Post a reply

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Prop

lhpirnie wrote:
Prop wrote:It’d be one hell of a leap of faith. But maybe we just have to accept that one day it could happen.

It was a leap of faith in 1977. One day it will certainly happen, as buildings don't last forever. The big danger is that it's left too late...


You know, that’s a fair point.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby James Bentley

Isn't all this talk about moving venue a bit premature? Bazza Hearn signed a contract with The Crucible to keep it there until 2027 and yeah, I know that contracts are routinely broken but there doesn't seem to be much willing on either side to do so in this case. I don't think Judd and Neil spouting off is going to change that.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

James Bentley wrote:Isn't all this talk about moving venue a bit premature? Bazza Hearn signed a contract with The Crucible to keep it there until 2027 and yeah, I know that contracts are routinely broken but there doesn't seem to be much willing on either side to do so in this case. I don't think Judd and Neil spouting off is going to change that.

Actually, the contract is with Sheffield City Council, not specifically the Crucible Theatre. But 2027 is not that far away, given the planning involved with really great venues.


Barry Hearn is obviously very attached to the Crucible Theatre. He's said that he thinks about the 1981 World Championship every day. Unfortunately I suspect that he was only really interested in making snooker prosperous during his time in charge, and in some ways wouldn't be too disappointed if snooker declines after he is gone, as that enhances his own reputation. Is the future of snooker to be determined by one man's nostalgic memories?

For me the main contractual issue is with the BBC. Snooker is lucky to have such comprehensive coverage on terrestrial television, and any radical changes might lead them to question their commitment. But in terms of the future, can we really rely on TV? How long will it be before TV becomes obsolete and broadcasting moves online? At some point it surely will.

As I've said before, the best way (the only way) to honour the history of snooker is to provide for the future. Snooker will be at the crossroads in a few years from now, with the decline and retirement of most of the big name players. Pool could be a serious rival. If snooker fades away, like billiards did, all this history will be forgotten.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie


‘My one gripe with the World Championships is that it’s the best of the best and I think conditions should be the best of the best.'

Table conditions are too frequently inadequate. It's not just about the cloths, it the venue and the proximity of the crowd. Suitable air conditioning and temperature control isn't possible.

Also this view ‘Why fix something that’s not broken?' is not a rationale that any successful organisation can afford to have. That leads to stagnation and decline. Continual search for improvement is vital to compete in a changing world.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Prop

lhpirnie wrote:

‘My one gripe with the World Championships is that it’s the best of the best and I think conditions should be the best of the best.'

Table conditions are too frequently inadequate. It's not just about the cloths, it the venue and the proximity of the crowd. Suitable air conditioning and temperature control isn't possible.

Also this view ‘Why fix something that’s not broken?' is not a rationale that any successful organisation can afford to have. That leads to stagnation and decline. Continual search for improvement is vital to compete in a changing world.


He also said this of the tables, which you decided not to quote:

“The first round and the semi-finals the tables play awesome but in the quarters and final it’s awful.”

So logically it is primarily about the frequency the cloth is changed, not proximity of the crowd or temperature control. If the crowd and temperature are such factors, constant factors at that, table conditions couldn’t possibly be ‘awesome’ at any time. You don’t have to move the greatest tournament away from the greatest venue to achieve more consistent playing conditions. Changing the cloth more frequently would achieve that.

‘Why fix something that’s not broken’ is a rationale that WPBSA and World Snooker have successfully employed since 1977. Stagnation and decline are two words that could never be used to describe the World Snooker Championship. Every year is magical. Every year history is made, and every year professional snooker players dream of making it to play in snooker’s spiritual home. Nowhere else has that magic. Nowhere else ever will. Because the things that make The Crucible the place it is cannot simply be built.

You cannot buy history. You cannot manufacture soul. You cannot replicate spirit. The Crucible is not ‘just a venue’. It is not there to be improved. It is there to be cherished, loved and supported for as long as it resonates so powerfully with every true fan and player in the game.

It isn’t football. It isn’t a pop music tour. It isn’t such a simple formula as scrapping things and starting again at a venue with more seats and better air conditioning. Should we scrap the National Gallery and move the whole thing somewhere else, because the roof leaks and access is difficult? Should we rip out Big Ben and replace it with a huge digital display that needs less maintenance and is loads more accurate? Should we demolish the Roman Baths and replace them with a modern leisure centre? No. And nor should we even consider such a preposterous idea of doing the same to snooker at The Crucible.

Staging the World Championship anywhere but its real home would be utter sacrilege, and would be an enormous catalyst in the inevitable stagnation and decline of snooker as we know it.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Iranu

The Crucible is synonymous with The World Championship for a reason.

The real name of Wimbledon is The Championship, Wimbledon. It’s known as Wimbledon because the location is as much a part of the tournament as the trophy.

How often do you hear players/commentators/fans talk about “the Crucible” when they actually mean “the World Championship”? It’s a rare thing and shouldn’t be discounted.

Not to mention, it’s also a rare financial benefit for snooker to use the Crucible. Hendon goes into this in a couple of his latest podcasts.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

Iranu wrote:The Crucible is synonymous with The World Championship for a reason.

The real name of Wimbledon is The Championship, Wimbledon. It’s known as Wimbledon because the location is as much a part of the tournament as the trophy.

How often do you hear players/commentators/fans talk about “the Crucible” when they actually mean “the World Championship”? It’s a rare thing and shouldn’t be discounted.

Not to mention, it’s also a rare financial benefit for snooker to use the Crucible. Hendon goes into this in a couple of his latest podcasts.

Yes, I appreciate the point about financial benefit, but it's not that much of a benefit considering the revenue involved with other sports. At some point, that special deal with Sheffield City council (not actually with the Crucible Theatre) will be reviewed. It's not a guarantee. And also, perhaps at some point, someone could offer a much better deal. No, the reason why people support the Crucible (the vast majority are indeed traditionalists), is for the sentimental reasons: they want to preserve their precious memories from the 1980's. I can understand that, but make no mistake it is a self-serving opinion.


I don't understand the point about 'history'. History is about change over time, i.e. events. History doesn't get destroyed, it gets built upon.

If a young player wins his first World Championship in 2030 in front of 2000 people in a state-of-the-art venue broadcast to the whole world, with best-of-the-best playing conditions, that will be 'magic' too.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Iranu

lhpirnie wrote:
Iranu wrote:The Crucible is synonymous with The World Championship for a reason.

The real name of Wimbledon is The Championship, Wimbledon. It’s known as Wimbledon because the location is as much a part of the tournament as the trophy.

How often do you hear players/commentators/fans talk about “the Crucible” when they actually mean “the World Championship”? It’s a rare thing and shouldn’t be discounted.

Not to mention, it’s also a rare financial benefit for snooker to use the Crucible. Hendon goes into this in a couple of his latest podcasts.

Yes, I appreciate the point about financial benefit, but it's not that much of a benefit considering the revenue involved with other sports. At some point, that special deal with Sheffield City council (not actually with the Crucible Theatre) will be reviewed. It's not a guarantee. And also, perhaps at some point, someone could offer a much better deal. No, the reason why people support the Crucible (the vast majority are indeed traditionalists), is for the sentimental reasons: they want to preserve their precious memories from the 1980's. I can understand that, but make no mistake it is a self-serving opinion.


I don't understand the point about 'history'. History is about change over time, i.e. events. History doesn't get destroyed, it gets built upon.

If a young player wins his first World Championship in 2030 in front of 2000 people in a state-of-the-art venue broadcast to the whole world, with best-of-the-best playing conditions, that will be 'magic' too.

I’m not sure what you mean with the bit in bold?

Yeah of course the deal will be reviewed and isn’t guaranteed. If somewhere else offered a better deal then fair play to that city but it seems unlikely, right? Part of the reason Sheffield offers such a good deal is because of the iconic nature of the Crucible and the fact that the Worlds have been part of the city for so long that the whole of Sheffield* is taken over by for 2.5 weeks.

I didn’t mention history so I’m guessing that bit’s directed at Prop, but history certainly can be destroyed (though not in a way that’s relevant to sport.)

Newer and bigger isn’t always better. What happens if snooker leaves the Crucible and moves to a venue that’s worse?

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

Iranu wrote:I’m not sure what you mean with the bit in bold?

Yeah of course the deal will be reviewed and isn’t guaranteed. If somewhere else offered a better deal then fair play to that city but it seems unlikely, right? Part of the reason Sheffield offers such a good deal is because of the iconic nature of the Crucible and the fact that the Worlds have been part of the city for so long that the whole of Sheffield* is taken over by for 2.5 weeks.

I didn’t mention history so I’m guessing that bit’s directed at Prop, but history certainly can be destroyed (though not in a way that’s relevant to sport.)

Newer and bigger isn’t always better. What happens if snooker leaves the Crucible and moves to a venue that’s worse?

The bold comments in my original post were quotes from Kyren Wilson's interview, as was the phrase 'best-of-the-best'. But my problem is that words like 'iconic', 'sacrilege', 'magic', etc. are emotive terms. It's as if the World Championship is a cult thing, with rituals and superstitions. I think it should be a major 21st century sporting event, with the best conditions to ensure that the players can pay to the best of their ability.


If a bad choice of venue is made, somebody resigns, lessons are learned, a new venue is chosen which addresses the issue, and it becomes part of snooker's historical narrative.

But other sports have dealt with similar issues. Wimbledon tennis went through major developments, a new No.1 Court, redeveloped Centre Court (with roof), new media centre and practice facilities. They even changed the type of grass to suit more players. Wembley Stadium was completely rebuilt. Lords' cricket ground had a new media centre and several new stands, and an indoor training facility. Several new cricket grounds were built for international games (Riverside, Rose Bowl, etc.). About half of the Premiership football clubs have had completely new stadiums, others had major redevelopments. In all cases after a couple of years everyone said how wonderful the new facilities were.

Yet in snooker we have a provincial theatre with two tables separated by a curtain that leaves insufficient space for some players to line up the shot. It's embarrassing really...

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Prop

Lewis, I find it rather obnoxious that you deliberately ignore my replies, and instead choose to immediately reply to whoever comments after me, as if my post never existed. It comes across as an intentional effort to show your disdain and disregard for me or any opinion I might have. It’s quite obvious.

Why can’t you bring yourself to talk to me? Why address my post without speaking to me directly? What are you scared of? Is a conversation with me really such an issue? And why?

I can’t think of anything I’ve ever done or said to you that might have upset you. But I’ll make this clear, your attitude stinks.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Iranu

lhpirnie wrote:
Iranu wrote:I’m not sure what you mean with the bit in bold?

Yeah of course the deal will be reviewed and isn’t guaranteed. If somewhere else offered a better deal then fair play to that city but it seems unlikely, right? Part of the reason Sheffield offers such a good deal is because of the iconic nature of the Crucible and the fact that the Worlds have been part of the city for so long that the whole of Sheffield* is taken over by for 2.5 weeks.

I didn’t mention history so I’m guessing that bit’s directed at Prop, but history certainly can be destroyed (though not in a way that’s relevant to sport.)

Newer and bigger isn’t always better. What happens if snooker leaves the Crucible and moves to a venue that’s worse?

The bold comments in my original post were quotes from Kyren Wilson's interview, as was the phrase 'best-of-the-best'. But my problem is that words like 'iconic', 'sacrilege', 'magic', etc. are emotive terms. It's as if the World Championship is a cult thing, with rituals and superstitions. I think it should be a major 21st century sporting event, with the best conditions to ensure that the players can pay to the best of their ability.


If a bad choice of venue is made, somebody resigns, lessons are learned, a new venue is chosen which addresses the issue, and it becomes part of snooker's historical narrative.

But other sports have dealt with similar issues. Wimbledon tennis went through major developments, a new No.1 Court, redeveloped Centre Court (with roof), new media centre and practice facilities. They even changed the type of grass to suit more players. Wembley Stadium was completely rebuilt. Lords' cricket ground had a new media centre and several new stands, and an indoor training facility. Several new cricket grounds were built for international games (Riverside, Rose Bowl, etc.). About half of the Premiership football clubs have had completely new stadiums, others had major redevelopments. In all cases after a couple of years everyone said how wonderful the new facilities were.

Yet in snooker we have a provincial theatre with two tables separated by a curtain that leaves insufficient space for some players to line up the shot. It's embarrassing really...

I was referring to the bit I’d made bold regarding other sports in your reply to me.

If a bad venue is chosen it will rightly or wrongly tarnish one or several players’ victories depending on the contract. What if another poor venue is chosen after that?

Listing venues that were redeveloped/improved isn’t really relevant to moving venues though? I’m sure the ideal scenario would be to improve the Crucible but that’s not what we’re discussing.

Several replacement football stadiums are looked unfavourably by many compared to the ones they replaced, Wembley being an example of that from what I understand.

This “insufficient space to line up the shot” thing is not exactly proven is it? Robertson’s saying it after a poor run of results there. He’s never said it after steamrolling an opponent in round 1 or 2. And he’s not shy of giving excuses for losses.

I’m not really sure what you mean by “provincial” - do you mean outside the capital or unsophisticated? The former I don’t think matters. The latter, well I disagree.

You say it’s ‘embarrassing’ but nobody else seems to be embarrassed by it, even if they agree it should move.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

Prop wrote:Lewis, I find it rather obnoxious that you deliberately ignore my replies, and instead choose to immediately reply to whoever comments after me, as if my post never existed. It comes across as an intentional effort to show your disdain and disregard for me or any opinion I might have. It’s quite obvious.

Why can’t you bring yourself to talk to me? Why address my post without speaking to me directly? What are you scared of? Is a conversation with me really such an issue? And why?

I can’t think of anything I’ve ever done or said to you that might have upset you. But I’ll make this clear, your attitude stinks.

Really sorry about that. I guess I was trying to combine answers into one when another comment came in. No, you haven't upset me - I do value your comments. I hope it hasn't happened before this one, and hope I won't do it again.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Prop

lhpirnie wrote:
Prop wrote:Lewis, I find it rather obnoxious that you deliberately ignore my replies, and instead choose to immediately reply to whoever comments after me, as if my post never existed. It comes across as an intentional effort to show your disdain and disregard for me or any opinion I might have. It’s quite obvious.

Why can’t you bring yourself to talk to me? Why address my post without speaking to me directly? What are you scared of? Is a conversation with me really such an issue? And why?

I can’t think of anything I’ve ever done or said to you that might have upset you. But I’ll make this clear, your attitude stinks.

Really sorry about that. I guess I was trying to combine answers into one when another comment came in. No, you haven't upset me - I do value your comments. I hope it hasn't happened before this one, and hope I won't do it again.


Don’t snake hiss on me and tell me it’s raining. It has happened before. Whether it happens again is completely your decision.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

Iranu wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:
Iranu wrote:I’m not sure what you mean with the bit in bold?

Yeah of course the deal will be reviewed and isn’t guaranteed. If somewhere else offered a better deal then fair play to that city but it seems unlikely, right? Part of the reason Sheffield offers such a good deal is because of the iconic nature of the Crucible and the fact that the Worlds have been part of the city for so long that the whole of Sheffield* is taken over by for 2.5 weeks.

I didn’t mention history so I’m guessing that bit’s directed at Prop, but history certainly can be destroyed (though not in a way that’s relevant to sport.)

Newer and bigger isn’t always better. What happens if snooker leaves the Crucible and moves to a venue that’s worse?

The bold comments in my original post were quotes from Kyren Wilson's interview, as was the phrase 'best-of-the-best'. But my problem is that words like 'iconic', 'sacrilege', 'magic', etc. are emotive terms. It's as if the World Championship is a cult thing, with rituals and superstitions. I think it should be a major 21st century sporting event, with the best conditions to ensure that the players can pay to the best of their ability.


If a bad choice of venue is made, somebody resigns, lessons are learned, a new venue is chosen which addresses the issue, and it becomes part of snooker's historical narrative.

But other sports have dealt with similar issues. Wimbledon tennis went through major developments, a new No.1 Court, redeveloped Centre Court (with roof), new media centre and practice facilities. They even changed the type of grass to suit more players. Wembley Stadium was completely rebuilt. Lords' cricket ground had a new media centre and several new stands, and an indoor training facility. Several new cricket grounds were built for international games (Riverside, Rose Bowl, etc.). About half of the Premiership football clubs have had completely new stadiums, others had major redevelopments. In all cases after a couple of years everyone said how wonderful the new facilities were.

Yet in snooker we have a provincial theatre with two tables separated by a curtain that leaves insufficient space for some players to line up the shot. It's embarrassing really...

I was referring to the bit I’d made bold regarding other sports in your reply to me.

If a bad venue is chosen it will rightly or wrongly tarnish one or several players’ victories depending on the contract. What if another poor venue is chosen after that?

Listing venues that were redeveloped/improved isn’t really relevant to moving venues though? I’m sure the ideal scenario would be to improve the Crucible but that’s not what we’re discussing.

Several replacement football stadiums are looked unfavourably by many compared to the ones they replaced, Wembley being an example of that from what I understand.

This “insufficient space to line up the shot” thing is not exactly proven is it? Robertson’s saying it after a poor run of results there. He’s never said it after steamrolling an opponent in round 1 or 2. And he’s not shy of giving excuses for losses.

I’m not really sure what you mean by “provincial” - do you mean outside the capital or unsophisticated? The former I don’t think matters. The latter, well I disagree.

You say it’s ‘embarrassing’ but nobody else seems to be embarrassed by it, even if they agree it should move.


Image

Robertson's backside is indeed relevant to this thread!

Actually, I would be OK about redeveloping the Crucible Theatre if that made it an adequate venue for snooker, and for a major event (media centre, corporate hospitality, etc.). But that's probably not possible, in the same way as some football clubs redeveloped their ground, others had to move. When I say 'Provincial Theatre' I actually mean that it's build for the purpose of showing repertory plays. I actually do think that Sheffield is a good place to base snooker, especially as many players live there now. My problem is with the interior of the building itself.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

Prop wrote:
lhpirnie wrote:
Prop wrote:Lewis, I find it rather obnoxious that you deliberately ignore my replies, and instead choose to immediately reply to whoever comments after me, as if my post never existed. It comes across as an intentional effort to show your disdain and disregard for me or any opinion I might have. It’s quite obvious.

Why can’t you bring yourself to talk to me? Why address my post without speaking to me directly? What are you scared of? Is a conversation with me really such an issue? And why?

I can’t think of anything I’ve ever done or said to you that might have upset you. But I’ll make this clear, your attitude stinks.

Really sorry about that. I guess I was trying to combine answers into one when another comment came in. No, you haven't upset me - I do value your comments. I hope it hasn't happened before this one, and hope I won't do it again.


Don’t snake hiss on me and tell me it’s raining. It has happened before. Whether it happens again is completely your decision.

Seriously PROP, it's not intentional. Sorry for the offense.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Iranu

lhpirnie wrote:Image

Robertson's backside is indeed relevant to this thread!

Actually, I would be OK about redeveloping the Crucible Theatre if that made it an adequate venue for snooker, and for a major event (media centre, corporate hospitality, etc.). But that's probably not possible, in the same way as some football clubs redeveloped their ground, others had to move. When I say 'Provincial Theatre' I actually mean that it's build for the purpose of showing repertory plays. I actually do think that Sheffield is a good place to base snooker, especially as many players live there now. My problem is with the interior of the building itself.

Hmm. I’m not sure the picture proves anything as it’s not clear he’s lining up to the shot in that picture, nor that he doesn’t have enough space of he is (as opposed to having, say, exactly enough space).

And like I say he’s played well enough often enough in early rounds that I don’t really buy it. Seems more likely he just has a mental block because of his poor record, which is unfortunately self-perpetuating.

Fair enough, the phrase “Provincial Theatre” has obviously passed me by! I do understand that corporate hospitality and things like that are important.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby McManusFan

Although a lot of the arguments for staying in the Crucible are fairly emotional, I don't think that means they should be discounted. And it isn't like the nostalgia element isn't accessable to newer viewers - as a viewer you can pick up on that 'magic' feeling from the players and the broadcasters even if you don't have any memories of the 80s heyday yourself.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby SnookerFan

Obviously, the arguments for moving it do make sense. Assuming a bigger venue would sell out every session.

But I struggle to believe that the majority of people who want it moved from The Crucible have actually been there to watch snooker.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

McManusFan wrote:Although a lot of the arguments for staying in the Crucible are fairly emotional, I don't think that means they should be discounted. And it isn't like the nostalgia element isn't accessable to newer viewers - as a viewer you can pick up on that 'magic' feeling from the players and the broadcasters even if you don't have any memories of the 80s heyday yourself.

Indeed the arguments are strong, and Prop made the point very well. Believe it or not, if I was chairman of WST I probably wouldn't attempt to move it. I wouldn't dare, because of the huge backlash against from within the sport. The agonising thing for me is that we are in the position that we have no choice, and that doesn't alter the fact that the Crucible really isn't up to scratch. The best I can hope for is at least questions are discussed, and some people begin to imagine there might actually be a better future for snooker, before it's too late.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Iranu

lhpirnie wrote:
McManusFan wrote:Although a lot of the arguments for staying in the Crucible are fairly emotional, I don't think that means they should be discounted. And it isn't like the nostalgia element isn't accessable to newer viewers - as a viewer you can pick up on that 'magic' feeling from the players and the broadcasters even if you don't have any memories of the 80s heyday yourself.

Indeed the arguments are strong, and Prop made the point very well. Believe it or not, if I was chairman of WST I probably wouldn't attempt to move it. I wouldn't dare, because of the huge backlash against from within the sport. The agonising thing for me is that we are in the position that we have no choice, and that doesn't alter the fact that the Crucible really isn't up to scratch. The best I can hope for is at least questions are discussed, and some people begin to imagine there might actually be a better future for snooker, before it's too late.

This is what I’m not sure I understand - what do you mean, too late? Too late for what? How bad is the Crucible that you think it’s literally endangering the future of snooker? There doesn’t seem to be any real evidence to back that up which is why I’m confused.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby SnookerFan

This the thing.

Even if you talk about this from a purely business standpoint, can we automatically assume that because it's the World Championship if we move the venue to a bigger place, it will automatically make more money or sell more tickets?

In 2006 I attended The Masters, my first proper snooker tournament. (I'd attended a local Premier League at that point.) On attending the snooker, I liked it and thought; "I'd like to go to The Crucible." I wanted to go because I wanted to witness what that venue was like. Yes, I wanted to see the World Championships too. But The Crucible was the pull. I wanted to witness the iconic venue. A lot of people feel the same. The Crucible now has it's own brand, and has 40 years worth of goodwill built up.

Moving a venue can work, if you're moving it from somewhere that wasn't popular to start with. (For example, moving The Masters from Wembley Arena to the Ally Pally meant a lot more people came.) But moving it away from a venue that the majority of people love isn't the same thing. It'd snake hiss a lot of existing customers off. And these are the ones that will be paying money to attend.

I'm not saying it wouldn't work. But I'm saying that there's a reason why nothing about the format or the location of The World Championship was changed under Hearn. He showed no reluctance to change other tournaments about. So, he obviously would move The Crucible if he thought it was a good business decision. The fact that he hasn't, tells you a lot.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Prop

What’s the solution? And before we get to the solution, what’s the problem that needs solving?

It’s clear enough that a large proportion of snooker fans do recognise what’s special about The Crucible, and its value to the sport. Not all of us, but it’s fair to say most of us do.

But where is The Crucible holding back snooker? Is an increase in capacity imperative? Is The Crucible about to collapse? What are we losing by staying there, and what can we gain by moving?

I’m struggling to see what the problem is that would justify a move. I don’t see how we could apparently gain so much by doing so. I do see a situation where we’ve traded the magic and the soul for extra capacity and better air conditioning, and we lose something we could never recreate, design or build.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby rekoons

lhpirnie wrote:Yet in snooker we have a provincial theatre with two tables separated by a curtain that leaves insufficient space for some players to line up the shot. It's embarrassing really...


My 2 cents on Robertsons’ complaint: I can see what he means, he really does take a giant step on his walk in, so for a *minority* of shots with the white glued to the side cushion facing the curtain and the line of aim square on this side cushion it could cause him a little trouble. But not enough in my opinion for him to be at a real disadvantage over a bo 19 match and longer.

Just look at the position of his feet (especially his left) when lining up the shot and down on the shot, and compare it with Trump’s, who happens to be the opposite of Robertson in that he almost doesn’t move his left leg from standing up to getting down.

Robertson:

Image
Image

Trump:

Image
Image

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby SnookerFan

Prop wrote:What’s the solution? And before we get to the solution, what’s the problem that needs solving?

It’s clear enough that a large proportion of snooker fans do recognise what’s special about The Crucible, and its value to the sport. Not all of us, but it’s fair to say most of us do.

But where is The Crucible holding back snooker? Is an increase in capacity imperative? Is The Crucible about to collapse? What are we losing by staying there, and what can we gain by moving?

I’m struggling to see what the problem is that would justify a move. I don’t see how we could apparently gain so much by doing so. I do see a situation where we’ve traded the magic and the soul for extra capacity and better air conditioning, and we lose something we could never recreate, design or build.


The "problem" is that people think that The Crucible always sells out, so we should move it to a bigger venue because it will automatically sell out at the new venue as well. (Ie. the WST are making less money than they could.)

But that's an assumption. Whether or not The Crucible is the best venue or not may be down to opinion, but if the vast majority of paying customers believe it to be the best venue than it doesn't really matter whether it's factual or not. You can't just go upsetting the majority of people who pay for tickets and might stop doing so if the venue is moved on the basis of some hypothetical new fans who would attend. People do travel all over the country, nay the world, to attend The Crucible. Far more than they do for any other venue.

Hearn will have done the market research on this. He wasn't one to keep tradition for tradition's sake. I suspect it's his belief that moving The Crucible wouldn't provide any increase in money, so it isn't done.

Bear in mind also, a lot of the money coming into the sport is provided by TV Coverage. More so than is from ticket sales. If the BBC say that they want it staying at The Crucible, because they believe The Crucible brand to be strong, then it's not going to move anyway.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Iranu

On the bright side, if they move from the Crucible it might stop Front Row Brian from being in every other bucking shot.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

Prop wrote:What’s the solution? And before we get to the solution, what’s the problem that needs solving?

It’s clear enough that a large proportion of snooker fans do recognise what’s special about The Crucible, and its value to the sport. Not all of us, but it’s fair to say most of us do.

But where is The Crucible holding back snooker? Is an increase in capacity imperative? Is The Crucible about to collapse? What are we losing by staying there, and what can we gain by moving?

I’m struggling to see what the problem is that would justify a move. I don’t see how we could apparently gain so much by doing so. I do see a situation where we’ve traded the magic and the soul for extra capacity and better air conditioning, and we lose something we could never recreate, design or build.

The problem is that there may not be a solution! Because 90% of the snooker fraternity are in love with the Crucible, there isn't any real prospect of moving, regardless of how bad the playing conditions or facilities are. A modern sporting event needs a media centre and corporate hospitality to maximise its potential. In that sense I do think snooker is being left behind.


My overriding concern is that in around 10 years' time, we face a crisis when today's top players aren't there anymore. The Crucible thing is a symptom of a wider problem: snooker not engaging with its future. Ultimately, keeping still amounts to falling behind in a changing world.

Indeed, I do recognise that there is something 'special'. But I think we should be thinking that the World Championship itself is special, and not focus on the building, as some kind of shrine.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Prop

SnookerFan wrote:
Prop wrote:What’s the solution? And before we get to the solution, what’s the problem that needs solving?

It’s clear enough that a large proportion of snooker fans do recognise what’s special about The Crucible, and its value to the sport. Not all of us, but it’s fair to say most of us do.

But where is The Crucible holding back snooker? Is an increase in capacity imperative? Is The Crucible about to collapse? What are we losing by staying there, and what can we gain by moving?

I’m struggling to see what the problem is that would justify a move. I don’t see how we could apparently gain so much by doing so. I do see a situation where we’ve traded the magic and the soul for extra capacity and better air conditioning, and we lose something we could never recreate, design or build.


The "problem" is that people think that The Crucible always sells out, so we should move it to a bigger venue because it will automatically sell out at the new venue as well. (Ie. the WST are making less money than they could.)

But that's an assumption. Whether or not The Crucible is the best venue or not may be down to opinion, but if the vast majority of paying customers believe it to be the best venue than it doesn't really matter whether it's factual or not. You can't just go upsetting the majority of people who pay for tickets and might stop doing so if the venue is moved on the basis of some hypothetical new fans who would attend. People do travel all over the country, nay the world, to attend The Crucible. Far more than they do for any other venue.

Hearn will have done the market research on this. He wasn't one to keep tradition for tradition's sake. I suspect it's his belief that moving The Crucible wouldn't provide any increase in money, so it isn't done.

Bear in mind also, a lot of the money coming into the sport is provided by TV Coverage. More so than is from ticket sales. If the BBC say that they want it staying at The Crucible, because they believe The Crucible brand to be strong, then it's not going to move anyway.


Yeah, pretty much.

We’re all quite passionate about the game, and we all want the best for it in the future. Whether I agree with everyone or not on subjects like this, I’d like to think I still have that in common with every single one of us - we love the game and we want what’s best.

So really, things like sponsorship should be recognised as the bigger issue here. While we’re all chatting about The Crucible the real fear is we’re heading into another sponsorship nightmare. I know that’s probably another thread, for another day, but I think we’ve got bigger problems than The Crucible.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby lhpirnie

SnookerFan wrote:
Prop wrote:What’s the solution? And before we get to the solution, what’s the problem that needs solving?

It’s clear enough that a large proportion of snooker fans do recognise what’s special about The Crucible, and its value to the sport. Not all of us, but it’s fair to say most of us do.

But where is The Crucible holding back snooker? Is an increase in capacity imperative? Is The Crucible about to collapse? What are we losing by staying there, and what can we gain by moving?

I’m struggling to see what the problem is that would justify a move. I don’t see how we could apparently gain so much by doing so. I do see a situation where we’ve traded the magic and the soul for extra capacity and better air conditioning, and we lose something we could never recreate, design or build.


The "problem" is that people think that The Crucible always sells out, so we should move it to a bigger venue because it will automatically sell out at the new venue as well. (Ie. the WST are making less money than they could.)

But that's an assumption. Whether or not The Crucible is the best venue or not may be down to opinion, but if the vast majority of paying customers believe it to be the best venue than it doesn't really matter whether it's factual or not. You can't just go upsetting the majority of people who pay for tickets and might stop doing so if the venue is moved on the basis of some hypothetical new fans who would attend. People do travel all over the country, nay the world, to attend The Crucible. Far more than they do for any other venue.

Hearn will have done the market research on this. He wasn't one to keep tradition for tradition's sake. I suspect it's his belief that moving The Crucible wouldn't provide any increase in money, so it isn't done.

Bear in mind also, a lot of the money coming into the sport is provided by TV Coverage. More so than is from ticket sales. If the BBC say that they want it staying at The Crucible, because they believe The Crucible brand to be strong, then it's not going to move anyway.

These are excellent points, although in Barry Hearn's case he does have a strong personal connection - he's said that every day he thinks about the 1981 final.


In terms of broadcasting, that's one of my fears. I don't think we can rely on BBC coverage forever. At some point in the future, streaming will take over.

Re: Robertson talking out of his backside

Postby Prop

lhpirnie wrote:
Prop wrote:What’s the solution? And before we get to the solution, what’s the problem that needs solving?

It’s clear enough that a large proportion of snooker fans do recognise what’s special about The Crucible, and its value to the sport. Not all of us, but it’s fair to say most of us do.

But where is The Crucible holding back snooker? Is an increase in capacity imperative? Is The Crucible about to collapse? What are we losing by staying there, and what can we gain by moving?

I’m struggling to see what the problem is that would justify a move. I don’t see how we could apparently gain so much by doing so. I do see a situation where we’ve traded the magic and the soul for extra capacity and better air conditioning, and we lose something we could never recreate, design or build.

The problem is that there may not be a solution! Because 90% of the snooker fraternity are in love with the Crucible, there isn't any real prospect of moving, regardless of how bad the playing conditions or facilities are. A modern sporting event needs a media centre and corporate hospitality to maximise its potential. In that sense I do think snooker is being left behind.


My overriding concern is that in around 10 years' time, we face a crisis when today's top players aren't there anymore. The Crucible thing is a symptom of a wider problem: snooker not engaging with its future. Ultimately, keeping still amounts to falling behind in a changing world.

Indeed, I do recognise that there is something 'special'. But I think we should be thinking that the World Championship itself is special, and not focus on the building, as some kind of shrine.


But what will the sport actually gain by upgrading to a location with a media centre and corporate hospitality? I’m just struggling to see how it could actually be worth the upheaval?