What do people want from Snooker ?

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:Last 64 of PTC x12 is £2,400 its £200 for last 64 although thats 200 euros in europe.

aye i know, i deleted the 1200 quid in entry fees off it straight away though

i see

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:

Casey wrote:Is it different to any work life dynamics?

You have people at the bottom of the ladder, minimum wage earners; you have those in the middle who earn a decent living and then those at the top. Not only do those at the top earn a bucket load but they get lots of perks etc.

This is no different to the snooker tour.

Good Point although at the Moment Players dont get a penny without reaching the last 64 in a tournament.

for example if you reached the last 64 last season in all ranking events (incl. PTCs)

Shanghai - £1,500
World Open - £2,500
UK Champs - £2,300
German Masters - no prizemoney
Welsh Open - £1,250
China Open - £1,500
World Champs - £4,600
12 PTCS - £1,200 (after £1,200 entry fee deducted)

so that would be a total of £14,850 earned before tax and expenses, though a player may have won 26 matches. Not a great deal and thats really best case scenario a tour newcomer could prob hope to achieve, so spare a thought for most of the other tour newcomers.

They pay entry fees for each tournament... so it's even less. And if you consider that they have to pay their travel and accommodations for all the PTCs in Europe, you do the maths. They would probably earn more working at Tesco, without the uncertainties, without the hundreds of hours of practice (that costs too). And don't tell me they have a lot of time for themselves: that's not true. Ask the young pros how many hours they spend in practice.
Start being realistic. Outside the top 32 it's dire. And even the top boys get a pittance as compared to other sports. Can you seriously build a global sport with no more than 30 people earning a decent living out of it? Will that be attractive to young people? Will it convince the parents it's worth supporting their kids into this?

Monique wrote:

Witz78 wrote:

Wild wrote:

Casey wrote:Is it different to any work life dynamics?

You have people at the bottom of the ladder, minimum wage earners; you have those in the middle who earn a decent living and then those at the top. Not only do those at the top earn a bucket load but they get lots of perks etc.

This is no different to the snooker tour.

Good Point although at the Moment Players dont get a penny without reaching the last 64 in a tournament.

for example if you reached the last 64 last season in all ranking events (incl. PTCs)

Shanghai - £1,500
World Open - £2,500
UK Champs - £2,300
German Masters - no prizemoney
Welsh Open - £1,250
China Open - £1,500
World Champs - £4,600
12 PTCS - £1,200 (after £1,200 entry fee deducted)

so that would be a total of £14,850 earned before tax and expenses, though a player may have won 26 matches. Not a great deal and thats really best case scenario a tour newcomer could prob hope to achieve, so spare a thought for most of the other tour newcomers.

They pay entry fees for each tournament... so it's even less. And if you consider that they have to pay their travel and accommodations for all the PTCs in Europe, you do the maths. They would probably earn more working at Tesco, without the uncertainties, without the hundreds of hours of practice (that costs too). And don't tell me they have a lot of time for themselves: that's not true. Ask the young pros how many hours they spend in practice.
Start being realistic. Outside the top 32 it's dire. And even the top boys get a pittance as compared to other sports. Can you seriously build a global sport with no more than 30 people earning a decent living out of it? Will that be attractive to young people? Will it convince the parents it's worth supporting their kids into this?

ok can i ask you a question.

we all know the problems lets have some answers to the problam.

WSA is not a bottomless pit the money isnt there so the only way i can see it working is if we take money from the top players and give it down the bottom.

PTC For instance

Winner=£7,500=£7,500
Runner up=£4,100=£4,100
Semi Finalists=£1600=£3,200
Quarter Finalists=£1200=£4,800
Last 16=£1000=£8,000
Last 32=£600=£9,600
Last 64=£200=£6,400
Last 128= £100=£6,400

Total £50,000

then amataurs that reach the last 128 gets their cash back but there will be less for winners.

or maybe get rid of 6 PTC

Winner=£15,000=£15,000
Runner up=£8,200=£8,200
Semi Finalists=£3,200=£6,400
Quarter Finalists=£2,400=£9,600
Last 16=£2,000=£16,000
Last 32=£1,200=£19,200
Last 64=£400=£12,800
Last 128= £200=£12,800

=£100,000

but then thats less playing opertunities for players

something got to give you just cant throw money at it theres no money printing machine.

i wonder whether thered be scope for saying ok theres 6 million prize money per year so .........

each pro gets a £20,000 supplemtary sum at the start of the season so thats 20k x 96, we'll call it £2million quid gone. Its then up to them to budget their season accordingly, whilst obviously chasing prize money as often as they can.

after this the £4million is prizes and prizes dont start to the last 48 in events but a flatter qualifying system like German Masters is used.

if theres approx 330k per a bogstandard normal ranker then the prize fund would be like this

winner - £50,000 x 1 = £50,000
runner up - £35,000 x 1 = £35,000
semi - £22,500 x 2 = £45,000
quarters - £10,000 x 4 = £40,000
round 2 - £7,000 x 8 = £56,000
round 1 - £4,000 x 16 = £64,000
last 48 - £2,500 x 16 = £40,000
last 64 - nothing
last 96 - nothing

this way the guys ranked 33-96 have to win 2 games to earn money, but at least this qualifying format means that 1/4 of them will win something at every event at least on top of their 20k starter money, plus to be honest this 2 million out of the initial prize budget for the season doesnt affect the prize money at the event for the bigger names really, as due to only 48 players being paid instead of 64.

Wild wrote:or maybe get rid of 6 PTC

Winner=£15,000=£15,000
Runner up=£8,200=£8,200
Semi Finalists=£3,200=£6,400
Quarter Finalists=£2,400=£9,600
Last 16=£2,000=£16,000
Last 32=£1,200=£19,200
Last 64=£400=£12,800
Last 128= £200=£12,800

=£100,000

but then thats less playing opertunities for players

something got to give you just cant throw money at it theres no money printing machine.

You finally see the light .... the solution is indeed to expand at a slightly slower pace, have less tournaments, but with more resources for the ones that are staged, so that the quality of the venues is better, the promotion is better funded and the prize money, specially in the early rounds is increased.
No way I want to go back to 6 tournaments per season. But with say 6 PTCs, no Brazil and Indian Masters, it's still a pretty full calendar but it's more sustainable. Organise the World Open (or whatever we want to name it) in Scotland instead of China and that's some more costs cut and a snooker presence in a nation that has provided so many great players. Currently Scotland has no tournament at all.
Then, next season, if the resources are there, they could go for Brazil and/or India. With better preparation, well chosen dates - if you don't rush things and plan well in advance you have more choices, more time to find sponsors - a proper venue in a major city with good connections etc.

Witz78 wrote:i wonder whether thered be scope for saying ok theres 6 million prize money per year so .........

each pro gets a £20,000 supplemtary sum at the start of the season so thats 20k x 96, we'll call it £2million quid gone. Its then up to them to budget their season accordingly, whilst obviously chasing prize money as often as they can.

after this the £4million is prizes and prizes dont start to the last 48 in events but a flatter qualifying system like German Masters is used.

if theres approx 330k per a bogstandard normal ranker then the prize fund would be like this

winner - £50,000 x 1 = £50,000
runner up - £35,000 x 1 = £35,000
semi - £22,500 x 2 = £45,000
quarters - £10,000 x 4 = £40,000
round 2 - £7,000 x 8 = £56,000
round 1 - £4,000 x 16 = £64,000
last 48 - £2,500 x 16 = £40,000
last 64 - nothing
last 96 - nothing

this way the guys ranked 33-96 have to win 2 games to earn money, but at least this qualifying format means that 1/4 of them will win something at every event at least on top of their 20k starter money, plus to be honest this 2 million out of the initial prize budget for the season doesnt affect the prize money at the event for the bigger names really, as due to only 48 players being paid instead of 64.

you just know what will happen then top guys wont like they having less to subsidise players that cant win a match against equal level players down the bottom and walking away with £20k

Monique wrote:

Wild wrote:or maybe get rid of 6 PTC

Winner=£15,000=£15,000
Runner up=£8,200=£8,200
Semi Finalists=£3,200=£6,400
Quarter Finalists=£2,400=£9,600
Last 16=£2,000=£16,000
Last 32=£1,200=£19,200
Last 64=£400=£12,800
Last 128= £200=£12,800

=£100,000

but then thats less playing opertunities for players

something got to give you just cant throw money at it theres no money printing machine.

You finally see the light .... the solution is indeed to expand at a slightly slower pace, have less tournaments, but with more resources for the ones that are staged, so that the quality of the venues is better, the promotion is better funded and the prize money, specially in the early rounds is increased.
No way I want to go back to 6 tournaments per season. But with say 6 PTCs, no Brazil and Indian Masters, it's still a pretty full calendar but it's more sustainable. Organise the World Open (or whatever we want to name it) in Scotland instead of China and that's some more costs cut and a snooker presence in a nation that has provided so many great players. Currently Scotland has no tournament at all.
Then, next season, if the resources are there, they could go for Brazil and/or India. With better preparation, well chosen dates - if you don't rush things and plan well in advance you have more choices, more time to find sponsors - a proper venue in a major city with good connections etc.

i havent really seen the light lol

im just thinking out loud....i dont know what the answer is when you look at ben harrison on twitter he is genunly looking forward to all 12 PTC would he be happy playing 6 less im not to sure and quite possibly with only 6 events it will cost £200 to enter and more amataurs per event.

I know that Ben is looking forward to them, but Ben is fortunate to have a good sponsor. That's not the case for many amateurs. Look at Eden Sharav who could not enter PTCs 2,3 and 4 because his sponsor wouldn't support him.
I don't think that entry fees would be increased with less tournaments. Why would that be?

i can see the pros and cons of Wilds 6 PTCs

PROS
-it would free up more of the calendar for other proper ranking tournaments / players time to see their families
-it would be twice as much prize money per event but with half the expenses
-plus those losing in last 128 would now be reimbured

CONS
- half the playing opportunties
- unless the ranking points doubled per PTC then it would make it all the harder for newcomers to make an impact with half the PTC gone

It really would have to be the Sheffield PTCs wiped off the calendar first though, ultimately this will happen im sure.

In an ideal world a few years down the line i see a main tour of 18 full rankers with qualifying taking place the week before these and hopefully a one year fully rolling ranking system in place.

My ranking tournament calendar would be something like this in terms of countries.

England (3)
UK Championship - York
World Championship - Sheffield
A.N. Other - Blackpool / London

Scotland (1)[b/]
Scottish Open

[b]Wales (1)
Welsh Open

Northern Ireland (1)
Northern Ireland Trophy

Eire (1)
Irish Open

China (3)
China Open
Shanghai Masters
Wuxi Classic

Thailand (1)
Thailand Open

Australia (1)
Australian Open

Germany (1)
German Masters

Belgium (1)
Belgium Open

America (3)
USA Classic
Canadian Open
Brazil Masters

European Open (1)
rotated annually around the likes of Malta, Poland, Russia

with the calendar set up like this and with qualifying between them then invariably the non top 32 would get a week off at least during the tournament and the top 16 would get a week off during qualifiers plus more however early they were knocked out of events, so thered be no excuses not to go to all the events.

and as for North America, if Brazil is a feasible target market for snooker, then English speaking Canada and the USA are total priorities too IMO

Monique wrote:I know that Ben is looking forward to them, but Ben is fortunate to have a good sponsor. That's not the case for many amateurs. Look at Eden Sharav who could not enter PTCs 2,3 and 4 because his sponsor wouldn't support him.
I don't think that entry fees would be increased with less tournaments. Why would that be?

yeh that was a real blow, espec given that he made the quarters of PTC1 and was in pole position to qualify onto the main tour as an amateur. By not playing these 3 hes set himself back a bit and heres hoping the money he earned from PTC1 gets reinvested back into the last 8 PTC entries plus hopefully this performance and exposure has drafted in some more sponsorship for him.

Witz78 wrote:i can see the pros and cons of Wilds 6 PTCs

PROS
-it would free up more of the calendar for other proper ranking tournaments / players time to see their families
-it would be twice as much prize money per event but with half the expenses
-plus those losing in last 128 would now be reimbured

CONS
- half the playing opportunties
- unless the ranking points doubled per PTC then it would make it all the harder for newcomers to make an impact with half the PTC gone

It really would have to be the Sheffield PTCs wiped off the calendar first though, ultimately this will happen im sure.

In an ideal world a few years down the line i see a main tour of 18 full rankers with qualifying taking place the week before these and hopefully a one year fully rolling ranking system in place.

My ranking tournament calendar would be something like this in terms of countries.

England (3)
UK Championship - York
World Championship - Sheffield
A.N. Other - Blackpool / London

Scotland (1)[b/]
Scottish Open

[b]Wales (1)
Welsh Open

Northern Ireland (1)
Northern Ireland Trophy

Eire (1)
Irish Open

China (3)
China Open
Shanghai Masters
Wuxi Classic

Thailand (1)
Thailand Open

Australia (1)
Australian Open

Germany (1)
German Masters

Belgium (1)
Belgium Open

America (3)
USA Classic
Canadian Open
Brazil Masters

European Open (1)
rotated annually around the likes of Malta, Poland, Russia

with the calendar set up like this and with qualifying between them then invariably the non top 32 would get a week off at least during the tournament and the top 16 would get a week off during qualifiers plus more however early they were knocked out of events, so thered be no excuses not to go to all the events.

and as for North America, if Brazil is a feasible target market for snooker, then English speaking Canada and the USA are total priorities too IMO

That's not feasible. If the qualifiers finish on a Thursday night, the ones who qualify have almost no time to book travels and accommodations, meaning they will pay the highest price. It also means that you can't have back to back tournaments in order to minimize travels and jetlag.
Look in the 90th the MOST ranking tournaments over a season was 10. There is absolutely no need for more if you add to that 6 PTCs, the Masters, the World Cup and a few invitationals as it was the case back then. Invitationals have their merits, they are particularly suitable to promote the game to new fans as they allow for a bit more exhibition stuff, interaction and banter.
The top players usually DID play in them. The massive turn down of the Brazil Masters is caused in part by the very low prize money on offer, once expenses are taken into account, unfortunate timing (on the back of Shanghai and with a similar time difference, only the other way around and with 2 PTCs to follow) and not very promising venue (posh hol resort ... and it's winter there)

6 less PTC = 6 weeks

looks like there will be 9 rankers this season with 6 weeks you could get another main rankers to make it 10

Main Rankers 10
PTC 6+ PTC Finals

= 17 Ranking points events

Each PTC Carries £100,000 price fund but spread down to last 128 so that the 32 amataurs that reaches the last 128 gets their Entre Fee Back and every pro gets minimum £200 if they turn up.

Winner=£15,000=£15,000
Runner up=£8,200=£8,200
Semi Finalists=£3,200=£6,400
Quarter Finalists=£2,400=£9,600
Last 16=£2,000=£16,000
Last 32=£1,200=£19,200
Last 64=£400=£12,800
Last 128= £200=£12,800

=£100,000

and in Rankers follow the German Open Module so that players has only one match to reach the last 64 stage.

im not neceserally saying that what id do but thats one idea.

so, a tour of 10 rankers, 6 PTCs and a few invitationals is enough for you. Well thats pretty much what we have now except with 9 rankers and 12 PTCs so well actually be cutting the tour back a bit under your plans Monique.

Sorry, but big deal if thats what the tour was like in the 90s.

this is 2011, snooker stalled for too long with this backward attitude, especially from the players doesnt get the sport anywhere. Weve stalled whilst golf and tennis have went on in leaps and bounds since then.

Its hardly complicated the travel arrangement. WSA book up 16 seats on a plane well in advance for the 16 qualifiers at a cheaper rate (with a fee paid for confirming the names at the last minute ) then the qualifiers who qualify then simply get their cue, bag packed and passport and get ready to head to the tournament,

anyway thered be 5 full rankers on mainland UK, 2 on Ireland and 3 in Europe so travel issues not really a concern there.

On the one hand you moan that theres not enough money for players to make a living and that the sport will never be big globally, but then you say your happy with the number of events. Im confused.

u better move my last post from Brazil too then......

Witz78 wrote:so, a tour of 10 rankers, 6 PTCs and a few invitationals is enough for you. Well thats pretty much what we have now except with 9 rankers and 12 PTCs so well actually be cutting the tour back a bit under your plans Monique.

Sorry, but big deal if thats what the tour was like in the 90s.

this is 2011, snooker stalled for too long with this backward attitude, especially from the players doesnt get the sport anywhere. Weve stalled whilst golf and tennis have went on in leaps and bounds since then.

Its hardly complicated the travel arrangement. WSA book up 16 seats on a plane well in advance for the 16 qualifiers at a cheaper rate (with a fee paid for confirming the names at the last minute ) then the qualifiers who qualify then simply get their cue, bag packed and passport and get ready to head to the tournament,

anyway thered be 5 full rankers on mainland UK, 2 on Ireland and 3 in Europe so travel issues not really a concern there.

On the one hand you moan that theres not enough money for players to make a living and that the sport will never be big globally, but then you say your happy with the number of events. Im confused.

no im not saying that ....

im trying to see how it would work the finances of players its obvious the bone of contension is paying for hotel rooms and flights.

Witz78 wrote:so, a tour of 10 rankers, 6 PTCs and a few invitationals is enough for you. Well thats pretty much what we have now except with 9 rankers and 12 PTCs so well actually be cutting the tour back a bit under your plans Monique.

Sorry, but big deal if thats what the tour was like in the 90s.

this is 2011, snooker stalled for too long with this backward attitude, especially from the players doesnt get the sport anywhere. Weve stalled whilst golf and tennis have went on in leaps and bounds since then.

Its hardly complicated the travel arrangement. WSA book up 16 seats on a plane well in advance for the 16 qualifiers at a cheaper rate (with a fee paid for confirming the names at the last minute ) then the qualifiers who qualify then simply get their cue, bag packed and passport and get ready to head to the tournament,

anyway thered be 5 full rankers on mainland UK, 2 on Ireland and 3 in Europe so travel issues not really a concern there.

On the one hand you moan that theres not enough money for players to make a living and that the sport will never be big globally, but then you say your happy with the number of events. Im confused.

Witz it's pretty simple. There is a limited amount of money. You spread it over ten tournaments ... you get a prize money of X on average per tournie. You spread it over 20 you get X/2 per tournie... at first glance. BUT the expenses - and that's supported both by the players (travel, accomodations) and WSA (venues, tables, fitters, refs and qualifs for the rankers) are doubling also, even more than doubling if you add mainly "abroad" tournies. So in the end it costs more to WSA and players get less prize money available while facing more expenses. Got it? It's no rocket science...
We live in a society where "money" is often associated with prestige. By making prize money lower, the perception of snooker as a sport is devaluated also, which then impact it's sponsoring.
There is a balance to be found so that there is an enough busy calendar without selling the sport cheap.

It goes without saying all tournaments held need to be making money or projected to make money within a certain time frame. If each individual tournament is profitable then the opportunity for more tournaments is greater.

In a few years I can see a separate feeder tour like in tennis were by the lower ranked players play on that to progress up the ladder earning prize money along the way. Maybe Bourne can explain more on how this works for tennis?

GJ the only reason you write this tits is to wind people up like me. As I've said before Brazil was a test market, but before they moved it to Floripa it was a goer.
Listen carefully. They are trying to create a new market in a country Hearn himself and Davis visited 25 years ago. Of course I'm sure you know all the answers, but it had a chance of success. Now a lot of the top boys have turned it down I'm not so sure, but your constant slagging will go nowhere.
Back in yer box silly boy.

Was watching tennis last night, Roddick v some German fellow. The German was ranked around 35 in the world and has won over 500k in dollars this year. Of course snooker won't get to this level, but in any sport do you need middle rankers earning fortunes? Wouldn't really want the number 5o in snooker winning 150k. Wouldn't they rest on their laurels?

id like to see a change regarding tour spots aswell so that the PTC Becomes a true route for the best amataur talent

The Current Qualifying Route on to Tour at the moment is.

Top 64
8 PTC Order of Merit Main Tour/Amataur Players
12 Q School
and
IBSF World Champion
IBSF WU21 Champion
Europe 2
Asia 3
England 1
Scotland 1
N Ireland 1
Wales 1
Rep of Ireland 1
4 Wild Cards

lets open the PTC Up so it is a genuine Route for Amataurs with Ambition

Top 64
12 Q School
8 PTC Order of Merit Main Tour Players
10 PTC Order of Merit Amataurs
IBSF World Champion
IBSF WU21 Champion
4 Wild Cards

PRIZE MONEY COMPARISON

SNOOKER WORLD CHAMPION V TENNIS WIMBLEDON WINNER V BRITISH OPEN GOLF WINNER V DARTS CHAMPION

This makes alarming reading, i will comment on this shortly.


1980
Snooker - £15,000 (60% of golf prize, 75% of tennis, 333% of darts prize)
Golf - £25,000
Tennis - £20,000
Darts - £4,500

1985
Snooker - £60,000 (300% increase on 1980) (92% of golf, 46% of tennis, 600% of darts)
Golf - £65,000 (160% increase on 1980)
Tennis - £130,000 (550% increase on 1980)
Darts - £10,000 (122% increase on 1980)

1990
Snooker - £120,000 (100% increase on 1985) (141% of golf, 52% of tennis, 500% of darts)
Golf - £85,000 (31% increase on 1985)
Tennis - £230,000 (77% increase on 1985)
Darts - £24,000 (240% increase on 1985)

1995
Snooker - £190,000 (58% increase on 1990) (152% of golf, 52% of tennis, 559% of darts)
Golf - £125,000 (47% increase on 1990)
Tennis - £365,000 (59% increase on 1990)
Darts - £34,000 (48% increase on 1990)

2000
Snooker - £240,000 (26% increase on 1995) (48% of golf, 50% of tennis, 545% of darts)
Golf - £500,000 (300% increase on 1995)
Tennis - £477,500 (31% increase on 1995)
Darts - £44,000 (29% increase on 1995)

2005
Snooker - £250,000 (4% increase on 2000) (35% of golf, 40% of tennis, 417% of darts)
Golf - £720,000 (44% increase on 2000)
Tennis - £630,000 (33% increase on 2000)
Darts - £60,000 (36% increase on 2000)

2011
Snooker - £250,000 (0% increase on 2005) (28% of golf, 23% of tennis, 125% of darts)
Golf - £900,000 (25% increase on 2005)
Tennis - £1,100,000 (76% increase on 2005)
Darts - £200,000 (233% increase on 2005)

gallantrabbit wrote:Was watching tennis last night, Roddick v some German fellow. The German was ranked around 35 in the world and has won over 500k in dollars this year. Of course snooker won't get to this level, but in any sport do you need middle rankers earning fortunes? Wouldn't really want the number 5o in snooker winning 150k. Wouldn't they rest on their laurels?

yes but rank 35 in tennis is pretty dam high out of a 1000 pros how much does no 835 earn ?

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:so, a tour of 10 rankers, 6 PTCs and a few invitationals is enough for you. Well thats pretty much what we have now except with 9 rankers and 12 PTCs so well actually be cutting the tour back a bit under your plans Monique.

Sorry, but big deal if thats what the tour was like in the 90s.

this is 2011, snooker stalled for too long with this backward attitude, especially from the players doesnt get the sport anywhere. Weve stalled whilst golf and tennis have went on in leaps and bounds since then.

Its hardly complicated the travel arrangement. WSA book up 16 seats on a plane well in advance for the 16 qualifiers at a cheaper rate (with a fee paid for confirming the names at the last minute ) then the qualifiers who qualify then simply get their cue, bag packed and passport and get ready to head to the tournament,

anyway thered be 5 full rankers on mainland UK, 2 on Ireland and 3 in Europe so travel issues not really a concern there.

On the one hand you moan that theres not enough money for players to make a living and that the sport will never be big globally, but then you say your happy with the number of events. Im confused.

no im not saying that ....

im trying to see how it would work the finances of players its obvious the bone of contension is paying for hotel rooms and flights.

it was in reply to Monique

Wow - Golf prize money really rocketed after 95 - anybody know what lead to such an increase? Tiger Woods?

Monique wrote:

Witz78 wrote:so, a tour of 10 rankers, 6 PTCs and a few invitationals is enough for you. Well thats pretty much what we have now except with 9 rankers and 12 PTCs so well actually be cutting the tour back a bit under your plans Monique.

Sorry, but big deal if thats what the tour was like in the 90s.

this is 2011, snooker stalled for too long with this backward attitude, especially from the players doesnt get the sport anywhere. Weve stalled whilst golf and tennis have went on in leaps and bounds since then.

Its hardly complicated the travel arrangement. WSA book up 16 seats on a plane well in advance for the 16 qualifiers at a cheaper rate (with a fee paid for confirming the names at the last minute ) then the qualifiers who qualify then simply get their cue, bag packed and passport and get ready to head to the tournament,

anyway thered be 5 full rankers on mainland UK, 2 on Ireland and 3 in Europe so travel issues not really a concern there.

On the one hand you moan that theres not enough money for players to make a living and that the sport will never be big globally, but then you say your happy with the number of events. Im confused.

Witz it's pretty simple. There is a limited amount of money. You spread it over ten tournaments ... you get a prize money of X on average per tournie. You spread it over 20 you get X/2 per tournie... at first glance. BUT the expenses - and that's supported both by the players (travel, accomodations) and WSA (venues, tables, fitters, refs and qualifs for the rankers) are doubling also, even more than doubling if you add mainly "abroad" tournies. So in the end it costs more to WSA and players get less prize money available while facing more expenses. Got it? It's no rocket science...
We live in a society where "money" is often associated with prestige. By making prize money lower, the perception of snooker as a sport is devaluated also, which then impact it's sponsoring.
There is a balance to be found so that there is an enough busy calendar without selling the sport cheap.

where do we stop though, why not just have a 6million quid world championship so the players only have the expenses of 1 tournament per year then they can play happy families, be international playbois, walk around art galleries in Vienna or play exhibitions matches for the other 50 weeks of the year.

Casey wrote:Wow - Golf prize money really rocketed after 95 - anybody know what lead to such an increase? Tiger Woods?

well if thats the case just look how much money snooker is missing out on by having our very own tiger missing from a lot of events.

Witz78 wrote:PRIZE MONEY COMPARISON

SNOOKER WORLD CHAMPION V TENNIS WIMBLEDON WINNER V BRITISH OPEN GOLF WINNER V DARTS CHAMPION

This makes alarming reading, i will comment on this shortly.


1980
Snooker - £15,000 (60% of golf prize, 75% of tennis, 333% of darts prize)
Golf - £25,000
Tennis - £20,000
Darts - £4,500

1985
Snooker - £60,000 (300% increase on 1980) (92% of golf, 46% of tennis, 600% of darts)
Golf - £65,000 (160% increase on 1980)
Tennis - £130,000 (550% increase on 1980)
Darts - £10,000 (122% increase on 1980)

1990
Snooker - £120,000 (100% increase on 1985) (141% of golf, 52% of tennis, 500% of darts)
Golf - £85,000 (31% increase on 1985)
Tennis - £230,000 (77% increase on 1985)
Darts - £24,000 (240% increase on 1985)

1995
Snooker - £190,000 (58% increase on 1990) (152% of golf, 52% of tennis, 559% of darts)
Golf - £125,000 (47% increase on 1990)
Tennis - £365,000 (59% increase on 1990)
Darts - £34,000 (48% increase on 1990)

2000
Snooker - £240,000 (26% increase on 1995) (48% of golf, 50% of tennis, 545% of darts)
Golf - £500,000 (300% increase on 1995)
Tennis - £477,500 (31% increase on 1995)
Darts - £44,000 (29% increase on 1995)

2005
Snooker - £250,000 (4% increase on 2000) (35% of golf, 40% of tennis, 417% of darts)
Golf - £720,000 (44% increase on 2000)
Tennis - £630,000 (33% increase on 2000)
Darts - £60,000 (36% increase on 2000)

2011
Snooker - £250,000 (0% increase on 2005) (28% of golf, 23% of tennis, 125% of darts)
Golf - £900,000 (25% increase on 2005)
Tennis - £1,100,000 (76% increase on 2005)
Darts - £200,000 (233% increase on 2005)

In summary then snooker has stalled badly whilst these other similar single player sports have all progressed with obvious peaks and trends developing.

Darts was included in the comparison mainly to show how its closed the gap suddenly on snooker under Hearn and how snooker under Hearn could see a similar boost now hopefully.

If we mainly compare snooker with tennis and golf, then here goes.

1980 - all 3 sports at similar levels
1985 - Tennis jumps to double level of golf and snooker who have both improved greatly.
1990 - Snooker top prize now bigger than golf, tennis continues to expand
1995 - Snookers peak arguably prize wise and greater increase than golf prize since '90. Tennis rise continues
2000 - Snooker prize rising still, albeit at a slower rate, but in the space of 5 years golf has had a £325,000 swing (pardon the pun) compared to snooker, also moving ahead of tennis. Tiger Woods effect?
2005 - tobacco sponsorship about to end which snooker relies on so no change whilst golf and tennis show significant growth again
2011 - despite new sponsors snooker prize money has stalled for the best part of 10-15 years now whereas golf and tennis have rocketed towards and beyond the million pound mark. And now darts is hot on the heels of snooker too, after years of being miles back.

It just appears snooker rested on its laurels in the late 90s, especially with the inevitable tobacco ban coming round. The era Monique talks about so fondly in the 90s when there was 10 rankers is the era when snooker should have moved towards 20+ rankers and it would have been the ideal time with a total new generation of young players taking over the game. Im sure the sport could have moved on at a similar pace of growth to tennis and golf, albeit probably not quite at their level. 500k top prize should have easily been achievable.

Basically we could have done with Hearn in 1990, not 2011. Snookers stalled for 20 years and not capitalised on the momentum it had in the 80s and it remains to be seen whether it can pick up and make an attempt to grow properly to a level where it belongs.

Wild wrote:

Casey wrote:Wow - Golf prize money really rocketed after 95 - anybody know what lead to such an increase? Tiger Woods?

well if thats the case just look how much money snooker is missing out on by having our very own tiger missing from a lot of events.

what an insult to the cheata

he is seen as one of not the best sportsman in the world

ronald will never be in that category

Witz78 wrote:
Basically we could have done with Hearn in 1990, not 2011. Snookers stalled for 20 years and not capitalised on the momentum it had in the 80s and it remains to be seen whether it can pick up and make an attempt to grow properly to a level where it belongs.

spot on it snake hissed me off that hearn more or less turned his back on snooker to persue other intrests like Boxing in early 1990s because he felt he wasent getting the suport he craved from players..

i wanted him to stick around then and fight but he did not and virtually walked away.