I always approve any horse (and client! ) that comes into my program. If it’s a new client, we have a frank conversation about the horse’s abilities and the client’s goals BEFORE I take them on. If the client wants to shop on their own, I charge for my time to evaluate said horse and communicate with vet about the PPE. I do not communicate with the seller at all. If client loves Dobbin and really wants to buy him but he won’t be a good fit for the client’s goals or my program, I send them on to a different program that is a better fit. No hard feelings, and no worrying about buying the wrong horse.
I’ve turned away quite a few people over the past few years, and also parted ways with a few that weren’t a good fit any longer. It makes my existing client base way stronger and practically eliminates stress from bad client relationships.
Sounds good.
One question:
If client isn’t interested in your evaluation, but wants to stay in the barn, is that doable?
I’m assuming when you say “another program” it’s not in-house.
If the client is open to modifying their goals to meet the abilities of the horse, then absolutely I would love them to stay. Frankly, most people, when told that their horses have a limitation, choose to stick with the horse they have and modify their goals, at least in my experience. I do not have a a barn full of six figure horses so that probably has a lot to do with it.
If someone has a horse that cannot physically or mentally meet the rider’s expectation for what they want to do under saddle, then we have a conversation that they should find a different program, outside of my barn. I’ve only had this happen twice and in both instances, it was a situation where The horse had come to me with the owner, there was a lameness that the owner chose not to diagnose, and I told the owner that I was not going to keep working a horse that was not sound so if they wanted to keep doing that they needed to find a different barn.
ETA: I am more than happy to try to work with the horse to see how far we can take it, and frankly that is what I end up doing a lot of times anyway because horses that come to me are often rehabbing or simply not fit. However, if we get to the point where the horse clearly cannot do the job then I present the owner with the option of changing goals, looking for a new horse, or changing programs. Hope that answered your question!
It’s important not to take them at face value - check everything, verify - and do not “blindly trust” that they are doing things in your best interest.
Coming in late and of course worried about being misconstrued but let me ask the questions I have.
If the policy background to this is that the trainers are protecting their “image” and maintaining a level of proficiency of both horses and riders, do we have a “standard” of what is “acceptable” treatment of said horses and riders as well?
I do understand the premise, but we have all seen some of the following elements and I wonder where the grey area starts and stops.
Horses:
Lunging for a long time to keep the horse quiet
Tubapalooza (ie… excessive amounts of calming supplements)
Draw reins on at all times when not competing
Joint injections more frequent that recommended by veterinary associations
Riders:
Compliance required in what saddles/tack/attire brands they must wear (Financial implication)
excessive and minimal amounts of exposure to training that could be considered abuse or dangerous (Too many examples to list)
Demands made on how much they “must” invest in (time, lessons, horses) that could be physically or financially impactful
It’s too simplistic to say “Well you can change barns” when the sport is a subjective sport with cliques that can impact the future of a rider. The overall thing I am attempting to ask the board members as a whole is whether the 10% price on a lease is actually the tip of the dependency iceberg and are we as a whole promoting basically an abusive relationship that does not cultivate the riders and/or horses to be able to exist beyond the (my own term) “Image barriers” and be able to just enjoy riding a horse that they own or lease?
Why does it matter so much to exist in this perceived way? Bad days happen, horses are flight animals and the places that allow them to exist more naturally and foster some safe independence with riders is not actually harming anyone and it doesn’t become Lord of the Flies, in one trail ride bareback.
Yes, that’s all great until Sally Smith decides she’d rather have her own barn, or for whatever reason, ups stakes and takes the cash flow with her.
Now the whole barn is in crisis, because the money is gone, and the care begins slipping as the funds dry up. More people leave and the barn is sold, or goes private.
It’s a fragile way to set up a business, and not designed to handle rough periods when life happens.
I can sum this up in a sentence.
Spoken to me many years ago, by a longtime friend & Pro, who was the most non-controlling, un-judgemental, champion of both horse & clients: "You enable the trainer.
I do want to approve the horse and client that come into my barn. I do believe there is an image to uphold, BUT I’m happy to say that my horses don’t get LTD, I don’t have any calming supplements in my barn, and I don’t own draw reins. I encourage my students to audit and ride in outside clinics (so long as the clinician has a similar philosophy to my training philosophy and they aren’t going to over face the horse or rider), tack and apparel must be neat, clean, and in good repair, but not any particular brand, and I don’t offer “full training,” only a la carte so that each horse and owner have a tailored program.
The reason I want to approve horses and clients is that I’ve had too many instances where a client isn’t bought into the program (they don’t agree with or trust my training), or the horse isn’t fit/sound enough to do what the client wants. Having a client at a show or posting videos on SM of horses that are over faced, stressed, going around in gadgets because they aren’t fit, is damaging to my reputation and I won’t have it in my barn. I stepped away from training almost 20 years ago because I allowed a client to move up when I knew she wasn’t ready but I was scared to lose her. Client and horse crashed on schooling day (other than bumps and bruises they were fine). I stopped training and changed careers because I couldn’t put my foot down and say “no you’re not ready” without risking being able to put hay in the barn for MY horse. Now that I’m back to training, I will not stand for having people in the program that aren’t with the program. I make it abundantly clear up front what I can help them with and what I expect out of them, and if they aren’t ok with that, then there are other programs I refer them to that have a different philosophy.
For the record, all of mine but one trail ride bareback, and we’re working on her.
I think, though, the issue here is about commission. You’re perfectly within your rights to decide whather a horse/rider combination isn’t something your want to deal with. IMO, you’re entitled to payment for a horse you work with a client to find. What’s suss is charging a client for a horse they’ve found themselves - it’s either a fit for your program or it’s not.
The industry as a whole has too many instances where the client is supposed to suck it up and pay for whatever the trainer thinks is a good idea.
I’ve never understood why trainers don’t just make an hourly rate for horse sales and leases instead of a percentage; it would make the process so much more fair for both sides. I think trainers should absolutely get paid for their time searching for client horses and using their network (the better the trainer with the bigger the network, the more their horse finding hourly rate can be). It is more fair for the clients to pay an hourly rate as well as some clients can be more picky about their horse (they need a dapple gray at a perfect 16.1h and 8 years old for example) so the search can take longer and the trainer should be compensated for that. It also makes it more fair in regard to budget; if two clients are looking for 1.10m jumping horses for example and one has a 20K budget and one has a 70k budget, it is going to be much easier (and potentially) quicker for the trainer to find a 1.10m horse in the 70k budget range so why should they be making so much more money on commissions when their job is actually easier? Paying an hourly rate would be a win-win all around
I can see how this could work. I can also see how this would be horrible for some people.
If you (general) have a very tight budget, it is easier to shop knowing your budget to shop is Horse + 15% + roughly known PPE cost.
If you have to pay by the hour when your trainer looks at every video or talks to another trainer about a horse, it might change what you have to spend on the horse on a regular declining basis.
My opinion is simply, as long as both parties know going into horse shopping what the arrangement is for what it costs and they agree on it… that is perfect. Hourly or commission or commission plus hourly or whatever they agree on.
The commission paid to a professional is more than about Time. What a trainer knows (or any other professional) in a faction of second and their relationships within the industry is what is being paid for
This is a common model in eventing. When I bought my horse my trainer just charged for the time spent helping me shop. I grew up in the hunters so I was a little surprised but it worked well (and we discussed it all ahead of time so there was no confusion). I’m also fine paying a commission to a trainer actively helping me shop, but I’m not a fan of the default commission policies regardless of how much effort a trainer actually puts in. Luckily those aren’t that common in eventing IME.
While this is technically true, I can’t imagine (maybe I’m wrong!) that the hourly rate is so high that it’s going to materially change what horse you can buy. I charge $50/hr and I can look at a LOT of videos in an hour. Even if your trainer charges $500 an hour for this service, is 3 hours of work going to change the horse you’re going to buy?
I think the trainer’s hourly rate should show what they are worth and it should not be so low that they are getting a lot less than they would otherwise…
For people who do not live in your financial bracket, $500/hour can quickly eat into what they can afford. How would it not. Watching a video, then looking at the horse (say an hour drive there, an hour drive back, an hour looking) is $1500 right there. That horse does not work out. Lather rinse repeat.
Totally valid. I just think that $500 an hour is bonkers, and I’m not sure what trainer would be worth that - McClain (no he’d be more)? I compare it to the amount of work I do for a schooling ride or a lesson, which are also an hour. It’s certainly easier to sit on the couch and watch videos compared to a schooling ride, so I wouldn’t expect to get paid more. 🤷 Are there trainers getting paid $500/ride (other than McClain, Beezie, etc)?
But we don’t pay a percentage of our horse’s value for lessons, training rides, or horse show coaching. I hear this argument made a lot. But I think it doesn’t necessarily track with commission-based reimbursement. Are the trainer’s relationships less valuable when you are buying a less expensive horse than a more expensive horse? IRL, they are probably even more important in that situation! In my fantasy compensation scenario, trainers with more knowledge and more relationships would simply be able to charge a higher hourly rate, just as the top trainers command higher prices for lessons than beginner instructors do.
) that comes into my program. If it’s a new client, we have a frank conversation about the horse’s abilities and the client’s goals BEFORE I take them on. If the client wants to shop on their own, I charge for my time to evaluate said horse and communicate with vet about the PPE. I do not communicate with the seller at all. If client loves Dobbin and really wants to buy him but he won’t be a good fit for the client’s goals or my program, I send them on to a different program that is a better fit. No hard feelings, and no worrying about buying the wrong horse.
