Do Group 1s have to be worth so much money? Best of the blogs: Weblog Desperate measures for desperate times.

Byline: STEVE DENNIS

POSTED AT 3.20pm 29 OCTOBER 2009 The first in a series of blogs by racingpost.com readers By Ross Birkett (rbirkett) The recession hasn't dramatically altered the training of racehorses, which has been the same, more or less, for hundreds of years, but people are now being more economical - instead of trekking to a venue with one runner, they'll take two just to make the trip more cost-effective.

Similarly, trainers now share horseboxes, thus reducing the cost as well. None of this is bad, in fact it saves money and reduces carbon emissions because fewer boxes are travelling to the races, but it doesn't distract attention away from the problem of prize-money.

You see horses racing round Wolverhampton on a Saturday night for roughly pounds 1,500. This barely covers a month's training fees for the nag. Ownership should be profitable for everyone and this would surely bring new faces to the game.

To boost the pot at the lower end of the scale, the authorities need to trim something off the top of the tree.

Why, for instance, does the Queen Elizabeth II Stakes need to be pounds 142,000 to the winner when there are only four runners, and when in recent years the quality of horse has been substandard to Group 1 level? Yes, the big handicaps should have valuable pots to attract competition, but why does the Derby need to be worth almost pounds 1m? Surely Christopher Tsui, owner of Sea The Stars, wouldn't have minded if he'd only won half that amount because, at the end of the day, he's still going to get insane money in stallion fees.

The big Group 1s don't need big prizes because the value of the win comes with the horse, at sale or through breeding. Little handicap winners won't be worth much more for winning a class 6 event, they don't have a future in the industry after retirement, but if the prize is good then things are more affordable.