Appearance Fees: YES or NO?

Jewell wrote:250k in the grand scheme of things is peanuts really, especially when compared to other sports.

It's the top stars that sustain a sport and if it takes a little sweetener to get them to events then so be it.

bribery

Bribery is bribery.

how come bribing with Ranking points is wrong but Hard cash is Right?

NO

The tournaments should be formatted with a pay structure per performance, not for folk just appearing.

You got to relate it to modern life and disregard other sports, what they do is up to them - not interested in that. I get paid for doing my job, that can mean doing nothing or it can be doing something - but unless I am ill I am there all year. Bonus payments are a separate issue but they certainly are not "apperance related", though attendance is used to determine how much bonus (pro rata).

Snooker players should earn based on how many matches they win. Primarily.

Smart wrote:NO

The tournaments should be formatted with a pay structure per performance, not for folk just appearing.

You got to relate it to modern life and disregard other sports, what they do is up to them - not interested in that. I get paid for doing my job, that can mean doing nothing or it can be doing something - but unless I am ill I am there all year. Bonus payments are a separate issue but they certainly are not "apperance related", though attendance is used to determine how much bonus (pro rata).

Snooker players should earn based on how many matches they win. Primarily.

rexy

And i would lose respect for robbo if he refused to play aussie open only if he got an appearance fee

Jewell wrote:Smart, with all due respect, I think your analogy is, at best, misguided and, at worst, a load of cobblers.

If you don't turn up to work the only person that suffers is you. Because the reality, as harsh as it may sound, is that your company could hire from at least a million different candidates who could do your job just as well as you do. You are nothing special, you do not bring anything extra to the table beyond the job that you already do.

Jewell, you do realise what Smarts profession is.......?

Jewell wrote:Smart, with all due respect, I think your analogy is, at best, misguided and, at worst, a load of cobblers.

If you don't turn up to work the only person that suffers is you. Because the reality, as harsh as it may sound, is that your company could hire from at least a million different candidates who could do your job just as well as you do. You are nothing special, you do not bring anything extra to the table beyond the job that you already do.

Incorrect.

1. These millions would not be security cleared. A lengthy process I might add.
2. I work alone - my work is not picked up in my absence. So there is a suffering if I am not in attendance.
3. Additionally, I bring humour and knowledge of sports and shares to the office.

I don't understand the problem anyone can have with appearance fees as long as they don't come out of WS pocket.
It's done in most individual sports.
If a sponsor wants to offer money to a sportsperson to make sure that they take part in their events, it's because they expects the interest generated by this person's presence to bring money and exposure. It's because they see value in it and it's only normal they those who generate this value get a share of it.
I'm afraid that any player who would say he's against appearance fees, is just taking the stance of the mediocre communists. "I'm against any form of privilege … until I can benefit from them". None of them would refuse it if they were offered it. They just need to be good enough AND entertaining enough. That's their only "problem"…

Monique wrote:I don't understand the problem anyone can have with appearance fees as long as they don't come out of WS pocket.
It's done in most individual sports.
If a sponsor wants to offer money to a sportsperson to make sure that they take part in their events, it's because they expects the interest generated by this person's presence to bring money and exposure. It's because they see value in it and it's only normal they those who generate this value get a share of it.
I'm afraid that any player who would say he's against appearance fees, is just taking the stance of the mediocre communists. "I'm against any form of privilege … until I can benefit from them". None of them would refuse it if they were offered it. They just need to be good enough AND entertaining enough. That's their only "problem"…

monique you had problem using Ranking points as bribery and not Money.

Explain the difference?

I see no problem with players being offered appearance fees.

I see no problem with players accepting appearance fees.

If players were to start ASKING for appearance fees I'd find that distasteful and think it would be a little detrimental to the game sponsorship wise. Players are less marketable if they get too expensive

Sickpotter wrote:I see no problem with players being offered appearance fees.

I see no problem with players accepting appearance fees.

If players were to start ASKING for appearance fees I'd find that distasteful and think it would be a little detrimental to the game sponsorship wise. Players are less marketable if they get too expensive

Players will be getting greedy and resentful of each other.

Ronnie is paid to appear and Judd Trump isn't so Judd said unless i get What Ronnie gets i wont play then Selby as World no 1 puts in his demands etc etc etc.

Wild WC wrote:

Monique wrote:I don't understand the problem anyone can have with appearance fees as long as they don't come out of WS pocket.
It's done in most individual sports.
If a sponsor wants to offer money to a sportsperson to make sure that they take part in their events, it's because they expects the interest generated by this person's presence to bring money and exposure. It's because they see value in it and it's only normal they those who generate this value get a share of it.
I'm afraid that any player who would say he's against appearance fees, is just taking the stance of the mediocre communists. "I'm against any form of privilege … until I can benefit from them". None of them would refuse it if they were offered it. They just need to be good enough AND entertaining enough. That's their only "problem"…

monique you had problem using Ranking points as bribery and not Money.

Explain the difference?

The difference wild is that you don't eat ranking points, nor do they pay your bills.
The ranking system forced players to enter events, and spend money in travels and accommodations, knowing they would be off their pocket, especially those in early rounds who get no money even when they win. They are pros, it's their job, they should be able to make a living out of it, in particular when they deliver, not going bankrupt.
Another difference is that the ranking system is controlled by the governing body. I wouldn't agree with appearance fees paid by WS. But if a sponsor wants to attract box office names and is ready to give them something for playing in their events, that's a commercial agreement that is totally outside of the WS business and if done properly not in breach of the players contract.
You should get real. The players are NOT WS employees. They are self-employed in a job they won't be able to carry on until they are 65. They should be allowed to make the most of the opportunities they get. And if they have built a name for themselves, that has value in the eyes of the sponsors, then they should be allowed to get something out of it.
And BTW, the fact that they are NOT WS employees, is the reason why some parts of the players contract aren't fair because they actually limit the type of "jobs" they can accept and forfeits part of the image rights to WS without compensation. There clearly must be rules to protect the interests of the sport, but some of the things that are in there go well beyond this and aim at nothing else than building Barry Hearn a monopoly. That's never healthy in an economics system.

its still Bribery. if they pay it across the Board to all players then its Fair but just to a Select Few that's Bribery.

Ranking points is earned Prize Money is earned.

Appearance Money is dirty Money for turning up.


you can dress it up any way you like its Double Standards and you know it

Wild WC wrote:its still Bribery. if they pay it across the Board to all players then its Fair but just to a Select Few that's Bribery.

Ranking points is earned Prize Money is earned.

Appearance Money is dirty Money for turning up.


you can dress it up any way you like its Double Standards and you know it

Your reaction is exactly what I described as the mediocre communists attitude. I have no problem seeing excellence getting extra reward. It can only be an incentive for others to try hard. It's done in most sports, certainly in golf and tennis. I've never heard anyone objecting to it. In F1 or football or basketball, some sportsmen get "fixed wages" that amount to fortunes independently of their performances. I've never heard people complain about it (and those amounts ARE in some cases actually scandalous).
All those guys do is reaping the rewards of their previous efforts. Do you thing Hendry would have got the deal he's got in China if he hadn't had the career he had? He's be chosen for his profile and commercial value.
If sponsors offer money to some players to enter their events it's because they believe that they will bring them more interest, exposure and ultimately money. They do it because they think that it will bring them profit. That those players get a small part of those additional profits is only normal.

excellence gets rewarded when they win the tournament.

More i think about this idea more i absolutely hate it and monique your Double standards just makes it worst.

i think ill leave this thread before i throw up all over the laptop

Wild WC wrote:excellence gets rewarded when they win the tournament.

More i think about this idea more i absolutely hate it and monique your Double standards just makes it worst.

i think ill leave this thread before i throw up all over the laptop

It's not double standards. It's real life economics.
It would be double standard if WS was offering it.

Monique wrote:

Wild WC wrote:excellence gets rewarded when they win the tournament.

More i think about this idea more i absolutely hate it and monique your Double standards just makes it worst.

i think ill leave this thread before i throw up all over the laptop

It's not double standards. It's real life economics.
It would be double standard if WS was offering it.

keep telling yourself that

For the record I have no beef with sponsors paying appearance money.

Sonny wrote:For the record I have no beef with sponsors paying appearance money.

wild will be putting a horses head in your bed now you have revealed your position

Smart wrote:

Sonny wrote:For the record I have no beef with sponsors paying appearance money.

wild will be putting a horses head in your bed now you have revealed your position

no its his opinion

im just a bit baffled by monique stand.

if people are offered money then its ok to bribe where will she stop Bribing MP's after-all they don't get Ranking points its Cash with them.

It's NOT bribery, it's recognizing the value some add to the event and it's how it should be as long as it's the market decision and not a twist introduced by the sports authorities.
It's how it is in many sport and and snooker would benefit for doing the same.
You are completely deluded if you think there is anything new in this situation. Just another example: since at least 20 years the amount of money players get for personal logos depend on their profile. The lowest ranked ones - or the journeymen - struggle to get any. In addition to that players get more if their match is streamed or on television. For the record the decision is MAINLY dictated by the broadcaster who will try to maximize their audience. So will you make personal logos non-legit because it's not "fair"? I can assure you that this would not go down well with most players as for many it's what keeps them afloat, even if they are not getting as much as the top boys.
Sport is a market like any other. Those who bring value, audience and exposure get offered rewards as they should. And ultimately the whole sports benefits from it because it means more money - not coming from the authorities pocket - injected in the sport . The aspiring ones who are good enough will know that their turn will come if they really want it and work towards it. The others don't deserve it.

Monique

i never said it was new but its still bribery in anyone's language.

a said sponsor wants a said player to appear at their event when that said player said im giving this event a miss to spend time with family etc.

How is that not Bribing or attempted Bribery?

I voted yes BUT on the proviso that from next season (when the top 16 will have to start from the last 128) it is paid to top 16 players that reach the televised stages of those events- mainly as compensation for having to start in round one again after working so many years to get in the 16 in the first place.
It would also be paid for out of the sponsors pockets, NOT World Snooker.
Probably won't happen (and i'm not totally sold on appearance money either-it will only create resentment).

Alpha wrote:I voted yes BUT on the proviso that from next season (when the top 16 will have to start from the last 128) it is paid to top 16 players that reach the televised stages of those events- mainly as compensation for having to start in round one again after working so many years to get in the 16 in the first place.
It would also be paid for out of the sponsors pockets, NOT World Snooker.
Probably won't happen (and i'm not totally sold on appearance money either-it will only create resentment).

well Stuart Bingham has tweeted hes in Favour if he gets Appearance money and against if he doesn't..

that in a nutshell will be how every player will feel about it.

And that's exactly my point. Those who are against it, are hypocrites. It's just envy. Because if they were offered it they would take it.
I have no sympathy for them. If they were good enough they would be offered it. It's that simple.
And I don't understand how someone who has been ranting against "rewarding mediocrity" doesn't support rewarding lost lasting excellence, especially when the money doesn't come out of WS pockets.

And having said that, this coming from Stu was most probably tongue in cheek.

These pesky snooker players should count there chickens. They should happily play what is a hobby for some. They should perform whenever and where ever.....with or without pay, for my entertainment. If they dont like it, they can snake hiss off down a mine. Im entitled to my entertainment......money grabbing chameleons.

Monique wrote:And that's exactly my point. Those who are against it, are hypocrites. It's just envy. Because if they were offered it they would take it.
I have no sympathy for them. If they were good enough they would be offered it. It's that simple.
And I don't understand how someone who has been ranting against "rewarding mediocrity" doesn't support rewarding lost lasting excellence, especially when the money doesn't come out of WS pockets.

And having said that, this coming from Stu was most probably tongue in cheek.

im against it because its wrong end of

and anyone who thinks its not blackmail is in cloud coocoo land

Lucky wrote:These pesky snooker players should count there chickens. They should happily play what is a hobby for some. They should perform whenever and where ever.....with or without pay, for my entertainment. If they dont like it, they can snake hiss off down a mine. Im entitled to my entertainment......money grabbing chameleons.

they get payed you idiot

the players that will get appearance money are the players already earning sponsorship millions as it is.

playing in WSA events is their day job and every member of the tour should get equal rights i thought that was the point of flatter 128 draws.

Ronnie can play legends night or exhibition and make money if that what he wants the lower rank players cant command that cash.

its just sickening how Monique only fights for the rights of the little man when it suites her.

Wild I fight for the rights of the little men and not just when it "suits" me.
There nothing to stop a sponsor to offer money for a lowest ranked player to enter any event. The lower ranked have as many "right" to it as every other player to benefit from it. They are just not seen as bringing enough value for the sponsors to do it, usually. I write "usually" because I know it has been done in the past.
What you don't seem to see is that it's not a matter of "rights", they all have the same rights.
Ronnie, Hendry, Selby, Williams, Robertson, even Trump and others can command that sort of cash because they have built themselves a name through years of excellence. They are seen as commercial value because they have earned it. It's not a privilege they have been given, THEY have worked for it, so they deserve it.
Any player will get the same advantages, if they manage to be as good as they are. It's in their hands.
Making players work for being off their pocket and blackmailing them in it through ranking is abusive. Allowing the market to "play" and reward those seen as commercial value is just economics. and BTW the sponsors don't do it to please the said players, they do SOLELY because they think they will gain more money and exposure fro themselves by doing it.

You really should get real wild. Federer has won a fortune in prize money and it doesn't stop him to be offered another one in sponsoring like Rolex. Why? Because he IS Federer and he has an image that suits Rolex target market. Is that unfair? Should it be stopped because the tennisman n°2000 can't command that kind of cash? It's not that any rule or anything deny him of the "right" to get Rolex sponsoring, it's just that he's not commercial value in their eyes. If he manages to win a couple of grand slams they will start to consider though …

IF there was anything in the rules or the contract that would STOP a sponsor to pay appearance fees to low ranked players, if it was WSA decision to allocate appearance money to some, I would fight against it.

And once again they are NOT WSA employees. Their job is to earn a living playing snooker, and it shouldn't be restricted to WSA events. They are self-employed ffs.

How come then if they are self employed you want the WSA to subsidize their income with paying players that do nothing in the sport just because they are "proffesionals".

if they are self employed then its every man for himself and that includes players ranked 128 and its then up to them to earn the right for sponsorship and not the WSA and Barry Hearn to do it for them..

you cant have it both ways.

Wild WC wrote:How come then if they are self employed you want the WSA to subsidize their income with paying players that do nothing in the sport just because they are "proffesionals".

if they are self employed then its every man for himself and that includes players ranked 128 and its then up to them to earn the right for sponsorship and not the WSA and Barry Hearn to do it for them..

you cant have it both ways.

Wild, I don't want WSA to subsidize them, I want WSA to be FAIR to them and to make sure there is a future for the game. They ARE self-employed. They don't have any earning protection, they don't have any professional medical insurance or coverage, they don't have paid holidays… All the risks are theirs.
When a match is played, you need two players. The both contribute to the match, both provide entertainment when there is an audience, both bring exposure to the sponsor, when the event is public. They both do their job and deserve something for it. As well as they play, one of them will lose.
With the new structure and the very possibility that events are played in one go at the venues, the expenses the players have to face are very high. If nothing is done a lot of them will be bankrupt pretty quick and, don't be deluded, there will not be a waiting queue to replace them.
I was discussing this with Jason Ferguson in Berlin.
His estimation of what a player has to expose before winning a penny amounts to about £30 000 per season and that's if he keeps it tight. That's probably more than what the average Brit family earns in a year.
Jason expects that if nothing is done to support first round losers, come December about one third (he said about 40) of the field could find themselves unable to play in the second half of the season because they would be totally skint. He also confirmed to me that already now, young talented players do stay away from the tour because their family can't contemplate the costs.
And I invite sonny to double-check this with Jason if you or anyone thinks I'm making this up because it suits my views.

I agree with you 100 percent Monique. They are contributing to what is the whole experience. Just because they lost does not mean they should be totally out of pocket, especially considering what they have already put in in terms of entry fees etc.