Appearance Fees: YES or NO?

whats happening here Monique

Barry Hearn is in effect telling players that if they want to get payed its up to them to make private arrangement's with sponsors and hes in favour of that.

but ill pay you if your successful

but that rule is for all 128 players however just a fraction of those players will get Payed appearance Money.

if your self employed that means you have to go out there and Get it yourself he wont be giving it to them unless they win matches.

and just look at the Welsh Open Last 64 and Last 32 are worst off this year than Last year where the quarter finalists will be getting rewarded more.

another way to look at it.

WSA/Barry Hearn wont stand in the way of Players having appearance Money so if Passakorn Suwanawat decides ohh im going on strike i cant afford this Barry Hearn wont give a rubbish because The Judd Trump's and Ronnies of this World is taken care of by Privately negotiating a Deal with Sponsors to appear.

so WSA Wont have any obligation or pressure to pay minimal wages.

Wild WC wrote:whats happening here Monique

Barry Hearn is in effect telling players that if they want to get payed its up to them to make private arrangement's with sponsors and hes in favour of that.

but ill pay you if your successful

but that rule is for all 128 players however just a fraction of those players will get Payed appearance Money.

if your self employed that means you have to go out there and Get it yourself he wont be giving it to them unless they win matches.

and just look at the Welsh Open Last 64 and Last 32 are worst off this year than Last year where the quarter finalists will be getting rewarded more.

If you are self-employed, you also should have the right to pick the jobs that suits your needs. That's my problem with Barry Hearn and his players contract. The contract restricts the players right to play in events outside WSA ones, it also forfeits some of their image rights to WS, without compensation.
The players contract doesn't guarantee any protection to the players, but it does restrict their earning possibilities. That's not right and whatever you or others who have no clue about it might think, Ronnie was damn right to take a stance against it and he never asked for WSA appearance money, he asked for players to be paid when they are asked to come to tournament early and do PR work. Again, if they are asked to do it, it's because there is value in it and they should get something for it.

Coming back to first round losers, in other sports like tennis for instance, first round losers are paid aren't they? The reason they are is because you can't have a match with a single player. Both contribute to the spectacle, both deserve something. Of course the winner deserves more, but the loser has done their job and should get something if only to cover basic expenses.
The comparison with golf doesn't hold because golf is essentially an individual's sport. The golfer has only one opponent, himself and needs to score as much as they can. It's entirely in their hand. If one of them has to withdraw, it doesn't effect the others and doesn't really effect the event coverage neither.

Jewell wrote:Appearance fees won't affect the lower ranked players in any way at all. In fact it can only benefit them if the tournament ends up doing well due to the presence of the top players.

It's not the case that if the appearance fee doesn't get paid to the top star, said appearance fee will then be thrown into the prize money fund.

Rubbish

if Tournament does well The Extra Cash will go to the top end of the Scale Finals, Semis, Quarters.

that's always been how Barry Hearn works he wont reward mediocrity so players who lose in the Last 128 gets a big fat zero no matter how successful a event will become,

that's why he is in favour of players negotiating their own deal it will relieve the pressure and keep the top players sweet.

It doesn't really make sense to me to have a situation (to use Monique's earlier example) where 40 or so pros next season can't play in the second half of the season due to not being able to afford entry fees/expenses after increasing the tour to 128 players and then having appearance money for a few guys. Before anyone even thnks of appearance fees, there should be enough to support 128 players in the first place.

in Tennis Last 128 is effectively Last 32 of a Snooker Event because there's Qualifying just to get in the Last 128 there's 1000 players called Professionals.

i don't know the ins and out how much they get payed if they lose in Qualifying.

Alpha wrote:It doesn't really make sense to me to have a situation (to use Monique's earlier example) where 40 or so pros next season can't play in the second half of the season due to not being able to afford entry fees/expenses after increasing the tour to 128 players and then having appearance money for a few guys. Before anyone even thnks of appearance fees, there should be enough to support 128 players in the first place.

thats how it will be and appearance money as the topic of this thread is will highlight the massive gap there is between players.

it would be better if Sponsors pay Expenses rather than Give a x amount of cash to the Rich.

Jewell wrote:Wild,

50% of nothing is still nothing. The last 128 losers will still get the same amount regardless of whether or not a top player receives an appearance fee. Now I could understand your stance if the sponsors reduced or took out prize money for the earlier rounds in order to then use that money to pay appearance money. But that's not the case.

Those players that have a problem with appearance fees are basically saying: If I can't have appearance then nobody should be able to.

without Appearance Fee Barry Hearn could face a revolt among the top players with Appearance Fee he could face a revolt by Barry Pinches now spot the Difference.

I will leave it at that before, for once, I get get really angry at your thickness and get out of order.
Let's wait and see what will happen in the coming season OK?
Players WILL get paid minimal expense coverage for losing first round - at least in abroad tournament - or the MT will face a major problem before you know it. But I'm confident it will be the first scenario.
Barry is rich and has no such concerns, but others who are closer to the players everyday's problems are a bit more realistic and know what has to be done. He's also extremely arrogant and if persists in not giving his players a bit of respect, it will backfire. His players are his most valuable assets and he better remember that before damage is done.
And as Witz and my own simulations have shown, it's perfectly possible to pay first round losers something without increasing the global prize money of the tournament, because there are two less rounds to play and money no more spent on those can be reused.
It's a no brainer really.

Monique

what part of what i say is thickness

God your a very rude person i was having a proper debate and you decided to get nasty like you always do.

now im a mod im not going to dignify that with the rant it deserves.

Jewell wrote:That's the point I'm trying to make, though. What DIFFERENCE does it make to Barry Pinches if, say, Ronnie O'Sullivan was given an appearance fee? It makes no difference at all. Barry still gets what Barry got before.

But Barry Hearn will be safe in the Knowledge the Top players getting payed to appear so if Barry Pinches decides to go on Strike who the hell cares.

Jewell wrote:I get what you're saying, Wild, but that's just the way it is. The market dictates who is the valuable commodity and who isn't. Unfortunately for guys like Barry Pinches they don't bring in the extra revenue to warrant any appearance money.

If Barry Pinches were to go on strike he would be replaced with the minimum of fuss.

yea it does but that's why i dont get why Monique is in favour of this because it will put Barry Hearn and the Top players in such a strong Position that Players down the Rankings will be Suffering More than ever.

they will then either Decide to travel at a loss or give up because a threat of a Breakaway Tour would have disintegrated (thank god i might add) by having Top players Happy with Appearance Money.

who would want to Fund a Breakaway Tour with Barry Pinches and Rod Lawler top Players lol

im against Appearance Money for a Different reason i might add But that's a Different scenario ive thrown in This afternoon.

Wild WC wrote:Monique

what part of what i say is thickness

God your a very rude person i was having a proper debate and you decided to get nasty like you always do.

now im a mod im not going to dignify that with the rant it deserves.

I'm very rarely rude but like everyone I have my limits some day, and today is one such day.
Your thickness resides in the fact that you refuse to see that to build a global game you need more than a handful exponents. Currently there aren't more than maybe 200 persons in the world able to play at a pro level, if that and only 128 will be actual pros next season. You compare that with WTA that has over 2500 pros. If the game develops that will change. But for it to develop one has to make sure that enough players can actually sustain the financial effort it requires and that won't be the case FOR NOW if first round losers get nothing, in particular when playing involves traveling to the other side of the planet. One also has to make sure that parents of young gifted kids see snooker as a real opportunity that doesn't involve a financial risk far too big for them to contemplate.
It's NOT about rewarding mediocrity, it's NOT about allowing serial losers to make a living knocking balls around, but it IS about making sure that the cost of the MT is sustainable for those who start their career and need time to find their feet in the pro life. It did take time for guys like Robertson, Selby or even Trump to prove themselves as consistent winners. Neil even dropped off the tour. Do you think that with £500 in his pocket he could have afforded the MT as it is now, if he was getting zilch in first round matches he lost (or even won as it is nowadays)?
Yet I don't suppose that Neil can be seen as mediocre.

SnookerFan wrote:

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.

Not necessarily. Nobody is blaming Ronnie, or any other player, for taking money that's offered to them. They'd be mugs not to take it.

I think the complaint is that it isn't a fair system to pick the popular players, then pay them extra just for being there. Sport should be the more you win, the more you earn. How can Hearn justify saying he's putting the snooker players to work, if he's throwing money at them for just walking through the door?

The fault isn't with Ronnie, per se.

Apparently you people can't read properly.
The "appearance fees" that were discussed in the press, following Hearn's "quotes" would be paid by SPONSORS on their own initiative and not by WS. So Hearn isn't "throwing money" at anyone.
You can't tell the sponsors who they want to promote. It depends on their goal and the image they want to give. That's their choice and it'a a purely commercial stuff. It's none of WS business and I can't for the life of me see why anyone would object to it. It's done in all sports. And even if snooker wanted to single itself out by making this against the rules, they couldn't stop the said sponsor to offer the players of their choice any amount they see fit to do a photo-shoot, or a short PR recording … or anything that would get them around the ruling.

And having said all that, Ronnie himself has said NOTHING since his initial statement that he would not play and I have no reason to think he's change his mind. All the fuss that has been done around a possible return - at every tournament - has been created by Hearn to keep sponsors interested and hopeful and I wouldn't be surprised if he was the one who suggested to the sponsor that they could try that route.
Whatever WS claims, I've been in enough tournaments this season to know that the crowds have been poorer than last season except maybe for the Masters (I wasn't there last year so I can't tell). But last season there was no need for the "balcony policy" to make the venue look packed in York because it was packed, also in Berlin for the first three days it was the poorest crowd I've ever seen in the Tempodrom, not even half of what it was last year.

for the record I would be against appearance fees paid by WSA - THAT would be unfair.

I don't think it's an assault against Ronnie, BTW, I didn't bring his name in the thread, but you did.

My view is that the "market" should be allowed to play, like it does in other walks of life and that earning opportunities for players, outside the WSA tour, should not be restricted.

We could get a situation where Jimmy White is payed Appearance Money for the hell of it because we all know Jimmy would turn up for nothing because he loves Snooker and some of the top/form players gets nothing.

SnookerFan wrote:

Monique wrote:I don't think it's an assault against Ronnie, BTW, I didn't bring his name in the thread, but you did.

My view is that the "market" should be allowed to play, like it does in other walks of life and that earning opportunities for players, outside the WSA tour, should not be restricted.

How did I bring him into the thread? The link posted in the first post of this thread goes to an article about Ronnie. An article you've just accused me of not being able to read.

I didn't say you were the first, I said you brought it as in "mention it". I did not except in a list with others who, IMO, have a good chance to be offered such money because of their commercial value.
As for not reading, you know I had it about "Hearn throwing money …" whilst it isn't Hearn or WS money we are talking about in this context.

Wild WC wrote:We could get a situation where Jimmy White is payed Appearance Money for the hell of it because we all know Jimmy would turn up for nothing because he loves Snooker and some of the top/form players gets nothing.

Yes, we could, but if a sponsor wants to do it, so what? It's their money. And it's not because they won't spend it on Jimmy that they will spend it on someone else. It would probably just go to another sport/entertainment or whatever they see fit. I wouldn't personally but if they think it might be profitable … (*)
Once again this is not WS money, this is additional money injected into the sport by someone who thinks there is a commercial value for them to spend it this way. You can't regulate that, no more than anyone is to tell you how you spend your own money.

(*) I must say that I was baffled at the hype around Jimmy at the shoot-out. He was never going to do much in such event. I can't see sense in it, but there you have it.

How would appearance Money Work then? with 128 flat structure

a Sponsor pays a player to Appear in their Event. that player enters Plays in a cubicle Loses in the Last 128 and doesn't get to the Venue and gets payed or they are payed IF They get to the venue in front of a crowd.

SnookerFan wrote:I've just thought. Will Appearance fees count towards the Money Ranking Lists?

in future stick to eating instead of thinking SimpleFrankin

Wild WC wrote:How would appearance Money Work then? with 128 flat structure

a Sponsor pays a player to Appear in their Event. that player enters Plays in a cubicle Loses in the Last 128 and doesn't get to the Venue and gets payed or they are payed IF They get to the venue in front of a crowd.

Well it won't obviously, unless the whole event is played in one go at a venue (or several geographically close venues) that can accommodate an audience, which I know for certain is the goal in the long term.

Wild WC wrote:How would appearance Money Work then? with 128 flat structure

a Sponsor pays a player to Appear in their Event. that player enters Plays in a cubicle Loses in the Last 128 and doesn't get to the Venue and gets payed or they are payed IF They get to the venue in front of a crowd.

Hypothetically, a sponsor from next season could insist a players match(es) are held over to the venue, even at the expense of far more deserving players eg Jimmy White

Alpha wrote:

Wild WC wrote:How would appearance Money Work then? with 128 flat structure

a Sponsor pays a player to Appear in their Event. that player enters Plays in a cubicle Loses in the Last 128 and doesn't get to the Venue and gets payed or they are payed IF They get to the venue in front of a crowd.

Hypothetically, a sponsor from next season could insist a players match(es) are held over to the venue, een at the expense of far more deserving players eg Jimmy White

If the first two rounds are held at a different place then the other rounds and in a separate time slot, I doubt that any last 128 match would be held over. That would over-complicate the draw. But as I wrote above, expect an increasing number of tournaments played in one go and in one geographical area, with space for an audience, just like the PTCs.

Alpha wrote:

Wild WC wrote:How would appearance Money Work then? with 128 flat structure

a Sponsor pays a player to Appear in their Event. that player enters Plays in a cubicle Loses in the Last 128 and doesn't get to the Venue and gets payed or they are payed IF They get to the venue in front of a crowd.

Hypothetically, a sponsor from next season could insist a players match(es) are held over to the venue, een at the expense of far more deserving players eg Jimmy White

That defeats the purpose of having a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD".

How can it be level if matches of the same Round are played under different playing conditions.

Wild WC wrote:

Alpha wrote:

Wild WC wrote:How would appearance Money Work then? with 128 flat structure

a Sponsor pays a player to Appear in their Event. that player enters Plays in a cubicle Loses in the Last 128 and doesn't get to the Venue and gets payed or they are payed IF They get to the venue in front of a crowd.

Hypothetically, a sponsor from next season could insist a players match(es) are held over to the venue, een at the expense of far more deserving players eg Jimmy White

That defeats the purpose of having a "LEVEL PLAYING FIELD".

How can it be level if matches of the same Round are played under different playing conditions.

It's not. I was just making a point based upon your scenario (which isn't far fetched) of giving appearance fees to someone just so they can play in their tournament and then getting beat in the last 128 which no sponsor would want in that situation.

it could work if the appearance fee was a carrot dangled in front of a big names player and would only be payable on the basis he won his qualifiers and made it to the venue.

However i tend to think the bulk of tournies will have all 128 players at the venue or A.N.Other venue for events, so qualifying as we know it will cease to exist pretty much