ROS timeout

Wild WC wrote:Ranking Events NO Apearance Money end of from nobody

Take flat 128 system Ronnie gets his Dirty Money Loses before the TV Starts Filming

HOW DOES THAT WORK ??

i have no problem with apearance Money for Invitationals though.

I also don't agree with appearance money, because I think every player should be treated equally, whenever they're in the 1st spot of the rankings, or in 99th, there is no difference. BUT, if there is indeed appearance money for certain top players, like in Golf and Tennis for instance, then IF there is to be a prize money ranking list in the future, appearance money SHOULD NEVER count towards that list, only the money gained after beating your opponents in every round. Simple as that.

Andre147 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:Ranking Events NO Apearance Money end of from nobody

Take flat 128 system Ronnie gets his Dirty Money Loses before the TV Starts Filming

HOW DOES THAT WORK ??

i have no problem with apearance Money for Invitationals though.

I also don't agree with appearance money, because I think every player should be treated equally, whenever they're in the 1st spot of the rankings, or in 99th, there is no difference. BUT, if there is indeed appearance money for certain top players, like in Golf and Tennis for instance, then IF there is to be a prize money ranking list in the future, appearance money SHOULD NEVER count towards that list, only the money gained after beating your opponents in every round. Simple as that.

Currently There is infact apearance Money There

i reckon if Ronnie played every Tournament and Lose First Match without winning a frame this season hes on about £85,000 just for being in the top 16 BUT with Rolling rankings that guarantee is not there like it used to be..

Andre,

i think youve perfectly solved the mystery weve all wondered of how a money list should work in terms of players entering at later rounds and how there minimum money would work.

YOU ONLY HAVE MONEY COUNTING TOWARDS AN ORDER OF MERIT WHICH IS EARNED AFTER YOUVE WON A GAME so if you get 12k at the worlds as a seed but get knocked out in round 1, then you dont get a penny towards the order of merit.

as for the appearance money you mention, of course that would never count towards an order of merit. In that case if Steve Davis fancied being world number 1 again he could just hand a million quid to somebody and get them to give it back to him if he appears at an event haha

What other Sports include appearence money prize money? None that I can think off tho I don't mind being proved wrong.

Golf and tennis for starters - the two biggest individual sports

Golf doesn't, winnings only. FedEx Cup is Tour winnings for starters same as the Dubai chase, so that rules Golf out.
Not sure on Tennis without checking.

Well golf always used to. And I've heard people talking about tennis very recently. I'm not against the concept of appearance money. If sponsors want to entice the big names then that's up to them.

Just typed in "golf appearance money" into google and got this. It's 10 years ago but showed the sort of money Tiger could get for turning up back then

http://www.golftoday.co.uk/news/yeartod ... ods21.html

Ok so it seems appearance money isn't it official ranking events, only invitationals.

Sonny wrote:Golf and tennis for starters - the two biggest individual sports

think yous have got your wires crossed

yous are both right

neither sport includes appearance money in the prize money order of merit

BUT both sports or the sponsors namely, dish out silly money to get players to play their events

only this week Andy Murray signed a Million Pound deal to play at Queens Club for the next 4 years

This is from this year, explains it better

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/golf/16698125

And yes as obvious as the governing body never paying apprearance fees, it's obvious that appearance fees don't count towards official prize money lists.

We've already got Invitationals, the Masters, which will be interesting to see later in the season if those winnings are included. I asked that question when the rankings list was announced. I suppose no one will know until it happens?

World Snooker will probably wait to see what happens, then make the rules up as they go along.

Sonny wrote:World Snooker will probably wait to see what happens, then make the rules up as they go along.

yes it will be yet another cockerel up in the making id imagine

my main criticism of the Hearn era would that he promised to usher in an era of "transparency" but its been one long riddle and confusion from the WS PR team since he took over with follow up statements continually required to clarify confusion which need never arose, had they explained things properly to start with.

Fair play to Hearn but he's gone so fast, I'm wondering why he thinned out the staff at World Snooker when he first got in because it's becoming apparent more staff are needed. I don't think anyone is to blame, but what comes across as farce in rules and scenarios not thought through relating to ranking points, cut offs, prize money lists, visas, taxes etc etc all probably comes down to not enough people to run the ever expanding shop. As a consequence, a lot of things come across as slap dash leaving people in the lurch as to what the rules really are and what's really going on.

Anyway, sidetracking. I'm still taking Dave H's word for it but apparently Janie has some information about appearance money and one of the OnQ players not being allowed to accept some last season. It still doesn't make Ronnie's actions acceptable, he's still a prima donna and should sign the contract and not use the honour of being World Champion to prove a point. That's not being a good ambassador for the sport.

i think its farcial if the players arent allowed to accept appearance money from sponsors to be honest.

WS trying to prove a point but there shooting themselves in the foot by adopting that stance (and im not just talking about it from the perspective of Ronnie and his actions)

On your last point, no its not. It's who's in his ear. The game could get very political again tho I hope not.
On your first point, I'd say he's bringing a lot of the work in house into his Matchroom Sport team, with his son Eddie becoming more & more influential.
That's only my thoughts.

John From London Town wrote:On your last point, no its not. It's who's in his ear. The game could get very political again tho I hope not.
On your first point, I'd say he's bringing a lot of the work in house into his Matchroom Sport team, with his son Eddie becoming more & more influential.
That's only my thoughts.

Ronald Kocher likes this

Witz78 wrote:Ronald Kocher likes this

You're a boyo you.

Sonny wrote:Fair play to Hearn but he's gone so fast, I'm wondering why he thinned out the staff at World Snooker when he first got in because it's becoming apparent more staff are needed. I don't think anyone is to blame, but what comes across as farce in rules and scenarios not thought through relating to ranking points, cut offs, prize money lists, visas, taxes etc etc all probably comes down to not enough people to run the ever expanding shop. As a consequence, a lot of things come across as slap dash leaving people in the lurch as to what the rules really are and what's really going on.

Anyway, sidetracking. I'm still taking Dave H's word for it but apparently Janie has some information about appearance money and one of the OnQ players not being allowed to accept some last season. It still doesn't make Ronnie's actions acceptable, he's still a prima donna and should sign the contract and not use the honour of being World Champion to prove a point. That's not being a good ambassador for the sport.

I have no information whatsoever about an On Q Player. There has been no incident relating to an On Q player.

Ronnie O'Sullivan = Money hussy.

Witz78 wrote:

Sonny wrote:World Snooker will probably wait to see what happens, then make the rules up as they go along.

yes it will be yet another cockerel up in the making id imagine

my main criticism of the Hearn era would that he promised to usher in an era of "transparency" but its been one long riddle and confusion from the WS PR team since he took over with follow up statements continually required to clarify confusion which need never arose, had they explained things properly to start with.

cant Blame Hearn

he took over a sport that had inadequate Admin Team in place that got complacement with only a handfull of events and clearly cant cope with the increased work load that they make Basic ERRORS .

ok as monique pointed out he has streamlined the operations but even then the mistakes thats being mae is kids stuff.

Dont Forget Hearn is in charge of The Promotional and Comercial side of the Sport The WPBSA is still Run in the same sort of Way with Fundimential PLAYERS Running it.

weewelshwitch wrote:

Sonny wrote:Fair play to Hearn but he's gone so fast, I'm wondering why he thinned out the staff at World Snooker when he first got in because it's becoming apparent more staff are needed. I don't think anyone is to blame, but what comes across as farce in rules and scenarios not thought through relating to ranking points, cut offs, prize money lists, visas, taxes etc etc all probably comes down to not enough people to run the ever expanding shop. As a consequence, a lot of things come across as slap dash leaving people in the lurch as to what the rules really are and what's really going on.

Anyway, sidetracking. I'm still taking Dave H's word for it but apparently Janie has some information about appearance money and one of the OnQ players not being allowed to accept some last season. It still doesn't make Ronnie's actions acceptable, he's still a prima donna and should sign the contract and not use the honour of being World Champion to prove a point. That's not being a good ambassador for the sport.

I have no information whatsoever about an On Q Player. There has been no incident relating to an On Q player.

I was misinformed or got the wrong end of the stick then, sorry Janie.

Well I asked him and Dave H has again reiterated that sponsors have every right to pay appearance fees.

Sonny wrote:Well I asked him and Dave H has again reiterated that sponsors have every right to pay appearance fees.

and that should not be the case in Ranking Events and Never Heard of it being the case in Snooker but then again greed never used to be a motivator for players imagine if Alex Higgins was money oriantated in his 80s prime he would have put in massive demands to play.

Why not? No reason not to allow it.

Sonny wrote:Well I asked him and Dave H has again reiterated that sponsors have every right to pay appearance fees.

Well there you go.

I don't care if SPONSORS want to pay appearance money, it happens in tennis all the time. However nobody can expect World snooker to pay fees.

Wild WC wrote:

Sonny wrote:Well I asked him and Dave H has again reiterated that sponsors have every right to pay appearance fees.

and that should not be the case in Ranking Events and Never Heard of it being the case in Snooker but then again greed never used to be a motivator for players imagine if Alex Higgins was money oriantated in his 80s prime he would have put in massive demands to play.

not a problem at all as far as im concerned whether its Ronnie, Selby or even Higgins the sponsors want to entice to their event.

WS being arrogant here and trying to flex their muscles for no reason. Cutting their nose to spite their face id say.

WS being arrogant and trying to flex their muscles? How so?

Sonny wrote:Why not? No reason not to allow it.

That makes players Bigger than the Sport and its wrong id rather see players like Ronnie never play the sport again than give him dirty money just to play as a pro along with every other player in the bread and butter of the sport ie Ranking Events.

First thing - nobody knows if World snooker are blocking sponsors paying players prize money - if this is the case then it's wrong.

We should wait and see, however nothing has changed as we all knew Ronnie wasn't going to play the first 6 months. It will get interesting again around the time of the Uk - to see if he has entered.