Ronnie's Comments on Hearn/ World Snooker

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

gallantrabbit wrote:I actually despise myself for reading O'sullivan's twitter feed. It's just like being back at school where one or two were so determined to be antagonisitc just to show that they could...pathetic really from O'sullivan. Do you really think he is interested in filling pockets of the `so called` numpties? Is the NI venue a stinky one Ron? Berk. Surely somewhere there O'sullivan is in breach of contract? So Hearn should take action. He can't cary on being called a money grabber with no clue about sport. The man has single handedly turned snooker around.

Good post IMO.

Hearn is not perfect and of course he loves monae but he also loves the sport. Fair enough.

IMO ROS loves money but does nit love the sport. Fair enough too.

Hearn has been clear that he invited Ronnie to meet to discuss and he declined. End of - surely??

Wildey wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

gallantrabbit wrote:I actually despise myself for reading O'sullivan's twitter feed. It's just like being back at school where one or two were so determined to be antagonisitc just to show that they could...pathetic really from O'sullivan. Do you really think he is interested in filling pockets of the `so called` numpties? Is the NI venue a stinky one Ron? Berk. Surely somewhere there O'sullivan is in breach of contract? So Hearn should take action. He can't cary on being called a money grabber with no clue about sport. The man has single handedly turned snooker around.

Good post IMO.

Hearn is not perfect and of course he loves monae but he also loves the sport. Fair enough.

IMO ROS loves money but does nit love the sport. Fair enough too.

Hearn has been clear that he invited Ronnie to meet to discuss and he declined. End of - surely??

The Ironic thing is Ronnie actually is Worst than Hearn.


When Barry took over i was concerned big time that he would turn the tour all about a few players the Headline Grabing players like Ronnie and that would be a total disaster if events was focused on Top players there was even people that claimed he would cut the tour to 48 players however the reality is hes gone the other way and increased the tour from 96 to 128.

As i said UK Championship is a farce and well the Shoot Out will go down as Barry Hearn having a senile Moment not his most proudest idea to say the least.

But as a fan of the sport since about 1980 so ive seen the sport during all its TV Era this is by miles the best time to be a fan and a player unfortunally for Ronnie its at a time he would prefer 6 tournaments so he could do other things but he has no right to talk for other players..yes there will be times when they get bored and not that interested in the daily grind so heres a idea stay home but should the Sport stop just because some players cant be bothered.

TheSaviour wrote:Dali effortlessly combined bohemianism and sophistication.

gallantrabbit wrote:The way I see it though the tour is not for 128 players. Why is there this mad scrabble for top 64 places come end of the season? OK, there are 128 places up fro grabs in most tourneys, but the boys below 64 are really just filling in. No way there is money to support 128 players. Number 64 earned 46k last year. That's miles above the going rate just a few years ago. Any lower than that, sorry, but they have a choice.

Wildey wrote: unfortunally for Ronnie its at a time he would prefer 6 tournaments so he could do other things but he has no right to talk for other players..yes there will be times when they get bored and not that interested in the daily grind so heres a idea stay home but should the Sport stop just because some players cant be bothered.

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Wildey wrote: unfortunally for Ronnie its at a time he would prefer 6 tournaments so he could do other things but he has no right to talk for other players..yes there will be times when they get bored and not that interested in the daily grind so heres a idea stay home but should the Sport stop just because some players cant be bothered.

Ronnie never said that, don't put words in his mouth. He has no problem against having more tourneys.
He said it's not ok for top players to have to go in a s.h.i.t venue to qualify for a tourney.
And he proposed a brilliant idea, cut down the rankers, meaning that u can even create more tourneys if u like, but only a few should count as rankers.
IMO 8 rankers a season is more than enough. That way top players will go to these tourneys in order to keep their ranking and qualify for prestigious invitational events like the Masters and for the ITV events. And the lower ranked players can go to less prestigious non-rankers, that will be far more accessible for them to win and/or make more money, since many top pros won't be there.

Less tourneys counting as rankers is the best idea.

Wildey wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Wildey wrote: unfortunally for Ronnie its at a time he would prefer 6 tournaments so he could do other things but he has no right to talk for other players..yes there will be times when they get bored and not that interested in the daily grind so heres a idea stay home but should the Sport stop just because some players cant be bothered.

Ronnie never said that, don't put words in his mouth. He has no problem against having more tourneys.
He said it's not ok for top players to have to go in a s.h.i.t venue to qualify for a tourney.
And he proposed a brilliant idea, cut down the rankers, meaning that u can even create more tourneys if u like, but only a few should count as rankers.
IMO 8 rankers a season is more than enough. That way top players will go to these tourneys in order to keep their ranking and qualify for prestigious invitational events like the Masters and for the ITV events. And the lower ranked players can go to less prestigious non-rankers, that will be far more accessible for them to win and/or make more money, since many top pros won't be there.

Less tourneys counting as rankers is the best idea.

That's a rubbish idea that makes him richer and lower players poorer you see for him it's all about what he wants buck the bigger scheme of things.

Andre147 wrote:The 128 system isnt wrong, but tournaments like the UK should be 32 players to the venue.

Whats wrong is first round losers get nothing from the 128 system. ROS pointed this out on Twitter and I agree. Some of them cant make a living earning nothing.

Hearn says he doesnt reward mediocricy, BUT these lower ranked players have travel, hotel and food expenses. By earning nothing when they lose a first round match is wrong.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Andre147 wrote:The 128 system isnt wrong, but tournaments like the UK should be 32 players to the venue.

Whats wrong is first round losers get nothing from the 128 system. ROS pointed this out on Twitter and I agree. Some of them cant make a living earning nothing.

Hearn says he doesnt reward mediocricy, BUT these lower ranked players have travel, hotel and food expenses. By earning nothing when they lose a first round match is wrong.

I agree with every point there Andre - but just one caught my interest.

ROS did indeed say that it was wrong that 128 losers get nothing. He also called them 'numpties', asked 'what boat' some of them came over on and has expressed views that the top 16 should be protected at their expense. My point is - do you think he is genuinely concerned about these players, or just trying to score points against Hearn? My challenge to him would be to do something constructive and donate £6 400 per 128 tourney to the 64 first round losers. It would help them a lot and would not hurt him much and if he feels passionately then go for it.

I know a few Ronistas on here think I am 100% against ROS but I am not. I admire his play, will agree with him when I feel he he is right but will not follow the crowd that says he can do nothing wrong because he is a great snooker player. That is a silly standpoint (and I am not referring to you).

Dan-cat wrote:Baddy, I don’t think anyone has that standpoint.

Iranu wrote:Seeding the top 16 and covering expenses of first round loaers aren't mutually exclusive.

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Andre147 wrote:The 128 system isnt wrong, but tournaments like the UK should be 32 players to the venue.

Whats wrong is first round losers get nothing from the 128 system. ROS pointed this out on Twitter and I agree. Some of them cant make a living earning nothing.

Hearn says he doesnt reward mediocricy, BUT these lower ranked players have travel, hotel and food expenses. By earning nothing when they lose a first round match is wrong.

I agree with every point there Andre - but just one caught my interest.

ROS did indeed say that it was wrong that 128 losers get nothing. He also called them 'numpties', asked 'what boat' some of them came over on and has expressed views that the top 16 should be protected at their expense. My point is - do you think he is genuinely concerned about these players, or just trying to score points against Hearn? My challenge to him would be to do something constructive and donate £6 400 per 128 tourney to the 64 first round losers. It would help them a lot and would not hurt him much and if he feels passionately then go for it.

I know a few Ronistas on here think I am 100% against ROS but I am not. I admire his play, will agree with him when I feel he he is right but will not follow the crowd that says he can do nothing wrong because he is a great snooker player. That is a silly standpoint (and I am not referring to you).

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Wildey wrote: unfortunally for Ronnie its at a time he would prefer 6 tournaments so he could do other things but he has no right to talk for other players..yes there will be times when they get bored and not that interested in the daily grind so heres a idea stay home but should the Sport stop just because some players cant be bothered.

Ronnie never said that, don't put words in his mouth. He has no problem against having more tourneys.
He said it's not ok for top players to have to go in a s.h.i.t venue to qualify for a tourney.
And he proposed a brilliant idea, cut down the rankers, meaning that u can even create more tourneys if u like, but only a few should count as rankers.
IMO 8 rankers a season is more than enough. That way top players will go to these tourneys in order to keep their ranking and qualify for prestigious invitational events like the Masters and for the ITV events. And the lower ranked players can go to less prestigious non-rankers, that will be far more accessible for them to win and/or make more money, since many top pros won't be there.

Less tourneys counting as rankers is the best idea.

That's a rubbish idea that makes him richer and lower players poorer you see for him it's all about what he wants buck the bigger scheme of things.

Deewee wrote:Where is the money going to come from for the other events? Who's going to want to sponsor or buy tickets if there's no top players?

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Badsnookerplayer wrote:

Wildey wrote:

Johnny Bravo wrote:

Wildey wrote: unfortunally for Ronnie its at a time he would prefer 6 tournaments so he could do other things but he has no right to talk for other players..yes there will be times when they get bored and not that interested in the daily grind so heres a idea stay home but should the Sport stop just because some players cant be bothered.

Ronnie never said that, don't put words in his mouth. He has no problem against having more tourneys.
He said it's not ok for top players to have to go in a s.h.i.t venue to qualify for a tourney.
And he proposed a brilliant idea, cut down the rankers, meaning that u can even create more tourneys if u like, but only a few should count as rankers.
IMO 8 rankers a season is more than enough. That way top players will go to these tourneys in order to keep their ranking and qualify for prestigious invitational events like the Masters and for the ITV events. And the lower ranked players can go to less prestigious non-rankers, that will be far more accessible for them to win and/or make more money, since many top pros won't be there.

Less tourneys counting as rankers is the best idea.

That's a rubbish idea that makes him richer and lower players poorer you see for him it's all about what he wants buck the bigger scheme of things.

No, it's not a good post, it's a bad post.
U guys simply hate Ronnie's guts, that's why you're against anything he says.
I know he talks rubbish a lot, but this time he is right.

Reducing the number of tourneys that count as rankers is a great idea. That way top pros won't have to play so much, and the lower ranked ones can benefit form the absence of the top dogs. Even your beloved Selbo has skipped certain tourneys.
It certainly can't hurt a numpty's chances to advance in a tourney if he can avoid the likes of ROS or Selbo in the first round.

And if u guys really think this is a bad idea, give me some proper arguments. And it's irrelevant if ROS came up with this idea cause he wants more money or cause he cares about the lower ranked players, it's the end result that matters.

gallantrabbit wrote:quite...


O'sullivan is just too full of contradictions to trust in him...
Basically he wants the wages of numpties who can't make 30 to quadruple while he goes off to play the top 8 in plush lounges...