SWSA no longer to stage pro ranking events after this season

Wild WC wrote:Well there's really nothing else to go on TBH.

what has Barry Hearn done then ? i honestly cant find anything

I don't know, and I didn't say that Barry Hearn did something himself. However, he's the boss, he's done everything to make sure the decisions are his and nobody else, so you can't exonerate him for what happens under his administration. Paul in his statement speaks of breach of trust. Without knowing the full facts, none of us can comment further.

My problem with your posts is not that you support Hearn, it's that as soon as something doesn't go the way YOU would like them, you look for culprits, express judgements and put the blame on certain persons without knowing the facts.

i would really hope Paul would not have taken the decision hes taken based only on what D H has reported.

surely there has to be something else.

Wild WC wrote:i would really hope Paul would not have taken the decision hes taken based only on what D H has reported.

surely there has to be something else.

Wild you clearly know much less than I first thought so from now Im going to take what you say a little more lightly. Thats not an insult by the way, its simply an observation.

Monique is right , Hearn is the boss, he is responsible and almost certainly knew about the disgraceful situation regarding the Pink Ribbon. In any event, his immediate subordinate, Jason Ferguson definately did know and from what I understand, refused to cut the SWSA any slack on it at all.

In any event, the SWSA still raised a nice amount for the charity, despite World Snooker's best efforts.

Maybe you should take the time to go to Gloucester and meet the people you are talking about and see how a venue is properly run. They would welcome even you, Im sure. Anyway, I feel this thread for me has kind of run its course, I've said really what I wanted to say and unless anything new comes along I feel just thrashing over the same thing .. I think he is, you think he isnt, I think he is.... is getting a tad tedious.

BTW, Go to some of the PTC's WC - theyre great fun.

right im gonna say my piece shortly on this saga

buttoned my lip for long enough

if easily offended or part of the Twitter Clique then look away........

Wild WC. You have serious issues, Im sorry but I refuse to repsond to you anymore. Please dont waste your time aiming any comments at me, you will be totally ignored. How on earth the mods on this board let you troll people like you do God alone knows, but I can choose to ignore you and from now on I am. I STRONGLY suggest you seek professional help.

Assume any insults you send are returned, marked, 'Not interested & Right back at you'

Good day.

I cant be hassled typing a big post (as i know ill end up rambling on for ages) so im just gonna post some bullet points for debate.

And before Monique, Sonny or any of the get along gang go mental at me, this is nothing personal at all.

(1) no denying Mounts a snooker man and has done a lot of good BUT ive always reserved a slight doubt as to his longterm motives, the fact hes signed up so many of the tour to his ON-Q promotions has only served to increase this, as its clear hes now got some serious clout and power in the sport.

(2) Ultimately as good as the SWSA may be, to quote "someone else", "its just a tin shed on an Industrial Estate in a rubbish town", so if thats supposedly the future of snooker, then the games in a bad state

(3) I think Mount should focus on what the Academy was originally set out to do and get back to basics of nurturing young talent, it seems things moved on too quickly and dare i say it, he jumped before he could run.

(4) At best, the SWSA was only ever going to stage PTC level events anyway, and im sure these will be phased out soon so the inevitable would only have been delayed.

(5) Hearn perhaps sees Mount as a threat?

(6) i stand by the "drama queen" quote, i think Mount has made a few mistakes at times in among all the good stuff and in being a typical boss who is used to getting his own way he has spat the dummy out a bit here. Cutting off his nose to spite his face you might say.

Anyway whats done is done so hopefully Mount will focus on the joy of seeing his young talents make an impact in the game rather than the unneccesary stress the involvement in the pro game has obviously brought on.

Witz78 wrote:I cant be hassled typing a big post (as i know ill end up rambling on for ages) so im just gonna post some bullet points for debate.

And before Monique, Sonny or any of the get along gang go mental at me, this is nothing personal at all.

(1) no denying Mounts a snooker man and has done a lot of good BUT ive always reserved a slight doubt as to his longterm motives, the fact hes signed up so many of the tour to his ON-Q promotions has only served to increase this, as its clear hes now got some serious clout and power in the sport.

(2) Ultimately as good as the SWSA may be, to quote "someone else", "its just a tin shed on an Industrial Estate in a rubbish town", so if thats supposedly the future of snooker, then the games in a bad state

(3) I think Mount should focus on what the Academy was originally set out to do and get back to basics of nurturing young talent, it seems things moved on too quickly and dare i say it, he jumped before he could run.

(4) At best, the SWSA was only ever going to stage PTC level events anyway, and im sure these will be phased out soon so the inevitable would only have been delayed.

(5) Hearn perhaps sees Mount as a threat?

(6) i stand by the "drama queen" quote, i think Mount has made a few mistakes at times in among all the good stuff and in being a typical boss who is used to getting his own way he has spat the dummy out a bit here. Cutting off his nose to spite his face you might say.

Anyway whats done is done so hopefully Mount will focus on the joy of seeing his young talents make an impact in the game rather than the unneccesary stress the involvement in the pro game has obviously brought on.

Witz, Im new here so bear with me but I havent seen Monique have a go at anyone. She's been insulted and trolled yes, but all she's done is argue her position, politely, like you just did and I cant see too much wrong with that.

Can I start with (5) above - I take it that was said sarcastically. No, he probably is no immediate threat to Hearn. Hearn is very rich and extremely poweful but at least now people know its actually possible to say no to WS/WPBSA, so perhaps more of those elite players may grow a pair and start saying in public what many whisper in private?

Now if I can, (3). Wasnt it WS that came to Mount? Ferguson did that because he knew that save for the blue ribbon events which I agree and accept the SWSA may struggle with for logistical reasons, WS knew there was no where better in the country to hold PTC's - so lets have it right here shall we, the mountain in this case did actually come to Mohammed!

As for (2) . Yes its on in industrial estate. People from Gloucester may take issue with your description of their town which by the way is, contrary to what you infer, some away away from the SWSA. They had the UK Open in Telford for a while FFS - at the TIC. Most uncomfortable seats anywhere, awful awful venue but they were given a blue ribbon event. The SWSA is amazing for what it is and as far as where it is, name me anywhere else, as central, as accessable, as easy to park, as east to spectate at and with a warmer welcome?

as for (1) Im glad he's signed the players he has and thank God someone who isnt just a 'yes man' for WS has actually got some clout in the game. Thats a GOOD thing, not a bad one.

By the way on an aside and re twitter. Personally I think quite alot of the pro's disgrace themselves on it. I watched the feed live last Xmas as Williams attacked O'Sullivan while in a drunken stuper then tried to blame it on his son. Sometimes I think that many of these players forget that if it wasnt for snooker they would have nothing and most would probably be signing on!

Things I don't get about this:

1. Pink Ribbon Streaming - yes, its morally, ethically dubious for WS to ask for the streaming to be cut, but if allowing it contravened their contract with Perform and contravened the player contracts weren't their hands tied - however bad it looks as it was a charity event.

2. With Paul Mount managing a stable of players, I assume he had pretty detailed knowledge of the nitty gritty of the players contracts. If there were clauses about streaming etc, shouldn't he have approached WS before the tournament started to ask for an exemption or to clarify the situation? I assume he didn't check with the WS beforehand otherwise streaming wouldn't have started. Again if this is true, I don't get the vitriol towards WS.

3. RE: The people saying even if it contravened agreements/contracts etc they should have allowed the streaming as it was for charity. If they had and got fined or found in breach of contract by Perform/had to be fair and honour contracts and fined players who appeared on the stream (if it did indeed break their contracts), who should pay the financial penalties? WS? SWSA for contravening the guidelines? And for the players, if it did constitute a breach and that message got round, none of the players would have wanted to play on the streaming table for fear of getting fined more than what they probably would have earnt for the tournament - so having a streaming table would have been a non starter anyway and would have made it an even more inharmonious event and detracting from the aim of the event.

I sometimes lose the will to live with the pro/anti Hearn campaigners on this site and I'm aware my musings above are based a lot on speculation and supposition (like everyone elses) but whatever the reasons, I think both sides have to take some of the blame.

I think BH has in general been a positive force in the game but has probably moved too quickly in the speed of introducing tournaments and not thinking a lot of things through.

It does also seem that however good the venue is and however dedicated the staff at SWSA are - it would also appear from the outside that maybe they have jumped up to this level of tournament too soon as well.

It is a shame because it looks from the stream like a big improvement from Sheffield. Is there any other venues that could host tournaments such as PTC's other than Sheffield or SWSA?

Yes, Paul should have checked before. But on the other hand he didn't do anything differently to the previous year where it was allowed without any problem. Organizing a tournament requires a lot of work and on the moment, it probably didn't occur to him or others that the terms of the contract had changed about that particular aspect. In his statement BTW, Paul admitted that he should have checked.
But then Mike Ganley was at the SWSA on the Wednesday. Surely he was aware that they planned a streaming. Couldn't he have had a quiet word with Paul about it then? Probably, he also had other things on his mind and the potential problem didn't occur to him.
WSA/WS have their contract with Perform, but that contract does leave room for events to be sanctioned. The Pink Ribbon wasn't interfering with anything else. There was no tournament on, no pro snooker on stream or television. I'm sure there was no reason not to sanction it.

SteveJJ wrote:Things I don't get about this:

1. Pink Ribbon Streaming - yes, its morally, ethically dubious for WS to ask for the streaming to be cut, but if allowing it contravened their contract with Perform and contravened the player contracts weren't their hands tied - however bad it looks as it was a charity event.

2. With Paul Mount managing a stable of players, I assume he had pretty detailed knowledge of the nitty gritty of the players contracts. If there were clauses about streaming etc, shouldn't he have approached WS before the tournament started to ask for an exemption or to clarify the situation? I assume he didn't check with the WS beforehand otherwise streaming wouldn't have started. Again if this is true, I don't get the vitriol towards WS.

3. RE: The people saying even if it contravened agreements/contracts etc they should have allowed the streaming as it was for charity. If they had and got fined or found in breach of contract by Perform/had to be fair and honour contracts and fined players who appeared on the stream (if it did indeed break their contracts), who should pay the financial penalties? WS? SWSA for contravening the guidelines? And for the players, if it did constitute a breach and that message got round, none of the players would have wanted to play on the streaming table for fear of getting fined more than what they probably would have earnt for the tournament - so having a streaming table would have been a non starter anyway and would have made it an even more inharmonious event and detracting from the aim of the event.

I sometimes lose the will to live with the pro/anti Hearn campaigners on this site and I'm aware my musings above are based a lot on speculation and supposition (like everyone elses) but whatever the reasons, I think both sides have to take some of the blame.

I think BH has in general been a positive force in the game but has probably moved too quickly in the speed of introducing tournaments and not thinking a lot of things through.

It does also seem that however good the venue is and however dedicated the staff at SWSA are - it would also appear from the outside that maybe they have jumped up to this level of tournament too soon as well.

It is a shame because it looks from the stream like a big improvement from Sheffield. Is there any other venues that could host tournaments such as PTC's other than Sheffield or SWSA?

Yes Steve, fair point and as Monique says below your comment, Paul accepted he should have checked, as a formality but no ones perfect, we all make mistakes and I can not see what harm it would have done for WS to give retrospective permission. Lets face it, WSL/WSA do bend the rules and indeed law of the land when it suits them or more importantly when revenue is threatened.

I disagree with you about Hearn, whilst I totally accept that some things he has done have had a positive effect on Snooker, on the whole I think he is a bad thing for the game, but he is there to stay and if you want to have anything to do with the game, playing or behind the scenes then youre going to need to accept that fact that no one said the world would be fair. The one thing that I personally find most offensive about the current status quo is the arrogance. Yes, I accept when you have almost total power over something you can afford to be arrogant but surely real 'class' is being able to run whatever it is you do have total power over without feeling the need to bully people?

The liklihood is that this spat between WS and SWSA will get sorted, there is certainly time to sort it out. I think however that Paul Mount possibly just wanted to make a point to WSL/WSA that the SWSA is not just another venue or indeed organisation (such as the EASB) that will pander to WSL/WSA's every whim. They are instead a force in snooker in their own right and perhaps this is an example of a little sabre rattling as much as anything else?

Anyway, I agree with you, it is a shame, Sheffield Academy is a dreadful venue for PTC's and the players know it as the alst 48 hrs worth of tweets show, so if this situation does stand, then its a shame.

Wild WC wrote:
and ofcourse having World no 2 Trump tweeting “Some serious jobsworths at Gloucester academy, back to Sheffield please,” made Paul think WHY DO I BOTHER

To get things in perspective this tweet was written after Janie told Judd to take his feet off a chair he was resting them on. Quite funny if you think about. Obviously he had no concept of how many would read the tweet and what they would read into it.

Sonny wrote:

Wild WC wrote:
and ofcourse having World no 2 Trump tweeting “Some serious jobsworths at Gloucester academy, back to Sheffield please,” made Paul think WHY DO I BOTHER

To get things in perspective this tweet was written after Janie told Judd to take his feet off a chair he was resting them on. Quite funny if you think about. Obviously he had no concept of how many would read the tweet and what they would read into it.

In any event Soony, I dont see whats wrong with Janie asking him to take his feet off the chair. Judd is a wonderful player, exciting, charismatic and a crowd drawer but I cant see how any of that absolves him of the need to be respectful to his hosts. How an earth is a tweet saying Janie asked a player to repsect the venue bad for the SWSA? I'd say its the opposite, it shows they care about their venue.

As for tweets in general it amazes me the pure nonsense and self indulgent rubbish many of the top pro's post on twitter. Thats one thing I do think WS have got right - when they remind the players (with a little fine) that they actually have some responsibilities as professional sportsmen & role models.

That's true but at the end of the day they are normal people with opinions who happen to be better than the rest of us at snooker. I look at that tweet as Judd being a stroppy teenager after being told off by a teacher. I'm sure there's nothing more to it than that and equally I'm sure if he was a bit older and wiser he wouldn't have said it.

Didn't Trump also tweet that he wanted the PTC's to go back to Sheffield? That and the one about SWSA "jobsworths" can't have helped Paul Mount's mood.

It's not like he's got any clout to have a say in where snooker should be played. It did seem a bit strange the one about SWSA not having enough people watching as if the World Snooker Academy is like playing to a stadium.

I didnt see all these Judd tweets as I have to confess to not following him on twitter. He's a nice enough lad but he's young, he is followed around by, well you know the sort and perhaps they are not the best influence one could have. With age will come maturity and I would certainly hope that Paul didnt take Judd's tweets to heart too much. It really was just a stroppy kid that had been told off -

.......... that happens to be Judd Trump

not a teenager though, may not look it, but he's 22!

Uaintseenmeright wrote:

SteveJJ wrote:Things I don't get about this:

1. Pink Ribbon Streaming - yes, its morally, ethically dubious for WS to ask for the streaming to be cut, but if allowing it contravened their contract with Perform and contravened the player contracts weren't their hands tied - however bad it looks as it was a charity event.

2. With Paul Mount managing a stable of players, I assume he had pretty detailed knowledge of the nitty gritty of the players contracts. If there were clauses about streaming etc, shouldn't he have approached WS before the tournament started to ask for an exemption or to clarify the situation? I assume he didn't check with the WS beforehand otherwise streaming wouldn't have started. Again if this is true, I don't get the vitriol towards WS.

3. RE: The people saying even if it contravened agreements/contracts etc they should have allowed the streaming as it was for charity. If they had and got fined or found in breach of contract by Perform/had to be fair and honour contracts and fined players who appeared on the stream (if it did indeed break their contracts), who should pay the financial penalties? WS? SWSA for contravening the guidelines? And for the players, if it did constitute a breach and that message got round, none of the players would have wanted to play on the streaming table for fear of getting fined more than what they probably would have earnt for the tournament - so having a streaming table would have been a non starter anyway and would have made it an even more inharmonious event and detracting from the aim of the event.

I sometimes lose the will to live with the pro/anti Hearn campaigners on this site and I'm aware my musings above are based a lot on speculation and supposition (like everyone elses) but whatever the reasons, I think both sides have to take some of the blame.

I think BH has in general been a positive force in the game but has probably moved too quickly in the speed of introducing tournaments and not thinking a lot of things through.

It does also seem that however good the venue is and however dedicated the staff at SWSA are - it would also appear from the outside that maybe they have jumped up to this level of tournament too soon as well.

It is a shame because it looks from the stream like a big improvement from Sheffield. Is there any other venues that could host tournaments such as PTC's other than Sheffield or SWSA?

Yes Steve, fair point and as Monique says below your comment, Paul accepted he should have checked, as a formality but no ones perfect, we all make mistakes and I can not see what harm it would have done for WS to give retrospective permission. Lets face it, WSL/WSA do bend the rules and indeed law of the land when it suits them or more importantly when revenue is threatened.

I disagree with you about Hearn, whilst I totally accept that some things he has done have had a positive effect on Snooker, on the whole I think he is a bad thing for the game, but he is there to stay and if you want to have anything to do with the game, playing or behind the scenes then youre going to need to accept that fact that no one said the world would be fair. The one thing that I personally find most offensive about the current status quo is the arrogance. Yes, I accept when you have almost total power over something you can afford to be arrogant but surely real 'class' is being able to run whatever it is you do have total power over without feeling the need to bully people?

The liklihood is that this spat between WS and SWSA will get sorted, there is certainly time to sort it out. I think however that Paul Mount possibly just wanted to make a point to WSL/WSA that the SWSA is not just another venue or indeed organisation (such as the EASB) that will pander to WSL/WSA's every whim. They are instead a force in snooker in their own right and perhaps this is an example of a little sabre rattling as much as anything else?

Anyway, I agree with you, it is a shame, Sheffield Academy is a dreadful venue for PTC's and the players know it as the alst 48 hrs worth of tweets show, so if this situation does stand, then its a shame.

Good points. Ahh human error is understandable when organising big tournaments I guess. Although I guess before proportioning the amount of blame to WS we would really need to be sure whether there would have been any comeback on their contract with Perform, albeit that they'd streamed in previous years without a problem and the event did not clash with anything else. If there was no comeback/penalties then obviously WS haven't got any leg to stand on. If there is then it makes it slightly more understandable. Business contracts would have to override good causes/common sense etc.

I hope it does get resolved. I saw there was a flattering reference to SWSA facilities in the induction article on the WS website today. Maybe that's a little bit of an olive branch and a first minute move in the right direction.

Bit late with this but seems a real shame that PTCs will no longer be held there, Gloucester looked to be a much better place than Sheffield with space for spectators. Snooker must be the only sport that can reject a gift horse because one of its teeth is a bit wonky.

Of course, last I heard Hearn had no idea of Mount's problems and there is a lot of time between UK PTC4 and UK PTC1 for negotiations to take place. We have no idea what the problems actually are as everything at the moment is speculation. I have a feeling that there is more to than the official statement says and unlike the SPA, Hearn and Mount seem professional enough not to shout every little thing they do from the rooftops. It might be the accumulation of small squabbles which can be easily sorted or it could be very serious. We'll just have to wait and see.

PS Sonny about Judd, I'm not big on the justification for tweets. He may be fairly young, but he's still 22, five years older than myself, and supposedly a bright lad. He should know the consequences of his actions. I'm a bit worried that he's becoming a little big for his boots after getting success so quickly.

He's 23 0n Saturday. Time to step up, and be a bigboi.

I think BH has in general been a positive force in the game but has probably moved too quickly in the speed of introducing tournaments and not thinking a lot of things through.

to be fair to him he was braught in with a straightforward aim from players.

We Want to play more Snooker...

The Guy delivered that in less than 6 months which was Fast then things has to improve over Time.

he has cut Back on British PTC Then tried to put them in to better Facilities and for whatever Reason and i still cant believe we exactly know what has gone on Paul Mount has backed Down.

Someone on another Forum suggested maybe because of Lack of spectators Paul did not see the value in Staging them and Looked for any excuse to pull out..

Skullman wrote:Bit late with this but seems a real shame that PTCs will no longer be held there, Gloucester looked to be a much better place than Sheffield with space for spectators. Snooker must be the only sport that can reject a gift horse because one of its teeth is a bit wonky.

Of course, last I heard Hearn had no idea of Mount's problems and there is a lot of time between UK PTC4 and UK PTC1 for negotiations to take place. We have no idea what the problems actually are as everything at the moment is speculation. I have a feeling that there is more to than the official statement says and unlike the SPA, Hearn and Mount seem professional enough not to shout every little thing they do from the rooftops. It might be the accumulation of small squabbles which can be easily sorted or it could be very serious. We'll just have to wait and see.

PS Sonny about Judd, I'm not big on the justification for tweets. He may be fairly young, but he's still 22, five years older than myself, and supposedly a bright lad. He should know the consequences of his actions. I'm a bit worried that he's becoming a little big for his boots after getting success so quickly.

Judd is (as Ronnie OS was many moons ago) followed around by a band of 'wannabees' who are very young, very arrogant and quite frankly about as disrespectful as you can get. Having met Judd himself and by himself a few times, he comes accross as a nice enough young chap , OK a little arrogant but lets face it, if any of us had his talent and were his age, maybe we'd be a little arrogant as well. Alone (if you can catch him alone) Judd is nice enough but when surrounded by his 'entourage' he does push it.

Janie was totally within her rights to ask Judd to respect the seating area in the main arena at the SWSA and Judd's tweet was both childish and totally out of order. I think the reason why many people think he's a teenager is partly because of his young looks and also because of the way he acts. cant do anything about looking younger than you are (lucky chap!) but sure as hell can about the other stuff. He needs to drop the roady wannabees that follow him around and grow up a little and although a great player, just a little humility wouldnt go a miss either.

So agree with what you say regards Judd, Skullman.

Personally think Janie was spot on - and that Judd was bang out of order to be making comments. He's all but 23 now and as a professional has a duty to the sport. That he is 23 should make no excuse about what he said.

The problem is that now with a 20+ tournament season becoming a regularity, it has suddenly become a cohort of professionals who have rather quickly begun to take it for granted that there'll be venues. Hence why the rather IMO ridiculous complaints have been levied against the Academy in having to pay for tea and coffee. As others have said, that he has to recoup some of his running costs. Any player going to a cafe asking for an amnesty would be laughed away.

Its interesting the complaint about home advantage. Given that players regularly practice at the EIS Academy too. I think that pretty much narrows any of the best venues out. - Do we not use the Northern Centre because Peter Lines practices there for instance?

It's quite clear that Paul is in the sport simply because he wants to help the game. Paying ten grand to stage the tournament shows quite clearly what his commitment to the sport is - he is not in the SWSA for his own financial gain but to enhance the sport.

Personally, having been to the venue a couple of times to referee there I can simply say that it is a great venue and I'm very glad that Paul and his team are going to focus on the enhancement of the amateur game which will most definitely done in such a great venue.

Sonny wrote:Where did you hear that?

Just re-read this thread. God knows why I thought that. Can't even remember posting that. I think somebody told me at work, and I came on here and mentioned it without checking it was true.

What the buck are you talking about?

SnookerFan wrote:

Sonny wrote:Where did you hear that?

Just re-read this thread. God knows why I thought that. Can't even remember posting that. I think somebody told me at work, and I came on here and mentioned it without checking it was true.

the last bucking post on this was 2 bastard months ago bucking rubbish i thought seeing a new post that Paul Mount had changed his mind and all good with the World again.

but no snookerfan bastard bored rigid so he re visited old ancient ground.

Sonny wrote:What the buck are you talking about?

Never mind. Just answering a question you posted in August. Wild is right, I'm just bored.

Wild WC wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Sonny wrote:Where did you hear that?

Just re-read this thread. God knows why I thought that. Can't even remember posting that. I think somebody told me at work, and I came on here and mentioned it without checking it was true.

the last bucking post on this was 2 bastard months ago bucking rubbish i thought seeing a new post that Paul Mount had changed his mind and all good with the World again.

but no snookerfan bastard bored rigid so he re visited old ancient ground.

Well being bored rigid is better than being bored soft … at least there is an easy and rather fun cure for it.

Monique wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

SnookerFan wrote:

Sonny wrote:Where did you hear that?

Just re-read this thread. God knows why I thought that. Can't even remember posting that. I think somebody told me at work, and I came on here and mentioned it without checking it was true.

the last bucking post on this was 2 bastard months ago bucking rubbish i thought seeing a new post that Paul Mount had changed his mind and all good with the World again.

but no snookerfan bastard bored rigid so he re visited old ancient ground.

Well being bored rigid is better than being bored soft … at least there is an easy and rather fun cure for it.

from what i read on twitter Alfred Homo getting it from all angles in Gloucester although he did draw a line with snookerbacker.

Monique wrote:
Well being bored rigid is better than being bored soft … at least there is an easy and rather fun cure for it.

Well, if you're offering.....

SnookerFan wrote:

Monique wrote:
Well being bored rigid is better than being bored soft … at least there is an easy and rather fun cure for it.

Well, if you're offering.....

well you need someone to bump up your cockerel so that you stop bumping up dead threads