Barry Hearn open to shortening the Worlds

SnookerFan wrote:

Wild wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Wild wrote:ive tweeted Steve Davis to tell hearn hes a lying bucking runt if he changes a thing in the world and when ill get hold of eddie hearn bucking acount ill tell him the same bucking thing.

Way to make your point eloquently. It's not like they'll just assume you're a nutter and ignore you.

dont give a buck to be honest saying nothing and doing nothing wont do buck all will it only asume everyone hunkey doorey and giving them the green light to buck it up as they please..

Did I say that you should say or do nothing? I was just suggesting that tweet ;"buck You, Die You runt. I dislike short frame matches. bullocks. rubbish. I am going to kill you and twiddle over you. hammers", won't make them sit up and take notice of your point.

and i guess saying please mr hearn dont do it will do exactly what ???

SnookerFan wrote:

Wild wrote:and i guess saying please mr hearn dont do it will do exactly what ???

Depends on how you structure your argument, that's all I'm saying. If you rant and rave like a lunatic, that's how you will be treated. But go ahead, if you wish to be ignored.

id rather hammers knew what i thought of them for doing stupid things than not so if i want too call barry a bucking hammer that what ill do

Wild wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Wild wrote:and i guess saying please mr hearn dont do it will do exactly what ???

Depends on how you structure your argument, that's all I'm saying. If you rant and rave like a lunatic, that's how you will be treated. But go ahead, if you wish to be ignored.

id rather big cats knew what i thought of them for doing stupid things than not so if i want too call barry a little kittens playing with each other having fun big cat that what ill do

And he'll ignore you.

You ever heard of the term 'vicious cycle' wild ?

It would appear reading the interview that Barry is very happy to shorten the events; and use the BBC as an excuse to do it. There is no suggestion from the media market that shortened matches are the reason behind the largely decent houses at the Barbican; if that's the case then move it back to Telford and see whether we have the packed out crowds there ;)

And IMO it leaves a bad impression that there are plenty of Matchroom events being promoted at this time (UK, Mosconi and Players Championship Finals) but Barry doesn't go to any of them.

PLtheRef wrote:It would appear reading the interview that Barry is very happy to shorten the events; and use the BBC as an excuse to do it. There is no suggestion from the media market that shortened matches are the reason behind the largely decent houses at the Barbican; if that's the case then move it back to Telford and see whether we have the packed out crowds there ;)

And IMO it leaves a bad impression that there are plenty of Matchroom events being promoted at this time (UK, Mosconi and Players Championship Finals) but Barry doesn't go to any of them.

hes got better things to do than sit and watch the sports events he controls

a token gesture of attending them to prove he cares

or pro-actively seeking to improve them instead.

i know what id rather take.

Anyway talking of the BBC etc and tv money, id love to see the WS accounts to see the split of income from TV, sponsors, paying punters etc as the figures dont add up at the moment to be honest.

Witz78 wrote:

PLtheRef wrote:It would appear reading the interview that Barry is very happy to shorten the events; and use the BBC as an excuse to do it. There is no suggestion from the media market that shortened matches are the reason behind the largely decent houses at the Barbican; if that's the case then move it back to Telford and see whether we have the packed out crowds there ;)

And IMO it leaves a bad impression that there are plenty of Matchroom events being promoted at this time (UK, Mosconi and Players Championship Finals) but Barry doesn't go to any of them.

hes got better things to do than sit and watch the sports events he controls

a token gesture of attending them to prove he cares

or pro-actively seeking to improve them instead.

i know what id rather take.

Anyway talking of the BBC etc and tv money, id love to see the WS accounts to see the split of income from TV, sponsors, paying punters etc as the figures dont add up at the moment to be honest.

THE KEY WORD IS IMPROVE

Shortening stuff doesent do that its just percieved that what people want when theres no actual proof of it.

It amuses me to see the same people worshipping BH about the PTCs, going mad at him about this.
Both are equally bad and the financial pressure put on the lower ranked players by the current PTC hectic organisation and poor reward impacts them, and their families, much harder than shortening formats.
It's time people realise that the guy is there to make money, nothing else. If he has to crush human beings in the process, or sell the sport cheap, he will not hesitate to do so.
I have no doubt that snooker needs to change and that some of BH inititiatives will be beneficial in the long term. Not all of them though and displaying no consideration for the players who are his most valuable asset is certainly not a good move.
The publicity around "see we shortened the format and we got the crowds" is either stupid or utterly dishonest. It's the move to York that did it. The publicity around "We doubled the price money" is simply totally dishonest. Yes, he did. But he multiplied the events nearly by 5, the travel costs exploded and were put on the players while before they were covered to an extend by WSA. So basically they work a lot more for significantly less.

Well lets hope the World's are left alone. I can see the Masters changing with 3 matches per day and the tournament cut to say 4 days play.

Casey wrote:Well lets hope the World's are left alone. I can see the Masters changing with 3 matches per day and the tournament cut to say 4 days play.

Why do you want the Masters shortened? I'd like it made best of 13 matches through and certainly NOT shorter. It's the best invitational on the calendar and if anything we don't need more rankers, we need more invitationals, like we had in the 90th.

Mon,
More invitationals = less time and money for other events for the bulk of players. In other words the elite get an even bigger slice of the pie. What do you want?
We already have Masters, Prem League, Sky Shootout, Power Snooker, Wuxi, Championship League, Brazil, World Cup that are invitational to some extent. Id sooner see more rankers instead tbh. Anyway Hearns against the elites protection and priveledges so the playing field is soon gonna be far more fairer and level to all.
Also, cant u and half the fans and silly players see the bigger picture, the fuse has been lit with the PTCs, the game is about to explode

Witz I'm all for the flat 128 structure, so I'm not a protectionist of the top players. That would render the rankings rather unimportant - hence the blackmail factor would disappear - and actually allow the players to better manage their season. And then also the events with poor reward/quality will disappear because the players will not attend them...
The reason I want more invitational events is because those are the events where players can express themselves better and build bonds with the public. It's very important for the type of sport snooker is. There aren't lees characters in the game now than there was in the 80th, quite the opposite IMO but they don't have the opportunities to express themselves.
It's you who don't see the bigger picture witz. You can't build an international sport with only a handful of exponents making a good living out of it. It just does NOT work that way. There is no need to grow the game at the current pace.
Each time I say this I'm accused of wanting to go back to 6 events a year. That's stupid. Of course I don't want that. But I'd rather have 15 quality events, 10 ranking and 5 invitational than 30 ones poorly organised and poorly rewarded. I'd rather have the game to grow in the proven markets for now - Europe mainly - and expand later when resources increase because the money starts to come in rather than put the players under unsustainable financial pressure. Because if they go, the sport is dead.

May I remind you that in the early 90th the most we ever had was 10 ranking events and that only happened 2 or 3 times in all? Yet the perception then was that the calendar was full, and indeed it was.

Monique wrote:It amuses me to see the same people worshipping BH about the PTCs, going mad at him about this.
Both are equally bad and the financial pressure put on the lower ranked players by the current PTC hectic organisation and poor reward impacts them, and their families, much harder than shortening formats.
It's time people realise that the guy is there to make money, nothing else. If he has to crush human beings in the process, or sell the sport cheap, he will not hesitate to do so.
I have no doubt that snooker needs to change and that some of BH inititiatives will be beneficial in the long term. Not all of them though and displaying no consideration for the players who are his most valuable asset is certainly not a good move.
The publicity around "see we shortened the format and we got the crowds" is either stupid or utterly dishonest. It's the move to York that did it. The publicity around "We doubled the price money" is simply totally dishonest. Yes, he did. But he multiplied the events nearly by 5, the travel costs exploded and were put on the players while before they were covered to an extend by WSA. So basically they work a lot more for significantly less.

Mon

Totally Different Thing i Agree with The PTC 110% I Dont Regarding Shortening The World Championship im not Anti Hearn im Anti Stupid Decitions.

10 rankers in the 90s was not a FULL calendar.
And big deal if that was the most there ever was in a season, hardly as if theres an unwritten rule that says we must not exceed that figure of 10 just incase the sport maybe becomes bigger....
The current calendar is a pale imitation of what the tour Hearn and i envisage it will become.
Last time i checked a calendar there were 52 weeks in a year so bar a few snooker free weeks for eating turkey, trip to benidorm, changing nappies...etc i see no reason why we wont eventually have wall to wall coverage with one ranker starting as another one ends. The players aint seen nothing yet if they think there overworked.
But as u say, the new 128 qualifying system will give options to players with regards to managing their schedule and priorities so everyones a winner!

Ultimately i see a calendar like this.
WEEK 1
Monday
Qualifiers ranker 1, last 128, 32 matches
Tuesday
Qualifiers ranker 1, last 128, 32 matches
Wednesday
Qualifiers ranker 1, last 64, 32 matches
Thursday
Qualifiers ranker 2, last 128, 32 matches
Friday
Qualifiers ranker 2, last 128, 32 matches
Saturday
Qualifiers ranker 2, last 64, 32 matches
WEEK 2
Ranker 1
WEEK 3
Ranker 2
WEEK 4
Qualifying for rankers 3 and 4
WEEK 5
Ranker 3
WEEK 6
Ranker 4
and so on etc etc
So a block qualifying week, win a match to make the last 64 and you get prize money, simple, same opportunity for all.
You might not qualify for either ranker so you have a fortnight off, if you qualify for one ranker then you still get at very least 1 week off out of 3, and if you qualify for both, then you have a busy 2 weeks ahead of you in the tournaments but if thats a problem or inconvenience, then you shouldnt be a snooker pro so jack the game in and go flip burgers instead.

Invitationals only in new locations with the main thought being future ranking events if the invitational goes well. We don't want a season full of invitationals, they are meaningless. Ranking events is where it's at and that will always be the case.

Sonny wrote:Invitationals only in new locations with the main thought being future ranking events if the invitational goes well. We don't want a season full of invitationals, they are meaningless. Ranking events is where it's at and that will always be the case.

Current Invitationals

Masters
Wuxi Classic
Brazilian Masters
Shootout
Prem League
Power Snooker
World Cup

Thats a Pretty Full invitational Callender as it is.

Talking of invitationals Sonny did i see u saying something on twitter the other day about going to the Shootout

Tut tut Wild, dont forget your fave invitational.... direct from CRONDON PARK

Witz78 wrote:Tut tut Wild, dont forget your fave invitational.... direct from CRONDON PARK

Yea, that one needs scrapped.

Witz78 wrote:Talking of invitationals Sonny did i see u saying something on twitter the other day about going to the Shootout

Yeah bullocks!

Casey wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Tut tut Wild, dont forget your fave invitational.... direct from CRONDON PARK

Yea, that one needs scrapped.

yea and Sprad some PTC in to thoes Dates

Witz there are 52 weeks in the year. Most people work 5 days a week, have about 4 to 5 weeks holidays, plus Xmas, Easter, the other odd public holiday, don't work in evenings, don't work at week-ends and don't need to travel. How many days do they actually work? In legal terms in Belgium 220 days/year 8h/day (including 4 weeks paid hols) in a full time job.
Not to mention that a snooker player who does not have time to practice will soon spiral down the rankings. That takes time and playing in matches is not the same thing at all. They need the drill. The top players have also quite a bit of promo work to do. 15 events in the year is quite a full calendar, whatever you think. Wild always drivels about how Hendry was always on the road going to one event to the other ... well, he was, with 15 events in the year.

Snooker 52 years a week will only work if players can pick an chose and none of them in their right mind will enter everything, or even half of it.

If we end up with a 52 week a year calendar then the standard will drop. No two ways about it.

Wild wrote:

Sonny wrote:Invitationals only in new locations with the main thought being future ranking events if the invitational goes well. We don't want a season full of invitationals, they are meaningless. Ranking events is where it's at and that will always be the case.

Current Invitationals

Masters
Wuxi Classic
Brazilian Masters
Shootout
Prem League
Power Snooker
World Cup

Thats a Pretty Full invitational Callender as it is.

Wuxi Classic will be ranking next season.
Power Snooker and Shoot-out are shows, not proper events.

What I'm talking about are events like the Scottish and Irish Masters (for all but 3 instances). Those events had their function which was twofold: bring live snooker in places where there was no other event, like the PL does as well, at a lower cost than a ranker because there is no need for qualifs, and allow the players to express themselves and build bonds with the audience, which is important for the sport promotion.

Tell u what am gonna do, after these last 2 ptcs im gonna take a varied demograph of players across the tour and calculate how many days they have actually 'worked' during 2011. I will take it a step further by working out their earnings for 2011 to then work out what there 'daily wage' has been.
As for practice, the bulk of players would sooner have proper match practice with a chance to earn than weeks on end down the club between events. Put it this way, if i have to work id rather get paid than not get paid, so i defy you to name me any player who would rather practice for zilch than play with the chance to earn some dosh.

Is this going to withdraw the entry fees that all players are obliged to pay if they want to be involved in the first place?

Witz78 wrote:Tell u what am gonna do, after these last 2 ptcs im gonna take a varied demograph of players across the tour and calculate how many days they have actually 'worked' during 2011. I will take it a step further by working out their earnings for 2011 to then work out what there 'daily wage' has been.

well your january is sorted

I dont buy this 'players express themselves at non-rankers' waffle. Ultimately the guys are there to play snooker, win matches and earn money.
I doubt a player turns up to an event then goes 'oh yeh, just remembered this isnt a ranker, i must crack some jokes with the crowd and pull some silly faces too'
By your logic u must love the PTCs then cos with there being little prize money at stake, the players have no excuse for not showing their characters there.
At the end of the day, if a players a 'character' then hes like that at all times, take Judd and Allen in the 2nd biggest game of the season, who were having banter, joking about and playing exhibition style snooker.

Wild wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Tell u what am gonna do, after these last 2 ptcs im gonna take a varied demograph of players across the tour and calculate how many days they have actually 'worked' during 2011. I will take it a step further by working out their earnings for 2011 to then work out what there 'daily wage' has been.

well your january is sorted

Yes that will be an interesting exercise Witz. And please add the days of practice as well... because it IS work. Ask Ben for instance how many days/week, hours/day he spends on that ... You will be surprised by the result.