How does your barn divide trainer's expenses for away horse shows?

[Hunter_JumperMom]

[QUOTE=lauriep;7049445]
Yes. Why not? I am not going to nickel and dime like that. It works perfectly.[/QUOTE]

Its not nickel and diming, its the fact that the one horse person is paying their share plus helping out paying the share of the person with 5 horses, that one horse person doesnt need all the extra stalls, but because of the rider with more horses they need the space, i agree now reading this that hotel/travel and food expenses should be based on rider/owner, not per horse, but all other expenses should be per horse, if not that one horse person tends to pay more than their fare share.

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=lauriep;7049445]
Yes. Why not? I am not going to nickel and dime like that. It works perfectly.[/QUOTE]

Um, if you now need two grooming/tack stalls instead of just one because someone else brought 5 horses and I just brought 1 horse, I don’t really want to subsidize the other owner’s 5 horses. My horse is still using only 1/6th of the total grooming/tack stall space/time. If the other horses that I am now randomly paying half of hadn’t shown up, only the one stall would be needed. Meanwhile if the other person only brought 1 horse and we could still have just the one extra stall, my stall bill would be 1/2 a stall. So the more horses somebody ELSE brings the more I pay for the extra stalls they need???

To answer OP, everything including hotel with me goes per horse, my horses included in the split. The total amount of time and attention I have to give is divided by the number of horses at the show, and all expenses are divided accordingly. The hotel is part of the cost of the overall show and it too is divided accordingly. I don’t find the math to be all that much trouble.

[14HandsHigh]

[QUOTE=lauriep;7049445]
Yes. Why not? I am not going to nickel and dime like that. It works perfectly.[/QUOTE]

Why not? Because one person with 4 horses is taking 4 times longer in the tack stall then I am with my one horse. And, you usually need more tack stalls for more horses. If they can afford to show 4 horses the they can pay for their part of the tack stall split. That is not nickel and diming that is everyone paying for their fair share.

[meupatdoes]

I’m going to show up at a horseshow with 5 horses one day, get just one tack/grooming stall, and just find a random person down the aisle who brought two horses and has one grooming/tack stall to just put some of my extra 5 horses worth of hay in.

I mean, I brought 5 horses, I need their room. It’s tough to store 5 horses worth of hay and supplies AND groom 5 in just the one stall.

[FineAlready]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7049478]

To answer OP, everything including hotel with me goes per horse, my horses included in the split. The total amount of time and attention I have to give is divided by the number of horses at the show, and all expenses are divided accordingly. The hotel is part of the cost of the overall show and it too is divided accordingly. I don’t find the math to be all that much trouble.[/QUOTE]

In my opinion/experience, this is the ONLY fair way to do it.

[FineAlready]

Actually, I guess I would be open to the argument that hotel should be split by rider rather than horse, although I would want the trainer to be part of that split too if the trainer brought horse. I do I think this policy could be easily abused by a trainer bringing a ton of his/her own horses to show. For example, if you bring two customer horses and five of your own, I am not sure that it is fair to charge the two customers 2/3 of the hotel charges when the trainer is one of the primary beneficiaries of the hotel.

[AmmyByNature]

[QUOTE=FineAlready;7049536]
In my opinion/experience, this is the ONLY fair way to do it.[/QUOTE]

I agree. Everything is by horse, not by rider. My trainer’s time is overall split by horses, not by riders/owners. And that includes the time she spends sleeping and eating.

I used to frequently be the only single horse at a show with another lady’s 5 horses. I wasn’t charged 1/2 of the show splits - because if it were just me, we wouldn’t need three extra stalls for tacking up and supplies.

Trainer hotel and food is split the same way. 5/6th of my trainer’s time is spent worrying about the other lady, not about me. Only 1/5th of her is at the show for me in the first place, so I only have to pay for 1/5th of her physical presence! If I had to pay half the hotel bill I probably wouldn’t have gone to as many shows as I did. With a reasonable $200 per night for her and a room for the groom, that’s the difference between $166.67 and $500. That’s a big difference.

It’s the same reason that even if my horse only shows the pro days and then is done, I still pay for the whole horse show. It’s not the other people’s fault that my horse isn’t showing all days, so why should they have to subsidize me on those days?

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=FineAlready;7049550]
For example, if you bring two customer horses and five of your own, I am not sure that it is fair to charge the two customers 2/3 of the hotel charges when the trainer is one of the primary beneficiaries of the hotel.[/QUOTE]

This same logic applies to the clients.

If Daddy Warbucks client is the primary beneficiary of the hotel with their 5 horses, why should Sally Small Bucks subsidize their per horse “trainer hotel” cost?

[overthemoon]

[QUOTE=FineAlready;7049550]
Actually, I guess I would be open to the argument that hotel should be split by rider rather than horse, although I would want the trainer to be part of that split too if the trainer brought horse. I do I think this policy could be easily abused by a trainer bringing a ton of his/her own horses to show. For example, if you bring two customer horses and five of your own, I am not sure that it is fair to charge the two customers 2/3 of the hotel charges when the trainer is one of the primary beneficiaries of the hotel.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7049589]This same logic applies to the clients.

If Daddy Warbucks client is the primary beneficiary of the hotel with their 5 horses, why should Sally Small Bucks subsidize their per horse “trainer hotel” cost?[/QUOTE]

Because if Sally Small Bucks were going to the show alone, she would be paying the whole thing. Trainer doesn’t use the hotel room more or have to pay the hotel more because she’s got 6 horses at the show instead of 2.

Splitting the hotel/travel/food expenses per horse does not make sense to me. Those numbers do not change based on number of horses, as a tack stall would. They are set expenses that happen because she’s there, period. She will eat the same amount if she’s got two horses or if she’s got ten, so why should someone with multiple horses pay for more of the food? That fact doesn’t change anything.

[AmmyByNature]

[QUOTE=Only By Night;7049619]
Because if Sally Small Bucks were going to the show alone, she would be paying the whole thing. Trainer doesn’t use the hotel room more or have to pay the hotel more because she’s got 6 horses at the show instead of 2.

Splitting the hotel/travel/food expenses per horse does not make sense to me. Those numbers do not change based on number of horses, as a tack stall would. They are set expenses that happen because she’s there, period. She will eat the same amount if she’s got two horses or if she’s got ten, so why should someone with multiple horses pay for more of the food? That fact doesn’t change anything.[/QUOTE]

Because (to get silly about it) the trainer is going to be expending 5/6th of those calories she’s eaten helping Daddy Warbucks, and using 5/6th of that rest she got dealing with Daddy Warbucks.

I (and lots of other people) won’t go to a show with just one other person or by myself - it’s just too expensive.

It makes sense for 5/6th of the trainer’s expenses to be paid by the people using 5/6th of her resources.

[Hunter_JumperMom]

just to add, any trainers we have been with, trainers horses and splits were always included. And, when daughter was a Junior working for trainer and getting a salary, she had her hotel paid by trainer, and I paid part of that split as well just like any other client.

[overthemoon]

[QUOTE=AmmyByNature;7049626]
Because (to get silly about it) the trainer is going to be expending 5/6th of those calories she’s eaten helping Daddy Warbucks, and using 5/6th of that rest she got dealing with Daddy Warbucks.

I (and lots of other people) won’t go to a show with just one other person or by myself - it’s just too expensive.

It makes sense for 5/6th of the trainer’s expenses to be paid by the people using 5/6th of her resources.[/QUOTE]

I don’t buy it. If she were eating more or sleeping more because of the extra horses, sure. But she’s not.

To me, that kind of reasoning sounds like a way of justifying a cheaper bill for yourself. I mean no offense by that, but that’s how it comes across. Sure, Daddy Warbucks can probably afford to pay more of the bill because he’s paying fr five horses to show, but ethically, I’m not sure that he should have to.

This coming from a broke one horse woman. A Sally Small Bucks, you might say.

ETA: At the end of the day, trainer will do whatever trainer sees fit, and that’s going to vary. As clients, we need to be on board with whatever trainer decides, and if we aren’t, we need to figure out if it’s worth it, because ultimately it is their decision.

[findeight]

But, doesn’t trainer charge for services provided to each horse? So is getting compensated in proportion to the number of horses each owner has?

Or are we talking trainers who have a set all inclusive per head per day charge?

I was always charged per owner for the hotel but was also in barns that priced a la carte for each service on top of the day care charge. That would make a difference in the perception of fairness regarding the hotel

[AmmyByNature]

Lets parallel it to the grooms.

if it’s just me, I need zero grooms, but lets just say one. If it’s me a daddy warbucks, we need three grooms. So the grooms food and hotel should obviously be split by horses, no, because they wouldn’t all be there if there weren’t so many horses?

If you agree with that, it seems obvious that the trainer is no different.

And if you don’t agree with that, then I suppose we’re just going to have to agree to disagree! No worries - we wouldn’t be horse people if we didn’t disagree about something!

[overthemoon]

[QUOTE=AmmyByNature;7049656]
Lets parallel it to the grooms.

if it’s just me, I need zero grooms, but lets just say one. If it’s me a daddy warbucks, we need three grooms. So the grooms food and hotel should obviously be split by horses, no, because they wouldn’t all be there if there weren’t so many horses?

If you agree with that, it seems obvious that the trainer is no different.

And if you don’t agree with that, then I suppose we’re just going to have to agree to disagree! No worries - we wouldn’t be horse people if we didn’t disagree about something![/QUOTE]

See I agree with this and I think the trainer thing is vastly different.

More horses = more grooms.

More horses does not = higher trainer expenses with regards to hotel/food/travel.

The first equation changes depending on the number of horses. The second is concrete regardless. I don’t view them as the same at all.

[salymandar]

[QUOTE=Only By Night;7049619]
Because if Sally Small Bucks were going to the show alone, she would be paying the whole thing. Trainer doesn’t use the hotel room more or have to pay the hotel more because she’s got 6 horses at the show instead of 2.

Splitting the hotel/travel/food expenses per horse does not make sense to me. Those numbers do not change based on number of horses, as a tack stall would. They are set expenses that happen because she’s there, period. She will eat the same amount if she’s got two horses or if she’s got ten, so why should someone with multiple horses pay for more of the food? That fact doesn’t change anything.[/QUOTE]

If Sally Small Bucks were the trainer’s only client, the trainer and/or groom would not have to work as hard and may be able to sleep more than she would if she had to get up before the crack of dawn to take care of Daddy Warbuck’s five horses. If she only had one horse, she may not be as hungry and eat as much as if she spent her day taking care of five horses. Again, if it was just Sally at the show, she would have more of the trainer’s attention and energy spent on her. If trainer had all six horses at the show, attention less attention would be paid to her and her horse.

In my experience, show splits and trainer/groom expenses have been split by the number of horses, not the number of owners/riders. Each owner/rider pays the same flat fee for riding/training/grooming/day care at the show. There are no a la carte services – whether Sally Small Bucks has the no prep dark bay AA horse that goes at 2 p.m. and Daddy Warbucks has five pig pen gray horses that require lots of baths, lungeing, extra hacks, and do extra classes/divisions that start at 7:30 a.m.

[overthemoon]

[QUOTE=salymandar;7049670]
If Sally Small Bucks were the trainer’s only client, the trainer and/or groom would not have to work as hard and may be able to sleep more than she would if she had to get up before the crack of dawn to take care of Daddy Warbuck’s five horses. If she only had one horse, she may not be as hungry and eat as much as if she spent her day taking care of five horses. Again, if it was just Sally at the show, she would have more of the trainer’s attention and energy spent on her. If trainer had all six horses at the show, attention less attention would be paid to her and her horse.

In my experience, show splits and trainer/groom expenses have been split by the number of horses, not the number of owners/riders. Each owner/rider pays the same flat fee for riding/training/grooming/day care at the show. There are no a la carte services – whether Sally Small Bucks has the no prep dark bay AA horse that goes at 2 p.m. and Daddy Warbucks has five pig pen gray horses that require lots of baths, lungeing, extra hacks, and do extra classes/divisions that start at 7:30 a.m.[/QUOTE]

We’d obviously not going to agree here. To me, the first scenario you mentioned makes my point. Say the cost for travel/hotel/food comes to $500 for a certain day. If Sally is there alone, she pays the full $500. If Sally take one horse and Susie takes one horse, they each pay $250. And if Sally takes one horse and Daddy Warbucks takes three, they still ought to pay $250 each because trainer is there for those two owners. Nowhere in this equation does number of horses change travel/hotel/food costs so it doesn’t seem fair to make someone with more horses take the brunt. They will take the brunt of other expenses such as grooms, tack stalls, shavings, etc.

Anyway, no point in beating the dead horse. This is how it makes sense to me… Some agree, some don’t.

[Portia]

I also often bring multiple horses to shows (usually only 2, maybe 3 once in a great while). My trainer divides it up by whether having the extra horse(s) involves extra work or expenses. That is, trainer, assistant, and groom accommodation and food is divided by person, not horse. They’ll have those same expenses regardless of how many horses are there. Trailering, day care, lunging, etc., is divided by horse. Grooming stalls are effectively divided by horse, since I pay those with each horse’s show bill when I check out.

ETA: It has never been a case where my extra horse(s) is the difference between having the assistant or the number of grooms, or needed extra tack stalls. But it has been the case that having the extra horse go may be the difference between whether there are enough horses to justify/pay for going to the show at all. So in that respect, the single horse people do get some additional benefit from me sending multiple horses.

[trubandloki]

I do not think either way is wrong.
I liked how my trainer did it. It worked for me even though I paid a share of a tack stall that I never used.
I can also see how the other system would work.
It just depends on what your barn/trainer does things; which you should ask about and know how it works before you head off to your first show. You should not assume it is the way you want it to be and then be floored that it is not when the bill finally comes.

[AmmyByNature]

Not more expenses, but more WORK. If the trainer is working 5x harder for you than for me, you should pay 5x the expenses required to keep her/him functioning.

(I’ll grant that the groom example wasn’t the best - it’s hard for me to come up with an example, because it just seems so obvious to me that ALL expenses should be split per horse. The trainer is there for 5 horses - it doesn’t matter how many riders. Those 5 horses are going to be doing 5 different things, and her cost should be divided 5 different ways.)