Here’s to the future.

case_master wrote:There is no details on how many ranking points the PTC will hold per event. I am guessing VERY little, to the point it wouldn’t make much of a difference to the top 16 unless you win several of them.

I know they are split into 3 different categories, ie PTC, European and World. It wil be interesting to see which players enter which events.

The smart thing to do would be enter the first 6 see how well you do, you might have enough money earned by then to qualify for the finals meaning you can enter the rest at your leisure and relax.

I also notice that the PL line up is not yet confirmed, this is likely to stay the same until the end of the John Higgins enquiry.

2000 points to the winner per event x 12 events and 3,000 to the winner of the final.

Last 64 360
Last 32 560
Last 16 760
QF 1000
SF 1280
R/U 1600
Winner 2000


Last 24 840
Last 16 1140
QF 1500
SF 1920
R/U 2400
Winner 3000

http://www.worldsnooker.com/site_files/ ... 20pack.pdf

a consistant Quarter finalist would get 13,500 out of the event.

personally i don't think he will change that the way its down on there if it will be a one year list he will be doing it on rolling ranking basis over 1 year.

To be honest I think the points are to high - here is why

A break down of the prize money –

Last 64 – £200
Last 32 – £600
Last 16 – £1000
QF – £1500
SF – £2500
RU – £5000
F – £10,000

(World snooker take a 2.5% levy from the prize money)

Now for the UK based events that’s great and it gives the lower ranked players some extra cash.

However, for the events abroad it is a different story. The players would have to reach the QF's just to cover costs (maybe make a slight profit). Now for the lower ranked players that cannot afford to travel abroad for these events, they will be massively disadvantaged in the rankings.

TBH for the 12 events, ranking points half of what’s on offer would be sufficient imo.

Also Monique had pointed out that these events would give the players a chance to relax and show a bit more of themselves (I liked that thought) however with the points on offer and having to win a few matches just to cover costs this might not be the case.

On the positive side, this will mean the players will take these events seriously, however I don’t think this outweighs the problem.

case_master wrote:To be honest I think the points are to high - here is why

A break down of the prize money –

Last 64 – £200
Last 32 – £600
Last 16 – £1000
QF – £1500
SF – £2500
RU – £5000
F – £10,000

(World snooker take a 2.5% levy from the prize money)

Now for the UK based events that’s great and it gives the lower ranked players some extra cash.

However, for the events abroad it is a different story. The players would have to reach the QF's just to cover costs (maybe make a slight profit). Now for the lower ranked players that cannot afford to travel abroad for these events, they will be massively disadvantaged in the rankings.

TBH for the 12 events, ranking points half of what’s on offer would be sufficient imo.

Also Monique had pointed out that these events would give the players a chance to relax and show a bit more of themselves (I liked that thought) however with the points on offer and having to win a few matches just to cover costs this might not be the case.

On the positive side, this will mean the players will take these events seriously, however I don’t think this outweighs the problem.

yes but if you are a player on the continent living or amataurs the cost of traveling to sheffield isnt there it swings in roundabouts and gives players a chance from other countries.

Dart players been going to las vegas for a first price of £6,000 snooker needs to build itself up this is the first step in that.

How many pros live on the continent?

I am fully behind Hearn in getting rid of the mediocre , really I am.

However take a player coming onto the tour for the first time, he will have to pay about £1000 to cover all costs of going to a PTC event abroad now for him to get to the last 32 would be a big achievement. He would have to win several matches and beat some very good players that have been on the tour for several years. So this would be well above a mediocre performance, yet he would only get £200 from it and face a big financial loss for someone just starting out.

What alternative does he have? If he does not go he will miss out on some valuable ranking points.

So why not lower the level of points taking the pressure of the less wealthy in terms of having to attend the foreign events.

OK i was wrong about £6,000 in Las Vegas it was £20,000 but very low for british players going to Las Vegas for Phil Taylor to win it.

but they been going to Canada for £5,000 http://www.dartsdatabase.co.uk/EventPri ... ntKey=1735 that tournament won by Dennis Priestley.

I am not against the prize money on offer, I am against the balance of ranking points and how some players might be priced out of going to these events and therefore miss out on valuable points.

case_master wrote:I am not against the prize money on offer, I am against the balance of ranking points and how some players might be priced out of going to these events and therefore miss out on valuable points.

ok if its a one year list i think its important to get that many points just to get balance and a proper ranking list but if it is a 2 year or rolling ranking list i agree with you

i would have liked to have seen a 3 way vote at the EGM

Hearn
Davison
Neither

i think some players actually wanted neither proposals amazingly and having davison come on board gave them a opportunity to hide behind his proposal yesterday.

Why would you wish for a system that may not have given us the right result after the event?

You have too much time on your hands sir


Edit - You've obviously misunderstood. The vote was for or against Hearn, Davison had nothing to do with it. Had Hearn been voted against, Davison would've probably downgraded his offer as Hearn would've walked and there was no one else with a proposition. Doyle and Ebdon back on the board, hey presto, a return to the wilderness years.

no think about it people who wanted davison or not change would have been split and hearn stil on 35 votes it would have been interested to see what percentage of that 29 actually voted davison.

yes but only hope of davison being involved was a no vote for hearn.