Just a rant.....

So, logistically and financially speaking how do you get all these players to the same locality as the main event. I presume your including all the foreign ones too. Who pays for that?.

Do not get me wrong, I am all for opening the tour to every man and his dog but its impossible to achieve, especially now that the calendar is full(ish). There would still have to be a qualifying down to a last 32..
And Witz mate, there's no self preservation regarding Graeme. He is broadly in favour of a flatter draw, with some obvious reservations.

snooky147 wrote:So, logistically and financially speaking how do you get all these players to the same locality as the main event. I presume your including all the foreign ones too. Who pays for that?.

Do not get me wrong, I am all for opening the tour to every man and his dog but its impossible to achieve, especially now that the calendar is full(ish). There would still have to be a qualifying down to a last 32..
And Witz mate, there's no self preservation regarding Graeme. He is broadly in favour of a flatter draw, with some obvious reservations.

Is this supposed to be a serious contribution? You are aware, "snooky147" that golf and tennis hold events with 100+ players week in, week out, every weekend? In fact, they usually hold 2 or 3 high profile events simultaneously, in various parts of the world, EVERY weekend. Tennis even hold qualifying events immediately before to reduce (yes, REDUCE) the field to 128 or lower. Are you suggesting, with a straight face, that an indoor sport played on an 8 sq. metre playing field cannot accommodate more than 32 players at an event? Seriously?

I don't know Graeme Dott, but I know enough of him to know that he despises what is said about snooker in internet forums, yet here are you, his self proclaimed "pal" , with your outpourings of hostility towards anyone who makes constructive criticisms of the sport, and your ignorance ("all the foreign ones".......Jesus Christ that says it all......the Chinese, Thai, Maltese, Australian, Belgian etc all currently have to get themselves to "the foreign ones" in the bloody UK!)......I'm not sure your mate Graeme would approve snooky.

And you say MY idea is nonsensical? (walks away shaking head in utter disbelief)

Whoa there buddy, I'm not in the least hostile towards anyone. If I was you would know it. Logistically the WSA cannot handle what they have already without messing things up. I also know very very well that Graeme is not at all keen on internet forums and when I see the casual way players get ripped to shreds at times I cant blame him. Oh and by the way, I am not his self proclaimed pal. I am his self proclaimed uncle and anything I say is MY OWN OPINION and I make that clear occasionally as I am aware of Graeme's dislike of forums. I only post in reference to Graeme if I have already talked to him about whatever is being discussed. So, without being hostile where do they get (both the WSA and the PLAYERS) the finances to go to different countries to qualify?. It's a reasonable question.
I know very well that it should be possible but both Golf and Tennis are rolling in money compared to the WSA and The players.

Some good points Jim, however Golf and tennis can get the best possible staff in to run their sport - Admin, Logistics etc.

World Snooker are on a budget - their turnover is only £9.6 - they can't afford the best staff - It's £50k for an average Controller, £70k for an average HR Director - project managers - logistics Managers - good ones name their price.

Snooky- I stand by the hostility statement, your posts have a tone of "I-know-a-pro-so-I'm-right" coming out from all angles. Your laughable 2nd sentence confirms the "hostility" notion emphatically.

Where do the funds come from? I'm no accountant, nor do I know the various steps that the WSA need to put in place, but I'd suggest a good promotions team to seek sponsorship and outside funding, not just for prize funds, but for putting the building blocks in place towards a global tour. That would be a start, then I'd have a logistics team and a players advisory set up in place.

All this COULD have been in place, but instead cash was used to stage unpopular tournaments (I don't just mean Australia & Brazil either....that World Cup was farcical yet had a large prize fund). Without trying to sound TOO much like Monique, snooker is trying to "run before it can walk" and that's why everything is a mess.

So my idea is idealistic rather than immediately implementable, but I still stand by all of it. WSA should be aspiring to be of the same organisational structure that Tennis and Golf has, and it IS manageable. But you are right snooky in saying that the current WS line up (who can barely manage to post a readable document onto its website) are not up to it.

As for the players? If the Chinese are expected to uproot to Sheffield to achieve their dreams, then the best UK players will FIND the cash to do the same if qualifying takes place in Asia. You know the current qualifying system is unfair, and you know the current WSA doesn't have the balls to implement localised qualifying....but maybe soon the Chinese will do it for them and start their own tour. And if the money's there, the UK guys (who want a piece of it) will be there too.

JIMO96 wrote:Snooky- I stand by the hostility statement, your posts have a tone of "I-know-a-pro-so-I'm-right" coming out from all angles. Your laughable 2nd sentence confirms the "hostility" notion emphatically.

Where do the funds come from? I'm no accountant, nor do I know the various steps that the WSA need to put in place, but I'd suggest a good promotions team to seek sponsorship and outside funding, not just for prize funds, but for putting the building blocks in place towards a global tour. That would be a start, then I'd have a logistics team and a players advisory set up in place.

All this COULD have been in place, but instead cash was used to stage unpopular tournaments (I don't just mean Australia & Brazil either....that World Cup was farcical yet had a large prize fund). Without trying to sound TOO much like Monique, snooker is trying to "run before it can walk" and that's why everything is a mess.

So my idea is idealistic rather than immediately implementable, but I still stand by all of it. WSA should be aspiring to be of the same organisational structure that Tennis and Golf has, and it IS manageable. But you are right snooky in saying that the current WS line up (who can barely manage to post a readable document onto its website) are not up to it.

As for the players? If the Chinese are expected to uproot to Sheffield to achieve their dreams, then the best UK players will FIND the cash to do the same if qualifying takes place in Asia. You know the current qualifying system is unfair, and you know the current WSA doesn't have the balls to implement localised qualifying....but maybe soon the Chinese will do it for them and start their own tour. And if the money's there, the UK guys (who want a piece of it) will be there too.

My second sentence was aimed at the casual way players are ripped to shreds on a personal level. I will defend any posters right to rip ANY player to shreds on his/her performance. I am also okay with people hating/not liking a player, god knows I hate a few but I cringe at some of the insults and comments I see on some players, even ones I hate. Also, I might "know" a player but I don't pretend to know it all. As a person who had a good working knowledge of the game I have lost touch because the last tournament I was at was the 2004 WC Final. Illness then and now took over so I cant travel anymore(no sympathy honest). I talk to and see Graeme on a regular basis but I essentially do what all you lot do and thats trawl the net and read. I am not against what your saying but the reason I found it non sensical is that you and I both know it WILL NEVER HAPPEN. The qualifying system is unfair I totally agree but again there are those on here that just dismiss the so called journeymen out of hand. They, like everyone fought for the ranking they have and deserve a bit more respect so if my "attitude" in posting is hostile, it's not meant to be.
Lastly, at the risk of wild's wrath I do TOTALLY agree that Hearn is running before he can walk.

Isn't it funny how replies to posts are appearing at half time & full time in the football?

Snooky- I know you don't want sympathy but I'm sorry that the illness you referred to has restricted your enjoyment of the game, but it's obvious you love the sport, and I hope your condition doesn't worsen or further spoil your enjoyment of snooker.

OK so nonsensical was the wrong word to use for my post, and perhaps "hostile" was the wrong choice for me.

I agree that the sport is in a transitional mess, and I hope it emerges from it in a fit state to at least aspire to be like golf and tennis. I won't lose hope that it'll never happen, because I love snooker and will always be optimistic that things CAN change for the good. Anyone who reads my posts could recite all of my issues with the game.....negativity rewarded, cluttered qualifying system, too British....etc, and maybe I come across as hostile in some of my opinions. In fact, I know I do, especially towards 2 players in particular.

Those 2 aside though, there's only a handful of "negative" (in my opinion) players who annoy the hell out of me, and I'm guilty of chucking the "deadwood" label around.....hope I haven't made you cringe too much lol. For me the most exciting time in the sport was when it opened up in the early 90s.....and the WPBSA went back on that decision because it was a logistical headache they were unprepared for. But I genuinely believe it could be easily managed these days.....the PTCs are open, and there hasn't been one with 300 entries yet, so that's the level of entry the WSA can expect.

I wish WS would have the balls to just trial a ranking event, in China, with the qualifying a week before....in China, and see what the response is. Perhaps next weekends APTC is the first step towards that (is Graeme playing?). If that event pulls in under 100 entries, I'll hold my hand up and say I was wrong, but I'm sure Barry Hearn is hoping for China to prove it's a snooker boom area and respond with several hundred entries, and I have a sneaky feeling he'll get that.

I dont know if Graeme is playing the chinese atp. Mainly because Im not sure on the flights he finally decided on and he is on a break at the moment. If he phones ill ask him. We were talking about a month ago though and he said it would make sense if they had a ptc while they were over there but it would need to be fairly close to the main venue and not miles and miles away. Sorry for the poor grammar. Typing on a tablet.

Ahhh the nineties. Blackpool was my second home with all the matches he had to play.

Seems like everyone feels ready for a rant - me too! Irritated by late decisions on who qualifies for the Tour (the stopping of places for UK national governing body rankings leaders - right decision wrong timing. The place for Oceania announced after entries for the Oceania Championship closed, so some players who might have entered had they known couldn't - right decision, wrong timing). And Q School Order of Merit? More than a suspicion they hadn't thought through properly how they were going to do it. And a place on the Tour for EBSA European Champion (rightly so) - but changes to the calendar look like they start behind everyone else, which just seems ... unfair.

I can understand everyone's level of frustration. Not so anti as others the so-called 'journeymen' - rather like it when one 'has his day' by breaking out of the ranks and having a good run in a tournament - but the points ARE too biased towards players further up the rankings, simply put the rewards for each extra win are not enough, and that really irks.

My great fear with the earnings based system that we're due to hear about (eventually) is that the reward for those further up will be even greater, and that we'll switch over to that but because of sponsor reluctance, fail to move to flat 128 draws, leastways not at the same time. Hope my fear is proven unfounded ...

Regarding where qualifying takes place, I think it is crazy that a far eastern player has to come to the UK to qualify for a far eastern tournament, but I don't believe snooker is a big enough sport monetarily to just expect all players to go to China (say) to qualify - with 128 draws, that's for half of them to lose their one and only match, probably for minimal reward. But why does qualifying have to be in one place? At least for the current transitional period, I would like to see qualifying split between a local venue and a UK venue, with players allowed to enter for whichever venue suits them. Not sure whether we're ready yet for the other way round (a venue/venues elsewhere for qualifying for UK or Worlds for instance) but I'd be happy to see that happen.

Know I've said this before, but just to say again, I'd like a system in place that prevents a player further down the rankings failing to move up because of constantly drawing top players. Quite simple to have a system in place that prevents a lower ranked player being drawn against a top ranked player in the first round twice running - simply draw who plays the top players first, and hold those who previously drew a top player in the first round out of the draw until that part of the draw is done.

I'm also a little concerned whether we're really ready for 128 players on tour, I'd have rather they kept it to 100 but allowed 28 players in via pre-qualifying tournaments for each ranking event (in the vicinity of where the tournament is to be played). I'd restrict this in some way rather than making it completely open - reaching a particular round in Q School (3rd?), IBSF World Championship last 32, last 16 in a continental championship, getting to a certain stage of PTC / APTC / EPTC events might be some of the ways of establishing that a player can compete at the required level to make them eligible.

Wuxi is 86 miles from the PTC venue.

Lol at the Blackpool days.....they were proper rankings back then! Loved Graemes story in his book about winning cash off a fellow player (can't remember who) in a running race around Blackpool. He didn't lie down to the big names either his first season.....to beat tough match players like Eugene Hughes, Peter Francisco (pre match fixing) and Steve Newbury showed his class early. He followed it up with latter stage wins against the likes of Neal Foulds & Joe Johnson.

Much better days, there were players you could actually support on a lengthy run back then....you only get that in the World Championship now, newcomers usually don't find their feet till April these days lol.

Call that a rant Roy? That's the politest rant I've EVER HEARD! You didn't even swear ONCE!

Good points though, I'm fearful too that broadcasters and sponsors will prevent the flat 128 draws from ever happening in the bigger events.

Great idea about the qualifying being split between 2 venues, giving players the freedom to choose....could be a good compromise to the financial restraints of taking everyone to China, plus the number of main event places could be done in proportions, AND it might put an end to the wildcard round.

Think the problem with World Snooker is that basically only person has changed (Hearn) and the rest are the same people with the same competence as before. And with Hearn, I get the idea he's more of a big picture guy and doesn't really care too much about the lower ranked players, unless they become stars and make the sport (and him) money.

Not really keen on splitting the qualifying. One venue could have the better players and the rejects from there might be better than the qualifiers from the other venue. Although can't think of how else to sort the current problem except waiting for World Snooker to have more money and have all the qualifying in the home country like JIm suggested, although that could take years.

It's easy to say they should put a team in place for this and that - Yea that would be great. However with a turnover of £9.6 mill they must be on a shoestring budget, it's farcicall to think they can have a similar backroom team to Golf and Tennis at this time.

buck me, first I was nonsensical, now I'm farcical. Or "farcicall" as our expert above spells it. Meanwhile the snooker circuit rolls on with packed out arenas at Scunthorpe and Grimsby and narrow minded, "British is best" snooker fans like Casey will smugly come on here and spout "what do you expect with a £9m budget?" whilst cheering on national hero "Ronnie".

Opppssss Early morning spelling mistake. Although it's a shame that your attention to detail wasn't as good to view my location below my username. If I had a national hero it would be far away from Mr O’Sullivan. Sorry to tell you not everyone is from England.

My post wasn't an attack on you, I am simply testing your suggestions - it's clear you don't like people doing that. I will stand by what I said, suggesting snooker should just be able to pick up a tennis or golf backroom model is impossible for the reason I stated (both of which have a turnover 100 times more than snooker – FACT) . So to your other point, is snooker moving too fast without the correct infrastructure? Possibly so.

That being said, like growth in any organisation there will be teething problems. Not all though will be on such a public arena as snooker with every man and his dog having an opinion.

Snooker is exploding and mistakes are being made, a bit of patience is needed is what I would say. As long as World snooker learn from their mistakes I don't really have an issue, however if they keep making them is when the real cracks will appear.

Casey, mate, When in hell have World Snooker learned from ANY mistake and what gives you hope that they can do it from now on.
Snooker is growing once again and that's good. Hopefully this will leak back to the clubs and bring in a new generation of hopefully non smokers, which I believe was the primary reason that the clubs tailed off so badly. Now as JIM096 has indicated there are packed houses once again (wishes he was at them) so one of the first jobs is to convince the Broadcasters who do the schedule that snooker is a viable sport still. Why dont they utilise BBC3 I wonder?.

Casey, using words like "farcical" suggest nothing else but an attack on the person who suggested the idea, hence the response. Perhaps you meant another word? And I'm fully aware where you're from, at no point did I use the word "England"...."Britain" maybe, and you are part of the British Isles, no?

I stick by what I said too, there's nothing wrong with having an idealistic model of how the game should progress. Me, impatient? Perhaps, but I don't think Barry Hearn is known for his patience and the majority of his decisions have been positive ones....it's just that he leaves the details to other WSA staff and that's where the problems start.

Well, no attack meant, Jim.

All valid points guys, it's a bit of a rock and a hard place though. I can imagine Hearn is afraid of missing the boat with new Countries looking to sign up for events. Take Australia for example (which I think proved to be a mistake) he obviously wanted to bounce on Robbo being World Champ but the prize money being so low didn't give it a real chance.

I can see the Australian authority's trying to buy out of their contract (if they can) after this year with 7 top players missing.

I think there has been a lot of emphasis put on the top players and conditions and terms for them. However the 'smaller' details for the lower ranked and new players has been badly handled.

Casey wrote:All valid points guys, it's a bit of a rock and a hard place though. I can imagine Hearn is afraid of missing the boat with new Countries looking to sign up for events. Take Australia for example (which I think proved to be a mistake) he obviously wanted to bounce on Robbo being World Champ but the prize money being so low didn't give it a real chance.

I can see the Australian authority's trying to buy out of their contract (if they can) after this year with 7 top players missing.

I think there has been a lot of emphasis put on the top players and conditions and terms for them. However the 'smaller' details for the lower ranked and new players has been badly handled.

thing is you hardly hear the lower ranked complaining they just pleased to be playing snooker and trying to make it big.

its the pre madonas at the top end that's the whinging babies the more money they got potential to earn the more they whinge and whinge and whinge.

i for one is sick to the back bucking teeth of a player here and a player there taking it in turn to have a bucking moan abot a sport that 2 bucking years ago was screwed and ready to be buried and end up extinct.

give bucking hearn a chance its only 2 qualifiers in to his 3rd season holy buck id like to see some of the moaning hammers doing better because a whole lot have tried and screwed it all up that now hearn has to attempt to build this sport back up and mistakes will be done along the way but look in the mirror and ask yourselves CAN I DO bucking BETTER..

Has it ever occurred to you wild that lower ranked players don't complain because they don't dare to? Because they are in a precarious position and feel they can't afford it?

Monique wrote:Has it ever occurred to you wild that lower ranked players don't complain because they don't dare to? Because they are in a precarious position and feel they can't afford it?

bullocks don't dare to why there's a world of difference between complaining and being hammers on twitter talking bucking rubbish.

if there's grievances take it up with SPA or WPBSA don't be pillocks on twitter or in the press.

It isn't bullocks. It's how it is.

Monique wrote:It isn't bullocks. It's how it is.

on who say so ?

its perceived that way because of the talk tit on twitter brigade but has anyone actually approached anything with anyone officially i doubt it.