SteveJJ wrote:I know it is very rare that WST do a lot that can be applauded but I can't see what other course of action they can take.
If players breach their contracts then they should expect to face the consequences.
I see Mark Allen, said he doesn't read the contract. He just signs it because otherwise he wouldn't be on tour. I suspect others are the same. Or they think that the potential earnings will cover any fine
Which is one of the reasons why I suspected than any potential breach would come down to Macau being a event not sanctioned by WST.
If the players are unaware of their contracts and are signing it without looking at it (because of their need to sign it to be eligible for the tour) then that is on them. If its explicit within the contract the players signed, then I'm not sure what stance they can take (unless its a calculated gamble that any disciplinary action will be counterbalanced by money they receive in Macau.
However, even if WST are in a stronger position at the moment because of the players contract, it isn't a position that they are going to be able to hold beyond May - as if the players didn't know what their contract contained, they certainly will now and I don't think all the players will sign it in its current form.
Hearn's intervention is a strange one because (assuming that the players contract is clear enough) WST are in a stronger position at this stage - its either a statement from someone on the basis that there is no such thing as bad publicity, or there is a genuine concern from WST that the players contract might not hold.