WST Statement on the Macau 5

SnookerFan wrote:

HappyCamper wrote:Shaun Murphy has some opinions on the topic.
https://snookerhq.com/2023/10/13/shaun- ... red-to-go/

When doesn't he?

Let me guess, before reading it. He's against them doing it?

SnookerFan wrote: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.

McManusFan wrote:It's not 100% clear if that's true or not. I find it interesting contrasting Barry Hearn's comments with the official WST statement, which is much more guarded in its language.

SnookerFan wrote:

McManusFan wrote:It's not 100% clear if that's true or not. I find it interesting contrasting Barry Hearn's comments with the official WST statement, which is much more guarded in its language.

I thought that was the whole point?

If it's not in their contract, then what's the problem. WST can't complain just because they don't like it.

McManusFan wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

McManusFan wrote:It's not 100% clear if that's true or not. I find it interesting contrasting Barry Hearn's comments with the official WST statement, which is much more guarded in its language.

I thought that was the whole point?

If it's not in their contract, then what's the problem. WST can't complain just because they don't like it.

I think there is some ambiguity. I don't think it explicitly states 'you can't pay in unsanctioned events', but something more loose about damaging WST events.

McManusFan wrote:I just think from what exactly has been said it seems like there is some interpreting to be done on the contract. It could be that WST's view is the most reasonable interpretation.

The news that the exhibition has been moved is a good one, and has allowed the worst to be swerved.

HappyCamper wrote:Shaun Murphy has some opinions on the topic.
https://snookerhq.com/2023/10/13/shaun- ... red-to-go/

D4P wrote:I'm not going to defend WST, but I will say that it's kind of lame for the Macau people to schedule their event in conflict with a WST event, knowing that any players who choose to play in Macau will be subject to WST backlash...

D4P wrote:

D4P wrote:I'm not going to defend WST, but I will say that it's kind of lame for the Macau people to schedule their event in conflict with a WST event, knowing that any players who choose to play in Macau will be subject to WST backlash...

Like I said, all that needed to happen was to change the dates of the Macau exhibition so that they didn't conflict with a WST event. Problem solved.

HappyCamper wrote:

D4P wrote:

D4P wrote:I'm not going to defend WST, but I will say that it's kind of lame for the Macau people to schedule their event in conflict with a WST event, knowing that any players who choose to play in Macau will be subject to WST backlash...

Like I said, all that needed to happen was to change the dates of the Macau exhibition so that they didn't conflict with a WST event. Problem solved.

though the five are now missing out on a chance to earn at the ni open.

TheRocket wrote:https://wst.tv/wst-statement-update/

"WST can confirm that the Macau event previously scheduled for 27-29 October will now take place on the 22-24 December with players having received WST permission to enter".

Prop wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:https://metro.co.uk/2023/12/12/mark-selby-says-finnish-exhibition-blew-mind-macau-drama-19963923/

Arrgh! I just started a thread on this

SnookerEd25 wrote:Look - whose bad is it? Come now

SnookerFan wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:Look - whose bad is it? Come now

Yours.

Temp ban. Sorry mate.

SnookerEd25 wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

SnookerEd25 wrote:Look - whose bad is it? Come now

Yours.

Temp ban. Sorry mate.

Hoist by mine own petard