PTCs reward

Wild wrote:

MarkSelbyNo1Fan wrote:If you travel all over the world for your career then in my opinion you should get a good reward for it. Times are tough at the minute.

exactly

so how does World Snooker pluck all this money out of thin air then ??

yes and players pay bills with fresh air

good one mate

randam05 wrote:Im totally with Monique on this one.

When you travel to watch PTCS, which a lot of you havent. You can really see how muchbloody hard work a player has to do to win one! They definitley deserve more reward. I say get rid of ones in sheffield and put one in devon! Nah seriously, just get rid of sheffield and spread them a lot further, and like monique says, reduce to 8 if needed and put more effort into them ones!

Good topic mon.

Absolutely. Some seem to think that because they are "condensed" over 2 days it's light work. They obviously have no idea about the reality.
On the first day in most cases, things go ways over schedule and players who reach the third round have to spend hours waiting for their last match and play well into the night, or actually the early hours of the morning. And they play between 16 and 21 frames on that first day. The second day, the final day, things usually stay on schedule BUT the players who reach the final play between 16 and 28 frames of snooker in a single day. Now, wait. In any other ranking tournament, whatever the format, I've never seen player play more than potentially 19 frames in a single day, over 2 sessions. Not even in the WC which is supposed to be the ultimate test. 28 possible frames in a single day is a hell of a lot, especially if you were dragged until 3 or 4 am on the previous day. It might be "only" two days, it's an extremely punishing schedule and a tremendous effort.

GJ wrote:

Wild wrote:

MarkSelbyNo1Fan wrote:If you travel all over the world for your career then in my opinion you should get a good reward for it. Times are tough at the minute.

exactly

so how does World Snooker pluck all this money out of thin air then ??

yes and players pay bills with fresh air

good one mate

they are the selling point they are the goose that might lay the golden egg not barry hearn all he can do is give them the tools to start the ball rolling if they want it to pay off they are the people that has to make it work.

nobody will survive if barry says there you are £100,000 play where is he suppose to find the money from ??

the top players has to show sponsors the sport is worth it and having players whining and moaning is very poor PR to make it work and worth it for sponsors to invest.

Snooker is scarcely any better than when Rodney was in charge. Nothing of any meaning has been created under Barry.

vodkadiet wrote:Snooker is scarcely any better than when Rodney was in charge. Nothing of any meaning has been created under Barry.

Those were good times. No sponsors for the Masters, UK and Worlds and 3 month breaks after the Welsh Open.

I think the prize money will improve over time but you can`t just throw money at it. You have to get it out of Sheffield first which is tough as Sheffield is just costing money.
I actually think it`s about right. I remember in the late 80s most of the big clubs would sell out pro-ams and the top prize was 1000 tops. Finalist got barely 400 and the rest their petrol max. It`s called chasing a dream and it costs money, but it`s a sight better than sitting in Blackpool for 2 and half months, getting depressed and sticking the cue in the attic. So many so called also rans have won these already, ask them if the PTCs are good. The rest, get back to the practice table. May seem harsh but it`s life. The opportunity is there.

Monique wrote:

randam05 wrote:Im totally with Monique on this one.

When you travel to watch PTCS, which a lot of you havent. You can really see how muchbloody hard work a player has to do to win one! They definitley deserve more reward. I say get rid of ones in sheffield and put one in devon! Nah seriously, just get rid of sheffield and spread them a lot further, and like monique says, reduce to 8 if needed and put more effort into them ones!

Good topic mon.

Absolutely. Some seem to think that because they are "condensed" over 2 days it's light work. They obviously have no idea about the reality.
On the first day in most cases, things go ways over schedule and players who reach the third round have to spend hours waiting for their last match and play well into the night, or actually the early hours of the morning. And they play between 16 and 21 frames on that first day. The second day, the final day, things usually stay on schedule BUT the players who reach the final play between 16 and 28 frames of snooker in a single day. Now, wait. In any other ranking tournament, whatever the format, I've never seen player play more than potentially 19 frames in a single day, over 2 sessions. Not even in the WC which is supposed to be the ultimate test. 28 possible frames in a single day is a hell of a lot, especially if you were dragged until 3 or 4 am on the previous day. It might be "only" two days, it's an extremely punishing schedule and a tremendous effort.

Of course it`s a tremendous effort which is why so many players have won these, as it`s tough to repeat the effort. You`re working with specific cases Monique but you should give a more general overlook and see how many players these PTCs have kept in the game. All this nonsense of Hearn being an elitist has been blown out of the water as Ronnie became the first player yesterday to win 2 in a season. They have given many players the chance to test themselves in different environments and the match practce is terrific.

Oh boy, I can't sleep with a runt of a flu, and only came across this one now, sorry not to give you a reply a lot sooner Monique.

First of all, I think it's fair to suggest that I am a fan of the PTCs. I recently found out that Killarney will be hosting one and although I'm working in Dublin at the moment, I'm pretty sure I'll be calling at some stage because I haven't seen any live snooker since the 2008 Northern Ireland Trophy.

I feel 2000 points for the winner of a PTC is perfect, as Monique correctly points out, a lot of effort goes into winning one, and I find it annoying that people suggest the points need to be reduced.

Do I feel 12 is too many? Quite possibly. I think somewhere between 8 and 10 would be more suitable, and they should be spread out better over the course of the year. I don't understand why all 12 are played off before December. Scrap the Championship League & quite possibly the now abysmal Premier League, make things a little easier as far as scheduling is concerned.

However, while I am a fan of the PTCs, I do not take back my views that their weighting in comparison to the mainstream rankers is overblown. Yes Monique, I do appreciate the effort that goes into this event from players, I'm not trying to be ignorant of those points, but here's why: the setting is not as pressure filled. The attendances are lower. Their is no razzmatazz. The pool of players capable of winning a PTC is far larger for these reasons mentioned. At the end of the day, regardless of effort put in (and I accept that 7 best-of-7 matches, possibly more, is no walk in the park), these events are simply NOT AS PRESTIGIOUS.

Take the World Open. The last 16 produced at that event was the highest quality last sixteen I think has ever been produced. The semi-finalists were all former world champions. Why was this? The World Open had a cracking set-up, in that it was one table in front of a far more considerable audience, and had a lot more razmatazz. It also featured a shorter format, and ultimately in such a high pressure environment, it was the better players who generally won. That, in my opinion, established the World Open as a superb tournament because of, and not in spite of, it's shorter format. The PTCs trailed it in every regard.

In my opinion, points should be allocated as follows (for the tournament winners):

World Championship: 12,000
UK Championship: 10,000
Shanghai Masters, China Open, World Open: 8,000
Australian Open, German Open, Welsh Open: 7,000
PTC Finals: 6,000
PTC Events: 2,000

Tubbs i'd agree with the top two if only though the UK was expanded again, think they're a bit too close considering the UK is now what, BO11s before the final ? BO11 is barely one session at the Crucible.

Also another point, is it worth debating whether or not snooker should join other sports in having 4 equal majors a year instead of just one big World event ?

The reducing of the frames at The UK is just another nail in snooker's coffin.

Hearn has just created a load of gimmick, meaningless, instantly forgettable events, that have just pandered to the A.D.D. crowd. The chief beneficiary of all this has been a player who should have been banned from the game many moons ago. The tour is almost set up for the attention span of O'Sullivan now.

Hearn you are a disgrace.

@Tubberlad. I'm not asking for the PTC points to be upped, but I don't think their weight is too high as compared to the rankers. They ask for a big effort and their are badly rewarded financially. If their ranking weight goes dow top players will disdain them all the more - most do already - and the whole concept will die. PTCs were to be a tool to promote the game and test the water in countries where there could be a market to develop. It would be a shame to kill them. Moreover I disagree with that concept of "prestige". For a start I don't think that the Welsh Open or the Shanghai Masters have much "prestige". But in general ... would you agree with the idea the you would be paid five times less than another guy for the same work just because they happen to work in a more "prestigious" environment. Effort and excellence should be rewarded, not jingles and bells. And you obviously never have been in one of those events. There was a lot more audience and atmosphere in Fürth, in Bruges and Hamm last year than we have seen in most of the majors in UK.
@Gallanrabit. The UK will be best of 11 up to the quarters, semis best of 17, final best of 19. One of the reason you see players coming through PTCs when they don't in rankers is that the draw is open. Everyone has to win 7 matches to get the trophy. There is no seeding protection. It's not that they are easier to win. They have sent some of the players sliding, just as much as they have helped some who put the effort in it.

vodkadiet wrote:The reducing of the frames at The UK is just another nail in snooker's coffin.

Hearn has just created a load of gimmick, meaningless, instantly forgettable events, that have just pandered to the A.D.D. crowd. The chief beneficiary of all this has been a player who should have been banned from the game many moons ago. The tour is almost set up for the attention span of O'Sullivan now.

Hearn you are a disgrace.

Fully agree on the uk the 2nd best event totally devalued if rod had done that there would be up roar says alot





Just to elaborate on my point all i ask is for consistency

Bahrain and brazil were both flops but bahrain has got a far bigger bashing because it was in rods era if it was in barrys i think alot would have turned a blind eye.


Same with the uk format the 2nd biggest event downgraded no big fuss because barry did it up roar if rod did it

Barry has brought positivity to snooker but the reaction of some fans is different when rod and barry make similar decisions Blind eyes to barry when it happens bash rod when he does the same thing

i agree with everything Tubber said apart from points for mainstream Rankers i for the life of me cant think why Shanghai is more Prestigious than Germany or Wales that just do not make any sense what so ever having different tariffs for the same level events.

I Agree with increasing the PTC Finals if nothing else but to get players NEEDING to qualify because if they don't they will find their Ranking Suffering big time.

on Twitter Dave Hendon said that a Top player told him last week that playing in a PTC Felt like being a Prostitute well in short if they Don't Play they will get Screwed.

Snooker Overdrive wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:Snooker is scarcely any better than when Rodney was in charge. Nothing of any meaning has been created under Barry.

Those were good times. No sponsors for the Masters, UK and Worlds and 3 month breaks after the Welsh Open.

GJ wrote:

vodkadiet wrote:The reducing of the frames at The UK is just another nail in snooker's coffin.

Hearn has just created a load of gimmick, meaningless, instantly forgettable events, that have just pandered to the A.D.D. crowd. The chief beneficiary of all this has been a player who should have been banned from the game many moons ago. The tour is almost set up for the attention span of O'Sullivan now.

Hearn you are a disgrace.

Fully agree on the uk the 2nd best event totally devalued if rod had done that there would be up roar says alot





Just to elaborate on my point all i ask is for consistency

Bahrain and brazil were both flops but bahrain has got a far bigger bashing because it was in rods era if it was in barrys i think alot would have turned a blind eye.


Same with the uk format the 2nd biggest event downgraded no big fuss because barry did it up roar if rod did it

Barry has brought positivity to snooker but the reaction of some fans is different when rod and barry make similar decisions Blind eyes to barry when it happens bash rod when he does the same thing

closed eyes to it im in shock

Sir Rodney was too cautious, not entrepreneurial enough, and therefore brought the game into a stalemate. Barry Hearn is the opposite, reckless, and is going too fast and not spending the limited resources all too wisely at times. For opposite reasons both made some misguided decisions IMO.

As for tailoring the circuit "for the attention span of O'Sullivan now." that's utter tosh. Having to play a possible 28 frames in a single day is hardly for people with short attention span and the explosion of abroad events is hardly going to favour someone who notably hates to travel. Hearn is pursuing his own goals and nothing else matters to him. He's there to make money for himself in the first place. He will make more if the game succeeds, but that's a welcome side effect. Everyone believing otherwise is naïve.

bullocks monique

more money he makes more money players will make he doesent need snooker hes got other incomes hes doing it for them unfortunally you got people that cant see further than their noses.

some things will succeed and some will fail but time waits for no man you either jump at opertunities or you let them pass you by.

Barry Hearn isnt where he is today by being Reckless in over 40 years Running Buisnesses and Making Money.

Wild wrote:fluffy bunnies monique

more money he makes more money players will make he doesent need snooker hes got other incomes hes doing it for them unfortunally you got people that cant see further than their noses.

some things will succeed and some will fail but time waits for no man you either jump at opertunities or you let them pass you by.

Barry Hearn isnt where he is today by being Reckless in over 40 years Running Buisnesses and Making Money.

Barry Hearn is a very good business man, but he is first and foremost a business man, not Mother Theresa. He's there to make money. As I wrote - if you care to read it - if he succeeds, and the game with him, it's all good, and of course he wants to succeed, I'm not challenging that. However, like everyone he makes mistakes. The old board has been criticized because everyone had to agree or shut up. I hope the new board isn't the same and constructive criticism is allowed and listened to. Barry Hearn has done a lot right, but he has also, in my opinion, taken a few misguided decisions. I don't see why it has to be all or nothing about the guy. He's given the game a new impetus, he has created new opportunities to play, he has done wonderful in finding sponsors and broadcasting has improved massively since he's on board. On the other hand, he's going too fast on some things. The way the tour and the calendar are structured to make it sustainable for the players needs serious re-thinking. Money, because it's limited, should be spent in priority where there is clearly a market ready for development. Quality should not be neglected in favour of quantity only. Focus on new markets should not mean that traditional hotbeds of the game should be forgotten, hence my complains about Scotland and Ireland (and remember I'm not Brit).
You have had some strong words about him shortening the formats in some events. I'm more worried about the sustainability of Hearns plans for the majority of the players. They are the games bigger asset and, as already highlighted by others, they have to pay their bills and feed their families NOW, not in an hypothetic future that may be bright ... but also may not.

all im saying is time to judge is at the end of next season not in the middle of whats the second season .mistakes will be made but sio far anyone who thinks the PTC has not been good for the sport sorry to say but really has not got the sports intrest at heart...and that includes players its all self intrests.

Wild wrote:all im saying is time to judge is at the end of next season not in the middle of whats the second season .mistakes will be made but sio far anyone who thinks the PTC has not been good for the sport sorry to say but really has not got the sports intrest at heart...and that includes players its all self intrests.

And I have never been saying they not good. I'm saying there is room for improvement and an urgent improvement is to make them events where players WANT to play in, because they are quality and rewarding the efforts they put in them. I have been saying again and again that the concept is good but that for it to work properly you can't make them "cheap", an even more, you can't make them unsustainable for most players. You have to give them enough resources and decent prize money. To achieve that I'm ready to take some money off the finals of the biggest events. The top players won't suffer (much). Once again you can't expect to build a global sport with only a handful making a decent living out of it. You can't expect a future if young players and parents don't see it as a valuable career option, knowing that, although they all want to be the best, only very few will achieve it. It's the same in all sports. Already snooker players earn a pittance as compared to other sports and they certainly do put as much effort as any other sportspersons to hone their skills from a young age.

Wild I would appreciate it if you read my post carefully and if you did not interpret them through the filter of your own "passion".

Monique wrote:Sir Rodney was too cautious, not entrepreneurial enough, and therefore brought the game into a stalemate. Barry Hearn is the opposite, reckless, and is going too fast and not spending the limited resources all too wisely at times. For opposite reasons both made some misguided decisions IMO.

As for tailoring the circuit "for the attention span of O'Sullivan now." that's utter tosh. Having to play a possible 28 frames in a single day is hardly for people with short attention span and the explosion of abroad events is hardly going to favour someone who notably hates to travel. Hearn is pursuing his own goals and nothing else matters to him. He's there to make money for himself in the first place. He will make more if the game succeeds, but that's a welcome side effect. Everyone believing otherwise is naïve.

Great comparision monique and spot on rod took no risks where as barry goes to far at times.

But as i said i find it hypocritical that those people who slated bahrain despite some big names missing it and just saying bahrian was crap , are the same people saying oh its the players fault who missed brazil for brazil failing not that brazil was just a crap choice to host snooker which it was just like bahrain was.

Also the uk format being shortened if rod was in charge there would have been meltdown but saint baz does it and his followers roll over and have their bellys tickled.

pathetic

i was not talking about you but some within the game thinks they above PTC well thats their own self intrest and thinking above their station.

my understanding of PTC was as a stop gap and nothing ive seen has convinced me that is also how Barry Hearn sees them to some extent.

id like them to continue and grow bigger giving more cash and more chances for lower rankers and amateurs but that will take time i just think at the moment players and fans alike expected miracle cure to a sport that was so stagnant Rodney Walkers diet got a mention on Daves Blog because there was nothing at all happening.

its much better to overload Players then re assess and Reduce and Increase as Best they Can to get the Right Balance Between Work and Not Over Doing it including PTC take best from in terms of Ranking...all that will take time Barry Hearn doesn't want me or you to tell him how messy the calender looks because at the end of the season its so congested and players will be flying here there and everywhere for Majors. but you cant just wait for better dates to come available that exactly what Rodney was Doing and the Sport in Limbo.

GJ wrote:

Monique wrote:Sir Rodney was too cautious, not entrepreneurial enough, and therefore brought the game into a stalemate. Barry Hearn is the opposite, reckless, and is going too fast and not spending the limited resources all too wisely at times. For opposite reasons both made some misguided decisions IMO.

As for tailoring the circuit "for the attention span of O'Sullivan now." that's utter tosh. Having to play a possible 28 frames in a single day is hardly for people with short attention span and the explosion of abroad events is hardly going to favour someone who notably hates to travel. Hearn is pursuing his own goals and nothing else matters to him. He's there to make money for himself in the first place. He will make more if the game succeeds, but that's a welcome side effect. Everyone believing otherwise is naïve.

Great comparision monique and spot on rod took no risks where as barry goes to far at times.

But as i said i find it hypocritical that those people who slated bahrain despite some big names missing it and just saying bahrian was crap , are the same people saying oh its the players fault who missed brazil for brazil failing not that brazil was just a crap choice to host snooker which it was just like bahrain was.

Also the uk format being shortened if rod was in charge there would have been meltdown but saint baz does it and his followers roll over and have their bellys tickled.

pathetic

if you remember i ranted enough about the best of 11s got buck all suport so gave up.

GJ wrote:

Monique wrote:Sir Rodney was too cautious, not entrepreneurial enough, and therefore brought the game into a stalemate. Barry Hearn is the opposite, reckless, and is going too fast and not spending the limited resources all too wisely at times. For opposite reasons both made some misguided decisions IMO.

As for tailoring the circuit "for the attention span of O'Sullivan now." that's utter tosh. Having to play a possible 28 frames in a single day is hardly for people with short attention span and the explosion of abroad events is hardly going to favour someone who notably hates to travel. Hearn is pursuing his own goals and nothing else matters to him. He's there to make money for himself in the first place. He will make more if the game succeeds, but that's a welcome side effect. Everyone believing otherwise is naïve.

Great comparision monique and spot on rod took no risks where as barry goes to far at times.

But as i said i find it hypocritical that those people who slated bahrain despite some big names missing it and just saying bahrian was crap , are the same people saying oh its the players fault who missed brazil for brazil failing not that brazil was just a crap choice to host snooker which it was just like bahrain was.

Also the uk format being shortened if rod was in charge there would have been meltdown but saint baz does it and his followers roll over and have their bellys tickled.

pathetic

While there's no doubt in my mind, or most fans minds, that Barry Hearn has done an infinitely better job than Rodney Walker, I agree with you on the UK Championship. I didn't watch Brazil so I'm not going to comment on that, I think it has to be said though that one was thrown straight into the melting pot as a ranker and failed miserably, at least Hearn tested the water first.

The UK Championship being reduced was a godawful decision and Hearn let us down there because he said the majors wouldn't be touched. The UK needed revamping, but reducing it will not help in any other circumstances. I also preferred having it right before Christmas, great memories of the UK

Monique wrote:@Tubberlad. I'm not asking for the PTC points to be upped, but I don't think their weight is too high as compared to the rankers. They ask for a big effort and their are badly rewarded financially. If their ranking weight goes dow top players will disdain them all the more - most do already - and the whole concept will die. PTCs were to be a tool to promote the game and test the water in countries where there could be a market to develop. It would be a shame to kill them. Moreover I disagree with that concept of "prestige". For a start I don't think that the Welsh Open or the Shanghai Masters have much "prestige". But in general ... would you agree with the idea the you would be paid five times less than another guy for the same work just because they happen to work in a more "prestigious" environment. Effort and excellence should be rewarded, not jingles and bells. And you obviously never have been in one of those events. There was a lot more audience and atmosphere in Fürth, in Bruges and Hamm last year than we have seen in most of the majors in UK.

I absolutely agree with the concept of prestige. At the end of the day, the World Open was being marketed almost as a fourth major, the PTCs were not, and that's the end of that in my eyes. Whether people like it or, 'jingle and bells' has a lot to do with creating buzz and making something a bit special, and ultimately the World Open did reward excellence. Just look at the semi-final line-up that was produced last year: Williams, O'Sullivan, Robertson & Ebdon, all fantastic snooker players.

I can accept that there probably was a lot of buzz at the European PTC events, but with respect, how the hell am I meant to attend PTC events in mainland Europe? There's one in Killarney this month and though I'm working a fair distance from home at the moment, I'm going to try and get there for some day of it, then I'll tell you what I think.

yes but you cant judge events based on atendancies and rank them based on that because you could get more people in fuirth than you can get in to the crucible.

PTC are the lowest events persanally i dont rank winning a PTC as a tournament win its a means to an end of getting in to the finals.

I agree with everyone who thinks the UK will be marmite now it has been reduced to a race to 6. Hearn is indeed a disgrace.

Muppet147 wrote:I agree with everyone who thinks the UK will be marmite now it has been reduced to a race to 6. Hearn is indeed a disgrace.

dont think hes a disgrace but he needs a good kicking for being a lying scum bag.

The current UK format might work and i'm prepared to give it a chance this winter for sure, but it's certainly lost a lot of it's prestige with this move.

Wild wrote:

Muppet147 wrote:I agree with everyone who thinks the UK will be marmite now it has been reduced to a race to 6. Hearn is indeed a disgrace.

dont think hes a disgrace but he needs a good kicking for being a lying scum bag.

I'll settle for that!