ROS timeout

Monique wrote:Wild you are bang out of order. Go and have a beer, a walk, whatever and come back when calmed down.
You really can't accept that you don't know everything do you? Or that you are wrong about things at times? Sarah is a players manager and the Mount team is quite efficient and respected. They have read and studied the contract, you have never even seen it. She knows what she's talking about, you don't.

Sonny wrote:Well then why are Grove being so provocative with it all? Why not just say "Ronnie is taking a break and will sign the players contract before the next event he chooses to enter?"

The reason some of us are making an issue about this is because it blatantly comes across as two fingers at Hearn and saying "So what are you going to do about it?"

If it was any other player, guaranteed the way the information has come out would have been different, more rational, more logical.

Casey wrote:What Ronnie wants to do in his break is his business, he is doing the right thing by not entering the tournaments rather than entering and pulling out.

Again, what difference does it make to fans if he doesn't sign it?

Alpha wrote:I don't see why everyone's acting as though this is the end of the world. Ronnie O'Sullivan is a 36 year old man. For snooker to really establish itself, it needs to stop living in the past.
Snooker needs to move past Hendry, Davis, White, Higgins and O'Sullivan. The future of snooker is Jamie Jones, Judd Trump, Luca Brecel.
Ticket sales for Wuxi, Australia and the PL are not dependent on one man who wants to sit at home crying about signing a contract who will probably come crawling back around Shanghai time.
Neither is the future of snooker.

Sickpotter wrote:

Casey wrote:What Ronnie wants to do in his break is his business, he is doing the right thing by not entering the tournaments rather than entering and pulling out.

Again, what difference does it make to fans if he doesn't sign it?

As a fan I think these actions do damage to the tour because there is a negative impact on the game. That makes it an issue for all fans of the sport.

IMO as a player you commit to the season and the responsibilities of being a pro or you don't. Being a professional snooker player is not a part-time job and shouldn't be approached as such.

What happens to the season if half the top 16 decides they don't feel like signing for 6 months?

IMO no player should be allowed to avoid the responsibilities laid down in the contract or be able to pick and choose when to start honouring those responsibilities.

If a player decides they don't like the responsibilities stipulated for the first half of the season they should not be allowed to just wait and then sign the contract once said responsibilities have passed.

You are a pro or you are not.

Think of it from a sponsors point of view.

Sponsor: "How about the World #1? Will he be here for the tournament?"

Hearn: "I can't say, the player hasn't signed their contract at this time."

Sponsor: "Will he sign it in time?"

Hearn: "No idea, we have no player signature deadline"

Sponsor: "So you want to sell me advertising at an event 6 months down the road but can't tell me if the World #1 will attend or even possibly attend? I think I'll take my money elsewhere where players take their profession seriously"

Casey wrote:

Sickpotter wrote:

Casey wrote:What Ronnie wants to do in his break is his business, he is doing the right thing by not entering the tournaments rather than entering and pulling out.

Again, what difference does it make to fans if he doesn't sign it?

As a fan I think these actions do damage to the tour because there is a negative impact on the game. That makes it an issue for all fans of the sport.

IMO as a player you commit to the season and the responsibilities of being a pro or you don't. Being a professional snooker player is not a part-time job and shouldn't be approached as such.

What happens to the season if half the top 16 decides they don't feel like signing for 6 months?

IMO no player should be allowed to avoid the responsibilities laid down in the contract or be able to pick and choose when to start honouring those responsibilities.

If a player decides they don't like the responsibilities stipulated for the first half of the season they should not be allowed to just wait and then sign the contract once said responsibilities have passed.

You are a pro or you are not.

Think of it from a sponsors point of view.

Sponsor: "How about the World #1? Will he be here for the tournament?"

Hearn: "I can't say, the player hasn't signed their contract at this time."

Sponsor: "Will he sign it in time?"

Hearn: "No idea, we have no player signature deadline"

Sponsor: "So you want to sell me advertising at an event 6 months down the road but can't tell me if the World #1 will attend or even possibly attend? I think I'll take my money elsewhere where players take their profession seriously"

Sponsors won't know who is in their events until the entry deadline has passed - so Ronnie could sign the contract a couple of days before the tournament deadline and then enter the tournaments.

Sponsors know he is taking a break from snooker for at least 6 months - he has pulled out of the PL, so it's clear he won't play before December. I don't think the signing of a contract is a real big issue.

Skullman wrote:You have to be joking. Looking at this statement from Jason Ferguson, Ronnie just wants more money

Ferguson's Statement

A quote: 'It is the WPBSA's duty to ensure that all of the players are treated equally and therefore it is our belief that all players should sign the same contract. We do not believe it would be in the interest of the membership as a whole if one player was allowed a different contract which could give that player additional appearance money.'

KEEPING UP APPEARANCES
WPBSA chairman Jason Ferguson today issued the following statement in response to Ronnie O’Sullivan’s decision not to sign his players’ contract:

"Following yesterday’s news about Ronnie O’Sullivan, I’d like to clarify the WPBSA's position in relation to the official players' contract and end the misconception that players are being ‘forced’ into playing certain events.

“The contract is there to protect the players’ income derived from the tour, and the sport as a whole. Once players have signed the contract they are free to choose which events they wish to play in.

“The contract was sent to the players by World Snooker following an extensive consultation process with the WPBSA in which we engaged our lawyers. It is the WPBSA's duty to ensure that all of the players are treated equally and therefore it is our belief that all players should sign the same contract.

“We do not believe it would be in the interest of the membership as a whole if one player was allowed a different contract which could give that player additional appearance money.

“The World Snooker Tour is expanding rapidly and consistently on a global basis and it is set to grow further. We are looking for the support of the players as a whole in order to assist this growth.

“Ronnie O’Sullivan of course is free to sign the contract at any time during the season which would make him eligible to play in World Snooker events, but it is important to note that signing the players' contract does not in itself compel any player to enter any World Snooker tournaments.”

Ferguson seems to be suggesting that O’Sullivan wanted appearance money on top of prize money to play a full season. World Snooker sources have told me the same thing, although I'm sure there are other issues with the contract which trouble the world champion.

There was a meeting yesterday between Barry Hearn and O’Sullivan’s manager in which the contract was discussed but Hearn is adamant no player should be paid appearance money by the game’s governing body.

He is right. It would set a terrible precedent. The money is there to run the tour and pay prize money.

However, if individual sponsors and tournament organisers want to pay appearance money then they have every right.

So the Chinese snooker authorities are within their rights to offer O’Sullivan – or anyone else – additional money to play in their events.

This happens with the big names in golf and tennis. It’s one of the perks of being a top player.

One of the downsides is that you get people in your ear telling you that you’re worth more money or should be treated differently to everyone else.

I think O’Sullivan probably is worth appearance money for the amount of people he brings to the game – but not from World Snooker.

I also don’t think this dispute is entirely about money, but it would be naïve not to believe that it has been a factor.

Witz78 wrote:of course going along with what Monique says, when the money is offered by the promoters or sponsors to attract a player to take part, then its a different scenario and i dont think the WSA should take such a hard stance. Ultimately there scoring an own goal to an extent.

Ronnie got 25k to take part in Power Snooker which got Robbo and others backs up, but if anything the inequality appearance money would create in the game is no different to other sports, and if anything should motivate other players to either want to beat the guy earning appearance money or inspire them to reach such a status, that they themselves are deemed worthy of appearance money.

Sonny wrote:But in Hendon's article he says there's nothing stopping the sponsors from paying appearance money and it's one of the perks of being a top player, particularly the World Champion. There's no way in hell World Snooker should foot the bill for appearance money though! That's too obvious to even debate. But if sponsors want to guarantee for example Ronnie then there's nothing stopping them from paying extra for the name, unless Dave H has missed something.

Sonny wrote:Anyway Witz where did you get the £25G appearance money for Power Snooker from because I heard a different figure? Again Power Snooker needed Ronnie especially after he won the initial event, and I believe he didn't want to go to the second one so needed enticing. But the Power Snooker was World Snooker sanctioned which proves World Snooker aren't averse to sanctioning exhibition events featuring a lot of top players being paid big money.

What will be interesting is the tracking of Ronnie during his time out to see what he plays in and how much money he makes from it.

Dave Hendon wrote:However, if individual sponsors and tournament organisers want to pay appearance money then they have every right.

Sonny wrote:

Dave Hendon wrote:However, if individual sponsors and tournament organisers want to pay appearance money then they have every right.

This does suggest he's pretty nailed on it's ok.