Post a reply

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby carayip

Iranu wrote:
carayip wrote:Maybe they fear if they don’t warn or stop them now, it will have a snowball effect that the top players eventually join forces with these rival promoters to form even bigger events? Then one man exhibition becomes 5 men that can also become 10 men. One off event can eventually become a series of events.

If it goes to court, I’m not sure “we’re worried this might happen” will cut it as far as evidence goes. Unless WST have Minority Report technology.


The last Macau exhibition was Ronnie vs Jimmy. The next one is 5 top players. It already has signs of getting bigger.

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby SnookerEd25

carayip wrote:
SnookerFan wrote:Is there a lot of money in this Macau tournament?


It’s part of a casino promotion campaign. I don’t think they lack money to give players lucrative appearance fees.


And pay any fines that are levied.

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby Dan-cat

Barry gets his guns out.

Barry Hearn: 'I am disappointed in how selfish they have been, and how small-minded. I expect these five will be referred for disciplinary action by WST. And then we’ll see whether they get fined, banned or thrown out.’

https://metro.co.uk/2023/10/11/snooker- ... -19643651/

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby PLtheRef

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.

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby SnookerFan

Is Hearn criticising others for selling their soul for money the most hypocritical thing of all time?

Even if that was what they'd done. Which it isn't.

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby SnookerEd25

Holden Chinaski wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:'sports needs stories' Barry Hearn.

He's loving it.

Climb out, Dan.


:lol:

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby HappyCamper

Dan-cat wrote:How come Ronnie isn't part of this? Is it because he never entered the Northern Island Open, so technically he didn't withdraw? Surely he still falls under the same thing in the contract.


not really. it's established that there is no obligation to enter every world tour event for which one is eligable.

the contention is participating in a non-sanctioned event running concurrently, and viewed as being in direct competition, with an officially sanctioned tournament.

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby GeF

Dan-cat wrote:How come Ronnie isn't part of this? Is it because he never entered the Northern Island Open, so technically he didn't withdraw? Surely he still falls under the same thing in the contract.

May be because he plays NI Open.

If Robertson goes to Siglufjörður instead of Belfast, it will be your fault.

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby SnookerEd25

GeF wrote:
Dan-cat wrote:How come Ronnie isn't part of this? Is it because he never entered the Northern Island Open, so technically he didn't withdraw? Surely he still falls under the same thing in the contract.

May be because he plays NI Open.

If Robertson goes to Siglufjörður instead of Belfast, it will be your fault.


:lol:

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby carayip

Dan-cat wrote:How come Ronnie isn't part of this? Is it because he never entered the Northern Island Open, so technically he didn't withdraw? Surely he still falls under the same thing in the contract.


Ronnie will be part of the “Shanghai 5” that plays an exhibition in Shanghai straight after Wuhan but right before Northern Ireland. That’s why he’s not part of the “Macau 5”. And he does enter Northern Ireland probably because it’s in his Eurosport contract.

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby chengdufan

Good on the players who turned it down. There must have been quite a few for them to resort to inviting Carter

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby SnookerEd25

chengdufan wrote:Good on the players who turned it down. There must have been quite a few for them to resort to inviting Carter


pmsl

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby SnookerFan

The bigger picture with this is that despite huge improvements since the days when there were only six events in snooker, (which yes is because of Hearn), there still isn't the money in snooker. The ones here like John Higgins and Mark Selby are alright, but ones slightly down the pecking order are sometomes near bankrupt. We're talking top 32 players here, not people ranked like 100 in the world. I get that players have broken contract, but instead of Hearn using it as another chance to show off, maybe look at the problems that are causing players to defer to big money tournaments as well.

Re: WST Statement on the Macau 5

Postby SnookerFan

That's not to say I can't see the WST's side in this, because of course you want to stipulate that your big players play in only your events. That's just business.

But Hearn talking about them selling their souls for money, when he has sold his soul to Saudi Arabia isn't a good look.

I am saying, maybe there are bigger issues than this one tournament. Hearn likes to make everything black and white. Some things aren't.