Your Snooker Christmas Wish List

To have Dennis Taylor stop perving on the player's wives. No wonder that guy needs such big glasses, hey. We all know what he's been doing.

wildJONESEYE wrote:

gallantrabbit wrote:

gallantrabbit wrote:A top snooker event in Brazil!! Ah f@ck me there is one!!
Anyone coming??

Takes me 15 mins to get to the venue

when was the last time you could get to a venue ?

It was the masters 2009 while over in London...too long for sure. Am over in the UK in March, will see what's on.

Witz - Hann on tour and Burnett off???? Both off. Hann would never get back on with Hearn around.

Oh and another thing Santa...?
On the strength of the popularity of the Brazil Masters, Brazilian Paul Mount (Paulo) sets up a 20 table club dwon the road from my office. Result..Gallant makes another century after xxxx years and his office closes...

gallantrabbit wrote:Witz - Hann on tour and Burnett off???? Both off. Hann would never get back on with Hearn around.

witz wants hann reinstated

question is why ?

my theary is if Hann is reinstated then Higgins did nothing wrong i guess

gallantrabbit wrote:Witz - Hann on tour and Burnett off???? Both off. Hann would never get back on with Hearn around.

Hann has plyed his trade in Hearns Matchroom Sport pool events in the US since his ban from snooker

wildJONESEYE wrote:

gallantrabbit wrote:Witz - Hann on tour and Burnett off???? Both off. Hann would never get back on with Hearn around.

witz wants hann reinstated

question is why ?

my theary is if Hann is reinstated then Higgins did nothing wrong i guess

its simple

Hann did the same offence as Higgins

so if Higgins punishment is only 6 months then Hann is long overdue a return to tour, scrap his unjust 8 year ban, hes already served over half of it

You have said that Higgins 6 months was unjust. Are you saying Hann should only have got 6 months?

Also don't forget that Hann retired. He now claims to be a millionaire living in Australia.

JR did it! wrote:You have said that Higgins 6 months was unjust. Are you saying Hann should only have got 8 months?

Also don't forget that Hann retired. He now claims to be a millionaire living in Australia.

no im saying if Higgins is only getting 6 months then so shoulda Hann so he should immediately be reinstated onto the tour

but if Hanns 8 year ban stands (which it does sadly) then Higgins for committing an identical offence, should have been given an identical punishment to prove the WPSBA are serious and also that theres no double standards.

Witz78 wrote:

JR did it! wrote:You have said that Higgins 6 months was unjust. Are you saying Hann should only have got 8 months?

Also don't forget that Hann retired. He now claims to be a millionaire living in Australia.

no im saying if Higgins is only getting 6 months then so shoulda Hann so he should immediately be reinstated onto the tour

but if Hanns 8 year ban stands (which it does sadly) then Higgins for committing an identical offence, should have been given an identical punishment to prove the WPSBA are serious and also that theres no double standards.

Can you explain just how you see the two incidents as being "Identical"?

Hann had the right to defend himself. His mum an he came straight out after the allegations and claimed he was innocent and they had proof, yet he put up no defense. He claimed he didn't want to pay for the defense because it was costly and there was no money on the tour

He could still appeal against his ban, try and get it reduced and enter the Q school.

For me it will be far more interesting to see what Maguire and Burnett get....if the rumours are true its only a matter of time.

eirebilly wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

JR did it! wrote:You have said that Higgins 6 months was unjust. Are you saying Hann should only have got 8 months?

Also don't forget that Hann retired. He now claims to be a millionaire living in Australia.

no im saying if Higgins is only getting 6 months then so shoulda Hann so he should immediately be reinstated onto the tour

but if Hanns 8 year ban stands (which it does sadly) then Higgins for committing an identical offence, should have been given an identical punishment to prove the WPSBA are serious and also that theres no double standards.

Can you explain just how you see the two incidents as being "Identical"?

both caught on camera in tabloid newspaper stings claiming to be willing to throw frames for money

Witz78 wrote:

JR did it! wrote:You have said that Higgins 6 months was unjust. Are you saying Hann should only have got 8 months?

Also don't forget that Hann retired. He now claims to be a millionaire living in Australia.

no im saying if Higgins is only getting 6 months then so shoulda Hann so he should immediately be reinstated onto the tour

but if Hanns 8 year ban stands (which it does sadly) then Higgins for committing an identical offence, should have been given an identical punishment to prove the WPSBA are serious and also that theres no double standards.

so in a way what hann did will be forgiven by you then so you dont want Higgins banned for life.

if i was in your shoes and your beliefs id be saying thank god they got rid of one cheating scum and not wanting a cheating scum reinstated

Witz78 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

JR did it! wrote:You have said that Higgins 6 months was unjust. Are you saying Hann should only have got 8 months?

Also don't forget that Hann retired. He now claims to be a millionaire living in Australia.

no im saying if Higgins is only getting 6 months then so shoulda Hann so he should immediately be reinstated onto the tour

but if Hanns 8 year ban stands (which it does sadly) then Higgins for committing an identical offence, should have been given an identical punishment to prove the WPSBA are serious and also that theres no double standards.

Can you explain just how you see the two incidents as being "Identical"?

both caught on camera in tabloid newspaper stings claiming to be willing to throw frames for money

Why ?

Higgins pleaded innocent. Hann admitted guilt. Thats a pretty big difference in my books.

Anyway Witz, I am not going to get into this.

For christmas, i would like to hear of a a snooker event coming to Zeewolde Holland next year

wildJONESEYE wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

JR did it! wrote:You have said that Higgins 6 months was unjust. Are you saying Hann should only have got 8 months?

Also don't forget that Hann retired. He now claims to be a millionaire living in Australia.

no im saying if Higgins is only getting 6 months then so shoulda Hann so he should immediately be reinstated onto the tour

but if Hanns 8 year ban stands (which it does sadly) then Higgins for committing an identical offence, should have been given an identical punishment to prove the WPSBA are serious and also that theres no double standards.

so in a way what hann did will be forgiven by you then so you dont want Higgins banned for life.

if i was in your shoes and your beliefs id be saying thank god they got rid of one cheating scum and not wanting a cheating scum reinstated

either they both get 6 month bans or they both get 8 year bans. No inconsistency is what i want

eirebilly wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Witz78 wrote:
no im saying if Higgins is only getting 6 months then so shoulda Hann so he should immediately be reinstated onto the tour

but if Hanns 8 year ban stands (which it does sadly) then Higgins for committing an identical offence, should have been given an identical punishment to prove the WPSBA are serious and also that theres no double standards.

Can you explain just how you see the two incidents as being "Identical"?

both caught on camera in tabloid newspaper stings claiming to be willing to throw frames for money

Why ?

Higgins pleaded innocent. Hann admitted guilt. Thats a pretty big difference in my books.

Hann didnt contest the charges, he claimed to be guilty but didnt mount a case as the evidence was damning. Maybe he shoulda plucked a "mafia" story from thin air too

Sorry Witz, i didnt know that you were there in the Hotel room and witnessed everything first hand and are therefor an authority on the incident.

I still cant see how you link the two incidents as identical when they are actually (legally) polls apart.

Thats my last word on the matter, i hope you have a good weekend

Witz... you know my views are quite similar to yours on this issue...

But the way you're going on about this, you'd swear you've never done anything out of the way your entire life? I hate to single you out, as there have been a few more absolutely begging for blood too.

TPtheirishstud wrote:Witz... you know my views are quite similar to yours on this issue...

But the way you're going on about this, you'd swear you've never done anything out of the way your entire life? I hate to single you out, as there have been a few more absolutely begging for blood too.

but i havent

i dont drink, i dont smoke, i only eat health foods and i dont even talk to girls

I think what is clear here is that Hann is still regarded highly by a lot of fans, almost cult like status and when you see the way the Scottish player was dealt with it smacks of inconsistency. The problem being that 2 different WS regimes were in charge at the time of the 2 incidents. That does not account for the massive inconsistency its just a mitigating factor.

Witz78 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

eirebilly wrote:
both caught on camera in tabloid newspaper stings claiming to be willing to throw frames for money

Why ?

Higgins pleaded innocent. Hann admitted guilt. Thats a pretty big difference in my books.

Hann didnt contest the charges, he claimed to be guilty but didnt mount a case as the evidence was damning. Maybe he shoulda plucked a "mafia" story from thin air too

no tribuneral can second guess a charge so if he didnt mount a case it was admitting guilt and received a lengthy ban.

What else could they do ban him for 6 months then alow him back to play without having the case tried.

Witz the òffences `are not the same. Of course Hann claimed his innocence but never gave an argument as to how he was innocent. And let`s not bring Maguire into this, otherwise Jimmy will be pulled up for being a part of the Fransisco scam in 95 Maguire had NOTHING to do with it. It would only take 2 to tango if Burnett had been on a 9-8 to lose. He`s a good player and good enough to win 3 frames over 17. Made three tons the other day FFS

gallantrabbit wrote:Witz the òffences `are not the same. Of course Hann claimed his innocence but never gave an argument as to how he was innocent. And let`s not bring Maguire into this, otherwise Jimmy will be pulled up for being a part of the Fransisco scam in 95 Maguire had NOTHING to do with it. It would only take 2 to tango if Burnett had been on a 9-8 to lose. He`s a good player and good enough to win 3 frames over 17. Made three tons the other day FFS

It's still not a guarantee. If you were going to fix it, you'd leave nothing to doubt. Surely.

gallantrabbit wrote:Witz the òffences `are not the same. Of course Hann claimed his innocence but never gave an argument as to how he was innocent. And let`s not bring Maguire into this, otherwise Jimmy will be pulled up for being a part of the Fransisco scam in 95 Maguire had NOTHING to do with it. It would only take 2 to tango if Burnett had been on a 9-8 to lose. He`s a good player and good enough to win 3 frames over 17. Made three tons the other day FFS

How can you be so certain that Burnett is guilty and Maguire innocent? They are both being investigated by the police and have both been referred to the fiscal procurator (which would indicate that there a elements worth further investigation concerning both of them) and until the judgement is out they are both presumably innocent. May I remind you once more that the charges are NOT about "trying to lose", they are about match fixing to allow a betting scam.

we dont really know anything about the Burnett case some of Scotland's finest are snake hissing against the wind getting nowhere fast.

but Regarding Hann and Higgins there are substantial differences in how they being punished because one stand his ground and the other snake hissed off like the coward he is.

Witz78 wrote:

TPtheirishstud wrote:Witz... you know my views are quite similar to yours on this issue...

But the way you're going on about this, you'd swear you've never done anything out of the way your entire life? I hate to single you out, as there have been a few more absolutely begging for blood too.

but i havent

i dont drink, i dont smoke, i only eat health foods and i dont even talk to girls

The last one I believe

wildJONESEYE wrote:we dont really know anything about the Burnett case some of Scotland's finest are snake hissing against the wind getting nowhere fast.

but Regarding Hann and Higgins there are substantial differences in how they being punished because one stand his ground and the other snake hissed off like the coward he is.

Its just like Ronnie and Alex getting different punishments.

Alex jabs Randle in the ribs in 1990 and gets a ban for a year
Ronnie nuts Ganley in the head in 1996 and gets a 20k fine.

Another inconsistency.

dont forget one thing Alex got the punishement on the back of other major incidents years before.

i do expect if Ronnie does anything like that again the punishment WILL be increasing

On just one match, to see Clive Everton commentate with Stephen Hendry.