Topic locked

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Witz78

Wild WC wrote:
Witz78 wrote:once we move to a flat 128 system the scope for prize money districution will be better as no losers will recieve a penny so everyone who gets paid will have earned their money.

Last 128 - nothing, if you lose you dont get paid, simples

Last 64 - if you win one game you get at least enough to cover your expenses for the x number of days at the qualifiers

Last 32 - if you qualify for the venue and lose in round 1 at the venue, you will at least recieve enough cash to cover your flights, hotels, expenses for going to the venue too

And once you start making the last 16 , last 8 etc onwards then you are making profit.

This is an initial idealistic model, a worst case scenario id expec and hope for.

ive come round to the flat system but never a ranking system that makes Carter top 8 based on one run at the worlds.


you still dont get it.

for all them round 1 defeats he had all season he wouldnt get any cash for them so his total earnings / ranking would be down a bit.

However reaching the World Final is a big achievment and it is clearly poorly rewarded ranking wise at the moment, and this will be rectified under an Order of Merit.

But one point to note is under a flat 128 qualifying set up, rankings will not be overly critical anymore as there wont be anyone automatically getting seeded through to venues anyway so the "elite" element will no longer exists. So long as your in the top 32 then youd expect to get a favourable draw in qualifying, (ie. worst case scenario, you play 65th seed in round 1 and 33rd seed in round 2)

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Wild WC wrote:
Witz78 wrote:once we move to a flat 128 system the scope for prize money districution will be better as no losers will recieve a penny so everyone who gets paid will have earned their money.

Last 128 - nothing, if you lose you dont get paid, simples

Last 64 - if you win one game you get at least enough to cover your expenses for the x number of days at the qualifiers

Last 32 - if you qualify for the venue and lose in round 1 at the venue, you will at least recieve enough cash to cover your flights, hotels, expenses for going to the venue too

And once you start making the last 16 , last 8 etc onwards then you are making profit.

This is an initial idealistic model, a worst case scenario id expec and hope for.

ive come round to the flat system but never a ranking system that makes Carter top 8 based on one run at the worlds.


you still dont get it.

for all them round 1 defeats he had all season he wouldnt get any cash for them so his total earnings / ranking would be down a bit.

However reaching the World Final is a big achievment and it is clearly poorly rewarded ranking wise at the moment, and this will be rectified under an Order of Merit.

But one point to note is under a flat 128 qualifying set up, rankings will not be overly critical anymore as there wont be anyone automatically getting seeded through to venues anyway so the "elite" element will no longer exists. So long as your in the top 32 then youd expect to get a favourable draw in qualifying, (ie. worst case scenario, you play 65th seed in round 1 and 33rd seed in round 2)

i think keeping a consistant level of performance for a whole season is more of an achievmant than reaching the world final regarding rankings is concerned

anyone can hit a purple patch but hitting that purple patch at the right event should not be rewarded if all other events been rubbish.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby snooky147

Witz78 wrote:once we move to a flat 128 system the scope for prize money districution will be better as no losers will recieve a penny so everyone who gets paid will have earned their money.

Last 128 - nothing, if you lose you dont get paid, simples

Last 64 - if you win one game you get at least enough to cover your expenses for the x number of days at the qualifiers

Last 32 - if you qualify for the venue and lose in round 1 at the venue, you will at least recieve enough cash to cover your flights, hotels, expenses for going to the venue too

And once you start making the last 16 , last 8 etc onwards then you are making profit.

This is an initial idealistic model, a worst case scenario id expec and hope for.


Thats all i am looking for mate, i can live with that.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Witz78

lets just take the recent WC as an example

last 64 - 9 seeds lost (£4,600x9) = £41,400

last 48 - 6 seeds lost (£8,200x6) = £49,200

last 32 - 8 seeds lost (£12,000x8) = £96,000

so £186,600 was paid out to guys who didnt win a game in this tournament and effectively contributed nothing whereas some guys won 2/3 games and didnt get paid a penny.

mediocrity will truly not be rewarded under a flat 128 set up.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

Witz78 wrote:once we move to a flat 128 system the scope for prize money districution will be better as no losers will recieve a penny so everyone who gets paid will have earned their money.

Last 128 - nothing, if you lose you dont get paid, simples

Last 64 - if you win one game you get at least enough to cover your expenses for the x number of days at the qualifiers

Last 32 - if you qualify for the venue and lose in round 1 at the venue, you will at least recieve enough cash to cover your flights, hotels, expenses for going to the venue too

And once you start making the last 16 , last 8 etc onwards then you are making profit.

This is an initial idealistic model, a worst case scenario id expec and hope for.


I certainly could live with that as well and most pros would.
What they don't accept is playing and winning several matches and still make a loss. That's not right by any means.
It's not about rewarding mediocrity. It's about being fair. You do the job, you get paid.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby gallantrabbit

Unfortunately you have to serve your apprenticeship like in any job. Sometimes you're going to win 2/3 matches and not win money. It's called qualifiers. Who but us lunatics on live streaming is watching??

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

I disagree. They have served their apprenticeship while battling through the amateurs ranks and earning their spot on the MT. As pros, if they win they should get paid, and decently.
If they aren't good enough, they will lose their spot. Just as, if you aren't good enough at the job, you will be fired. But while you are contracted, if you do the job, you get paid.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby gallantrabbit

Monique you are not a realist. I could agree with you more if prize money was top heavy, but it's not. Do golfers get paid for not making the cut? No, and there's bundles more money in golf. Hearn is giving pros the opportunity to play matches and win money, not guaranteed earnings. As the tour expands he can be more generous.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

I'm asking nothing for those who don't win. But those who do should earn something, even if it's modest, not be out of their pockets.
And I'm afraid that I am actually only too realist. When you know - for fact - that no less than 5 Chinese TV channels were broadcasting the Antwerp PTC and that surely they must have paid rights for this, you are entitled to wonder where the money went. Not to the players, that's for sure, and not the the event organisers either, who, despite the huge success it was, made a loss.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby gallantrabbit

OK if there really is money about then it should be properly used. Who would we need to question, Ferguson or Hearn? The last thing snooker needs is unaccounted for money of course.
I do think though Monique you side with the players a little too heavily sometimes. I think you might be talking about winning pre-qualifying matches in the PTCs. Would you really expect players to be paid for that? I think most low ranked pros and amateurs know the score. They can't really expect payment for beating someone who's just as unknown as they are...

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

gallantrabbit wrote:OK if there really is money about then it should be properly used. Who would we need to question, Ferguson or Hearn? The last thing snooker needs is unaccounted for money of course.
I do think though Monique you side with the players a little too heavily sometimes. I think you might be talking about winning pre-qualifying matches in the PTCs. Would you really expect players to be paid for that? I think most low ranked pros and amateurs know the score. They can't really expect payment for beating someone who's just as unknown as they are...


No I'm not expecting that, and I'm not talking about that neither. I'm talking about proper ranking events like the German Masters 2012. There was NO prize money at all before the last 48. Do you think that's right? It means that a player could win 3 matches and still earn nothing.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:
gallantrabbit wrote:OK if there really is money about then it should be properly used. Who would we need to question, Ferguson or Hearn? The last thing snooker needs is unaccounted for money of course.
I do think though Monique you side with the players a little too heavily sometimes. I think you might be talking about winning pre-qualifying matches in the PTCs. Would you really expect players to be paid for that? I think most low ranked pros and amateurs know the score. They can't really expect payment for beating someone who's just as unknown as they are...


No I'm not expecting that, and I'm not talking about that neither. I'm talking about proper ranking events like the German Masters 2012. There was NO prize money at all before the last 48. Do you think that's right? It means that a player could win 3 matches and still earn nothing.

but mon what would you do

£41,000 to Ronnie for German Masters lets Give Ronnie £20,000 and spread the Money evenly down the pecking order so that players further Down gets payed.

in a ideal World Everyone makes money but Barry wants to weed out the Dead wood Pros that Gets Money without ambition or the Talent to push on and get to the Money earning rounds.

Barry Hearn has always said he wont reward Mediocraty and that what hes Doing.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Witz78

Wild WC wrote:
Monique wrote:
gallantrabbit wrote:OK if there really is money about then it should be properly used. Who would we need to question, Ferguson or Hearn? The last thing snooker needs is unaccounted for money of course.
I do think though Monique you side with the players a little too heavily sometimes. I think you might be talking about winning pre-qualifying matches in the PTCs. Would you really expect players to be paid for that? I think most low ranked pros and amateurs know the score. They can't really expect payment for beating someone who's just as unknown as they are...


No I'm not expecting that, and I'm not talking about that neither. I'm talking about proper ranking events like the German Masters 2012. There was NO prize money at all before the last 48. Do you think that's right? It means that a player could win 3 matches and still earn nothing.

but mon what would you do

£41,000 to Ronnie for German Masters lets Give Ronnie £20,000 and spread the Money evenly down the pecking order so that players further Down gets payed.

in a ideal World Everyone makes money but Barry wants to weed out the Dead wood Pros that Gets Money without ambition or the Talent to push on and get to the Money earning rounds.

Barry Hearn has always said he wont reward Mediocraty and that what hes Doing.


thats why Hearns gonna bring in a flat 128

you have to win a game to be rewarded

the mediocrity at this years World Championships (LOSING seeded players in last 64, 48 and 32) were paid almost £200,000 for NOT WINNING A GAME BETWEEN THEM.

in future players will have to perform to earn cash

too easy for a lot of the so called elite and other established names in the top 32 to think, ah well im getting a cheque for 8 or 12k here whatever i do, if i win good, if i dont, then its summer holiday time.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Witz78

Jewell wrote:Interesting point about the 5 Chinese TV companies broadcasting the Belgian PTC. It would be nice to know where that money went, unless of course Barry trousered the money for himself in which case we'll never know.


cant believe Monique can alude to such outrageous accusations, her employers too :gag:

Hearns not a bent crook like Walker was <ok>

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

Witz78 wrote:
Jewell wrote:Interesting point about the 5 Chinese TV companies broadcasting the Belgian PTC. It would be nice to know where that money went, unless of course Barry trousered the money for himself in which case we'll never know.


cant believe Monique can alude to such outrageous accusations, her employers too :gag:

Hearns not a bent crook like Walker was <ok>


World Snooker isn't my employer.

And I'm not accusing anyone of anything. I don't know how much those rights are, or what the deal is, I'm just wondering about where that money is invested into. As it is it might be reinvested in the Chinese events, I don't know. But I know I'm not the only one with questions.

Look at the "wild cards". Nobody really likes them here (I mean in UK/Europe) but the Chinese sponsors make them mandatory: no wild cards, no money. So we will go ahead with wilcards, whether we like them or not.

And yes, witz & Jewell, I know you're just having a bit of humour, but not everyone will know you and read it this way, or read the original post. You could bring this board in trouble.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

Wild WC wrote:
Monique wrote:
gallantrabbit wrote:OK if there really is money about then it should be properly used. Who would we need to question, Ferguson or Hearn? The last thing snooker needs is unaccounted for money of course.
I do think though Monique you side with the players a little too heavily sometimes. I think you might be talking about winning pre-qualifying matches in the PTCs. Would you really expect players to be paid for that? I think most low ranked pros and amateurs know the score. They can't really expect payment for beating someone who's just as unknown as they are...


No I'm not expecting that, and I'm not talking about that neither. I'm talking about proper ranking events like the German Masters 2012. There was NO prize money at all before the last 48. Do you think that's right? It means that a player could win 3 matches and still earn nothing.

but mon what would you do

£41,000 to Ronnie for German Masters lets Give Ronnie £20,000 and spread the Money evenly down the pecking order so that players further Down gets payed.

in a ideal World Everyone makes money but Barry wants to weed out the Dead wood Pros that Gets Money without ambition or the Talent to push on and get to the Money earning rounds.

Barry Hearn has always said he wont reward Mediocraty and that what hes Doing.


The problem is wild that it's not the "dead wood" that is "punished", it's mainly the young and rookies. They have to start at the bottom and, as good as they might be, they need some time to adjust to pro life and climb. Even Hendry needed about 3 seasons before becoming a winner. They have to survive during those years.
Do you want snooker to become a sport that only the ones born with a silver spoon in their mouth can take on because their family can support them for long enough? I don't. Wild, you are Welsh, and Wales has been a hot bed for snooker. Wales has produced many great players, born in its working class, sons of the miners. Do you want your sport of choice to turn into a thing for the posh only?

As I said many times before, there is no need to grow at the current pace. There is no need to multiply events by 5 over two years. Multiply them by 3 would be a lot better than before and more sustainable. And don't waste resources in tournaments that cost a lot, including to the players, and bring next to nothing. Brazil is the prime example, and to me, Australia also.
And don't come with comments about me wanting to go back to 6 tournaments per year, because I certainly don't want that. But there could and should be a better balance between ambition and resources and to me 20 instead of 30 would be better for now. Then when the money is there, expand further.

And yes, a flat structure would help massively. That and basic price money - covering the expenses, reasonable expenses - for those winning at least one match.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Wildey

But Remember one thing here Players Memo to Barry Hearn was More Events to play in.

He has delivered and his Priority is to the Long term stability and Future of Snooker not to individual Bank Accounts of Players yes some will suffer short term thats inevitable in the Long Term Goal.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

Wild WC wrote:But Remember one thing here Players Memo to Barry Hearn was More Events to play in.

He has delivered and his Priority is to the Long term stability and Future of Snooker not to individual Bank Accounts of Players yes some will suffer short term thats inevitable in the Long Term Goal.


I don't think it's inevitable. Or at least I do think that the situation could be improved for many provided some adjustments are made.
Barry Hearn has done a lot, and a lot is good. That doesn't mean that everything is good, or that some things shouldn't be rethought in the light of experience.

Just another example of something that annoys me:

Simon Bedford, 36, never went past the last 32 in any tournament in his career , never was ranked higher than 65, gets a 2 years card for being 8th in the "PTC Order of Merit" list of those dropping out of MT. The guy hasn't entered an event in the second part of the season. And then you have the likes of Adam Wicheard and Sam Baird slogging it out in the Q-School despite some excellent runs towards the end of the season.
Don't you think that, maybe, something isn't quite right there and should be "rethought"?

Or Gilbert situation in the WC qualifs. When losing a match would have guaranteed him a 2 years card, again though PTC, while winning it was pushing him in top 64 with just one year guaranteed?

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Alpha

The buck has to stop with the players unfortunately. The Altium deal they turned down in 2002 would have guaranteed the (then) 9 world ranking events and would have added a few others as well as safeguarding the Wembley, Irish and Scottish Masters as invitationals for many years.
The players turned Altium down and backed an alternative company who I believe were ejected a year later for failing to deliver their promises. Then the players turned to Rodney Walker who through incompetence, cut the circuit down to 6 rankers plus the Masters. Then the players started moaning that they were effectively part-timers and they weren't playing enough.
Enter Barry Hearn who was told by the players to start putting in more tournaments. The money wasn't there to fund full rankers so the PTC series was born. Hearn has done exactly what he was put in charge to do.
The current system short changes the kids and the international players who have to base themselves in the UK 9 months out of 12, which is why the system is being changed.
The top players short sightedness is the reason for any "unfairness".

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Wildey

yea but id love players to make money seeing the Likes of Stephen and Sam Craigie not entering Q School is sad to say the least but i really dont know the answer....Less events will mean Less Money not Take from there and put on that it just dont work like that.

Tournaments Popularity and Player participation is the only way that Money will be push up and if Witz is Right and Money Rankings will do that then ill hold up my hands and admit i was Wrong however in the possition Snooker found itself only 2 years ago when Hearn Took over i really cant see it in the short term snooker just not markitable cool at the moment years of neglect has made that happen.

Barry could Take Time to build it up but that could be too late even for the Likes of Judd Trump to cash in.

as a sport Top Players has to Pull up their sleeves and Make it Work for the younger Players starting out now

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

Alpha wrote: The top players short sightedness is the reason for any "unfairness".


Really? Care to explain?

That sounds to me as one of those easy throwaway sentences that aren't backed by any sensible reasoning. It wasn't just the top players who rejected the Altium deal. Don't forget that part of it was to "cut" the MT to 64… that didn't go well with the low ranked players I'd thought.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Alpha

Monique wrote:
Alpha wrote: The top players short sightedness is the reason for any "unfairness".


Really? Care to explain?

That sounds to me as one of those easy throwaway sentences that aren't backed by any sensible reasoning. It wasn't just the top players who rejected the Altium deal. Don't forget that part of it was to "cut" the MT to 64… that didn't go well with the low ranked players I'd thought.


No and it was a mistake on their part. However the main reason that this proposal was rejected was because the players thought Altium were too close to Ian Doyle despite their repeated denials. Seems pretty short sighted to me.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

Wild WC wrote:yea but id love players to make money seeing the Likes of Stephen and Sam Craigie not entering Q School is sad to say the least but i really dont know the answer....Less events will mean Less Money not Take from there and put on that it just dont work like that.

Tournaments Popularity and Player participation is the only way that Money will be push up and if Witz is Right and Money Rankings will do that then ill hold up my hands and admit i was Wrong however in the possition Snooker found itself only 2 years ago when Hearn Took over i really cant see it in the short term snooker just not markitable cool at the moment years of neglect has made that happen.

Barry could Take Time to build it up but that could be too late even for the Likes of Judd Trump to cash in.

as a sport Top Players has to Pull up their sleeves and Make it Work for the younger Players starting out now


Less events doesn't mean less money. It means more money per individual event. The money has doubled, which is good, but the number of events has gone x5 … and a lot of expenses that were covered by WSA are now on the players with traveling costs having rocketed. Which means that most of the players now work a lot more for less money and can't even make up for the loss with other activities, like running a club or doing coaching or exhibitions.

There is a balance to be found between developing the game - which is absolutely necessary - and try and make it sustainable for the main actors in it, namely the players. My opinion is simply that it's all going too fast, with no time for them to adjust to the new situation and no time for WSA to put enough effort and thinking to guarantee the required level of quality.

The top players have been young players and they have worked their way to the top, on their own. Yes, they have responsibilities, but that doesn't mean that they should take the cost of the game development. They do their bit by playing and offering the audience a quality entertainment. That does not mean they should do it for free or even at their own expenses. Nobody did it for them when they were young debutants.

With your reasoning Hendry should now devote his post-career to develop snooker for free instead of going to China and promote pool for 100 000 £/year. Dream on. Nobody will or should do that.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Wildey

monique

with respect your trying to teach hearn how to suck eggs here yes he makes mistakes but one thing he does know about is making money and more money he makes for snooker the more that will eventually filter through to players he is comited to helping young players (ie 2 year tour card) but he wont do it if the sport suffers.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

Wild WC wrote:monique

with respect your trying to teach hearn how to suck eggs here yes he makes mistakes but one thing he does know about is making money and more money he makes for snooker the more that will eventually filter through to players he is comited to helping young players (ie 2 year tour card) but he wont do it if the sport suffers.



I'm not trying to teach Hearn anything. I'm just not naïve about his agenda. He's there to make money and doesn't care about "casualties", young or older. He's a businessman, and a very efficient one, not Mother Theresa. And if it doesn't work, he'll step out … as he said from the start BTW.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Monique

And BTW, I do appreciate the fact that we can have a discussion - with different points of view - without it going down to flames and insults. Much more interesting and constructive that way. :-)

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:And BTW, I do appreciate the fact that we can have a discussion - with different points of view - without it going down to flames and insults. Much more interesting and constructive that way. :-)

yes i hate insults

and i do apreciate difficulties of players i just dont know the answer to it ....i just think for the SPORT Barry has done brilliantly in short time.

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby SnookerFan

Wild WC wrote:yes i hate insults

and i do apreciate difficulties of players i just dont know the answer to it ....i just think for the SPORT Barry has done brilliantly in short time.


Wild, are you sure that's you? :-D

Re: Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Postby Witz78

With regards to long term planning for the game...

well the tours been a shut shop pretty much for the last 15 years, hence the amount of 35-40 somethings on tour who have basically been journeymen all their careers rarely making any impact (we all know who they are) yet because of the restrictions placed on young players progression (teired qualifying set up, less minimum points per event, poor starter points etc.) they have never been able to have a fair crack of the whip to knock the journeymen off their perch.

Thats one thing Hearn is slowly setting about changing and heading towards thankfully.