 'approved' turn out to be less than suitable or sane or sound for the buyer?

I grew up in this business and have been a professional for over 15 years and I have never agreed with this. My obligation and fiduciary duty is to my clients, that means I have an obligation to do the best for my clients. I have always wanted to find the best horse for the best deal that my clients could afford, I have many times forgone my commission if it was the difference in a so-so horse and one that was 'the one'. I figured that it was a good thing for me as that nice horse came into my barn, paid monthly training fees, went down the road, won prizes, got trainer more recognition, more clients, sold more horses etc.

In this situation that the OP is talking about it seems to me that there is no trainer-clinet relationship and the trainer is forgetting that these are clients and that the trainers job is to represent them in whatever manner benifits them the most.

BaliBandido

Dec. 12, 2004, 10:09 PM

One more thing http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif,
C.Boylen wrote 'It's a respect issue more than a money issue, although people who buy 5k ponies still have trainers who need to make money in order to run their businesses.'

My understanding of how you made money in any business was that you provided something (a good or service) to earn it.

Commissions and money made on my own sale horses are what buys the property, new trucks trailers etc what pays the monthy bills or keeps my business running is the clients who have their horses in training, lessons and show fees.

Respect goes both ways. A client goes to a professional because they need one. They know they are not well informed in this area (I know, I know there are those that clearly do not but think they do) so they go to someone for help and should be able to trust that that person is looking out for their best interests at all times no matter what. How do they make money to run the business? They do a great job, they have good horses and good riders and they win. Then more people want their services.

It is weird this standard we have.

PineHillFarm

Dec. 12, 2004, 10:28 PM

WELCOME TO THE HORSE WORLD!

Trainers like this give us honest, truely devoted trainers a bad name! But this isn't just about the money....

It's about CONTROL. This said trainer is trying to control their clients. I think the problem here to lies in lack of communication between parties. The clients should have talked to the trainer and expressed their opinions about the horses they were being shown.

It's also aboutRESPECT It is a bit of a slap in the face to the trainer. But shame on the trainer for not being knowledgable enough to pick out suitable mounts!

I agree with paying a trainer for their time. But 15%? The trainer is being greedy. And to fire the clients? Well then honestly this trainer does not care about what is best for the student.

I hope they get outta there quick!

Atypical

Dec. 12, 2004, 10:33 PM

Nope, wouldn't pay commission if the trainer didn't find and arrange sale. And no, I don't find it surprsing that said trainer would be willing to keep them on, clients are clients. Finding a horse on your own without a trainer...the horrors!! And people lament the continuing degredation of the h/j world.... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

xTexHunterx

Dec. 12, 2004, 10:55 PM

I'd leave without a second look back. The only thing the horse world is about anymore is money. How much money can I steal from those people? 15%? Well then, gollee, I'm gonna take it!

It's not about horses anymore and it's truly sad. Maybe it never was about horses? Actually, I think it's our world today - we're money hungry and think we can't be happy without a bigger house, a nicer car, a $100k horse...and those things all cost money. So we beg, steal, borrow, and run ourselves more and more into debt to get these things that end up costing us more money...which in turn makes us less happy.

Lute, I would tell your friends to find a trainer that suits them and will not charge them an unreasonable fee for a horse that they found on their own WITHOUT the help of said trainer. The trainer is being a greedy pig and is part of the reason the horse world (namely the hunter/jumper part) has such a bad name. I'm not saying a "thank you" isn't in order for the trainer's time spent finding unsuitable mounts. But 15%?? That's outrageous. I don't care if it's the way it's done or not. It's extortion.

HRobs

Dec. 12, 2004, 10:55 PM

okay, I haven't really read all of the posts, so please forgive me if I repeat anyone

I agree with C.Boylen- <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If one has a trainer, one pays them a commission upon purchase if one expects to keep the trainer. If the horse purchaser no longer wants to be affiliated with said trainer, by all means they should purchase their horse and go on their way. If they expect their trainer to train their purchase he gets to evaluate it and is paid accordingly. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But, in this instance, the trainer seems to be going about this in kind of a shady manner-finding "unsuitable" horses that are at the max budget price makes me think it's one of those trainers who is just showing them horses that don't suit this person so they can go ahead and say "well, this is all that I can find in this price range, so if you're unsatisfied with what I'm presenting you, then we'll have to re-discuss your budget" ie: "I want you to spend more money so that I'll make more money" It would be different if the trainer found a few decent horses, or even none at all- not even unsuitable ones- then the trainer would be able to ask for commission, cause who knows, maybe the trainer already knew of the horse and knows of a problem they weren't told, or whatever.

If they like this horse that they found, tell them to talk to their trainer and they can say either :
-this is the kind of horse we think we're looking for, do you know of this horse and do you think it's a good match for our child? If not, do you know of any other horses like this in our price range?
-this is the horse that we would like to buy, but we still would like your help in buying this horse.
both situations you would, obviously, pay commission.
OR if they don't like the way the trainer is going about things, perhaps it would be in their best interest to look elsewhere.

Portia

Dec. 12, 2004, 10:56 PM

There are many trainers who have this kind of practice, and in the big name trainer market it may in fact be commonly done. However, that certainly does not make it right. I'm with those who ask in what other kind of business transaction would such a thing be tolerated, much less expected?

I've never understood the idea that trainers can demand to pick and choose the client's new horse, and to take a cut of the transaction whether or not they are actively involved in finding the horse. If the trainer does not like the new horse and does not want to receive the money from training it and teaching the client, then the trainer has the right to say "no thanks, I'm not going to ride that beast or have my name associated with it." But I can't agree with the concept that a trainer can rightfully say "I'll train you and your horse only if I get a big percentage on top of the cost of buying the beast."

That said, it seems that the real crux of the problem in this situation is that the parents and the trainer did not make the terms of their arrangement clear when they started the process of looking for the horse. The trainer may have a right to expect to be paid for his/her efforts, even if they were unsuccessful. (If they were unsuccessful because the trainer was trying to sell unsuitable animals at inflated prices to increase his/her take, well, that's something else altogether and the parents should take that into account in deciding whether they want to continue a relationship with this trainer.)

On the other hand, the parents have every right to question why they should be expected to pay a substantial commission to someone who did not find the horse in question. After all, commissions are generally only paid when the person achieves the point of the commission and finds the desired product and the buyer purchases it, not because one puts in some effort but fails.

It seems now, unless they can have a heart to heart with the trainer and come to some compromise, the parents choice is to decide whether they want to continue riding with this trainer enough to pay the commission.

Hucklebug

Dec. 13, 2004, 03:49 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by C.Boylen:
I'm afraid I don't see the difference SunnyBunny. It's a respect issue more than a money issue, although people who buy 5k ponies still have trainers who need to make money in order to run their businesses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, at my last trainer's barn, there were the whole range of students--those who bought horses out of the classifieds in the newspaper and riders who were nationally competitive and had huge horse budgets. How hard a trainer works is a matter of economics. It's takes a lot more digging for a lot less commission to find a 5k horse than a 150k horse...so those who did not have a lot of money to spend, typically went out and did a lot of leg work on their own and then called the trainer with any prospects they identified because that was a more efficient and economical way of doing it--you can't expect a trainer to put in the man hours for a $750 commission that they would for a $10k commission--they'd go out of business. That was my point. People who have a lot of money to spend can expect their trainer to spend a lot of time looking for horses. Those who don't have a lot of money to spend, the trainer is actually doing the right thing by the student to let them shop on their own because it allows them to put more of their precious pennies toward a horse. CUstomers in the barn who don't have a lot of money to spend have always been know to do a lot to help out in order to make things work and I don't see why this should be an exception--it's like the mother who feeds and mucks to help decrease the board bill.

imissvixen

Dec. 13, 2004, 04:31 AM

What does their agreement with the trainer state? Seems to me that it should pretty clearly spell out the events under which the trainer is due that payment.

Mav226

Dec. 13, 2004, 04:47 AM

I can't say that this is uncommon--at all. Wrong (IMO), but not uncommon. The real issue here is one of two possibilities:

1. The trainer does not have the contacts to find a decent horse for 'x' dollars. This is a serious problem. Anyone expecting 15% should be knowledgable enough to find a decent horse within a reasonable amount of time (4-6 months for me).

OR:
2. Trainer knows d*@m well that these horses aren't suitable, but with appropriate training (from said trainer) they could be. So in this instance, you're getting a way over-priced horse (probably) that is going to require 4+ pro rides a week.

Neither side of the coin is all that pretty, I'd find a new trainer. But that's just me...

Duffy

Dec. 13, 2004, 04:49 AM

Obviously, we are not privy to the entire situation. On the surface, it sure seems "over the top" to me. IF said trainer wishes to keep said client and had nothing to do with the evaluation of new horse, then a compromise should be arrived at. IF said trainer gets involved with the evaluation of client's new prospective horse, I believe the 15% agreed upon commission is reasonable.

I do a lot of my own legwork when considering new horses/ponies, especially in these days of the internet. Sometimes I get lucky. Sometimes it is through my TRAINERS' connections that I hook up with one. Some other trainer/professionals will not consider showing me a horse unless they know my trainers are involved - professional courtesy. Regardless of which of us "finds" the horse, I will have them involved, whether going for a final peak, or just looking at a video. That service/knowledge/expertise deserves compensation and I pay it.

HSM

Dec. 13, 2004, 05:14 AM

Juat taking a wild guess here, but sound to me like a small-name trainer with small-time connections and horse-trading skills, looking for the benefits that the big-name trainers with their big-name connections and big-name horse trading skills may (I said may) be entitled to, because "that's how it's done in the horse world.)

Gotta love the horse world.

Pookah

Dec. 13, 2004, 05:21 AM

I don't think the issue is really the commission. I would "vacate the barn" immediately, because the trainer is not meeting the family's needs. Trainer is showing them inappropriate prospects, and they shouldn't be obligated to buy the wrong horse just to fatten the trainer's wallet. Trainer clearly doesn't have the kid's best interests at heart, and isn't thinking long-term, either--putting a kid on a green pony just to make a buck does not build a great reputation of horse-rider matching. There are lots of great trainers out there--no need to stick with a bum like this one. Find the trainer that's in it to match a child and pony for an optimum combination, and you'll pay them the commission and think it's worth every penny you spent. That commission pays for the trainer's expertise in match-making, contacts to find that perfect horse, and ongoing training of the horse/rider. You should be paying it, but you should be getting your money's worth, too.

chism

Dec. 13, 2004, 05:42 AM

If the trainer had no input on finding this horse, and didn't approve the horse, she may just be p.o'd that she's out of the commission. She should be paid something for the time spent thus far but not a full commission. I bought a lovely horse on my own, had trainer out for the second look and paid her a flat rate for that one visit. The trainer benefits from this deal as well because the horse comes to her barn, and is trained by her.However, I too feel it's an issue of control with this particular trainer and to ask for a full commission on a horse that she didn't find is just unreasonable.

Countryhawk

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:09 AM

Without knowing a lot of the background.. If the amount they are wanting to spend, isn't enough for the type of horse they want, it could be a problem. I've seen it often enough. As someone else said, the trainer may have been looking at a horse to develop since their price range may not be where their wishes are. I know a girl, VERY limited funds, is leasing a tb, that is a terrible stopper, but she has gotten her around the 2 1/2 foot hunters this past year. The girl needs something that can do the 3 foot stuff, but in reality can't spend at top 5 grand. Around here that won't buy much. So you either get something that needs fixing, or something young (not a great option for her temperement) But most likely she won't find the best horse for where she wants to go in the future made and ready to go.

Jumphigh83

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:11 AM

.....and now we all see why being a professional horseman is such a hard and thankless job.....

Magnolia

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:14 AM

deleted

Magnolia

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:15 AM

Ages ago, I went horse shopping on my own. My trainer knew we were on a limited budget ($1000). We did the foot work, she charged us a bit of money to go see the horse and approve. (I think the cost of a lesson).

15% on a $1000 horse is $150, on a $10,000 horse that grows to $1500 - "if" said trainer spent 8 hours making phone calls and watching the horse go, that is a charge of $187.50 per hour...... which I guess is a professional rate on par with other consultants......

OakesBrae

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:24 AM

Well, and do keep in mind that you're probably not looking at ONE horse. That 8 hours was probably also spent looking at a lot of other horses. I know I have spent well over 8 hours on a child's pony that we currently have in on trial. I also spent several hours emailing other people about other ponies, and traveled 2 hours to see a different one in his location. I've probably spent about 18 hours looking for a pony. If they give me 15% of the purchase price (if they buy this particular pony) it will be $525. That equates to about $30 per hour. I'm not exactly making a killing on this.

Regarding the original post - *if* this is exactly how it happened, I'm not sure the trainer is being reasonable. Sometimes small fish haven't yet figured out that you draw more flies with honey than vinegar, and some aren't very skilled just yet at finding horses, or negotiating.

HOWEVER, I will say that parents a lot of times don't quite "get it". Sometimes if they are looking for a $5k horse but they want it to be fancy, the only option *is* going to be a somewhat green horse, or one with some behavioral "quirks". It's possible also that this situation has gone on and the trainer is quite fed up with said parents.

Ben and Me

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:25 AM

I personally think its okay to do the "footwork" for a horse or pony on your own, especially if its a relatively inexpensive horse--but when it comes time to try the horse, I'd definitely have my trainer there. I'd also pay them the 15% commission because, even if they weren't there for the internet searches, they did take the time to come evaluate the horses, and were likely there for any of the ensuing purchase events--the vet exam, etc.

CuriosoJorge

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:26 AM

For whomever said that this does not occur in other professions, it most certainly does.

Real estate is the best example. If your property is listed with a selling agent, and the property sells either within the term of the contract or sometimes within a set period after the contract expires, you owe the agent a commission, whether the agent was directly involved in bringing the buyer to you or not.

There is nothing unusual about this situation; it is indeed the way things are done in the horse world. If the people are not happy with their trainer, they need to choose another trainer. To me it is about communication. Some trainers are willing to let clients do the legwork and initial visit on their own, and instead of paying a commission these clients pay a set fee for the trainer's time in evaluating the prospects found by the client. Not all trainers are willing to do this, and it is up to the client to ASK first.

Flash44

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:32 AM

There are several issues at play here.

The trainer has done work on the behalf of the buyer, even if the buyer did not like the horses presented, and the trainer does deserve to get paid for that service.

If the buyer strongly suspects the trainer is taking advantage of the situation, the buyer needs to find another trainer.

If the buyer finds a horse without the trainer, the trainer should be paid fair compensation for the time the trainer put into setting up horses for the buyer to try (even if they were not suitable).

I just went and bought a new horse, without my trainer. He did not get a commission because he was not involved in the deal in any way, shape or form. However, had I asked for his assistance, I would fully expect to have paid him a commission. It's my money and my horse, I really don't care what the trainers think of it.

Lord Helpus

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
.....and now we all see why being a professional horseman is such a hard and thankless job..... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it is a hard and thankless job, but this situation is not an example of why.

This situation is an example of lack of communication and people skills at the very least, and possible lack of ethical judgment at the other end of the spectrum.

This trainer/instructor has been teaching the kid for a while. So she knows the family. At some point when it became obvious that a new horse was needed, she, as the professional, needed to sit down and have a talk with the parents about the reality of their budget and the conditions under which she would agree to look for a horse for them.

If the 15% "no matter who finds the horse" had been discussed up front, then it would not be this big deal now.

If the budget is insufficient to find a decent horse, then that should have been discussed up front. Perhaps it was, but it doesn't sound like it.

In the real world, people are compensated one of 2 ways: salary or commission (or a combination). When one EARNS a commission, one is usually compensated at a higher rate because it is not a guaranteed income, but something that is only earned after the successful completion of a certain task. A salary, OTOH, is money that comes in hourly or weekly just for being there, whether or not the job gets done.

I'm sorry. But if someone wants to be paid, whether or not they successfully perform the task for which they were hired, then they should receive an hourly wage. But if someone wants to take the risk of an "all or nothing" reward, then they get nothing if they do not find a horse or 15% if they do.

CBoylen, I usually agree with you, but not on this one.

I would tell this "my way or the highway" trainer, "Buh-bye".

Madison

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Flash44:
The trainer has done work on the behalf of the buyer, even if the buyer did not like the horses presented, and the trainer does deserve to get paid for that service.

If the buyer strongly suspects the trainer is taking advantage of the situation, the buyer needs to find another trainer.

If the buyer finds a horse without the trainer, the trainer should be paid fair compensation for the time the trainer put into setting up horses for the buyer to try (even if they were not suitable). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. And, if significant time was spent it may be that the fair thing to do would be to pay the commission, but that all depends on the rest of the facts. Situations like this are exactly why you should set up the parameters with your trainer on the front end.

Hidden Hill Farm

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:54 AM

We can discuss this all day long as a matter of opinion. However, C.Bolyen is right, this IS the way it is done.

To put this in perspecitve, consider we are looking for an "A" circuit children's hunter for a kid who needs a push ride but perpetually drops the horse three strides out. Perhaps this child has ridden a stopper in the past and needs a good confidence building seeing eye dog type of horse.

A good trainer would know that this child needs a horse that perhaps has some age on him, but plenty of good miles. He must be quiet, but not so quiet that he'll run out of gas three strides out when she drops him. He must have excellent lead changes because when she crawls up the neck, leans in and looks down, he's got to be able to help her instead of the other way around. He must not spook at water trucks or PA systems. He must not need 1 hour on the lunge line in the morning at the shows -- that alone is worth the 15% commission if someone has to lunge the heck out of the thing every morning.

Now, if you ask most parents how their child rides, you may get "She's an advanced beginner" or "She's been riding for four years". Well, once a week or showing five ponies every weekend?

If you ask the trainer you may get a more insightful view. You will also get their stamp of approval so you don't make a huge buying mistake. What if you get a horse with a $hit streak a mile because you couldn't see it?

IF you have a good trainer and you find the horse, pay them for their opinion and let them help you feel comfortable knowing that this is the right horse.

IF you don't have a good trainer, leave.

When I was a junior, I would never in a million years have dreamed of trying to find a horse without my trainer. After all, I was going to bring it home and put it in his barn, have lessons with him almost every day, put it on his trailer to go to shows and have him standing at the ring when I came out.

findeight

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:59 AM

On the surface, this looks bad but let's consider a few other points here.

In the first place, the original poster is a third party and probably did not sit in on any financial discussions. Relying on what you hear from only one side of any issue leads to alot of misinformation. We really do not know what the agreement was.

These clients are just moving up off a starter horse type, still relatively new to the show world. The trainer may have shown them mounts they considered unsuitable...maybe the trainer thought they might work out and stay within the budget. The trainer also spent a great deal of time with them on these trials-did she bill for a lesson? Or was it agreed her time would be compensated with the commission?

Many less experienced clients do have the old champagne taste on a beer budget going on and complain about the quality of horse they are being shown without realizing that is what is available.
There is a possibility that the horse they bought on their own is just as unsuitable and the trainer knows it. The clients don't because the drugs haven't worn off yet.

Of course the trainer could just be trying to pad the deal.

I just don't know because I was not there when the clients contracted with this trainer to find a horse.

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:14 AM

I'm definitely with CBoylen here.

Another view on this is that the trainer commissions are another way they are getting paid for the total services they provide and the relationship. For example, my trainer provides many services, most of which I pay for, but some I don't get charged for (an extra 10 minutes in the lesson here or there). I think this is true for most trainers and most customers.

The commission is not only about the trainer helping me with a horse purchase, but also about fees throughout our relationship. I pay for specific services (lessons, shows, etc.), and for the sale/purchase of a horse every few years (hopefully not soon, though). That is one of the incentives for trainers providing good customer service and relations.

If the customer respects the trainer enough to continue with the training, then they should pay the commission. To help in justifying the commission the customer should involve the trainer in the purchase at some point (trial, vetting, etc.). If they feel that the trainer's inability to find a suitable horse means that the trainer shouldn't get a commission, then they should find another trainer. I would seriously question why the customer did not sit down with the trainer to explore the issue of finding a suitable horse, or else involve the trainer more in the efforts of the customer.

Calvaro V

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:17 AM

Don't stick around - sounds like there's more going on than just commissions. Smells of greed by the trainer and there will be more incidents like this in the future. I'd get out now while you're still ahead.

Good luck http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

findeight

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:19 AM

Ah, but the OP is not the buyer and not involved in the transaction.

A friend told her.

lute

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:22 AM

One of the agents contacted by the parents has spent several months searching for and evaluating prospects. Agent has personally viewed more than a dozen horses, ridden several, sent videotapes, and has had numerous phone conferences with parents.
If the parents then buy a horse through their trainer, is the agent not morally entitled to a 15% commission on the trainer's sale?

imapepper

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by BaliBandido:
Wow, I am going to wade in here. I think this is quite silly, what other business does this? Real estate, car dealers, stocks, etc etc? How is it that the horse business gets away with this.

Now its said that the trainer should get this money even if they did not find, or approve of said animal. Then what is the commission for? I agree that the trainer should be compensated for time spent at a rate that is equal to the hourly lesson rate (thats how I do it anyway)or some other pre-set fee. A commission is paid for the trainer to evaluate the animal for its suitablity for the job, the riders ability etc. You are paying for their knowledge of animals, industry standards, rider etc. Basically asking them to make a prediction on the sucess possible if horse is purchased for this set of clients. So if trainer does not perform those things why is a commision due. Pay for time spent and expenses (phone calls, videos etc) at an hourly rate.

As for keeping the client- it amazes me that someone who goes out on their own and purchases a horse is someone who should be ousted from a barn. If they buy a horse that is a puke, totally unsuitable for the intended purpose and they expect the trainer to 'fix' it, then tell them that you want no part of this, I mean as a trainer you are allowed to turn down horses/people that you do not feel you can or want to help. But to 'fire' them as a result of them making their own decisions?

When a trainer demands that level of control do they also offer the same level of responsibility should the horse that they 'approved' turn out to be less than suitable or sane or sound for the buyer?

I grew up in this business and have been a professional for over 15 years and I have never agreed with this. My obligation and fiduciary duty is to my clients, that means I have an obligation to do the best for my clients. I have always wanted to find the best horse for the best deal that my clients could afford, I have many times forgone my commission if it was the difference in a so-so horse and one that was 'the one'. I figured that it was a good thing for me as that nice horse came into my barn, paid monthly training fees, went down the road, won prizes, got trainer more recognition, more clients, sold more horses etc.

In this situation that the OP is talking about it seems to me that there is no trainer-clinet relationship and the trainer is forgetting that these are clients and that the trainers job is to represent them in _whatever_ manner benifits _them_ the most. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I wish that more trainers were like you http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by lute:
One of the agents contacted by the parents has spent several months searching for and evaluating prospects. Agent has personally viewed more than a dozen horses, ridden several, sent videotapes, and has had numerous phone conferences with parents.
If the parents then buy a horse through their trainer, is the agent not morally entitled to a 15% commission on the trainer's sale? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It depends. Is the agent a seller's agent or buyer's agent? I hope the parents are clear on that point before proceeding. I'm not saying that the agent doing this work shouldn't get a commission -- that person should if it results in the sale/purchase of a horse, but that person may be representing multiple sellers. This is ALWAYS made clear when the buyer has a trainer involved.

M. O'Connor

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:31 AM

<<What does their agreement with the trainer state? Seems to me that it should pretty clearly spell out the events under which the trainer is due that payment.>>

Here's the problem in a nutshell. The only surprising thing about the situation as described is that it was a surprise at all. In discussing protocols and procedures for going out looking at horses, this area should have been covered.

As for unsuitable horses, presumeably each horse that isn't bought is actually "unsuitable," for whatever reason. If it was "suitable" then the people would buy it, right?

Using this logic, if only "suitable" prospects were presented by a trainer, there would only be one "presentation." Many times, to wind up with a truly, reasonably POTENTIALLY SUITABLE PROSPECT (PSP, ok?), the trainer has to go look/try before the client sees the horse. Lots of those the client never sees, sometimes doesn't even know about. As a matter of efficiency, maybe the trainer will have contacts send PSP's that turn out not to be perfectly suitable. It isn't even a matter of incompetence, but there are a lot of PSP's that are usually sorted through prior to the culmination of an actual purchase. Not to mention the PSP's that don't pass the vet, when all else is golden.

Many trainers do institute a "%regardless" policy, because without one, or an alternate way of defining compensation for the hours and effort it takes just to line up PSP's, the trainer would be going into the red more often than not.

Whether a client should or can go out on their own to make a purchase depends on what it is they expect to accomplish, and their own level of expertise. Sometimes the less experienced get lucky, but more often they don't. When they don't, who will be expected to make repairs when mistakes have been made? The trainer. Who shouldn't be expected to undertake to do so without being compensated for taking on the problem.

In the case of the more experienced owner looking on their own, if the trainer has done a good job, then things should be all right. I don't think that this type of client too often will be charged the %regardless fee, and instead could expect to arrange a "fee for service" situation, because they will be capable of coming up with PSP's and maybe even purchases with a minimum effort on the part of their coach or trainer, if they even have one.

OakesBrae

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:31 AM

I think I'm officially confused. I thought it was the trainer that was searching for the horse?

MistyBlue

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:35 AM

I think the issue should be discussed, agreed upon, written out and fully executed in a written contract BEFORE any shopping takes place. I also think both sides of the coin have perfectly vaild points.
A sales/shopping contract should be done, with the verbage stating that said trainer will attempt to obtain a suitable horse for the buyer. And that said trainer will be paid ____% commission on the purchase price of the horse *IF* the trainer acted with due diligence in the finding and purchase of that horse. In other words...if the purchased horse was found through the trainer's search, the trainer's contacts and/or the trainer's expertise. If the buyer and trainer want the type of situation that both parties are allowed to shop independently of each other and the trainer will still be paid on the purchase no mater what...then that's fine and have it in writing as long as everyone agrees. If you do not want this arrangement and the trainer insists on it at the last minute previously unbeknownst to you, then leave the barn. Because neither of you are ready or capable of viewing the show world as a BUSINESS. The buyer isn't ready because they didn't insist on a spelled out contract the terms, and neither did the trainer which is patently unprofessional. Granted, for us it's a fun business and showing is an exciting hobby or sport...but either way it's still a business and should be treated 100% as such. It doesn't make sense to go into any type of financial situation (showing, training, sales, etc) without having a contract.

" Wow, I am going to wade in here. I think this is quite silly, what other business does this? Real estate, car dealers, stocks, etc etc? How is it that the horse business gets away with this"

Althougb I agree with this poster's issue in some degree...I do have to point out that yes, real estate agents can and do collect commissions for homes they don't actually sell. It's in the contract, although not always enforced by either party. If a house is listed with a broker and the house expires or the contract is broken, there is usually verbage in the contract that if the house sells within a certain number of days or weeks afterwards the broker is still owed a commission. It protects the broker from other brokers or homeowners who will find the buyer through the broker's showings, advertising or MLS...then waiting out the contract and making the deal afterwards to save commission. Same with horse buying...a contract should protect the trainer from fiding the right horse or the right contacts and then the buyer going behind the trainers back to avoid commission. But if the trainer was showing knowingly overpriced and unsuitable animals, or wasn't up to the task of sales, then the buyer should have had in the contract that no commissions will be owed for no results being brought forth.

Allyn M

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:49 AM

Since I have seen this issue come up before many times on these forums , I will repeat what I have said before.
I have been in the real estate business 30 years as a farm broker and have seen litigation bring about many changes in the manner in which we do business . One of the biggest changes has been in the matter of agency . We now have a legal form which must be signed by both buyer and seller which states exactly which one we represent or if we are going to try to represent both parties.It must be signed by the buyer before you do any business with him so he knows exactly where you are standing in the transaction.If you don't have that paper on file with each transaction you will be open for lawsuit .
I also sell horses and do not pay trainers anything on the sly without the complete knowledge of their clients. What I respect is the trainers that come and tell me that they are being paid by their clients to assess the suitability of the prospect.Now I realize that the trainer needs to get something for his time and the fact is that it is expensive to run a barn in this day and age , but someday somewhere there is going to be a giant lawsuit about just who does the trainer represent when he allows the client that he supposedly represents pay more money than the horse is worth and the money is going into both the sellers representatives pocket and the clients trainers pocket.Unfortunately many of the clients are new to the horse business and do not realize initally what is going on and when they do find out are hard pressed to admit their lack of knowledge. The big loser here is the horse as someone may pay 50,000 for a horse and in fact their are 2 10,000 commissions tacked onto a 30,000 horse . If he then doesn't perform as would be expected of a 50,000 horse it is his fault.

Bumpkin

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:57 AM

I found Elliot all by myself. A friend bred him, and offered him to me at a reduced price.
I was not looking for a horse. It was pure Karma.
I went to my daughter's trainer at the time, said I was thinking of buying him, and would she hop on him for me.
BUT before we even got into the car, I told her I wanted to know right up front what the % deal was.
She told me 50$ per visit to the horse or 15% whichever I wanted to do.
I said flat out 50$ per visit. We shook hands and went and looked at Elliot.
I was prepared to pay her approx 300$ for her help. When I got a bill for $$$ considerbly more, I was very disappointed in this young trainer, and felt that she was not as honest as I was expecting.

Lisa Cook

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:58 AM

I'm going to preface this by saying I'm a fairly independent type who tends to drive trainers nuts. (Which is probably why I switched from h/j to eventing a long time ago!)

With that being said...the last time I went to buy a horse (and this is in eventing-world), my trainer spent a lot of time helping me to find a horse. She travelled with me to look & try horses...horses I found for sale on my own and horses she found. She tracked down videos & made phone calls on my behalf...when all was said & done, I found my own horse without her. A TB coming off the track. He was cheap. Not the "made" horse I originally set off to find, and defintely way cheaper than the budget I had set.

But I still paid my trainer a commission. And that commission worked out to roughly 25% of my horse's purchase price, because he was a cheapie OTTB. Do I begrudge it? Not at all! I divided her commission bill by the estimated hours that she spent looking for a horse for me and decided I got a bargin...it was roughly the same per hour than if she had stayed home teaching lessons.

In the case of the original post, I do think the trainer should be reiumbursed *something* for her time & effort. And it sounds like there is a definite lack of trust with the family as it pertains to the trainer. If they mis-trust the trainer so much, then it is probably time to find a new trainer.

Anyplace Farm

Dec. 13, 2004, 08:00 AM

I've heard of this practice before and would never do it.

Horse people suck.

findeight

Dec. 13, 2004, 08:01 AM

I beg your pardon http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Ben and Me

Dec. 13, 2004, 08:03 AM

findeight

Dec. 13, 2004, 08:04 AM

What is the agreement the parents have with the agent? Does it specify commission regardless?

I'd trust most trainers before I would do business with some of the more notorious agents out there. Do the parents have enough background to be sure the agent isn't one of them, especially if it's a long distance relationship?

Hopeful Hunter

Dec. 13, 2004, 08:05 AM

*sigh* All of this makes me wonder again if there remains ANY room in the h/j world for the individual of modest means and goals.

Is there a place for the person who wants to retain a relationship with their own horse? Who wants to "control" if you will which horse he/she owns? Who wants to be able to step back, take their time, maybe even do some of their own training and decision making? Is there even a place that will "allow" such a person to board there? Trainers that will "accept" that person?

I'm fortunate to have such a situation -- I tend to find my own horses, usually OTTBs, spend a lot of time bringing them along then find the trainer once they've got the basics to do our show prep and training. The trainer may be on site, or I haul out, and my boarding barn is fine with that. Now, I do take knowledgeable friends with me to evaluate, and if I feel I want/need my trainer also to look at a prospect's possibilities, I ask in advance if that is acceptable or if they don't want to do it, if they can recommend someone who will do that kind of evaluation, and also ask what the fee will be.

I will not pay any percentage for the "priviledge" of paying MORE money in board and training fees, but I WILL pay for time spent on my behalf. Were I to ask a trainer to search for me, I would discuss fees up front, also. I have no problem paying a professional for professional services, but I DO have a problem paying for nothing.

I know the % regardless of why the horse comes into the barn is common, but by that thought why not charge a % of every new boarder/student's horse's value when THEY enter the barn, also? It makes as much, or imo as little, sense to me. If a trainer has done no work finding a horse or selling a horse, why on earth would I pay anything? It would be as if I had to pay my mechanic a commission because I bought a new car!

Now, maybe with a show-oriented training barn there is some sort of "entrance exam" or something to permit the trainer to determine whether or not they WANT to spend time with that horse. Maybe require such an evaluation before accepting a horse into boarding or training (although that would personally not sit AT ALL well, but that's me). Again, fine, if that's a stated policy. Hell, even charge for that entrance exam evaluation lesson or whatever if you want...I'm sure in the h/j world if you did you'd create even more of an "exclusivity" cachet that would have them knocking down the doors...

Compensation for actual time/effort - yes, of course, that's simply business in ANY industry. And, although I'd not buy into it, requiring evaluation before taking on a boarder/student also fine. But payment just because something new is coming in? No way.

Blinky

Dec. 13, 2004, 08:08 AM

There are two sides to every story.

Most trainers have this rule because they are trying to PREVENT the practice of clients going out and buying unsuitable horses. I've been riding since I was a teen and I can't tell you how often I have seen someone who thinks they know all about horses go out and make a bad purchase on their own then expect the trainer to not only fix the problem but to help sell it.

When I horse shop I not only rely on my trainer's connections but also do a lot of leg work and reserach on my own. But at the end of the day I respect my trainer's opinion. Why else would you ride with a trainer if their opinion and expertise didn't mean diddly squat to you?

Jsalem

Dec. 13, 2004, 08:50 AM

Trainer sounds like one I wouldn't like to have. If all of the horses were priced at their top budget and none were suitable, something sounds fishy. I don't shop that way with my clients. Beforehand, we talk about their budget and I explain how I get paid. I get paid 10% of the purchase price. They write two checks- one for the horse and one for me. If they would like to do their own price negotiations, that's fine with me. I want my clients to feel comfortable that they've been treated openly and fairly. I will look at horses that are cheaper. They may bring me tapes if they enjoy looking at ads. They are paying me for my expertise, my time and my commitment to their new mount. I tell them, "If I get you into it, I have to be able to get you out of it." So I am very, very careful.

Having said that- these sound like clients I wouldn't like to have. They aren't working with their trusted trainer to find a suitable horse that will work in their trainer's program. Sounds like they are working behind her back because they don't like the job she's doing. I personally wouldn't accept a horse into my program that was purchased in this manner.

So this may be the "way its done" in some places, but not in my barn. I am more professional and more fair to my clients than that and my clients are better than that.

TSWJB

Dec. 13, 2004, 09:27 AM

I know someone who this same situation happened to them. the trainer was showing them lame older unsuitable horses for the exact price of their budget. the kid was a young very talented rider. they were not impressed. so they told the trainer they were going to look as well. trainer knew they were looking. they even announced their name and who they trained with to the person that were trying the horse with. they were not hiding anything. the horse turned out to be nice and so they made arrangements to have the horse shipped to the trainer's barn on trial so the trainer could evaluate the horse. the trainer freaked out and kicked them out. so horse moved to another trainer and last i heard the kid was coming along very nicely spending lots of $$$ on showing and training. i think the original trainer lost out by being greedy. he even had approached the kid trying to welcome her back, but her mother would have nothing to do with her coming back. if you have enough customers to adopt this principal, go ahead and do it. BUT i think that most trainers would end up losing out in the long run for short term greed!

amble molly

Dec. 13, 2004, 09:36 AM

BaliBandido's ideas seem to be the fairest (what, in the horse world...?) and shows a trainer looking out for the best interest of her business (get that good horse in the barn even if she doesn't earn as much money up front) and her clients. Would that there were more of her type in the industry. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

Flash44

Dec. 13, 2004, 09:45 AM

The only way to insure honesty is to have a bill of sale signed by both buyer and seller with the sale price of the horse written in. Any buyer, seller or agent who would not willingly sign one is probably cheating someone out of a lot of money.

shade

Dec. 13, 2004, 09:58 AM

Ok just for the sake of argument..what if the buyer is very experienced and knowledgable, knows what will and will not win at the level shows they attend and knows exactly what they want/need in the horse. A buyer such as an older rider that has ridden and shown all their life and done very well. A buyer who has always picked suitable mounts for themselves and the level of competition they are in and horses that would enhance any trainers reputation but would rather find their own horse??

Feenikks

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:23 AM

I think I will just stick in my one sentence and let all continue on.

I bought all of my horses without the trainer, some decent, some not so decent and some just perfect .. I lived and learned, but I REALLY KNOW what my horses price tags were! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Most of our horses sell in the barn, if the trainer has hands on, then a cut is sent her way. Otherwise, I do not think you should have to pay and "no show" trainer for a horse your going to try and buy.

CrestviewFarms

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:24 AM

Maybe the trainer should have just said that if the client finds a horse that they like on their own, they must first allow the trainer to give her approval for suitability before purchase and then the trainer WOULD be earning her commission. If the client doesn't want to do that then the trainer would have the right to say that she doesn't want to keep a teaching relationship with them. Atleast this senario could be interpreted as the trainer actually caring about what her student ends up with rather than just saying, well, you can buy whatever nag you want as long as I get money out of it.

Magnolia

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:25 AM

I'm willing to bet that the people CBoylen deals with are good business people (as well as horse people) and disclose all fees associated with sales with contracts and the like. Then you have a bunch of people with ZERO business sense who know "what the standard is", but don't bother with contracts and the like. Yes, realtors get commisions, and make you fill out 20 pages that make sure you KNOW they are getting a commission. I think it is pretty bogus to tell someone after the fact or half way through the process that you get your 15% come hell or high water.

If I went out a bought a $10,000 horse and my trainer said "I get $1500", she'd better have a signed contract in her hand that I agreed to give her that money.

Hunter/Jumpers are big money sports - I can't believe the sloppy business that accompanies these transactions. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

HRobs

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:28 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> One of the agents contacted by the parents has spent several months searching for and evaluating prospects. Agent has personally viewed more than a dozen horses, ridden several, sent videotapes, and has had numerous phone conferences with parents.
If the parents then buy a horse through their trainer, is the agent not morally entitled to a 15% commission on the trainer's sale? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Even though these people (probably) feel like they're being used, I think that instead of getting an agent to looking at the same time as the trainer is pretty bad, and puts them right smack in the middle of a not so pretty situation- a trainer that's wanting to get paid for a service and an agent that's wanting to get paid for a service http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif not a pretty picture, and what ground they had to stand on before the agent thing, they no longer have.

They've gotten themselves into a pretty bad mess, and now C.Boylen's name is most likely going to stick with them wherever they go "nightmare customers". And at this point, I have to say they kind of deserve it.

You guys talked about this being a respect issue, and IT SURE IS NOW! Did they think that by "using" both their trainer AND an agent they would find a good horse AND weasel out of paying a commission by saying "well, we think our trainer/agent did a better job so we're paying them the commission" and end up paying no one at all, AND still have the respect of the agent and trainer? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif
Either way, I think when the trainer AND the agent finds out what's REALLY going on, I have to say GOOD LUCK GETTING THEIR HELP AGAIN! Or anyone else's in the area.

tosca4711

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:58 AM

People have posted here about buying a horse that their trainer liked, only to have the horse not work out. If the trainer insists on choosing the horse, and it proves to be unsuitable, does the trainer take any responsibility?

Tosca

Magnolia

Dec. 13, 2004, 11:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> They've gotten themselves into a pretty bad mess, and now C.Boylen's name is most likely going to stick with them wherever they go "nightmare customers". And at this point, I have to say they kind of deserve it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's why agents and trainers need CONTRACTS that get signed and spell out terms - You set time frames, parameters and other expectations -- that way nobody is suprised....
I think there is money to be made in business consulting for equestrian professionals.

MyGiantPony

Dec. 13, 2004, 11:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by C.Boylen:
Sorry, I'm on the other side of the fence. If one has a trainer, one pays them a commission upon purchase if one expects to keep the trainer. If the horse purchaser no longer wants to be affiliated with said trainer, by all means they should purchase their horse and go on their way. If they expect their trainer to train their purchase he gets to evaluate it and is paid accordingly. Frankly, I think the fact that the trainer is willing to keep the customer, even with a paid commission, is surprising, considering that they acted without him and are basically behaving in a manner that will quickly label them "nightmare customers" and make it difficult for them to find any trainer at all. That IS the way it's done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh. I just spent time helping customers find a pony in their budget. Didn't charge them a dime. I was just thrilled we found something safe and suitable, yet cute enough to win some ribbons for the kid.

The customers actually found the pony in the newspaper and set up the appointment. I was very clear that I had final say so on anything they made an offer for. (I really expected a total nightmare when they told me about this pony because they know NOTHIng! LOL)

Of course, I don't make my living at this, so I may feel differently if that were the case.

MyGiantPony

Dec. 13, 2004, 11:16 AM

Lucassb

Dec. 13, 2004, 11:17 AM

There was an article by Geoff Teall not too long ago addressing that very issue... he certainly plays at the top of the sport. He basically said that if he recommends a horse (and gets paid a commission) and it doesn't work out, the fact is that the customer has to accept a loss... but he then feels obligated to find a replacement horse, possibly one which is less expensive to account for the $$ lost on the sale of the unsuitable one. I believe he also said he does not take a commission on the sale of the original mount. That article generated quite a lot of discussion and can probably be found in the archives somewhere.

To me the problem raised is not the 15% but the fact that it came as a surprise. Professionals can set whatever pricing/policies they wish - then they just have to be good enough to convince enough customers that they are worth it. However, imposing fees which have not been disclosed nor agreed upon in advance is bad business regardless of the industry one is in, and should not be tolerated.

When I was a newly married adult rider, I had to donate a horse due to chronic soundness issues. Because I couldn't sell him, I had no money to spend on a replacement (never mind the enormous vet bills I spent months paying off) and the trainer I took lessons from at the time showed me several horses he wanted me to buy. I did not ask him to find a horse for me nor did we have an agreement or contract. The horses he showed me were cr@p - older, crippled etc - and not one of them was less than twice my paltry budget. I passed on them after getting the standard, "you'll never find anything decent for that amount" speech. He went off to FL and while he was gone, I bought another nice, green OTTB through a lead I got from the "up down" stay-at-home trainer at the barn. She had seen him at a clinic she gave elsewhere and thought I would like him, which I did. I paid her a "finder's fee" type of commission and she helped me with him in regular lessons over the winter. He turned out great and was a very fancy mover... when the BNR returned from FL - well, let's just say he was a little surprised. I took a few lessons from him but felt he was clearly using them as opportunities to convince me I had bought a lemon - the exercises were way too complex for a greenie. As a result he lost not only the commission on the sale but also any lesson and training fees he might have gotten... very shortsighted.

touchstone-

Dec. 13, 2004, 11:52 AM

I'm with the "put it in writing" folks on this one. The best way to avoid these sorts of disagreements is to negotiate a contract in advance.

That being said, I'd like to throw another hypothetical into the mix--mostly because I think the typical contract clauses are a little unreasonable. This may be the norm in the horse world (and, apparently, the real estate world), but that doesn't make it right.

Suppose a boarder has signed a contract guaranteeing the 15% commission for horse bought or sold off the property. Then, without any involvement from the trainer, someone approaches the owner and offers to buy their horse. The horse hadn't been put on the market, the trainer hadn't lifted a finger to try and sell it, but the buyer makes a great offer and the owner decides to take it.

Obviously, the contract dictates that the owner should pay the trainer. But, morally speaking, why should the trainer earn such a huge sum?

I have nothing but respect for professional trainers who help their customers buy and sell horses. And I absolutely understand why they are entitled to a fair commission. But I do agree with many posters that blanket policies that require the same sort of remuneration for any animal coming in or out are a little outrageous. If the horse needs retraining, the customer is going to pay for that; why should they also have to pre-pay for annoyance by giving the uninvolved trainer a lump sum?

In most cases, inexperienced horse people would be wise to horse shop under the guidance of their trainer. But I don't see why adults who choose to do it a different way should have to pay for services they didn't use.

Ghazzu

Dec. 13, 2004, 12:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Blinky:
There are two sides to every story.

Most trainers have this rule because they are trying to PREVENT the practice of clients going out and buying unsuitable horses. I've been riding since I was a teen and I can't tell you how often I have seen someone who thinks they know all about horses go out and make a bad purchase on their own then expect the trainer to not only fix the problem but to help sell it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which case the trainer would be well entitled to charging for services rendered, either in "fixing" the horse or in selling it.

In the orignal scenario, I would think the trainer was entitled to some compensation for the time spent looking for something, even though there is a hint of suspicion involved regarding all prospects being at the max price.

But the generalized rule of anything that walks through the door entitles the trainer to a commission is, as has been said, part of the problem with the horses business.

To the poster who felt that this sort of commission underwrites other services provided by the trainer, such as a few more minutes in a lesson, etc., that's just poor business practice.

I think that, in general,a prior arrangement of billing for time spent looking and evaluating prospects would keep things more fair and above board.
If a trainer were to find a fantastic horse for a client on the first try, well, I'm sure they wouldn't turn down a thank you check from a grateful client.

RugBug

Dec. 13, 2004, 01:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Ghazzu:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Blinky:
There are two sides to every story.

Most trainers have this rule because they are trying to PREVENT the practice of clients going out and buying unsuitable horses. I've been riding since I was a teen and I can't tell you how often I have seen someone who thinks they know all about horses go out and make a bad purchase on their own then expect the trainer to not only fix the problem but to help sell it.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In which case the trainer would be well entitled to charging for services rendered, either in "fixing" the horse or in selling it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but how many times does the owner buy what they think is a suitable horse only to find it isn't and then ends up blaming the trainer? I see it happen all the time. And in the instance the trainer doesn't want to fix someone else's problem? They lose the clients.

Wanting to have a say in clients buying horses isn't just about wanting the commission.

I will say that I don't agree with "commissions no matter what." Many trainers legitimately deserve the money...others, however, do not. And to pay them just because "that's what is done" is ridiculous (although it usually means having to find yourself a new trainer).

Giddy-up

Dec. 13, 2004, 01:58 PM

There is a trainer by me that operates with those rules--any new horse bought & coming into her barn by a current client pays her 15% of the sale price whether she helps in the sale or not. Since none of her clients have left her because of it, I am assuming she openly tells them that when they start horse shopping. Some have used her help, some haven't--either way, they ALL pay the 15%. Plus I found out if she does help you, she charges $50 per hour the second she steps off the farm for any visits in addition to collecting her commission.

I think the issue here is that the client wasn't aware of the sale "rules" and that is part the trainer's fault for not being up front & part the client for not asking ahead. Lesson learned.

seal

Dec. 13, 2004, 02:29 PM

I think it is a lack of professionalism that creates this mess in the first place. No written contracts are the least of ones worries. What about the trainer that discloses the commission, but insists you buy what you later find out is the wrong horse? I had a *trainer* tell me that a trainer who was also a judge informed her that all clients leave you sooner or later, so your objective is to make as much money off each client before they eventually leave you. Nice, huh?

Anyway, in the past I too have fallen victim to this type of unprofessional and/or unethical trainer. I relied on a trainer's expertise to find me a suitable horse and in both instances I was advised to buy an unsuitable horse for my purposes. What is even worse, I later found out that they were not honestly represented. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif A little too late to rectify the situation, I might add, but with experience comes wisdom.

I agree that if a trainer is both willing AND able to find a truly suitable match, then I am all for paying a commission.

If you are new to the game or you need purchase a made show horse, then you really are at the mercy of a trainer. On my latest purchase I decided to circumvent that whole process which is one of the reasons I bought a baby. I found him all by myself and thankfully I did not need or require a trainer to approve my purchase. I spent so much time horse shopping that I was able to really develop an eye as well as a feel for my gut reaction. So far every professional and/or knowledgable horse person thinks I got a great deal, so it can be done.

However, I have a GREAT deal of sympathy for those individuals who are at the mercy of a trainer. It can be a really miserable experience, both emotionally and financially.

Esquire

Dec. 13, 2004, 05:22 PM

Doesn't sound like a good relationship between trainer/client. Trainers should be paid for their work. If you go out on your own, buy it without the trainer's blessing, you are setting up a situation where the trainer might not think the horse is suitable and unfortunately, they probably won't work with the client the same way they would if they had been involved in the decision. To buy a horse on your own is almost a disaster in the making; I tried that, made some decisions on my own, and had difficulty with resale. It may be best to gather information on other horses and to share that with the trainer so that you can come to more of a "mutual" agreement regarding the purchase. If you want to be with this trainer, you really do need to talk to them, to involve them as best you can. If not, and if you are willing to try something new (and change can be a good thing too), then you need to be prepared to go your separate way, with the horse you purchase on your own. As for commissions, they are generally 10% here on the east coast and the trainers I have been involved with, have earned every penny.

Natty Dread

Dec. 13, 2004, 05:27 PM

SED

Dec. 13, 2004, 06:45 PM

Two of the posters on this BB whose opinions I respect the most are Lord Helpus and C. Boylen. But I side with Lord Helpus on this. (Seriously -- the two of you are among the several posters who cause me to log on to this BB regularly!).

I will say, however, that this area is one where the upper stratospheres of the sport and "the rest of us" may as well be on another planet. At AA barns, the "rules" may be so well understood by educated consumers that C. Boylen's attitude may not seem that unusual. But outside those select few, I think chaos reigns.

Many, many trainers have lesson barns and get most of their income from lessons and board - not from horse sales. They go to shows, but only some of their boarders participate. They will use their "spare time" to help find horses. So if a family finds one without them, it shouldn't be a big deal. Likewise, the trainer shouldn't mind taking a horse he/she didn't find into the barn -- after all, he or she is taking on boarders who move into the geographic area with their random horses all the time.

At more competitive show and sales barns, the trainer wants to have successful show records/prospects in their barn. Their attitude that they should approve what comes in to their barn makes perfect business sense -- they are a show barn, not a lesson/board barn (even though some of their income comes from lessons and board). They have finite time resources, and only want to spend it on the horses that "come up to snuff" (what an old fashioned expression!).

Where I come down on this is that it is the respnsibility of the person asking a percentage commission -- not the customer -- to set the rules clearly. At most non-"A" show barns, there is NOT a standard practice as between barns regarding commissions, etc. in this fact situation. So its unfair to expect a customer to know what a trainer's policy is without clear communication from the trainer. If the trainer in this case did not spell it out, then he/she should be the one to accept the consequences -- not the boarder.

BaliBandido

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:18 PM

Something else crossed my mind about this; how many horses do you show to your clients before they buy one? I mean I have spent a lot of time looking at horses that are in the general ballpark that we are in, (ie age, size, skill level, price etc)but by the time I actually get my buyer together with the horse that I think is a match it usually is a match. That is what they pay me my commission for. To use my knowledge of horses, the buyers skills/goals/price/preferences and come up with a good partnership. I don't think I have shown more than two horses to a buyer before they bought it. Now I had to look at a lot more than that!, but not a lot of them even got past the first look. Isn't that what we are supposed to do?

I have had a horse for sale for over 6 months now, just a nice beginner horse. I am amazed at the people who come out with their trainers to look at him. I tell them exactly what he is when they call me, they think that he sounds great so they come out to look at him. He is indeed just like I said he was and yet they walk away saying that they wanted something that could go higher/farther. Then why did they waste my time? Besides the fact that they are not able to ride anything that is any more horse or the horse that can go higher/farther, what is the trainer thinking?

My life is so much simpler if horse and rider match, we spend a lot more time on going forward than on going backward and trying to catch up.

BTW thank you to those who had nice things to say- I will say that I am grateful that I got my schoolin' from who I did! At the end of the day I have to be able to live with myself.

radar

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:18 PM

this has been interesting reading! As a professional, I put IN WRITING in my rate sheet and on my boarding and lesson agreenments what percentage I expect in the event of sale of one of my clients horses, or sale of a horse to that client. I expect them to want my input and help, or to want someone else and to move on to that person in that event. I do put a GREAT deal of time, driving, flights, etc. into finding the best horse for my clients and getting sales done for the sellers, and I feel like I earn what I get from doing it (over 60 sold in 2004, and very proud of it!) On the other hand, I have a friend who sold a horse for over a million dollars in 2004, who would have never gotten that deal done if it weren't for another very good friend..... and the seller only saw fit to give a commission.... AFTER it was brought up by the responsible party, of $3500..... an insult at best! All types exist in the horse world as in all worlds. Everyone has their own version of right and wrong, regardless of what should be written and under contract. One should look at the entire picture and do what is RIGHT and FAIR in their opinion, when it gets right down to the nitty gritty!

Hopeful Hunter

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:30 PM

OK...one more issue...

What kinds of price ranges are we talking about here? I suspect that the under $5k horses have a LOT more leeway in "clients finding them alone" than the $50K ones. Is there some kind of price at which people start to want % no matter what? Being in the well under $5k ranks, I realized I may just not know what the $10k, or beyong that the $25k and up horse market is like.

Hidden Hill Farm

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:37 PM

There are two issues here that bother me.

Althought I am not an "agent" per se, we train and sell horses for a living. I get calls every day from people looking for horses. Immediately, I ask them who they ride with and where the horse will be living. I have an information sheet that must be filled out before I will even discuss the horses. I will absolutely not allow anyone to circumvent their trainer when buying a horse from us. The trainer must be included and involved and put his stamp of approval on the horse, and the trainer must be paid (unless he refuses to accept payment). I can not imagine who the "agent" is that willingly sold the horse to the buyer knowing it would be living with a trainer and in their program. That is about the biggest FU you could give someone. Maybe this agent doesn't mind cutting off his nose to spite his face. Besides being rude, it's just BAD business.

So, perhaps the buyers really didn't know any better, but I'm sure the agent DID. Shame on them.

Secondly, when these customers take this new horse to the horse show, there will be no disclaimer on it saying, "Trainer didn't find me, owners did this one all on their own".
So, this horse will be representing the trainer whether the trainer likes it or not.

This leads me to the third point which is this: the commission that a trainer receives is supposed to represent something. If the trainer is fair and honest, it represents their stamp of approval. It means that they believe 100% that this horse will be suitable for the buyer.
If it's a children's hunter, it's safe, sane, uncomplicated, kind, fancy, automatic...whatever they are looking for. Their stamp of approval means that if it a disaster, they'll fix it. They'll work to make the new horse and rider into a polished team.
If it still doesn't work, they'll find another horse (and not take a commission).

If you don't have that type of relationship and trust with your trainer --LEAVE.

Yes, there are greedy, corrupt, unprofessional, awful trainers out there and you should avoid them. If you have an agreement with a trainer that says, you do the leg work, they make the final decision and you pay them a certain rate (or whatever), great. But, the fact that a trainer wants to put his stamp of approval on the horse and be compenstated like any other professional, doesn't necessarily mean you should leave. I think that sometimes parents forget that riding an unsuitable mount can be frustrating at the very least and seriously dangerous at the worst. Why not get someone good on your team. Train with a trainer you can trust and then let them guide you.

You wouldn't put your 16 year old in a $500 car because you "checked the engine and saw that it had one" would you?

My own parents took me looking at horses ONE time when I was a kid. We were not going to buy without my trainer, but we were out of town and I was always interested in looking for horses...

I was maybe 10 years old. The horse that was brought out was gorgeous 16.2h and looked like the fanciest children's hunter you've ever seen. So, I get on and the horse is a little strong, but ok. We're out in a little fenced ring in the middle of an enormous field far from the barn, but you could still barely see the barn.

Everything is ok until it suddenly starts to rain. Out of nowhere the horse BOLTS, grabs the bit, I'm 10 years old and there's no pulley rein or circling or anything -- just this enormous ball of muscle bolting. All of the sudden the horse is frantic and is going back to the barn with or without me. Of course, I'm hanging on for dear life. The horse jumps the 4 1/2' fence around the ring and takes off hell bent for leather back to the barn. We end up sliding into the aisle with sparks flying everywhere and the horse was happy to be dry under the barn roof.

Looking back, I bet a)that wasn't the first time that horse pulled that trick 2)my trainer would have seen it coming with a look in the horses eye that my parents couldn't see. I was lucky, as a kid, I stuck like glue. I'd ridden enough naughty ponies that I just held on and stayed as calm as I could. My poor parents on the other hand nearly died of heart failure. They learned one thing real quick -- Don't horse shop without your trainer!!

Now, if someone comes to me and wants to buy a horse and has no trainer. Well, I will gladly help them find one. My first responsibility is to the horses, then to the buyer.

BaliBandido

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:47 PM

'Secondly, when these customers take this new horse to the horse show, there will be no disclaimer on it saying, "Trainer didn't find me, owners did this one all on their own".
So, this horse will be representing the trainer whether the trainer likes it or not.'

This is a true statement, however if it is the case the trainer is under no obligation to take the horse to the show or coach the rider. The trainer has the absolute right to say that the horse/rider combination is not at a level or standard that they feel comfortable representing and let the people go it alone. There is no law saying the trainer has to deal with a situation like that. If the clients say go with us or we will leave then let them go. They are a bad advertisement for you and will cost you more in lost potential clients then the money they would have paid for trainer to be at show with them.

'This leads me to the third point which is this: the commission that a trainer receives is supposed to represent something. If the trainer is fair and honest, it represents their stamp of approval. It means that they believe 100% that this horse will be suitable for the buyer.
If it's a children's hunter, it's safe, sane, uncomplicated, kind, fancy, automatic...whatever they are looking for. Their stamp of approval means that if it a disaster, they'll fix it. They'll work to make the new horse and rider into a polished team.
If it still doesn't work, they'll find another horse (and not take a commission).'

The key words in that paragraph are "if the trainer is fair and honest". How many times do you hear of that happening when the match is not ideal? How many are willing to admit that they put their stamp of approval on something that turned out to be unsuitable? Usually the blame gets laid anywhere but with the trainer. Like I said if they are demanding that type of control then they should accept the responsiblity for backing up their decision. (which seems to me to be what you are also saying?)

Hidden Hill Farm

Dec. 13, 2004, 07:52 PM

Without a doubt. They should back up their decision. Trainers should put their money where their mouth is. The good ones do.

Madame Butterfly

Dec. 13, 2004, 08:49 PM

Dear Lute,

This is outrageous! However, a lot of trainers are arseholes and that's how they make their money!

What these people do owe the trainer is a fee for the amount of time they spent looking for a horse (even tho they didn't find one). This is what is proper. In the event that a horse had been found, a commission (instead) would be proper.

These people should have had a contract with the trainer explicitly stating what the trainer and clients could expect.

If the trainer is the BO, then they might have to leave. And they might, frankly, find a better barn and a better trainer. If the BO is not the trainer, the people might stay, but they might be illtreated by the trainer....

So, to reiterate, the people do owe the trainer some fee. Perhaps they can negotiate some type of settlement.

Moral of the story: A contract is a contract is a contract. To be forewarned is to be prepared.

Beezer

Dec. 13, 2004, 09:28 PM

A lot of ground has been covered here and I read through the posts quickly but ... what happens/happened to the "old" horse? Is it for sale? If so, does the trainer expect a commission on the sale price of THAT horse?

In which case, said trainer would be double dipping. And while I've bought and sold horses with and through great trainers and ones I consider to be downright crooks -- and every shade in between -- they all, to a one, said no double dipping. You either got your cut when a horse came in or when a horse went out, but not both times.

FWIW, in this case, I'm with those who say the bad mojo started with the no written contract problem and then escalated from there. The trainer should be compensated for the time she invested in finding the (unsuitable) horses she did find, and the client should certainly offer to pay a fee to have the trainer "approve" of any horse the client is considering. But at this point, I think the trainer's heels are dug in far enough that she would veto any horse presented. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

radar

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:03 PM

Beezer, I have made my clients hundreds of thousands of dollars selling horses that I bought for them and took a commission, then selling the horses for them and making a commission. That is NOT double dipping. Sometimes getting a good price for a difficult to sell horse is hard enough, especially when the "right" home is found. I work very hard for my commissions and I resent your implication that this is "cheating." I travel, spend time searching, and have VERY good quality control finding horses for my clients, and I try to do a VERY good job marketing those and other horses for clients that want me to represent them. I know there are trainers out there who DON'T put that effort in, but please don't lump those people in to the same category with those of us who work hard and try to the N'th degree for our clients........

Madame Butterfly

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:23 PM

Maybe there's just no white line rule. Maybe "double dipping" is okay for some trainers and clients if the trainer really does bust his arse, as radar says...maybe it's unfair if the training is not doing that...

Again, the bottom line is this: a contract is a contract is a contract. Everyone should decide from the beginning what is BEST for THEM!!!

Beezer

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:28 PM

Sorry if I offended you, radar, but I'm probably going to do so again. You may not be "cheating," but you are, by my definition and those of the trainers I've worked with, "double dipping."

I pay a commission to my trainer/agent when we sell a horse. I pay her a flat rate for her time to go look at horses for and with me or to look at videos and whatnot. But I am not gonna pay her a commission on a horse that is coming into her barn -- for which she is being paid to train -- and then paying her another commission when it leaves her barn when it sells. Nor does she expect me to.

I just don't understand why people think they should be paid twice (or more) for doing their job.

Illyria

Dec. 13, 2004, 10:47 PM

FWIW, my trainer charges commission when one of her clients buys _or_ sells a horse (I guess when she thinks she'll make the most money and on her agreement with her client), but not at both times.

Hidden Hill Farm

Dec. 13, 2004, 11:23 PM

With all due respect, Beezer, I think your situation is a little different. From what I can tell, you're first of all an adult, second of all buying prospects for yourself, not made children's hunters. Your agreement with your trainer should be different because you are choosing prospects that you and your trainer will make up and evidently eventually sell. I think that's great, but not the same situation as the original poster's scenario as I understood it.

Also, in the horse industry, "double dipping" can be defined as taking money from both sides of the same transaction. It is wrong, fraudulent, illegal and absolutely something that you should not put up with. However, it is not exaclty as Beezer describes. "Double dipping" means that your client is paying you a commission on top of the horse AND you put an addition commission in the price of the horse thus being paid twice or "double dipping". THAT is absolutely not only not allowed, but you will get in a whole lot of legal trouble when you get caught. It is immoral, unethical and just plain cheating. The people that do that make it so much harder for the rest of us to make a living because we have to prove we're not crooks.

However, for example, I sold a horse a couple years ago, trained it, marketed it, sold it and now it's been outgrown and is to be sold again. I've got it back again to be tuned up, marketed and sold. SO, essentially, I got a commission when I sold it to them amd I will get a commission when I sell it for them. That is absolutely not double dipping. I'm providing two different services over the course of two years and it happens to be for the same client and same horse.

Everything we sell is welcome to come back and be traded up or re-sold. I only want to represent and sell horses that I like enough to want to see them again. I stand behind everything I sell 100%, and work very hard to make sure that we know enough about them to represent them with 100% accuracy, and yes, I expect to be compensated for my time just as any other professional in any other industry.
My policy is cut and dry. There are three options. 1. Owner pays all board/training bills on horse, I charge 15%. I pay all marketing, advertising, make videos, phone calls, show horse to customers, be present for vetting if needed, handle all contracts, purchase agreement, horse insurance binder and final bill of sale, help arrange transportation to new owners if necessary. If you think an hourly rate would actually save you money, you're kidding yourself. How many of you have four figure phone bills? There is of course full disclosure.

2. I assume bills and "risk" on horse, owner sets their asking price, I put my commission on top. 3. If owner just wants out and I like the horse. I will buy the horse at current face value, continue training and eventually resell at a price I determine. ( Full discslosure, unless owner says, "just give me my price, I don't care what you sell him for")
All I'm saying is that for every one sale that "falls into your lap", there are 10 more that didn't. If you think for one minute that most of us are "in this for the money", LOL You're absolutely delusional. We do this because we love horses. They are our passion.
I'd love to meet the people who are raking it in. Perhaps the rest of us are doing something seriously wrong.

Weatherford

Dec. 14, 2004, 03:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by CuriosoJorge:
For whomever said that this does not occur in other professions, it most certainly does.

Real estate is the best example. If your property is listed with a selling agent, and the property sells either within the term of the contract or sometimes within a set period after the contract expires, you owe the agent a commission, whether the agent was directly involved in bringing the buyer to you or not.

There is nothing unusual about this situation; it is indeed the way things are done in the horse world. If the people are not happy with their trainer, they need to choose another trainer. To me it is about communication. Some trainers are willing to let clients do the legwork and initial visit on their own, and instead of paying a commission these clients pay a set fee for the trainer's time in evaluating the prospects found by the client. Not all trainers are willing to do this, and it is up to the client to ASK first. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ah, but in the RE world, there is a SET commission and CONTRACTS... And the set commission is significantly smaller than 15% (8% normally - that gets split amongst agents in a multi-listing situation!)

(Back to reading the posts....)

HSM

Dec. 14, 2004, 05:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by SED:
Two of the posters on this BB whose opinions I respect the most are Lord Helpus and C. Boylen. But I side with Lord Helpus on this. (Seriously -- the two of you are among the several posters who cause me to log on to this BB regularly!).

I will say, however, that this area is one where the upper stratospheres of the sport and "the rest of us" may as well be on another planet. At AA barns, the "rules" may be so well understood by educated consumers that C. Boylen's attitude may not seem that unusual. But outside those select few, I think chaos reigns.

Many, many trainers have lesson barns and get most of their income from lessons and board - not from horse sales. They go to shows, but only some of their boarders participate. They will use their "spare time" to help find horses. So if a family finds one without them, it shouldn't be a big deal. Likewise, the trainer shouldn't mind taking a horse he/she didn't find into the barn -- after all, he or she is taking on boarders who move into the geographic area with their random horses all the time.

At more competitive show and sales barns, the trainer wants to have successful show records/prospects in their barn. Their attitude that they should approve what comes in to their barn makes perfect business sense -- they are a show barn, not a lesson/board barn (even though some of their income comes from lessons and board). They have finite time resources, and only want to spend it on the horses that "come up to snuff" (what an old fashioned expression!).

Where I come down on this is that it is the respnsibility of the person asking a percentage commission -- not the customer -- to set the rules clearly. At most non-"A" show barns, there is NOT a standard practice as between barns regarding commissions, etc. in this fact situation. So its unfair to expect a customer to know what a trainer's policy is without clear communication from the trainer. If the trainer in this case did not spell it out, then he/she should be the one to accept the consequences -- not the boarder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am quoting this entire post because SED said exactly what I would have said, only better. This is exactly the issue folks.

Reading the various posts and points of view is very interesting, and it occurs to me that there are two groups of people responding for the most part: (1) those who are, or have only ever dealt with, actual horse buying-and-selling "professionals", and (2) those who have dealt with any of the many, many horse-buying-and-selling "semi-professionals." Being a professional horse trainer (maybe even a decent one) does not necesarily make you a good horse-buying-and-selling professional.

Flash44

Dec. 14, 2004, 06:48 AM

Some of this strikes me as trainers making damn sure their clients are so dependent on them, the clients can't do anything without their approval. Kids go shopping with trainers, do everything trainers say, and grow up into adults who do the same. And then every time the client has to make a decision, the trainer put in their 2 cents worth and charges 20 bucks for it. I mean really, clients can't warm up their own horses, can't braid their own horses, can't buy their own horses. Pretty soon the clients will just stay home and send in checks and watch it all on real time internet. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I totally disagree with a trainer charging a commission on any horse bought or sold in the barn, especially when they had nothing to do with the deal. It might be their policy to do so, but it's my policy not to pay for anything I did not receive service for.

camohn

Dec. 14, 2004, 06:48 AM

I know of a friend in a similar boat. They have a 10K budget for a hunter prospect for 14 yo very good rider kid. Mom is a single parent.I found them a stunning pretty quiet 3 yo green broke Appendix QH gelding for 10K. He has won quite a lot on the line/ shown pots in hand. The trainer told them he is too young. Turned him down. OK, I can see that. On their budget they truly are not going to do better though. She found them a green broke unregistered QH/draft cross, an unregistered Paint/WB cross with suspect OCD, and a couple other totally unsuitable horses for the same price. She is the BNT in their area and daughter HAS won a lot with her, but I find this ridiculous. BTW: girl's now outgrown mount was found by Mom and they went through this last time too. They bought a 4K TBX who is now winning on the A circuit. They left for a while. Went to another barn. Mare was winning, did not like new trainer (Whom I have also met and is even MORE difficult than this lady if possible....it's not the mom. These 2 trainers ARE something else... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif) so the first trainer took them back. These 2 are the only 2 show barns in her area, so she is stuck a bit between a rock and a hard place. At 14 mom does not want her going away yet. Has to wait until she is 16. If she would sell the mare they could afford more, but the love her and only want to lease her out so they can insure she has a good home. They had a previous bad experince w/ who bought the girls first pony.

radar

Dec. 14, 2004, 06:52 AM

Hidden Hill Farm has a true handle on how this works in the real world.... most professionals I know operate pretty much by this standard. The prices they charge for daily services are based on their expectation of a commission when one of their clients buys or sells a horse. Other arrangements can be made by the clients, but that will effect the prices they pay for daily services. Hidden Hill Farm defines double dipping as I understand it also.... and it is absolutely illegal and unethical to do it that way.....

radar

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:00 AM

Weatherford-true about real estate.... but some of us do all of the paperwork correctly with the horse transactions, believe it or not! Also, the expenses involved in buying and selling horses for the trainer/agent are significantly higher than driving around town..... four figure phone bills, lots of tape making, copying and sending fedex, lots of airplane travel on the spur of the moment, and shipping horses hundreds of miles, sometimes at the trainers expense, for buyers to try. If trainers that sold a lot of horses made a killing, I'd be a millionaire, but I'm not! There is a GREAT DEAL of EXPENSE that goes with buying and selling horses. Sometimes that 15% is easy to earn, and much more of the time it isn't. Horses and Real Estate are somewhat similar in some ways, but not the same as comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Bumpkin

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by radar:
Weatherford-true about real estate.... but some of us do all of the paperwork correctly with the horse transactions, believe it or not! Also, the expenses involved in buying and selling horses for the trainer/agent are significantly higher than driving around town..... four figure phone bills, lots of tape making, copying and sending fedex, lots of airplane travel on the spur of the moment, and shipping horses hundreds of miles, sometimes at the trainers expense, for buyers to try. If trainers that sold a lot of horses made a killing, I'd be a millionaire, but I'm not! There is a GREAT DEAL of EXPENSE that goes with buying and selling horses. Sometimes that 15% is easy to earn, and much more of the time it isn't. Horses and Real Estate are somewhat similar in some ways, but not the same as comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To be fair and honest, how many people or people who post on here, move horses, "AT THE TRAINERS EXPENSE" to be tried, or even fly out of state to look at a horse, with their trainer?
People who can afford this can afford the 15% easily most likely.
I think the majority of the posters on here, are adults, or are looking at horses priced way lower than what you sound like you represent Radar.
JMHO of course.

Magnolia

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Also, the expenses involved in buying and selling horses for the trainer/agent are significantly higher than driving around town..... four figure phone bills, lots of tape making, copying and sending fedex, lots of airplane travel on the spur of the moment, and shipping horses hundreds of miles, sometimes at the trainers expense, for buyers to try. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would fully expect to reimburse my trainer for those expenses.

Do you charge 15% plus expenses? Or do you expect the 15% to cover all of your expenses? Just curious.

Allyn M

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:36 AM

Another thought on commissions in the horse world . When I take a listing on a farm at 6% or 7% ( it is always negotitable / not to be is illegal )That is a set commission paid by the seller. If the listing broker is unable to sell it and needs another broker to market it they split the original commission.The selling broker usually gets one half of the commission .His fee usually is discussed before he takes his client to see the farm.
In the horse world agents and trainers may agree on a 10% commission to sell the horse ,but when the buyers trainer asks for commission he usually wants another 10% or whatever for his cut. This put the seller in a bind and they end up not getting enough out of the horse to justify having another party come in to make the sale.In my opinion if the sellers agent or trainer is going to market the horse then it is up to him or her to pay whoever helps him to make the sale.

Rye

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:36 AM

Couple of thoughts:
1. Trainer and parents don't seem to have a good, trusting relationship. Personally, I'd find a different trainer.
2. Parents might have unrealistic expectations of what their money will buy.
3. A good trainer who helps you find or evaluate a prospect should be compensated 10%. I've not heard of 15%. Even if I personally found the horse, I'd still want my trainer to evaluate it, I am not a professional and I need a professionals opnion. Besides, we'll be working with the horse together and we both need to be in agreement that it is an appropriate horse for me.
4. In the real business world, I wouldn't dream of taking a commission if I didn't do any work. It's just not right. I don't think its right of the trainer to ask for it. Personally I think it's a frustrated trainer trying to get rid of the client, and from the sounds of it, the two parties don't trust each other so perhaps it is best for them to move on.

findeight

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:38 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by MyGiantPony:

Huh. I just spent time helping customers find a pony in their budget. Didn't charge them a dime. ............
Of course, I don't make my living at this, so I may feel differently if that were the case. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, if you like eating you sure would.

It's really nice of you to take several hours out of your day to go look at that pony and not charge them.
Those who earn their living at this can afford neither the free hours or the potential income they lose being away from the barn.

It has been brought up that there are many levels of pros in this sport and that is a good point. It is a mistake to paint all as crooks or assume all are working in the best interests of their clients and their horses.

Myself? Oh, I could go buy one and bring it in. But I wouldn't dream of it.
My trainer is a big R judge. She knows what she likes to see. She knows what other judges like to see. It's worth it to get a judges opinion, and pay for it, BEFORE I sign the check (to the seller directly, separate comission check)if I am specifically buying a horse to show.

If you don't think the trainer's opinion is worth anything-which is a big part of what you are paying for?? I wouldn't want to pay them either. That is an issue about who you train with, and WHY.

radar

Dec. 14, 2004, 09:03 AM

Magnolia.... for example there is a client who I've been pony shopping for and spent almost $4000. over the last 6 months traveling, calling, shipping a couple of very likely prospects in and back out when they weren't quite easy/fancy enough for my quality control for this person. I then found the perfect pony last month.... The mom had been calling me and bugging me about finding a pony *YESTERDAY!!!* as recently as the day before.... Then I call with the exciting news about the perfect pony within the expected budget, and the Dad calls me back to say he has changed his mind and he's not going to be buying a pony within several months!!!!! I get stuck that way every now and then..... But I still do my best to sell the right one to the right place!

radar

Dec. 14, 2004, 09:05 AM

Also, Magnolia, I absorb all of those costs except magazine advertising, which I didn't mention earlier...

Darkstar

Dec. 14, 2004, 09:15 AM

I didn't read through the entire pages of this topic - however I have heard of this going on and have experianced it (in a smaller way). My mom and I spent months looking for the perfect horse. We found it - and when we bought it we were expected to pay a fee to the trainer. As far as I can tell paying a fee to the trainer is a way of thanking her ( especially if she comes out when you try the horse - or if the horse is vetting etc...) - Even though you found the horse. But I wouldn't pay a trainer that has done nothing ! Sounds like a bad situation.

TSWJB

Dec. 14, 2004, 10:19 AM

i know of another great trainer commission story. mom looking for a horse for her kids. she gives budget of 15k. trainer is getting annoyed because she keeps showing prospects and they don't want them. they end up buying a horse. at the vetting, the vet asks how old did you say this horse is? trainer boldly says 6. vet says okay its 6. then they go to insure the horse. mom puts 15k on. the trainer was too dumb to remember that she charged them 15k not 10k. she says no, its 10k! then mom questions and the trainer gets all fuzzy and says, oh yeah it was 10k. believe me, people are not dumb. this mom didn't miss that she got overcharged 5k. (check written to the trainer, not the owner) she actually had been looking for horses herself and the trainer would show her the same horses for 15k that were actually 10k when the mom called the newspaper ad herself. YES they moved out! they knew they had been burned. and by the way, the horse ended up being 11 according to the equine dentist. they didn't want an older horse. this would have killed the sale.
so mom knew she had been burned on both ends and decided that this was a hard lesson earned. no wonder people are very skeptical of trainers when it comes to commissions, finding horses and the true actuall price. i just think its too easy to tack on extra $$$$$ if you want to.

Anyplace Farm

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:02 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by findeight:
I beg your pardon http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This was in response to my saying that horse people suck. Trust me, they do. In no other sport or business would you get someone who expects to get paid for work they didn't do. Granted, they may think it is a cool concept but they wouldn't have the balls to ask for a commission on something they didn't actively work on.

There are people in the horse world that go without regular income for so long that they are reduced to getting their bucks wherever they can. Some crook comes up with the bright idea of charging commissions in the manner of this scenario. Others do the: seller wants to buy a horse. Here's a horse for $10K. One trainer puts $5K on it, another puts $5K more on it, then, trainer representing buyer says, "Horse is $20K. That doesn't include me. You gotta pay me 15%." Then, trainer on back end tells their client you gotta pay me 15%, even though they already put $5K in for themselves. They keep all parties separate so no one finds out and all the takers go home happy. Crooked and sucky.

I think if I were this person, having the trainer wanting 15%, I'd make that trainer earn it. I'd make that trainer go try the thing a few times, then come w/me to try it and then I'd come up with a few more shopping scenarios. Once I was satisfied that trainer earned their 15%, then I'd complete the transaction.

Turds and crooks. Hate 'em.

Hucklebug

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:15 AM

I even heard of one horse deal a friend of mine was in where the woman (an eventer) was approached by a top hunter trainer who said "your horse would make a nice hunter". When it came time to sell it (and I'll make up the numbers here, for ease of calculation and memory failure on my part) she went to the trainer and said "can you get me 20k for my horse". Trainer said "I can sell your horse and I'll try to get you 20k. My commission will be 15%." She sent the horse to trainer. Trainer said had a customer for hte horse, but could only get 10k for it. She asked if she could talk to the person and trainer gave a name and phone number. She called the customer and talked to them about hte horse. SHe sold it for 10k and paid the trainer out of the commission. a year or two later, she runs into her old horse and its new owners at a show. She chats with them and mentions something from their phone conversation. Turns out, the new owners never spoke to the seller. Trainer had someone pose as the new purchasers! SHe then asks them how much they paid for the horse and they say 25k. She got $8500 out of the deal, thinking the horse sold for 10k and trainer took his 15% out of it. Charming. This same trainer, I know for a fact, will not let anyone buy a horse outside of the farm without paying him a commission. For all you people comparing this to real estate...this would never happen in real estate!

Magnolia

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> spent almost $4000. over the last 6 months traveling, calling, shipping a couple of very likely prospects in and back out when they weren't quite easy/fancy enough for my quality control for this person. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wow, so you really rely on them to get your commission.... and now it is deferred by no fault of yours. When I was horse shopping back long ago, we paid for anything like shipping or board on a trial. Too bad you can't recover some of those expenses some how.

Anyplace Farm

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:25 AM

Yeah, I've heard that one before too.

The ones that really get ripped are the ones that give trainers $$ to buy horses to import. That's every crook/turd horseperson's dream.

MyGiantPony

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by findeight:

Well, if you like eating you sure would. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heehee....based on how tight my jeans got when I had my cast on, maybe I should consider a career change....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>If you don't think the trainer's opinion is worth anything-which is a big part of what you are paying for?? I wouldn't want to pay them either. That is an issue about who you train with, and WHY. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I guess that's another side to the story. With my education, history and experience, I don't need a trainer to help me find a horse (were I in the market). I wouldn't be with a trainer who tried to dictate to me what horse I should buy, what shows I go to, etc.

I'm paying him to help me improve my ride and help me advance my horse's education.

Now, if I found a horse, and wanted his opinion, of course I'd expect to pay for his time. But 15%? I don't think so.

Maybe a trainer should have some flexibility on this? I can see people like my pony rider and her family need 100% guidance and if they were in a barn like that, I can understand the trainer charging them. But someone like me, or many of the riders on this board, are fully capable of finding horses on their own.

I'm having a really cynical day, which is probably coloring my perspective. It just seems to me that so many pros in the horse world are all about control, instead of developing horsemen. I'd be ashamed of myself if I didn't turn out a kid who could manage to get through a horse show on her own, and eventually a horsewoman who could identify good horseflesh.

PiedPiper

Dec. 14, 2004, 11:34 AM

Radar-

Just wanted to let you know, to help you out with that four figure phone bills that Verizon as unlimited local and unlimited long distance for 50 a month.

Phone bill sounded a little crazy!

ser42

Dec. 14, 2004, 12:34 PM

I honestly think it all depends on the individual situation- which means that clear communication from both sides is necessary.

With juniors and those showing and training through exclusively "A" barns, I agree that the trainer should be involved in the final approval of any horse and be paid a commission. This is what I have done in the past- and when I was a junior rider and when I was showing out of A barns, I relied exclusively on my trainer to seek out potential prospects.

However, my situation is different now. I now have a more demanding professional job and thus am a pretty typical adult amateur rider. However, due to my previous extensive involvement in the A circuit with BNTs out of BNBs, I feel pretty confident that I can evaluate prospects on my own if looking at show prospects. More importantly, I know what kind of horse I like to ride, and what my future goals are.

I currently do not ride at an exclusively "A" barn. In fact, the horses and people at my current barn are pretty diverse- including very wealthy clients with multiple FEI dressage horses, a few top hunters in our zone, a couple of jumpers, and several weekend warriors. I chose this barn because of the freedom to do as one pleases- I don't have to worry that if I can't get out of work to show, I won't have to. Yet, I have access to a couple of very good trainers who are going to the big shows.

I bought my last horse completely on my own. He is a greenie, and I am training him myself but have the dressage and h/j trainers on him about once a week just so that I can get their professional opinion on how he's coming along and if there's anything I'm neglecting to address. They will show him if I ask them to. However, they have their own horses that they are campaigning, so do not rely on clients' horses and rider/horse combinations to maintain their professional exposure and reputations.

So, it was not awkward at all for me to go out on my own, find a horse, buy him, and have him brought to this barn sight unseen by the trainers (they didn't even see a video). Hence, no commission. HOWEVER, if and when I sell this horse, there will be a commission for their help in bringing him along.

So again, it depends on the individual situation... for juniors and those showing competitively on the A circuit out of A barns- yes, trainers should be involved and compensated. For adults, it really is a case by case thing...

HRobs

Dec. 14, 2004, 04:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The ones that really get ripped are the ones that give trainers $$ to buy horses to import. That's every crook/turd horseperson's dream. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, do you really think that a horse that you bought off a video from Europe through your trainer/agent for $100,000 was actually $100,000??? In a lot of cases, most likely not- either the price was jacked up for you, the foreigner, or your trainer/agent did it themselves to get more than just a nice commission or both. You could have spent $100,000 on a horse worth $50,000 cause everyone else wanted in on the cash grab-some for the trainer, commission for the trainer, some for the trainer's agent overseas, some for the seller, some for the "vet" overseas, some for the seller's daughter's friend's aunt who's getting re-married and you don't want to buy her a breadmaker with your own money. Even people who "love" their trainer and "would trust them with their life" get jipped royally.

I'm not saying that it happens to EVERYONE, but most likely quite a few

radar

Dec. 14, 2004, 04:07 PM

Hey Pied Piper! Verizon is a great idea, but to not run out of minutes while traveling all over the place (about 36 weeks or more a year) doing this, I have 2 cell phones maxed out with Nationwide calling (no roaming) on their largest plan (by minutes), a home phone, barn phone, and fax line, plus fast internet. It's expensive to stay in touch.... but necessary!!!

Pony Bit

Dec. 14, 2004, 04:14 PM

I am all for trainer's being compensated for whatever work they put into finding a horse for a customer, but it doesn't seem to me like a percentage commission is the smartest way to go about it for a buyer. I would think that giving your trainer a percentage would only encourage the trainer to find the most expensive horse that you could afford. Obviously this would come down to a trust issue with your trainer, but with all of the greedy people in this business it seems it would make more sense to pay the trainer for their time and not on a percentage.

radar

Dec. 14, 2004, 07:25 PM

In response to Pony Bit, I have had lots of clients over the years offer to pay me 15% of what they are willing to spend, to get a horse at the best price I could possibly negotiate. Sometimes that has been half of what the buyer started out to spend! That's a great motivation to dicker to the utmost with a seller, and the buyer knows they will get the most bang for their buck that way, when appropriate! I know several professionals who have been approached to use this method and have done so very successfully, dealing with $10,000. horses up to the top end!

Opening Farewell

Dec. 15, 2004, 04:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by radar:
Magnolia.... for example there is a client who I've been pony shopping for and spent almost $4000. over the last 6 months traveling, calling, shipping a couple of very likely prospects in and back out when they weren't quite easy/fancy enough for my quality control for this person.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shouldn't clients be covering out-of-pocket expenses? I think of the commission as covering time/expertise and general overhead, but not specific costs. Maybe I worked in consulting too long, but I bet the lawyers here will agree with me too!

radar

Dec. 15, 2004, 06:29 AM

Opening Farewell.... If that happens much more I'll sure have to go that route.... It's balanced out nicely over the last 25 years, but that's a big hit!

LMH

Dec. 15, 2004, 06:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by C.Boylen:
Sorry, I'm on the other side of the fence. If one has a trainer, one pays them a commission upon purchase if one expects to keep the trainer. If the horse purchaser no longer wants to be affiliated with said trainer, by all means they should purchase their horse and go on their way. If they expect their trainer to train their purchase he gets to evaluate it and is paid accordingly. Frankly, I think the fact that the trainer is willing to keep the customer, even with a paid commission, is surprising, considering that they acted without him and are basically behaving in a manner that will quickly label them "nightmare customers" and make it difficult for them to find any trainer at all. That IS the way it's done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

C.Boylen...well and others (just quoting you cause you said it succinctly)...I am fully aware this is "the norm" but it is absurd. This IS the only industry that allows this.

What exactly did the trainer do to "earn" 15%...

He will be paid to train the pony if the pony needs training. He will be paid to teach lessons if the child needs lessons. If he leases or owns the facility, the he will also be paid board.

Now if the trainer is investing time and money to find a horse, PERHAPS and only PERHAPS that is another situation...you earn a commission when you close the deal-think real estate or any other commission type job.

They acted without him? Surely this is a little over the top! I have never understood this element of the industry-I can't go buy my own horse and expect someone to then be paid to teach or train? Why not?

(again not picking on you CBoylen...you post was just the easiest for me to click and quote http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Sparky

Dec. 15, 2004, 06:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by C.Boylen:
Sorry, I'm on the other side of the fence. If one has a trainer, one pays them a commission upon purchase if one expects to keep the trainer. If the horse purchaser no longer wants to be affiliated with said trainer, by all means they should purchase their horse and go on their way. If they expect their trainer to train their purchase he gets to evaluate it and is paid accordingly. Frankly, I think the fact that the trainer is willing to keep the customer, even with a paid commission, is surprising, considering that they acted without him and are basically behaving in a manner that will quickly label them "nightmare customers" and make it difficult for them to find any trainer at all. That IS the way it's done. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

C.Boylen...well and others (just quoting you cause you said it succinctly)...I am fully aware this is "the norm" but it is absurd. This IS the only industry that allows this.

What exactly did the trainer do to "earn" 15%...

He will be paid to train the pony if the pony needs training. He will be paid to teach lessons if the child needs lessons. If he leases or owns the facility, the he will also be paid board.

Now if the trainer is investing time and money to find a horse, PERHAPS and only PERHAPS that is another situation...you earn a commission when you close the deal-think real estate or any other commission type job.

They acted without him? Surely this is a little over the top! I have never understood this element of the industry-I can't go buy my own horse and expect someone to then be paid to teach or train? Why not?

(again not picking on you CBoylen...you post was just the easiest for me to click and quote http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm 100% with C. Boylen on this. If you have a good trainer, one that you wish to stay with, why would you take a chance on buying a horse on your own, presenting it to him, and then expecting him to make it work out? What if he had a few rides, gave you a few lessons on it, then declined to work with it and suggested, in all sincerity that you find someone who would? If your trainer and his facility and his program mean that little to you, then, trust me, you aren't what he is looking for in a client. There are a lot fewer good trainers out there than there are people who want to ride, and the trainers are the ones who can pick and choose who they want as customers. So, you play by their rules.

Jumphigh83

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:06 AM

"What did the pro do to EARN the 15%???"...
Well just recently I had a customer shop a bit on her own....I think I saved her ...hmmm....$50,000 by KNOWING people that know the horses that I counseled her NOT to buy because they had hidden issues that we would not want to deal with! One had an ingate "act" that you wouldnt know about until you got to a show...(the horse would periodically NOT go into the ring..other than that it looked like an amazing horse!) She since bought a horse from someone I sent her to and she couldnt be happier...So what is knowledge worth? Nothing according to some posts here.

Madison

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
So what is knowledge worth? Nothing according to some posts here. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jumphigh83, I actually read some of the posts a little differently. I didn't take any of them as saying the knowledge isn't valuable, but rather that if someone elects not to take advantage of that knowledge, the trainer shouldn't get 15% anyway. Obviously, that leaves open the exact types of risks you describe, and can create the problem on the back end such as the client expecting the trainer to work with or "fix" a horse they don't find suitable, but I think the gist of most posts is that the 15% shouldn't be automatic. If someone doesn't think their trainer's knowledge is valuable, then they really need to reevaluate the program they are in.

JulieMontgomery

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sparky:
There are a lot fewer good trainers out there than there are people who want to ride, and the trainers are the ones who can pick and choose who they want as customers. So, you play by their rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, well, well...... spoken like about 90% of today's trainers, some of whom truly are legends only in their own minds. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Bodes poorly for the industry.

Bumpkin

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:44 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by JulieMontgomery:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sparky:
There are a lot fewer good trainers out there than there are people who want to ride, and the trainers are the ones who can pick and choose who they want as customers. So, you play by their rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, well, well...... spoken like about 90% of today's trainers, some of whom truly are legends only in _their_ own minds. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Bodes poorly for the industry. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OMGoodness!!!!! Julie you have got it RIGHT there!!!!
Bless you.

Lucassb

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sparky:
(snip)
I'm 100% with C. Boylen on this. If you have a good trainer, one that you wish to stay with, why would you take a chance on buying a horse on your own, presenting it to him, and then expecting him to make it work out? What if he had a few rides, gave you a few lessons on it, then declined to work with it and suggested, in all sincerity that you find someone who would? If your trainer and his facility and his program mean that little to you, then, trust me, you aren't what he is looking for in a client. There are a lot fewer good trainers out there than there are people who want to ride, and the trainers are the ones who can pick and choose who they want as customers. So, you play by their rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Because trainers have not cornered the market on knowledge.

Especially when the prospects they are showing the buyer are green, unsound etc. A time-honored tactic for trying to pressure the buyer into spending more.

There are plenty of clients who are more than knowledgeable enough to find a horse which suits both them and their pocketbook. And who are smart enough to pay for advice and services as they NEED them - not blindly whether services are provided or not.

To suggest that clients "play by the rules" dictated by a trainer whether those practices are appropriate or not is ridiculous. These are CLIENTS, people. Not sheep.

I have always purchased my own horses and have not had any trouble finding good trainers to work with. The trainers I've worked with are happy to take my money for lessons, training and board and appreciate a client with a nice horse, good equipment and a propensity to pay bills on time. Not to mention one who shows up with the occasional hot coffee, snacks and good cheer.

I am happy to pay for the services I require - including an opinion of a prospect if I want one. This is my perogative as a CUSTOMER. To suggest that the service provider (trainer)can dictate to me what I will pay and whether or not services will be provided for that expense, is simply ridiculous.

findeight

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:49 AM

Just to be clear, I do NOT agree with tacking on 15% if the trainer had no input at all. I can understand why, however, a GOOD trainer showing at upper levels does not want clients going out on their own as a policy.
Some wannabe freelancers or denizens of local circuits because they don't know how to move up do pad the bills and treat their clients like an ATM. I see it all the time, can't figure why they stay.

Have to share a story. Some who boarded in the same barn I did way back when decided they would buy their next AQHA Western Pleasure horse without using their trainer as agent. This guy advised them not to or at least tell him where they were going-for which he would not charge.
They declined to let him in that loop and went shopping with all the knowledge they'd absorbed in the 2 years they'd been showing.

Came back with a pretty mare they got for 8500. Problem was the mare was for sale for 2500 for TWO YEARS-two prominent bows in the front(breed shows do include conformation in all scores so a problem).
The sellers assured them she had not bowed just was "built thicker at the bottom of her foreleg" and offered to pay for a pre-vet. Buyers were so impressed at the offer of them paying they took it home WITHOUT a prevet. After all nothing could be wrong or they wouldn't have offered to pay, right?

Well, they get this thing home and the trainer would not work it with those forelegs-chronically sore in both- and the fact it had a looooong back that was constantly sore.
They end up leaving and tell everybody they got kicked out because they bought the horse without a trainer. New trainer just filled it with drugs and off they went for a few months until it broke completly down (of course they bred it).

So, sometimes you do need to know the full story. Sometimes there are far worse vultures then the trainer asking for money to get you a good one.

Jumphigh83

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:50 AM

So as a BB guide who I assume works with or for the Chronicle, your position on the BULK of the advertisers and clients of your magazine is that they are frauds?

findeight

Dec. 15, 2004, 07:53 AM

Only the Mods are COTH associates. BB guides are just posters who agree to act decent and let the Mods know if a train wreck is starting.

Guides are not restricted as to the content of their posts...long as they are civil.

Bumpkin

Dec. 15, 2004, 08:00 AM

I am a BB Guide, and have no association what so ever with the COTH other than subscribe to the Magazine for a zillion years.

I am totally with Luccasb on this. I think that there are many owners/CLIENTS who can make a pretty knowledgeable choice on their own.
In all fairness to CBoylen, she has never had to deal with trainers who are legends in their own mind, only trainers who are legends.
So I see where she is coming from. But the bulk of the posters as I stated before have to wade through trainers who think they deserve a percentage without doing anything or deserving anything.
People like F8 talk about do need help and should pay a % to not get rooked.
People like this need to take responsibility for their mistakes if they insist on doing the whole thing themselves without some years in the horses.

But to blanket say EVERYONE should pay a % without any help is totally blind.

sanctuary

Dec. 15, 2004, 08:01 AM

I'm in the process of looking for horses for two of my young (under 12) students. If either of those clients went out and bought something without my approval, I would be deeply offended and upset. To me, it would be a personal attack and a show of lack of respect for me. I would not ask for a commission on top of what they paid for a horse I didn't find, but I also wouldn't be their trainer anymore.

Lucassb

Dec. 15, 2004, 08:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by sanctuary:
I'm in the process of looking for horses for two of my young (under 12) students. If either of those clients went out and bought something without my approval, I would be deeply offended and upset. To me, it would be a personal attack and a show of lack of respect for me. I would not ask for a commission on top of what they paid for a horse I didn't find, but I also wouldn't be their trainer anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if they came in with wonderful horses (or ponies) that were perfectly suitable?

Would you still kick them out?

Bumpkin

Dec. 15, 2004, 08:31 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lucassb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sparky:
(snip)
I'm 100% with C. Boylen on this. If you have a good trainer, one that you wish to stay with, why would you take a chance on buying a horse on your own, presenting it to him, and then expecting him to make it work out? What if he had a few rides, gave you a few lessons on it, then declined to work with it and suggested, in all sincerity that you find someone who would? If your trainer and his facility and his program mean that little to you, then, trust me, you aren't what he is looking for in a client. There are a lot fewer good trainers out there than there are people who want to ride, and the trainers are the ones who can pick and choose who they want as customers. So, you play by their rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why? Because trainers have not cornered the market on knowledge.

Especially when the prospects they are showing the buyer are green, unsound etc. A time-honored tactic for trying to pressure the buyer into spending more.

There are plenty of clients who are more than knowledgeable enough to find a horse which suits both them and their pocketbook. And who are smart enough to pay for advice and services as they NEED them - not blindly whether services are provided or not.

To suggest that clients "play by the rules" dictated by a trainer whether those practices are appropriate or not is ridiculous. These are CLIENTS, people. Not sheep.

I have always purchased my own horses and have not had any trouble finding good trainers to work with. The trainers I've worked with are happy to take my money for lessons, training and board and appreciate a client with a nice horse, good equipment and a propensity to pay bills on time. Not to mention one who shows up with the occasional hot coffee, snacks and good cheer.

I am happy to pay for the services I require - including an opinion of a prospect if I want one. This is my perogative as a CUSTOMER. To suggest that the service provider (trainer)can dictate to me what I will pay and whether or not services will be provided for that expense, is simply ridiculous. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luccasb, what happened to your last post?

Lucassb

Dec. 15, 2004, 08:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bumpkin:

Luccasb, what happened to your last post? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tried to edit a typo ... and somehow *poof!* it disappeared!

Magnolia

Dec. 15, 2004, 08:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> There are plenty of clients who are more than knowledgeable enough to find a horse which suits both them and their pocketbook. And who are smart enough to pay for advice and services as they NEED them - not blindly whether services are provided or not.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And they probably aren't with "Dictator Trainers".

I have no problem with trainers charging 15% or 20% or even 50% or whatever to clients to find suitable horses for them.... but they need to be upfront and transparent about the process, not running around and popping it on at the last minute and justifying it because "that's the way the business works".

If we billed our clients like that, we wouldn't get many bills paid around here.

Sparky

Dec. 15, 2004, 08:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lucassb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by sanctuary:
I'm in the process of looking for horses for two of my young (under 12) students. If either of those clients went out and bought something without my approval, I would be deeply offended and upset. To me, it would be a personal attack and a show of lack of respect for me. I would not ask for a commission on top of what they paid for a horse I didn't find, but I also wouldn't be their trainer anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if they came in with wonderful horses (or ponies) that were perfectly suitable
Would you still kick them out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LucasB, that was exactly my point. Whatever the poster's answer, if you really wanted to continue a relationship with your trainer, would you really take that 50/50 chance that you would be invited to leave? Are that many wonderful trainers out there that you could just move on to the next one?

Lucassb

Dec. 15, 2004, 08:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sparky:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lucassb:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by sanctuary:
I'm in the process of looking for horses for two of my young (under 12) students. If either of those clients went out and bought something without my approval, I would be deeply offended and upset. To me, it would be a personal attack and a show of lack of respect for me. I would not ask for a commission on top of what they paid for a horse I didn't find, but I also wouldn't be their trainer anymore. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What if they came in with wonderful horses (or ponies) that were perfectly suitable
Would you still kick them out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LucasB, that was exactly my point. Whatever the poster's answer, if you really wanted to continue a relationship with your trainer, would you really take that 50/50 chance that you would be invited to leave? Are that many wonderful trainers out there that you could just move on to the next one? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To answer you directly, Sparky... YES. But even if there were only one or two talented ones... frankly I wouldn't be associated with (much less pay) someone whose only concern was whether they got a commission or not.

The trainer has a legitimate interest in their client being on an appropriate horse. When the trainer is showing crummy horses to the client "because of their budget constraints," but the clients are able to find something nice on the SAME budget - well then, the trainer's concern is not about the horse but about their $$$.

I would not have a business relationship with a trainer that did not include mutual respect and that includes a respect for my knowledge, experience and right to spend my money the way I see fit. I do not allow trainers to dictate to me; I engage their services as I need them and pay for them accordingly.

A "relationship" with a trainer that only works if the client blindly follows the trainer's directions regardless of whether they agree or if those directions are in the client's best interests is not a positive nor businesslike arrangement. It is a SCAM and the fact that it is commonplace does not make it right.

Flash44

Dec. 15, 2004, 09:15 AM

Ditto pretty much everything Lucassb has posted on this thread.

I'm just amazed that some trainers would be deeply offended that a client would purchase a horse without their approval. When did your financial advisor last drop you because you played around with stock on the internet? Was he or she offended? Some people just like to go out and do things on their own (myself included). Maybe the client isn't wildly successful, but I bet the client learned a lot during the process.

I'd expect trainers to be more concerned that their clients continue to use their full range of services and pay for them in a timely manner. I'd define a "nightmare client" as one that stops paying, or sues for a stupid reason, or complains nonstop about everything. Or all of the above.

MischiefMaker

Dec. 15, 2004, 09:17 AM

I didn't wade through all 7 pages, so I'm just gonna kinda jump in quickly. Did they sign a "finders" contract with the trainer? If not then then the people have every right to go out on their own to try and find a suitable horse. If they do find a horse then the trainer is just out of luck. You can't expect to be paid for helping buy a horse when you havn't actually had involvment in buying it (and definatly not 15%). If they have a contract and it states that regardless of who finds the horse that they still have to pay the 15% well then yes they have to pay because they signed a contract. If the trainer didn't have them sign a contract then she can only blame herself. The trainer will learn very quickly that she needs to have a contract signed.
I personally wouldn't go looking without my trainer because I tend to get OTTBs and wouldn't dream of going by myself to the track to look for one.

Sparky

Dec. 15, 2004, 09:22 AM

LucasB, I completely respect your position as someone who seems knowledgable about buying horses and, as you say, engaging trainers as you need them. I think this discussion began concerning people who don't necessarily have your background. They've found a trainer for their daughter, it seems they have turned down several of the trainer's choices, and now plan to go out and find their own horse, then return to the trainer with it. IMHO, the trainer probably has, after several rejected prospects, gotten the message that the parents are going to be choosy. If they had enough faith in the trainer to start their daughter with him, why not stick with him for awhile to see if he can get it right? Not trying to be contentious--I just think that this scenario( of parents getting their child into a sport)calls for a different set of expectations than that of an experienced horseman who just needs occasional help. If the guy drops the ball, then they can move on, and hopefully be more careful in their next choice of trainer.

Edited to add: If you keep your horses at home, or don't board with your trainer, then any arrangement you have with him is fine. But when a trainer has a limited number of stalls, I can guarantee they will be filled with people who do follow his rules--right or wrong, that's the Golden Rule- he who has the gold makes the rules.

Midge

Dec. 15, 2004, 09:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by radar:On the other hand, I have a friend who sold a horse for over a million dollars in 2004, who would have never gotten that deal done if it weren't for another very good friend..... and the seller only saw fit to give a commission.... AFTER it was brought up by the responsible party, of $3500..... an insult at best! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi, radar. I am not sure which of the following is the case in your story. Which scenario below is equal to your story?

I have a client who owns a horse I sell for a cool mil. You are instrumental in getting that deal done. My client skunks you with a cheapo commission.

Or is it this situation. I own a horse I sell fora cool mil and you are instrumental in closing the deal. I skunk you with a cheapo commission.

Thanks!

TSWJB

Dec. 15, 2004, 10:12 AM

Lucassb:
you hit the nail on the head!!!!!!!

To answer you directly, Sparky... YES. But even if there were only one or two talented ones... frankly I wouldn't be associated with (much less pay) someone whose only concern was whether they got a commission or not.

The trainer has a legitimate interest in their client being on an appropriate horse. When the trainer is showing crummy horses to the client "because of their budget constraints," but the clients are able to find something nice on the SAME budget - well then, the trainer's concern is not about the horse but about their $$$.

I would not have a business relationship with a trainer that did not include mutual respect and that includes a respect for my knowledge, experience and right to spend my money the way I see fit. I do not allow trainers to dictate to me; I engage their services as I need them and pay for them accordingly.

A "relationship" with a trainer that only works if the client blindly follows the trainer's directions regardless of whether they agree or if those directions are in the client's best interests is not a positive nor businesslike arrangement. It is a SCAM and the fact that it is commonplace does not make it right.

i could not agree with you more. lets put the ego aside for all those trainers who say they would be offended if someone buys a horse without them.
1) why should someone buy a crummy horse when if they go out themselves they can get a nice one for the same price. just so they don't offend the trainer? why isn't the client offended? with all the knowledge the trainer supposedly has and what warrants a 15% commission, the trainer is showing junk! hey i found something better without you. is the client supposed to ride a piece of junk so as not to offend the trainer?
2)yes i think it is also about mutual respect for the client. they should not be forced into following someone blindly. that is a cult like atmosphere which makes me sick! if the trainer is offended, they need to sit down with the client and explain why it is that they can only find crummy horses for the same price the client is finding nice ones. no one should follow someone blindly, because guess what? that is how you get ripped off. taken for a ride etc! hey she will do anything i say because i have her so afraid that if she crosses me she will pay.
3) isn't it more appropriate that the trainer cares that the client gets a nice horse to work with. if they cannot find it, help the client out at the end. like take the horse on trial and see if its a match. that is where the knowledge can be used. you didn't have time to search the bushes for a prospect, so we found one, and yes you will get less money, but we want your honest final approval. when the people i knew did this, they got thrown out!
i am sorry but following a trainer blindly is how alot of smart people get screwed!JMHO!

Tweeds-n-Kip

Dec. 15, 2004, 11:10 AM

Horse Puckey!!!

I USED to work for a trainer that was the same way, he/she is just greedy, which in the long run leads to a bad trainer in my opinion.

Lucassb

Dec. 15, 2004, 11:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Sparky:
LucasB, I completely respect your position as someone who seems knowledgable about buying horses and, as you say, engaging trainers as you need them. I think this discussion began concerning people who don't necessarily have your background. They've found a trainer for their daughter, it seems they have turned down several of the trainer's choices, and now plan to go out and find their own horse, then return to the trainer with it. IMHO, the trainer probably has, after several rejected prospects, gotten the message that the parents are going to be choosy. If they had enough faith in the trainer to start their daughter with him, why not stick with him for awhile to see if he can get it right? Not trying to be contentious--I just think that this scenario( of parents getting their child into a sport)calls for a different set of expectations than that of an experienced horseman who just needs occasional help. If the guy drops the ball, then they can move on, and hopefully be more careful in their next choice of trainer.

Edited to add: If you keep your horses at home, or don't board with your trainer, then any arrangement you have with him is fine. But when a trainer has a limited number of stalls, I can guarantee they will be filled with people who do follow his rules--right or wrong, that's the Golden Rule- he who has the gold makes the rules. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, by that logic... The client typically has the "gold" and therefore, should get to make the rules.

For what it's worth, I fully agree that the advice of a knowledgeable, ethical professional can be a big help to a novice rider or the newbie parents of a kid just starting out.

The only problem is that these are *exactly* the types that are most often taken advantage of - and many can't afford to "be more careful in their next choice of trainer" if they get f-cked by their first one.

From the information in the original post, the trainer in question presented horses that were not suitable, which is frankly a tactic often employed to convince less knowledgeable parents that they have to spend more than they budgeted. They have already given this trainer a shot and the ball has already been dropped. IF all that information is accurate, in my opinion the clients should already be out the door. There are plenty of honest trainers who will be happy to help folks like these find them a suitable mount OR who will gladly take the training and lesson money to work with the one they have.

Flash44

Dec. 15, 2004, 11:46 AM

I actually would be pretty much done with the trainer in question if the first few horses presented to me were unsuitable. A trainer who is expecting a 15% commission should have previewed the horses or at least had a conversation with the sellers to determine that the horses are

a. sound enough
b. able to do the job
c. tempermentally suited to the client

Understandably, some horses just have bad days, riders have bad days, etc. But as a client, I would not expect to waste anyone's time (buyer, seller or trainer) looking at horses that do not at least match the above criteria. If the buyer is picky about color, size, movement, etc, well that's shades of gray. But if a trainer is involved, the horses should at least be in the ball park.

zedcadjna

Dec. 15, 2004, 12:00 PM

I have to agree w/ C. Boylen, they should trust their trainer enough to go w/ what she picks out, if a student of mine were to find a horse on there own i would want a percentage, may not be 15% but it will cost them something...

I think the people dont have the confidence in their trainer to trust her to find thme a suitable horse, in that case they should find a new trainer..

Invested1

Dec. 15, 2004, 12:18 PM

After riding for years at various lesson barns (and leasing horses), I decided it was time for me to buy my own horse. I know what I like, what I don't like, what I can afford, and what I can handle. I ventured out on my own to look at horses that I found on dreamhorse, COTH, etc. and found a phenomenal horse (many can attest to this fact). THEN I went and got a trainer.
But, I tell you what, if I had a trainer before I started looking and I still decided to go about this on my own, and she still "wanted" a commission (notice the word is not "deserved" or "earned"), I would have most certainly moved on to find a new trainer!
(Hypothetically), not necessarily that I didn't value a trainer's opinion, but more that I felt I didn't need the help. Had I felt I had gotten in over my head, I would've asked for assistance, and most certainly have given a commission.

radar

Dec. 15, 2004, 01:03 PM

Midge... to answer your question, that scenario was most similar to your second set of circumstances. The person "skunked" was instrumental in the development, success, pricing and sale of the horse. The seller was another professional, who also owned the horse, but was getting help constantly from the "skunked" professional. The seller made approximately one million more dollars for the horse than they would have, had they not followed the "skunked" trainer's advice, yet they failed to acknowlege that fact in the end financially..... And the "skunked" trainer didn't make money in the meantime from the seller helping in all those ways, either...... The situation bordered on unethical behavior by the seller under the circumstances.

TSWJB

Dec. 15, 2004, 01:32 PM

wasn't it only a few years ago when people took the word of their doctor as god! if god ie:dr said do this, they did it. i mean they knew more than the patient. NOW however, people have awoken up! they may like their dr, but they get second opinions or third opinions. dr's are not offended anymore. i think horse trainers should start adopting this policy as well. if you can't find a suitable horse in a certain budget and the client can, your ego shouldn't be shattered!

entropygal

Dec. 15, 2004, 02:12 PM

as far as if a client finds a horse w/o the trainer then expects the trainer to work w/ it, this is EXACTLY what happens when the trainer accepts a student who already has a horse. is the student expected then to pay the new trainer a commision on an animal they already have. of course not! but of course, alot of times in this situation, the trainer will start hinting subtley or out right telling the student that said horse is NOT appropriate rather than working w/ the situation (no, it doesn't happen all the time but has often enough in my experience).

and i think the straight commission can cause alot of problems. the commission on a 10K animal is alot less than on a 50K animal. odds are, if the trainer is honest, the trainer may get "skunked" on the 10K transaction but never come close to earning what they got on the 50K animal, if the same time and effort goes into each horse. is that fair?

i don't know what the answer is, probably a mix of flat fee plus commision. MY big problem w/ the current set-up is what happens if a horse is bought w/ the trainer, by the book w/ the commision paid and then horse doesn't work out - at all, mostly because of said trainer. the client is out pretty much out everything unless the horse can be returned (which in our case, pretty much everybody involved EXCEPT us, washed their hands of it). plus if the horse is re-sold, then ur looking at paying ANOTHER commision plus ANOTHER commision if new horse is purchased.

alot of horse-trading starts to look like churning to me, which i believe IS illegal. and real-estate agents and wall-street brokers don't stand to make money off lessons, shows, and board.

Sparky

Dec. 15, 2004, 02:53 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lucassb:
[

First of all, by that logic... The client typically has the "gold" and therefore, should get to make the rules.

Ah, but you've got it backwards. The 'gold' in this case is the land, the nice comfy barn, the trucks, and trailers, the show schedule,the staff and anything else you care to throw in.
I don't care how much $$$ Daddy has, there aren't many who will step up and provide that for what may be a passing fancy. The trainer who made the investment gets to do it his way: if you haven't noticed that yet, you're not paying attention http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Flash44

Dec. 15, 2004, 03:15 PM

Right, Sparky, with all of the above mortgage 2-3 times and nothing owned outright.

Hopeful Hunter

Dec. 15, 2004, 03:57 PM

hmmmm.......comments like Sparky's make me wonder if there isn't another question here....

Which relationship do you value more, the one you have with your horse or the one you have with your trainer?

It seems to me that if you're willing to let your trainer control all aspects of your relationship with your horse, including arranging the match if you will, then you value THAT relationship more. Which is fine -- and maybe for those people whose primary interest in the sport is in the competition end it's necessary.

BUT, for those why may value their relationship with THEIR HORSE more, I think it's different. These people may want to find and choose their own horse. They may want the input not only of their trainer but maybe even of *gasp* a different trainer every now and then. They may accept or reject some ideas, or try new things. They may compete, maybe even at high levels, but their horse, his comfort and relationship with his human is their focus.

It's not a question of not "respecting" a trainer when someone (granted someone with sufficient knowledge one hopes) chooses a horse on their own, it's a question of the person wanting to be more involved (and maybe of them having the time versus the money to do it). Just as it's not disrespect if that person tries a technique from the trainer that doesn't work and finds another that does. I've always been taught that there is room for respectful disagreement as well as agreement in adult relationships. I just wonder given what I"m reading here how many trainers are willing to work with and respect those who put their horse above the trainer?

edited to add (and thanks Find8 for the reminder) that I'm using two ends of the spectrum. I well imagine most of us fall somewhere more toward the middle, with our horses and our trainers being primary depending on our skills, needs and abilities at various points in time. Just using polar opposites for ease of discussion...

CBoylen

Dec. 15, 2004, 04:01 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LMH:
C.Boylen...well and others (just quoting you cause you said it succinctly)...I am fully aware this is "the norm" but it is absurd. This IS the only industry that allows this.

What exactly did the trainer do to "earn" 15%...

He will be paid to train the pony if the pony needs training. He will be paid to teach lessons if the child needs lessons. If he leases or owns the facility, the he will also be paid board.

Now if the trainer is investing time and money to find a horse, PERHAPS and only PERHAPS that is another situation...you earn a commission when you close the deal-think real estate or any other commission type job.
They acted without him? Surely this is a little over the top! I have never understood this element of the industry-I can't go buy my own horse and expect someone to then be paid to teach or train? Why not?
(again not picking on you CBoylen...you post was just the easiest for me to click and quote http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I'm returning the favor, for the same reason http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
There are a lot of reasons why I'm willing to accept this as the norm.
First of all, if on doesn't trust their trainer to help them pick a horse, why on earth are they riding with him in the first place? Some of these concerns about fraud and unsuitable horses are not commission concerns. If the trainer is not doing a good job, for goodness sake find another trainer.
Surely, or hopefully anyway, they took someone with them to evaluate the horse when they tried it. Why was that person not their trainer? A person, no matter how qualified, cannot properly evaluate a horse without having a good groundsperson. One simply cannot tell everything about a horse from on its back. There needs to be someone to evaluate the whole picture.
As many have mentioned, the trainer is accountable for every horse brought into his barn. They represent his training, his care, and his eye for a horse, for good or for bad. They also take up his space, space that could be filled by other horses. He should have a say in choosing those horses.
Also, it is the rare trainer that makes any profit off of lessons, board, or training. Mostly, these payments help him to run the barn and hopefully break even, possibly with some margin to spend on his own horses or personal equipment. The profit, such that he may need to make purchases to improve his business, or pay for things like mortgages, vehicles, or tuition for his children, comes generally from sales and commissions. Therefore, a customer that takes up space, purchases horses, and pays a trainer no commission, is losing him money. That customer's stall could be better filled by one who follows the program.
A customer that goes off on their own, finds a horse that may or may not be suitable, and doesn't pay a commission is a headache. Most trainers, at least most that I'm familiar with, would have no trouble filling that stall, and probably have a waiting list of people, most of whom would be both more profitable and less trouble. It's not a hard choice.

findeight

Dec. 15, 2004, 04:06 PM

I let my trainer find me my current mare, whom I will keep for the rest of her life..and, as a mature adult, I can make good on that statement.
It's always about what is best for the horse with me. The fact I do compete at a top level actually reinforces the fact that true longevity in the competition horse is only obtained by proper management and training, not the latest drug du jour that "won't test".

Generalites are understood based on our personal experience. Many have a different background then others yet we define these things based on our own experience. Be careful about blanket statements regardless of your background.

Nobody is better to their horses then me, even if I am in a big barn at the moment, it has not always been that way and I have learned much in the journey to where I am now.
Including not assuming everything is as it looks from the outside...and that goes both ways for I have been screwed pretty good by those that came highly recommended and have been treated fairly and well by others that have had a disgruntled ex client or two warn me away.

The only problem I have with commissions is when they are not disclosed and the only problem I have with this post is the OP was not a party to any deal and really does not know what was discussed.

LMH

Dec. 15, 2004, 04:10 PM

LucassB-good posts and great points. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BaliBandido

Dec. 15, 2004, 04:22 PM

Flash44- you touched on something I said a few pages back (only you said it better!)

"I actually would be pretty much done with the trainer in question if the first few horses presented to me were unsuitable. A trainer who is expecting a 15% commission should have previewed the horses or at least had a conversation with the sellers to determine that the horses are

a. sound enough
b. able to do the job
c. tempermentally suited to the client

Understandably, some horses just have bad days, riders have bad days, etc. But as a client, I would not expect to waste anyone's time (buyer, seller or trainer) looking at horses that do not at least match the above criteria. If the buyer is picky about color, size, movement, etc, well that's shades of gray. But if a trainer is involved, the horses should at least be in the ball park."

If the people in the OP situation had given basic criteria and were presented with horses that failed to meet that criteria, then they are either being manipulated (we all know it happens) to up their numbers or the professional is unable to accurately judge the horses she/he is presenting. Either way I would find a new trainer.

As for people having confidence in their trainer, it seems they did at first and therfore asked her to find them something, it was after they were shown horses that clearly were unsuitable that the clients confidence waivered. Trainer lost their confidence by her/his actions, not some nefarious plot to circumvent a commission. Sounds to me like they have some sense.... ah that may be the problem.

zedcadjna- when I read your post I was a little dismayed- it came out sounding very much like you were laying down a punishment for someone finding a horse on their own
"if a student of mine were to find a horse on there own i would want a percentage, may not be 15% but it will cost them something... " Ouch!

Why exactly will it cost them something? Did you do something to earn it or is it because you didn't have the opportunity to earn it? Maybe I misunderstood- but that kind of absolute statement makes me shudder.

BaliBandido

Dec. 15, 2004, 04:32 PM

C.Boylen- you are exactly right. It is a trust issue not really a commission issue. If you (the collective you) are not happy with your trainer for other things for hells sake don't go horse shopping!

As for stalls being filled; most I know can fill them as well- but this is still a service industry.

I think that the big thing missing in the horse business is paperwork! There is this grey mist around, the 'well this is how it works in the horse business' lore, the checks to the trainers not the owners etc etc etc. What is needed is more communication, better records, and for clients to use their head when entering into a business relationship. That would alleviate so many of these situations.

Lucassb

Dec. 15, 2004, 06:06 PM

A couple more thoughts...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The client typically has the "gold" and therefore, should get to make the rules.
(posted by Sparkyhttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Ah, but you've got it backwards. The 'gold' in this case is the land, the nice comfy barn, the trucks, and trailers, the show schedule,the staff and anything else you care to throw in.
I don't care how much $$$ Daddy has, there aren't many who will step up and provide that for what may be a passing fancy. The trainer who made the investment gets to do it his way: if you haven't noticed that yet, you're not paying attention <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure what Daddy has to do with anything, but unless they are the only game in town, simply having nice facilities will not likely enable a barn owner/trainer to impose inappropriate policies on CLIENTS. Most have options and will choose to support trainers who treat them with the appropriate concern and respect. There are LOTS of really beautiful facilities with EMPTY STALLS while nearby "lesser" barns are full with waiting lists - because the trainers there have good relationships with their clients.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>(posted by C.Boylen): if on(e) doesn't trust their trainer to help them pick a horse, why on earth are they riding with him in the first place? Some of these concerns about fraud and unsuitable horses are not commission concerns. If the trainer is not doing a good job, for goodness sake find another trainer.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand the point being made, but (to speak only for myself) I ride with my trainer because I think they are able to help me improve what I have - both in terms of my riding AND my horse. I like having a trainer to help me refine my position and help me develop a training program for my horse... not to hand over my entire program.

I want to emphasize that it is not a lack of TRUST that leads me to shop for my own; it is a lack of NEED. While it is absolutely true that *some* pros can and do find nicer horses for their clients than the clients can find on their own, it is equally true that many (most?) clients like me simply get LESS HORSE when a bunch of commissions have to be factored in to the sale. Does my trainer lose money because of this? Perhaps, although my horse budget is my horse budget and she knows that I will spend every penny saved on commissions in training, lessons and horseshows, so she gets that $$$ one way or the other. FWIW, I assume she prices her services appropriately to make a fair profit and don't begrudge it to her for a minute, but if she doesn't, I don't feel compelled to spend money for a service I don't NEED to make up for that.

sanctuary

Dec. 15, 2004, 08:31 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by zedcadjna:
I have to agree w/ C. Boylen, they should trust their trainer enough to go w/ what she picks out, if a student of mine were to find a horse on there own i would want a percentage, may not be 15% but it will cost them something...

I think the people dont have the confidence in their trainer to trust her to find thme a suitable horse, in that case they should find a new trainer.. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DING DING DING!!! You hit it on the head! I work with a lot of first time riders/parents. I would not trust any of them to be even able to begin to find something suitable. My one student who is looking had a friend who was looking to off load one of their ponies. Mom & Dad were interested, so they brought the pony to me to evaluate. Turned out to not be suitable for many reasons. I had no problem doing that.

Some differences between me and some other trainers:
1)I find what I think will be suitable, and if turns out it's not after a trial period, I'm the first one to say send it back.

2) Most of what I try to find is under my clients max. price range. I want to be sure they can afford to keep the pony after they buy it!

Lucassb: to answer your question, no I wouldn't kick them out of the barn, because it wouldn't happen in the first place. I tell my clients at the beginning of the search, that if they are serious about looking and want my input and help with the horse after purchase, then I must be involved in the sale. I do this not because I want the money, but because I want them to find a nice compatible horse and be safe and happy with their purchase.

Again, I deal with a lot of beginners. Most of my clients price range is under $5k. So we're not talking $$$$ commissions here. But it's a sign of respect. If they're good enough to determine a horse that will be suitable and asses that horses ability/potential to do what they want it to do, then chances are, they're ready to move out of my barn anyway. I will admit willingly that I am not the end-all of trainers and have my limits. 10 more years from now and more experience in this crazy world of ours, things will be different. But right now, that's not the way it is. My students come to me to find out what kind of saddle, bridle, gloves, helmet, etc to buy. Not because I'm getting a kickback from the tack shop, but because they know I will guide them well and help them spend their money wisely. I don't have a lot of money, and I can totally appreciate where my parents are coming from in wanting the best quality they can get for their limited funds.

lute

Dec. 16, 2004, 05:49 AM

I will admit to having difficulty following the chain of logic here.
Example:
A parent reposes trust in a trainer to properly care for the child's horse.
A parent reposes trust in the trainer to supervise the child during lessons in order to ensure that the child in not unsafe.

Why then, by extension, is the parent expected to automatically repose sufficient trust in said trainer to, without question, hand over a check for a very substantial amount of money?

In what way does the ability to keep a clean barn and competently teach lessons guarantee both the trainer's horsemanship and ethics?
What is the correlation here?

lute

Dec. 16, 2004, 06:10 AM

Rehttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifouble Dipping

Both Sparky and Radar have stated that this is an illegal practice.
What civil statute defines as illegal the practice of accepting a commission on the sale of a horse from both the seller and the buyer?
What cases can you cite as examples?

Flash44

Dec. 16, 2004, 06:13 AM

I also shop in the under 5K price range. If my trainer insisted on taking a commission, that would be $750 at 15% (which I would not pay) or $500 at 10% (which is more appropriate). Let's say it took me a grand total of 50 hours (driving riding etc) to find and purchase the horse. That would have earned my trainer $10-15 an hour. Not even half what he earns riding/teaching. So why would either one of us bother?

Any trainer with a lick of sense would let their clients shop till they drop, but have the policy that no horse comes into the barn without an evaluation by the trainer at $X per evaluation (to be done before purchase), and also charge a flat fee to go look at horses with customers if they so prefer.

The whole percentage per sale is so open to exploitation.

ESG

Dec. 16, 2004, 06:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by lute:
Rehttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifouble Dipping

Both Sparky and Radar have stated that this is an illegal practice.
What civil statute defines as illegal the practice of accepting a commission on the sale of a horse from both the seller and the buyer?
What cases can you cite as examples? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, my attorney advised me that double dipping is only illegal in cases of non-disclosure. If the trainer doing the double dipping actually says to both buyer and seller, "I'm getting a commission from both of you, and that's how I do things" and both buyer and seller agree, then there's no actionable cause. But if the trainer doesn't make that disclosure, it's considered fraud. And over a certain amount, felony fraud.

Sorry, can't cite cases, but I'm sure you can find sufficient on your own. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

radar

Dec. 16, 2004, 06:33 AM

Lute... The uniform commercial code, to start with.... along with many state laws....

ESG

Dec. 16, 2004, 06:35 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Flash44:
I also shop in the under 5K price range. If my trainer insisted on taking a commission, that would be $750 at 15% (which I would not pay) or $500 at 10% (which is more appropriate). Let's say it took me a grand total of 50 hours (driving riding etc) to find and purchase the horse. That would have earned my trainer $10-15 an hour. Not even half what he earns riding/teaching. So why would either one of us bother?

I think the difference here is that the trainer would have already spent that time (that 50 hours you alluded to) in looking for a horse for you rather than riding/teaching/training, so the per-hour rate would be a lot different. I have a sliding commission scale that is disclosed to a client before I ever pick up a phone or get in my truck to go look at a horse; 15% for $10K and under, 10% for over $10K. I do this because it often takes a lot more time and effort to find a DECENT horse for under $10K (thus more hours expended that I could be making more money riding or teaching) than it does to find something over $10K. At the end of the day, my time must be paid for, as it's the only thing I have to sell. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif All of this is spelled out in a consulting contract that a prospective client signs prior to me starting a horse search for them. Makes life muuuuuch easier, believe me. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Any trainer with a lick of sense would let their clients shop till they drop, but have the policy that no horse comes into the barn without an evaluation by the trainer at $X per evaluation (to be done before purchase), and also charge a flat fee to go look at horses with customers if they so prefer.

I do this also. I never discourage my clients looking for horses on their own, as long as I'm consulted before the vet check is scheduled. After all, it is indeed the client's money and choice, but it's also my choice as to what sort of horse I think is suitable for that client and what I'll accept into my barn for training. And, to my mind, it's only fair that I be consulted on a horse purchase if I'm to be expected to effectively train and teach the client on that horse. I charge a flat fee for evaluation, with mileage added if I have to drive more than 25 miles. I've yet to have a client balk at this practice. 

The whole percentage per sale is so open to exploitation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. And it needs to stop. But I don't see that happening as long as trainers get away with the BS that the OP described in her post. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

radar

Dec. 16, 2004, 06:36 AM

Lute.... however, ESG is correct.... it's the deception that is illegal!

ESG

Dec. 16, 2004, 06:36 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by radar:
Lute... The uniform commercial code, to start with.... along with many state laws.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought the UCC only applied to manufactured goods, where defects can be easily identified? Or have I not had enough caffiene this morning?

Linny

Dec. 16, 2004, 08:26 AM

Most states have laws of commerce. Agency is covered under commerce. Most "agency laws" require someone acting as a agent to act in the best interest of the client. Procuring for me a $20k horse for a total of $35k is NOT in my best interest. Colluding with other "agents" to increase what the buyer pays or decrease what the seller recieves is not in the best interest of anyone but the agents. In fact, it's fraud.

That said, I can see why someone (especially a newbie) could trust a trainer for lessons but not to select a horse. Maybe little Susie really progressing. Then after being presented with poor choices in the price range, Mom wonders if trainer is really trying to find something in the price range. Mom snoops around and finds a few prospects. They may be duds too but thay are out there at a better price. There should have been a formal discussion of services and prices up front. Whatever deal was struck would have been better than this situation.
I do think that there are lots of very small time trainers (some good horsepeople BTW) who think that they can get away with all the same things the BNT's do. Just because Geoff Teall or GM can call all the shots, doesn't mean that everyone who hangs a shingle can do the same. Like all industries, there is a heirarchy and you have to earn your way to the point of being demanding.

Personally I'd never buy without a trainer, I don't feel confident enough. There are some "near pro" ammys (some on this bb IMO) who may be able to do so. I have not spent enough time engrossed in the horse world to know "who's who." I do know certain names as "don't go there" but my knowledge level is below par. I ride with Jumphigh83 and she's at shows all the time, watching trips, talking to trainers and riders. She knows all the barns in the region and her store of "people knowledge" is almost as important has her eye for a horse. When you pay a commission (or evaluation fee etc) you are not just paying for the time the trainer takes to find your horse. You are paying for the knowledge that trainer has accumulated over many years.

ser42

Dec. 16, 2004, 08:33 AM

I totally agree with lucassb here, as you could probably tell from my previous post on the subject.

So, for those of you who believe the trainer must ALWAYS be involved and receive a commission, what about those adult amateurs, like myself, that are good riders, with a lot of AA show experience, and KNOW what kind of horse they like to ride and what they can handle?

My current trainer had no problems with me going out and looking on my own. He and I have MUTUAL respect for one another... THAT is why the relationship works. He knew I was competent enough to go out on my own and find a horse. If I had to pay him 15% commission on what I bought, at this point in my life I wouldn't have been able to buy as much horse. I have more financial and professional responsibilities now compared to the last time I bought when my pocketbook was more flexible.

But like I said before, with junior riders and those showing out of exclusively A barns, things are different- yes, the trainer should be involved in the selection. I have gone this route before, back when I had more time to campaign heavily on the AA circuits- I never looked on my own. This time, I knew exactly what I wanted, and am thankful my trainer had enough respect for me to let me go out on my own and thus be able to afford it!

wanderlust

Dec. 16, 2004, 08:55 AM

ESG, I'm almost positive that UCC is applied to horse sales by industry professionals in California. Particularly as it pertains to agency and fraud.

Pocket Pony

Dec. 16, 2004, 09:02 AM

I must type quickly, as I'm on my way out for a lesson.

I've not read all of the pages, but get the gist of this topic.

When I rode at an 'A' barn, that is how things were done...with the commissions. I bought a horse, whom I found on my own, but whom my trainer made two trips to try. She did not help me with the negotiation process, but did review the video, went to try him twice, set up the vet check, and consulted with the vets involved. I paid her a full commission, even though initially she didn't find the horse for me.

The last two horses I've bought, Miles and Paddy, I found on my own. I bought them to do eventing, and was in training with an eventing trainer. For Miles, the trainer (actually, trainerS - I had a different coach for jumping and dressage) came out with me to the second trial to ride him and watch me on him. For the jumping coach, I paid her the equivalent of a lesson. My dressage coach wouldn't take any money from me. Both of them loved Miles and were glad I bought him.

When I bought Paddy, I was with a different coach because I moved out of the area. This coach made some calls to find out about all the horses I was trying, get the "inside scoop", and she asked around in the community of people who knew the horses. She sat down with me to review the video of both times that I tried him. She gave me her opinion, coached me on negotiating, helped me look up his show record, and communicated with me through the whole transaction. What did she charge me for this? Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zippo. I couldn't NOT pay her anything, so I gave her a gift certificate to our local tack store to show my appreciation. She didn't expect anything in return, as she knows that I'll be in training with her and do clinics with her and go to shows with her.

I must say, it was a far cry from my hunter days, and quite a nice experience to know that I could spend my entire budget on a horse, not hold back a certain percentage for commissions!

JulieMontgomery

Dec. 16, 2004, 09:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Linny:I do think that there are lots of very small time trainers (some good horsepeople BTW) who think that they can get away with all the same things the BNT's do. Just because Geoff Teall or GM can call all the shots, doesn't mean that everyone who hangs a shingle can do the same. Like all industries, there is a heirarchy and you have to earn your way to the point of being demanding. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Linny. That really needed to be said loud and clear and you said it beautifully.

I hope it will be noticed by some of the posters on this thread, who are by no stretch of the imagination "household name" famous trainers .... but who seem to be very long in the attitude department. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Flash44

Dec. 16, 2004, 10:04 AM

In the business world, many people who act as agents have to have some sort of license or certification in their respected profession. Many of them also work under the umbrella of a larger company. Not only are they trained professionals, but they accept liability and responsibility for their actions, and are usually insured for this.

For example, I am having a professional land surveyor survey my property. He guarantees his work for 20 years. He is liable should I build a fence on what he says is my property, and my neighbor then disputes it and finds out he was wrong.

Now, now many trainers stand behind their 15% commission? I would ask THAT question before entering into a contract with one.

radar

Dec. 16, 2004, 10:23 AM

Flash44.... the principle difference here is that, with a trainer, you are hopefully paying for an educated, sensible opinion and the help surrounding the transaction that goes with it. Surveying is an exact science, which does not depend on an animal with attributes, problems, and emotions and a thought process to go with it!!! If you are going to pick comparison, use a more similar one... an attorney might charge 15 or 20% or so of a settlement if he is guaranteed that up front, no matter what the outcome of the case. If he takes the case on a contingency, he has to produce to get paid. In that case he'll get 33% to 50% of what he produces. I don't think most people want to pay those kind of commissions willingly for "guaranteed outcome," but I for one would be willing to do that in a heartbeat! My track record tells me I'd make a lot more money that way!!!!!

Beam Me Up

Dec. 16, 2004, 11:45 AM

I have a serious question for those that subscribe to the trainer-picks-the horse business model:

If you fall in love with a horse, and the trainer thinks it isn't suitable, your choice is between the horse and the trainer (that you presumably trust), so you stick with the trainer and keep looking, right? (That makes sense to me--the horse you barely know, the trainer relationship you have a lot invested in).

But what about the opposite case? What if you don't like the horse your trainer selects for you? (Assume no major flaws, but you just don't enjoy riding it or the "chemistry" isn't there.) Are you faced with the same ultimatum? Plunk down 10K (or more) for the horse you don't really like or lose the trainer? Or is there more flexibility there to find something you BOTH like? Just curious . . .

(For me I tend to buy horses alone, off the track, then the trainer doesn't meet them until they are ready for a real lesson, but that is in eventing so the all-inclusive barn/trainer relationship is less common). But I don't think I could buy a horse that I didn't like, even if the trainer loved it.

Thanks!

Midge

Dec. 16, 2004, 12:24 PM

So, just this morning, I gave my trainer a commission on a horse he did not sell and hasn't even seen in over nine months and I'll be happy to tell you why.

I brought Midge to him in the spring of 2002. He LOVED her, thought she was extremely talented and worked hard with me and her. We began showing in the fall and had both highs and lows. In the spring of 2003, he suggested in no uncertain terms I should be looking for something else, not because Midge was not a good horse, but because she was not the horse for me.

I told him I couldn't sell her because I loved her and did not want to give up. He continued to work VERY hard to fit a square peg into a round hole, never complaining that the hard work was not going to pay off for either one of us and supporting me in everything I tried with her, which included seeking help from a dressage trainer.

When Rudy arrived in my life, he said, 'You HAVE to buy this horse!' Well, I couldn't have agreed more and with some extremely creative financing, it happened. I would have loved to keep them both, but it just wasn't possible.

We had a couple potential purchasers in the pipeline, so our lessons usually ended with him getting on her to help tune her a bit. I ended up finding a free lease situation for her and off she went. The people who leased her this year ended up buying her. She is in a perfect situation for her.

My trainer worked harder than he ever had to to try and make her work for me, then to help prepare her for potential sales. If I had been able to support two while we got the word out she was for sale, we could have sold her for a good deal more than I did and he would have 'earned' a much bigger commission by completing the sale. As it was, he didn't get the commision my time constraints prevented him from earning.

I couldn't have run to him with the money fast enough.

HSM

Dec. 16, 2004, 01:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by lute:
I will admit to having difficulty following the chain of logic here.
Example:
A parent reposes trust in a trainer to properly care for the child's horse.
A parent reposes trust in the trainer to supervise the child during lessons in order to ensure that the child in not unsafe.

Why then, by extension, is the parent expected to automatically repose sufficient trust in said trainer to, without question, hand over a check for a very substantial amount of money?

In what way does the ability to keep a clean barn and competently teach lessons guarantee both the trainer's horsemanship and ethics?
What is the correlation here? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lute you are on the exact same page as me - this point has been made by a few other posters on this thread but many people just don't get it and perhaps never will.

for instance...

JulieMontgomery posted:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Originally posted by Linny:I do think that there are lots of very small time trainers (some good horsepeople BTW) who think that they can get away with all the same things the BNT's do. Just because Geoff Teall or GM can call all the shots, doesn't mean that everyone who hangs a shingle can do the same. Like all industries, there is a heirarchy and you have to earn your way to the point of being demanding.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, thank you, thank you, Linny. That really needed to be said loud and clear and you said it beautifully.

I hope it will be noticed by some of the posters on this thread, who are by no stretch of the imagination "household name" famous trainers....

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I quoted SED a few pages ago who said essentially the same thing.

I said it before and I'll say it again: being a good horse trainer or a good trainer of people does NOT necessarily make you a good horse "trader" (for lack of a better term - buyer and seller) and it especially does not necessarily make you a good business person.

Many, MANY people have the dilemma of being confronted with ample numbers of decent horse trainers, but a serious dearth of the other categories. To "just leave if you are not happy" is not so easy when you look around and realize how few and how similar the options really are.

Flash44

Dec. 16, 2004, 02:47 PM

An attorney has gone to college and law school and passed the bar. He/she is licensed to practice law in a state. Most likely works for a firm. His or her actions are subject to review by the board, and he or she can be disbarred. A trainer/agent the swindles someone can just go on swindling. And just because he or she has X years experience does not mean jack. I have peers who never made it beyond the 3' divisions who are training and giving lessons and looking for horses for their clients. I'm comfortable looking for a horse for myself, but I would RUN AWAY if someone asked me to help them look for a horse.

CBoylen

Dec. 16, 2004, 03:54 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Beam Me Up:
I have a serious question for those that subscribe to the trainer-picks-the horse business model:
If you fall in love with a horse, and the trainer thinks it isn't suitable, your choice is between the horse and the trainer (that you presumably trust), so you stick with the trainer and keep looking, right? But what about the opposite case? What if you don't like the horse your trainer selects for you? Are you faced with the same ultimatum? Plunk down 10K (or more) for the horse you don't really like or lose the trainer? Or is there more flexibility there to find something you BOTH like? Just curious <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, I'll try to answer http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.
As you said, if I found a horse that I absolutely adored and my trainer found it unsuitable, I would pass on it. There's a reason why he's the professional. Of course, I would require a darn good explanation, and we would probably have a good natured argument over it. Then I would continue to use it as guilt trip material: i.e., "well, YOU wouldn't let me have Blackie the wonder horse" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.
However, that's very unlikely to happen, and never has yet, because I'm far pickier about horses for myself than any of my trainers have been. I've ridden hundreds of horses, and there are very, very few that I actually wanted to own.
Now, the other situation actually happens quite often for me, or at least it did with my former trainer. He was a big optimist, and would regularly have someone bring by some horse that he thought was the best thing since sliced bread. I generally had absolutely no problem saying no, or "you've got to be kidding", as the case may have been. I did, however, get on every single horse he dredged up, just in case it did something for me too. Even the extremely large stallion that sent said trainer flying across the parking lot with a well placed nose to the chest, and required three people to help get me on him. (I had help saying no to that one, because the entire barn staff was lined up along the barn frantically shaking their heads in my direction.) And a couple times, the horse actually was the real deal, and we both knew it.
But anyway, my point is, the relationship has to be one that you respect the trainer's opinion enough to try, and that he respects your opinion enough to take into account your input.

Platinum Equestrian

Dec. 16, 2004, 04:55 PM

As a seller I find this annoying and unethical. I'm currently dealing with this... I've had potential buyers who communicate their interest and requirements, but once the video is received, the trainer has completely changed the requirements, including the idea that the buyer needs to buy locally -- ie, trainer wants commission and doesn't want to work very hard. It's super frustrating.

RumoursFollow

Dec. 16, 2004, 05:52 PM

A long time ago, I sold a nice horse and left a barn at the same time. I was not intending to leave the barn on bad terms, I was just changing my lifestyle and needed to sell the horse and move. As I was leaving, I'd found out that the trainer had charged people to "lease" my horse per show while I was out of town, taught beginners to ride on him, jumped him HIGH and often at home even though he had a huge show schedule and did not need the schooling... all without my knowledge or permission (seeing as how I lived out of state).

When I sold the horse, said trainer called up and demanded her commission. After reminding her that she had nothing to do with the sale (she didnt know the people whatsoever and had absolutely nothing to do with it) and getting "reminded" that this was the way things were done, I sweetly told her that I'd be glad to deduct the amounts she'd made off of my horse in lessons and leases and whatnot without my permission and she could send me her own financial asessment of the same, and I'd pay her the remainder.

Shockingly enough, I never heard from her again. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

In reverse, my current trainer allowed me to purchase a horse he'd never seen in person, only on a video. It was in a different part of the country, we couldnt get him to see it, and on the video, he wasnt even sure if he liked it. But he trusted me, said if you think it's a good horse, buy it, and I did. He (of course) took no comission on that purchase, and I highly doubt he regrets that decision, seeing as how the horse just took his daughter around to win the SC Palmetto Medal Finals (and not by a little- but by several touchdowns), has been champion with me almost every weekend, and is just a lovely, lovely animal. I also gave him comission on a horse that he'd worked very hard on with me, advertised, shown to people, etc... but that I ended up selling to someone I showed him to at a show where I rode with another trainer in another state. I felt he deserved it, and it he got it without asking for it.

But the differences between the first trainer and the second are so great I wouldnt want to go there without starting my own thread (or five...).

sanctuary

Dec. 16, 2004, 09:13 PM

Bumpkin

Dec. 16, 2004, 09:21 PM

CBoylan that was an entertaining and funny story.
Thank you for the good laugh this evening http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

radar

Dec. 16, 2004, 09:22 PM

Sanctuary is right on.... I'm not sure I know anyone that would want you to buy one you didn't like or click with.... but I'm sure those are OUT THERE!!!! (in every way!!!)

buschkn

Dec. 16, 2004, 11:57 PM

I won't go into the entire thing here, as there is WAY too much to address, but I will say this. Just because a practice is common among BNTs does not make it right. Just because someone is a so-called BNT, does not make them automatically a better person, a more ethical individual, or more deserving of respect, unless they have earned it by being ethical and respectful as well as respectable. There seem to be so many threads that take the vein that BNT's are gods, and local trainers suck. There are great local level trainer, and there are filthy rotten local level snakes. Same with the big-wigs. Unethical behavior is unethical bahavior, whether it's common accepted practice or not. Bottom line, if someone is demanding money from you, they better have earned it, fair and square.

I simply don't understand the whole follow trainer blindy thing. I ride on my own, buy my own horses, train them myself, and get some pointers here and there. I am lucky to have had good trainers and a lot of experience. I know not everyone is so lucky. However, nobody deserves to be taken advantage of or dictated to, regardless of riding ability or financial standing. YOU are the rider and YOU are paying for the horse with YOUR money, so you better be happy with it. Think about it.

Flash44

Dec. 17, 2004, 06:02 AM

I think I'm trying to point out that trainers are completely and totally unregulated by any board or organization, and there is no one to hold them accountable for their actions except for their clients. ANYONE can hang out a shingle and call themselves a trainer. And then tell a client that they get a 15% commission on everything that the client buys and sells because that's the way it is. Usually a client is quite happy with the trainer until they find out they've been fleeced, and it's too late at that point in time.

RRB

Dec. 17, 2004, 06:14 AM

Bumpkin

Dec. 17, 2004, 10:59 AM

Midge if I had your trainer and that situation I would have made sure they got a commission, no ands ifs or buts about it.

Dec. 17, 2004, 11:20 AM

At this point, I would never work with a trainer whose opinion regarding a horse purchase I didn't respect.

The converse of that is that when I was looking in 2003, I found (all by myself) 3 young horses who failed the vet, and ended up buying the one my trainer saw at a show (he passed the vet). I was not "wild" about said horse because he was very green, no lead change, and still looked like a track horse (then a young 4yo OTTB). But, said trainer "liked his canter," the horse was pretty enough for me, in my price range, and was very brave when we tried him in unfamiliar rings. Trainer really liked horse, although I had serious reservations because I wanted one much further along.

I bought the horse, paid the commission, and my trainer's instincts have paid off in ways I never imagined with the success of this still-very-green horse!

The moral here for me is that I would never buy a horse through a trainer I did not trust and respect. So when you work with one that you do trust and respect, paying the commission is a no-brainer - you pay it.

ser42

Dec. 17, 2004, 12:32 PM

LH- I agree with you- I too would never work with a trainer that I didn't trust and respect his/her opinion on prospects. However, at this point in my life with all of my previous experience, I feel confident in my own ability to choose my own horse without needing the stamp of approval from my trainer- thus costing me 10-15% of the purchase price. It's not that I don't WANT to pay them the commission- like I have said before, I HAVE in the past paid 15% commissions on high-end horses. But this time around I decided my budget had to be smaller, and I wanted more horse for the money that I could spend. I bought directly from a breeder- no agents involved at all.

My trainer was confident in my ability and knew from the get-go I was looking on my own. He enjoys working with greenies and so was willing to work with whatever I ended up buying.

I know what kind of horse I like to ride, and the first time I rode the horse I ended up buying we clicked. However, he was a just-turned very green 4 y/o and had been in a pasture for the last 6 months. He needed to get into shape. The horse had passed an extensive, no-expense-spared pre-purchase with flying colors, but I knew I had my work cut out for me just getting him into riding shape. I have to admit he probably looked a little ratty to the trainer when he first stepped off the truck...

I'm not sure if my trainer would have picked this horse for me or not. He immediately fell in love with the horse's personality, and knew from the beginning he would be a good horse for an ammy like me to train. But because he was very rough around the edges, I don't think my trainer saw what I saw in him at first.

Well, what do you know?? After 6 months of building some muscle, addressing his trim/shoeing and weak stifles- this horse is actually looking better than I had hoped for at this stage. He is REALLY looking fantastic- and the trainer couldn't be happier!

As with any true greenie, it will take some more time to see what his potential really is- how scopey he truly is, etc. But for this time in my life, this is the perfect horse for me. I knew it from the start, and I don't think my trainer could have convinced me otherwise. The pre-purchase was the only thing that could have changed my mind had issues come up.

Keep in mind this is coming from an experienced adult ammy that has had extensive AA show experience and owned some fancy show horses before... I am NOT suggesting that inexperienced people should go out looking for horses without a trusted trainer. But am I really in the minority here??

By the way, as I said before- if I do end up selling this horse (although I don't plan on it), this trainer will get a commission for his help in bringing him along...

Barn Bum

Dec. 17, 2004, 12:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by missgrey:
bullsh*t, i would leave!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

*NO HORSES TO SLAUGHTER
*BROKEN PONIES

Bumpkin

Dec. 17, 2004, 03:15 PM

So has anyone here had to pay 15% to the selling trainer, and another 15% to the buying trainer?
It happens.

page3girl

Dec. 17, 2004, 03:42 PM

You know, the first time I purchased a horse as an adult, I was on a shoe-string budget. I bought a horse at the absolute top end of my budget (and subsequently purchased on a payment plan), and was completely taken aback when I was told I owed my trainer 15% of the transaction cost. At the time, this was a shock and a big financial burden. The request came out of left field since I'd had no experience with this.

Since then, I've bought and sold many horses - some on my own, some with a trainer's assistance. And I'm still waiting for the day when a trainer tells me UP FRONT that I will be expected to pay this fee. Usually, the whole thing unfolds with nary a mention of a commission, and when Dobbin is munching hay peacefully in his stall, he or she sidles up to you and asks for a check.

So, leaving aside the entire question of whether these commissions are earned and under what circumstances they should be paid, what really bothers me is the fact that no one seems to discuss them openly and honestly so the buyer/seller can plan and act accordingly. It's almost like everyone assumes that all the participants in the transaction miraculously "know" that this money must be forked over, regardless of the individual circumstances. I wish it was standard practice in the horse business for trainers to disclose this up front, and when budgets are set, they are set with the cost of purchase price, commission, vetting and transport in mind so their are no unpleasant surprises for anyone.

tbluv

Dec. 17, 2004, 03:54 PM

ahh definitely the age old problem of trainers eating too much chocolate and leaving fudge all over the numbers of the monthly billing statement.

findeight

Dec. 17, 2004, 05:51 PM

In my barn there is a list of charges placed right by the show scheduals.
On that list is the commission schedual...and I think it's 15% below 25k and 12% over-and that's a seperate check to this trainer only if she finds the horse.
It's right there in black and white with the board, lesson fees, transport fees, day charges and show training and other miscellaneous charges. Many copies so you can take one home.

So it is a fact such things do exsist. As they should in any barn I would ever deal with.

SunshineGA

Dec. 18, 2004, 01:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bumpkin:
So has anyone here had to pay 15% to the selling trainer, and another 15% to the buying trainer?
It happens. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've heard of it happening... with the buying/selling trainer being one in the same http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif But my lips are sealed.

Nancy!

Dec. 20, 2004, 12:19 PM

Originally posted by Ser42:

"By the way, as I said before- if I do end up selling this horse (although I don't plan on it), this trainer will get a commission for his help in bringing him along..."

Isn't this what you are paying for when you get lessons and training from this instructor?

I raise my own horses and have taken many lessons and clinics. When I sell a horse at an increased price due to training, I've already paid for the training of the horse, so why would I then pay a commission if the "trainer" did nothing for the sale?

Nancy!

ser42

Dec. 20, 2004, 12:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Nancy!:
Originally posted by Ser42:

"By the way, as I said before- if I do end up selling this horse (although I don't plan on it), this trainer will get a commission for his help in bringing him along..."

Isn't this what you are paying for when you get lessons and training from this instructor?

I raise my own horses and have taken many lessons and clinics. When I sell a horse at an increased price due to training, I've already paid for the training of the horse, so why would I then pay a commission if the "trainer" did nothing for the sale?

Nancy! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I guess I should clarify- yes, it's true I am already paying for the training via lessons and training rides. However, this trainer is great with the babies. He has taken unstarted horses all the way to PSG dressage (so far- these horses are still fairly young!), and also was a successful jumper rider in europe. My background is mostly hunters, although I did do jumpers for awhile. This is my first greenie- and I want to make sure he gets a well-rounded education, so this trainer will most likely be doing some of the showing when the horse is ready. Showing=exposure, and if I do decide to sell, would probably be campaigning the horse more than I otherwise would. Thus, in this current situation, this trainer will most likely be involved in the sale.

But if, for some unforeseen reason, I need to switch barns and end up doing everything myself, well then, no, no commission. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dec. 20, 2004, 12:43 PM

Nancy: Your view is rational, but the trainers' system of charging a commission on the purchase/sale of horses is derived from several factors. In some cases, trainers act like "agents" only, and sell/purchase horses for which they had no role in their development, but are key to brokering the deal. Second, trainers really don't make much $$ off of lessons and training rides [won't go into detail here, but that's generally the case] and they look to commissions to be part of their income. Third, the converse of #2 is that the commission for their customers' horses is part of the trainer-customer relationship. Whether you agree with that concept or not (I'm not advocating either way), it is customary that if you are "with" a trainer who is responsible for the horse's sale/purchase in some fashion, the trainer gets a commission.

For example, I'm definitely do not write one of the bigger monthly checks to my trainer [understatement . . .], but trainer values our relationship because he looks forward to me buying/selling more horses in the future! Here, the commission is part of our past, present, and future relationship, and provides for part of the investment by the trainer in that relationship. Frankly, I'm thrilled to be riding a horse that he picked out (and on which I paid a commission) because, again, it's part of our total relationship.

I think the point is that you and the trainer need to have an understanding and working relationship that works for the two of you -- everyone is different!

Bumpkin

Dec. 20, 2004, 04:25 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by page3girl:
You know, the first time I purchased a horse as an adult, I was on a shoe-string budget. I bought a horse at the absolute top end of my budget (and subsequently purchased on a payment plan), and was completely taken aback when I was told I owed my trainer 15% of the transaction cost. At the time, this was a shock and a big financial burden. The request came out of left field since I'd had no experience with this.

Since then, I've bought and sold many horses - some on my own, some with a trainer's assistance. And I'm still waiting for the day when a trainer tells me UP FRONT that I will be expected to pay this fee. Usually, the whole thing unfolds with nary a mention of a commission, and when Dobbin is munching hay peacefully in his stall, he or she sidles up to you and asks for a check.

So, leaving aside the entire question of whether these commissions are earned and under what circumstances they should be paid, what really bothers me is the fact that no one seems to discuss them openly and honestly so the buyer/seller can plan and act accordingly. It's almost like everyone assumes that all the participants in the transaction miraculously "know" that this money must be forked over, regardless of the individual circumstances. I wish it was standard practice in the horse business for trainers to disclose this up front, and when budgets are set, they are set with the cost of purchase price, commission, vetting and transport in mind so their are no unpleasant surprises for anyone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is my beef with what happened to me. And I even took the time, because of postings on this BB to claify up front what the charges were.
Live and learn.

radar

Dec. 20, 2004, 04:51 PM

Nancy.... LH has a very valid point... and I will add that, right on my rate sheet which every client gets (and is posted in the barn, as well), it's printed that the services (ie lessons, board, rides, etc.) are performed at the noted prices conditional to the agreement that the trainer gets a commission on the purchase or sale of client horses. Those who do not wish to pay a commission will pay a much higher price for those services.... 50% of our business is sales, and our stable (and most stables) would run in the red if it weren't for commission income. For the barn to stay operational, up to standard, and have the improvements and care and maintenance that benefit all of the clients, those commissions are necessary! If the money doesn't come from commissions, the clients have to absorb the cost somewhere.....

Jumphigh83

Dec. 20, 2004, 07:20 PM

^5 Radar...well said.

clivers

Dec. 20, 2004, 07:44 PM

To the OP:
LOL... what a scam! No trainer should have the nerve to request a fee for a service that WAS NEVER RENDERED. Think about it. It's laughable. The fact that at some places it's standard practice and how some people make money doesn't make it acceptable or the slightest bit ethical.

And re: trainer's don't make money off lessons...then why the heck are they "trainers"! Do they make their living by pimping out overpriced nags to naive but well-intentioned parents, or are they educators of horses and their riders.
FYI, as a former family physician (now a specialist), I made exactly ten dollars more per 40 minutes of 1:1 attention (ie. full physical with pap compared to a private lesson) than my "trainer" does teaching me. He's worth it and I trust his opinions (former olympic coach) and certainly his MOTIVES. In our 20 years together (and his 45+ years in this industry) he has never charged a sales commission and he has personally selected and trained several greenies all the way to the top - with a number of different riders. I'm sure he'll be laughing 'all the way to the barn' tomorrow when I tell him about this thread.

But seriously, trainers make great money off lessons...especially when you ride your own horse.

Gimme a break. The non-finder's-finder's-fee... well it's GREEDY and unprofessional. Yuck. To the OP, find yourselves an honest trainer who's in it because he/she believes in your kid's potential and loves the sport and the animals. Riding is such a wonderful hobby and passion; don't ruin your kid's idealism and inherit sportsmanship by exposing him/her to that scene. Lots of other pros in the sea, you could say.

Bumpkin

Dec. 21, 2004, 06:49 AM

Clivers well written.
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Plus, welcome to the COTH BB.

Dec. 21, 2004, 06:57 AM

radar: ironically enough, I think I bought and now own a horse for which I paid my trainer a commission, and your customer paid you a commission . . . http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

clivers: you make good points (especially about the "non-finder's-finder's fee" ---- that happens too much by folks with their hands out). BUT, a good part (not all) of the income that a trainer derives is netted out by overhead and other expenses. Board is (hopefully) a break-even proposition for the trainer, and with the overhead of utilities and other stuff, I don't think most trainers make "great money" off of lessons. For most, they rely on commissions from sales over the course of the year to make decent money so that they can afford to buy a horse or two of their own for a project.

Magnolia

Dec. 21, 2004, 07:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>But seriously, trainers make great money off lessons <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, my trainer charges $35 per hour. To make that money (even without a school horse), she needs to maintain her ring and jumps, pay for lights etc. etc. Now, of that $35, I'd estimate that 50% goes to taxes, so that is $17.50 to the tax man. Tack on some liability insurance, that number goes down. Add in cancellations due to lame horses, sick people and rainy days and one sees that $17.50 an hour is not that great of money - it's not gonna make you rich.

Lucassb

Dec. 21, 2004, 07:19 AM

Well, lesson rates vary by area. At my current barn, lessons are $50/HALF hour; $60 if you are using a school horse. That is between $100 and $120 an hour - a pretty nice rate of pay even in the pricey northeast. And the trainers, while perfectly competent, are not BNTs.

Those are typical rates for the area, by the way. Board at a decent barn around here runs between $1000-$2500 and UP. At those rates, I sure assume they're making a profit.

SGray

Dec. 21, 2004, 07:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by buschkn:
I won't go into the entire thing here, as there is WAY too much to address, but I will say this. Just because a practice is common among BNTs does not make it right. Just because someone is a so-called BNT, does not make them automatically a better person, a more ethical individual, or more deserving of respect, unless they have earned it by being ethical and respectful as well as respectable. There seem to be so many threads that take the vein that BNT's are gods, and local trainers suck. There are great local level trainer, and there are filthy rotten local level snakes. Same with the big-wigs. Unethical behavior is unethical bahavior, whether it's common accepted practice or not. Bottom line, if someone is demanding money from you, they better have earned it, fair and square......... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

too true - let's remember that it was mainly BNTs that got caught slaughtering their horses for insurance fraud

radar

Dec. 21, 2004, 07:29 AM

LH....I don't believe we are talking about the same thing.... I am talking about two trainers on the selling side splitting a commission, not a seller's trainer splitting a commission with a buyer's trainer. However, I'm also involved as a buyer's co-trainer with another trainer, and he and I agreed to split the buyers commission in the purchase of the horse which we both have to approve and win with after it's bought. We both think that is much fairer than charging 2 commissions on the buyers side, even though they said outright that they would be willing to pay that. They pay us separately at the horse shows when we work together for our services. He lives near them, and I'm 250 miles away. We both try to do a great job for the client and keep a high level of responsibility for quality, improvement, and overall results. This particular client wants to do it that way, although I'm aware that a lot of people would not.

radar

Dec. 21, 2004, 07:34 AM

Magnolia... have you ever got that right! If I were just teaching lessons and boarding, given that the board is break even at best, I would have to teach over 300 hours just to pay my insurance!!!! And I know lots of people whose insurance is more expensive than mine!

Dec. 21, 2004, 07:41 AM

radar -- I think you misunderstood my previous post -- you have a PT!!

radar

Dec. 21, 2004, 07:50 AM

Got it, LH!!! That's funny!!!

CBoylen

Dec. 21, 2004, 07:55 AM

I can speak to the profit margin.
Lessons and board simply do not cut it, even for the biggest of BNTs (or, more to the point, those that I consider real BNTs).
I think a lot of people just do not realize what kind of money it takes to run a barn at that level.
There is the help to pay, often close to five grooms, plus a barn manager and a driver, as well as a groundsperson. Bedding, feed, hay, supplements, barn supplies, stall mats, grooming mats, and common horse supplies such as grooming items and supplies, buckets, lead ropes, ect. There are show supplies such as farm trunks, curtains, grooming boxes, wall boxes, and common tack and coolers. There are payments to be made on large trailers or semis, multiple trucks, and the farm mortgage, as well as often mortgage on a separate FL property. There are the utilities expenses for the barns. Fuel for the vehicles (ever fueled a semi?). Housing for the help. Office supplies. Appliances for the barn.
There are tractors, spreaders, and mowers to pay for to maintain the farm, as well as fencing, paint, landscaping, pasture maintance, and extra help to accomplish all these things. The ring footing can be astronomical, and then you have to add in jumps and a drag to keep it reasonably well maintained. And, of course, the inevitable happens and some things go wrong, requiring money to fix the fence that the barn manager ran through with the tractor, or the truck that the grooms took out partying and wrecked on the way home.
Add to all of that the trainer's own expenses for himself, his house, family, personal vehicles, and, if he or she is lucky, own horse or horses, and you'll see that, at best, board and lesson money breaks even.

radar

Dec. 21, 2004, 08:05 AM

Well put, C.Boylen!!!! That's about as succinct an explanation as I've ever seen regarding this subject!

akrogirl

Dec. 21, 2004, 09:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by C.Boylen:
I can speak to the profit margin.
Lessons and board simply do not cut it, even for the biggest of BNTs (or, more to the point, those that I consider real BNTs).
I think a lot of people just do not realize what kind of money it takes to run a barn at that level.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely, all this means is that trainers are not pricing their training/lesson services correctly? I still fail to understand why people buying and selling horses from these people should pay such outrageous multiple commissions just because trainers are, apparently, poor business people. In fact, it would appear that those of us who do buy our own horses are, by this logic, expected to subsidise the "lesson only" people.

I doubt if any of us begrudge the trainers making a decent living. Just figure out what a lesson/training etc. really costs in terms of time and overhead, and price accordingly - don't keep trying to sneak things in under the radar.

clivers

Dec. 21, 2004, 10:00 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Bumpkin:
Clivers well written.
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Plus, welcome to the COTH BB. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks!

Dec. 21, 2004, 10:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by akrogirl:

Surely, all this means is that trainers are not pricing their training/lesson services correctly? I still fail to understand why people buying and selling horses from these people should pay such outrageous multiple commissions just because trainers are, apparently, poor business people. In fact, it would appear that those of us who do buy our own horses are, by this logic, expected to subsidise the "lesson only" people.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a very unfair comment. Trainers price lessons and other services based on concepts of capitalism and free trade -- they price their services based on market forces (other trainers' prices) just like any other businessman. Do not begrudge a trainer for earning income from different sources, and just because their fees are structured this way does not make them "poor business people."

AND, most professional trainers actually publish -- in writing on a rate sheet, for all the world to see -- their commission structure charged for their role in the sale/purchase/lease of a horse for a customer. This is NOT "under the radar."

In fact, a commission is typically a fee paid for the services provided for the trainer for the transaction -- granted, there are some abuses of that fee-for-service arrangement. Charging a % of the transaction price is a fee structure not limited to horse trainers (real estate agents, venture capitalists, bankers, lenders, financial institutions, credit card companies, attorneys, financial analysts, stock brokers, etc.) so we can't say that ONLY horse traders/trainers do this . . .

akrogirl

Dec. 21, 2004, 10:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by LH:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by akrogirl:

Surely, all this means is that trainers are not pricing their training/lesson services correctly? I still fail to understand why people buying and selling horses from these people should pay such outrageous multiple commissions just because trainers are, apparently, poor business people. In fact, it would appear that those of us who do buy our own horses are, by this logic, expected to subsidise the "lesson only" people.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is a very unfair comment. Trainers price lessons and other services based on concepts of capitalism and free trade -- they price their services based on market forces (other trainers' prices) just like any other businessman. Do not begrudge a trainer for earning income from different sources, and just because their fees are structured this way does not make them "poor business people."

AND, most professional trainers actually publish -- in writing on a rate sheet, for all the world to see -- their commission structure charged for their role in the sale/purchase/lease of a horse for a customer. This is NOT "under the radar."

In fact, a commission is typically a fee paid for the services provided for the trainer for the transaction -- granted, there are some abuses of that fee-for-service arrangement. Charging a % of the transaction price is a fee structure not limited to horse trainers (real estate agents, venture capitalists, bankers, lenders, financial institutions, credit card companies, attorneys, financial analysts, stock brokers, etc.) so we can't say that ONLY horse traders/trainers do this . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I certainly do not begrudge trainers earning money from multiple sources. I do begrudge having to pay more than is legitimately necessary on commissions because trainers, according to many posters on this thread, are not making money from lessons or training. Why shouldn't people be expected to pay fair market value for the cost of a lesson?

I don't even begrudge a 10-15% commission on buying or selling a horse when the trainer is actively involved. The problem is that it is very often multiple 15% fees (or the "as much as I can get over what the seller has actually asked for" type deal), which doesn't usually occur in other realms of business, and I doubt if many people are told this up front, or ever for that matter.

Janet

Dec. 21, 2004, 10:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I certainly do not begrudge trainers earning money from multiple sources. I do begrudge having to pay more than is legitimately necessary on commissions because trainers, according to many posters on this thread, are not making money from lessons or training. Why shouldn't people be expected to pay fair market value for the cost of a lesson? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Loss leader?

Bent Hickory

Dec. 21, 2004, 10:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Charging a % of the transaction price is a fee structure not limited to horse trainers (real estate agents, venture capitalists, bankers, lenders, financial institutions, credit card companies, attorneys, financial analysts, stock brokers, etc.) so we can't say that ONLY horse traders/trainers do this . . . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The difference being that some/many horse traders/trainers don't DISCLOSE this in WRITING AHEAD OF TIME or operate with a WRITTEN CONTRACT. None of the other professions you mentioned would DREAM of operating in the "customary way" as defined by the horse world.

Dec. 21, 2004, 11:07 AM

Having been exposed to this issue in representing disgruntled buyers/sellers/trainers who are complaining about a commission issue, I would suggest that for industry reform purposes we COULD take this issue on!!

Bent Hickory -- you are right! and inspired me with this thought:

Perhaps the way to remedy the OP's concerns, and those issues raised by other posters, is for the consumers to only do business with those professionals (trainers/traders/sellers/buyers) who disclose in writing their "arrangements." If the "agent" doesn't already have it in writing, we, as consumers, should insist that they then put it in writing. We can't prevent or prohibit every bad act, but this would be a way to at least encourage a more uniform practice. And I don't think there should be a uniform % for a commission -- that should be between the respective customer and trainer/trader.

I don't mean to highjack this thread, but it's relevant to the OP's problems.

What do you think?

Trainers and brokers -- what do YOU think? How would you handle this if you were doing a deal with another trainer whose policies or practice was not in writing?

radar

Dec. 21, 2004, 11:18 AM

LH... Most of the people (trainers, buyers, sellers) want paperwork, so we make it a practice to provide it. Full disclosure of rates and fees up front and in any contractual agreements. MOST reputable professionals do this at whatever level. Then there are others that need to.... If clients only deal with the ones that will, that will solve the problem... self regulation at it's finest! Now about that 200 mile between USEF shows rule.... WHOOPS wrong thread... LOL!

Hopeful Hunter

Dec. 21, 2004, 01:23 PM

Chanda makes some points about the very high costs of business at major barns. But, I wonder if that cost structure - and attendant commission expectations - is equally valid at barns that DON'T have their own semis/drivers/housing for help/multiple grooms/etc.

From what I'm reading, the top tier - because they ARE the top tier - provides what one can only call luxury service and charges accordingly. Needless Markup and Target may both sell small, cute folding umbrellas, but you can bet your boopie that N-M charges waaaay more. So it seems to be with true BNTs. They are the top, they charge accordingly and it's not any secret they do.

But what about that 2nd or 3rd or even low-middle tier? The trainer who has a smaller barn, maybe an old non-CDL van, two part time working students? Basically, the trainer who can take you to the "local As" and have their more talented horses pin. Can/should these people charge or expect to charge the same kinds of fees that those who have more overhead (and, if big ribbons are the criteria, more success)?

From the way I read it the OP was dealing with one of these not-quite-BNT types. It's at that range - the place where I suspect the majority of riders "live" - that the problems seem to really be. Any ideas for addressing that?

Dec. 21, 2004, 01:37 PM

Hopeful Hunter -- very good points.

I think most trainers will say, though, that they often spend as much time with the smaller transactions as with the bigger doller ones. I think the not-quite-BNT is due a commission for same reason -- the trainer will spend just as much time trying, vetting, etc. the $5,000 horse as others do a $50,000 horse, but the 15% commission on the $5,000 horse is only $750. Many trainers approach this issue by having a 15% commission on smaller transactions, and it scales down to a 10% commission on larger ones (>$100k, for example).

There is nothing prohibiting a trainer from charging for services on an hourly basis for those services provided in a sale/purchase. A buyer could spend potentially thousands of dollars, though, looking at several horses, especially if they are out of town, require travel, etc., regardless if the horse is a $1,000 horse or $100,000 horse. Again, as long as the understanding and the expectations are clear between the trainer and customer, the problems should be minimized.

Bumpkin

Dec. 21, 2004, 02:55 PM

LH I believe the statement that other Professions would not get away with the tacked on 15% and that most of the posters are not of the upper tiered, Florida and Northern states barn owning crowd, were posted by others earlier in this thread.
I don't think any of the posters have a problem with a commission that is discussed before hand, or when the trainer is actively working on the sale or buying of a horse.

Hidden Hill Farm

Dec. 21, 2004, 03:09 PM

I'm actually kind of curious to know if people would prefer to pay an hourly rate for services rendered. Realistically, if I charged an application fee for everyone I spoke with and put in my data base -- even $10, then charged an hourly rate for calls, videos, charged them the basic cost for transport, board, my presence at the vetting, my time for all paperwork and setting up insurance, working wtih them/ riding their new horse... the hourly rate would FAR exceed the commission. However, then, do people feel that they're being nickled and dimed to death? I'm actually quite curious. I would make far more money that way and never have that "banging my head against a wall" feeling again. I resent people feeling taken advantage of when most of them really do have no idea how much it costs to run a place like this. Basically, it costs more per MONTH to run than I made in a year right out of college at an entry level job -- and that's not including the mortgage or any sort of living expenses for myself. If it's the way that commission is structured that upsets people, by all means, let's make it more pallatable. It sure works for me. I understand that most people aren't upset about paying commissions that are disclosed. But the system is flawed. I'm the first one to admit that. If a trainer gets 15% of the total purchase price, why would they negotiate down. They're negotiating themselves right out of money. There's got to be an incentive for the trainer to get the customer a better deal.

CBoylen

Dec. 21, 2004, 03:13 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Hopeful Hunter:
Chanda makes some points about the very high costs of business at major barns. But, I wonder if that cost structure - and attendant commission expectations - is equally valid at barns that DON'T have their own semis/drivers/housing for help/multiple grooms/etc.
From what I'm reading, the top tier - because they ARE the top tier - provides what one can only call luxury service and charges accordingly. They are the top, they charge accordingly and it's not any secret they do.
But what about that 2nd or 3rd or even low-middle tier? The trainer who has a smaller barn, maybe an old non-CDL van, two part time working students? Basically, the trainer who can take you to the "local As" and have their more talented horses pin. Can/should these people charge or expect to charge the same kinds of fees that those who have more overhead (and, if big ribbons are the criteria, more success)?
From the way I read it the OP was dealing with one of these not-quite-BNT types. It's at that range - the place where I suspect the majority of riders "live" - that the problems seem to really be. Any ideas for addressing that? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, that is a consideration. The smaller barns may not need as much income in order to operate, although of course some expenses are universal. However, I believe that's probably balanced out by the fact that they are probably not able to charge as much for board and lessons as a larger or more well known barn, have fewer real in-house, full-paying customers, and may have the added expense of keeping lesson horses, which are not a consideration at most top barns. Also, they would on average be dealing with horses of a lesser price, as well as possibly fewer sales per year, and thus receiving less commission money to make up the difference. So, my answer is that they may charge the same percentage if they so choose, because we're not talking the same actual monetary value.

radar

Dec. 21, 2004, 05:00 PM

Note to Hidden Hill Farm.... I said this earlier in this thread, but I have been approached by several clients (and I know of other trainers who have done the same for their clients) to get the best price for my client as buyer, and they will pay me my commission on the STARTING asking price (or on the maximum that they have to spend, if appropriate.... their choice!) That solves the "selling for more to get more commission" problem, even though I like "doing the deal" enough to do that anyway... makes me feel good as long as I don't have both the buyer and the seller as clients, in which case EVERYTHING is on the table and they both usually know each other and talk!!! That works great and kills the air of collusion or "not trying for one client or another!"

SED

Dec. 21, 2004, 06:54 PM

Hidden Hill -- in answer to your question, no one wants to be "nickeled and dimed" to death. I am a lawyer, and a theoretically charge on an hourly rate. But I have learned over the years not to do that on the occasional 15 minute phone conversation. We are all in business to keep clients happy.

For my part, I would recommend trainers setting a base board rate, a base board and training rate, and a base board and lesson rate (and training, if applicable). Then if clients want extra services, including special medical/vet attention, etc., they should pay a flat fee monthly for that -- not a $10/visit type of fee (which is annoying).

I think trainers should charge two rates for taking people to a show -- bare bones, e.g. trailering and feed/water only (for those who want to self-serve) and a full rate. They get to pick.

The bottom line in my opinion is that a trainer and/or barn owner in a barn that is not primarily a sales barn should charge the right amount -- in simple and easy to understand terms -- so that they can make a decent living (even if they don't get rich) from those operations. Then sales commissions give them extra income -- and they can focus those commissions on the people who actually use the service. I hate the idea that barn owners and trainers have to charge more than their services are worth to people buying and/or selling in order to make up for the fact that they aren't charging enough on board or training or show fees.

By the way, I also believe a barn owner should be able to make it clear that she/he will not take boarders who do not use their other services, if that's what it takes to make a profit and if they have that market clout. There is nothing wrong with that as long as they are honest about it.