Tour Qualification !!!!

Wild WC wrote:well im all for blackmail i seriously think at the moment players should be forced to enter events then in 5 or 6 years think of best of results when the sport is trully back on it feet but i think the PTC Will only grow if Top players suport them.

You're all for blackmail until you'll be at the receiving end of one. Then no place will be big enough to contain your rage and swearing.
Blackmail is WRONG. Full stop.

BTW: David Hendon tweeted:

Big chance for someone at the Australian Open - most of the top 16 haven't entered

And believe me, this is only the start of it. As usual some , few, players have the guts to speak openly and get slagged off for it, but most of the other ones are only too happy to let them voice their opinion and take the blame, but they think just the same.

Well I pity the Sponsors and Organisers of the Australian Open. They are the ones losing out! I guess if the prize money was more - then some would have entered.

My guess for those who aren't going -

Ronnie
Higgins
Selby
Trump
Allen
Maguire
Ding

Casey wrote:Well I pity the Sponsors and Organisers of the Australian Open. They are the ones losing out! I guess if the prize money was more - then some would have entered.

My guess for those who aren't going -

Ronnie
Higgins
Selby
Trump
Allen
Maguire
Ding

I don't pity them. They want snooker for cheap? They get it cheap. That's how markets work. And Barry Hearn selling it cheap is devaluating the sport in the eyes of broadcasters and sponsors and that will harm the game in the long term big time.

Wild WC wrote:

Casey wrote:Well I pity the Sponsors and Organisers of the Australian Open. They are the ones losing out! I guess if the prize money was more - then some would have entered.

Well there wont be better Prize Money without players showing a intrest Next year Australia will say little kitten you losers and Snookers Growth on a far bigger scale will be stalling big time.

I believe Australian Open is contracted through 2013 but the way things are going that will surely be the last edition.
If this is the commitment to the sport the players will show then in a couple of years we will again only be seeing events in China and the UK sadly.

Wild WC wrote:

Monique wrote:
I don't pity them. They want snooker for cheap? They get it cheap. That's how markets work. And Barry Hearn selling it cheap is devaluating the sport in the eyes of broadcasters and sponsors and that will harm the game in the long term big time.

mon seriously are you this nieve or just plain stupid.

they will offer what they think snooker is worth and by players not showing an intrest im sorry to say but the players have Proved them Right...

they want comitment that is THE ONLY way Prize money will grow if i was Barry Hearn id walk away and let them Stew in failure.

I'm not naïve, I'm afraid you are. The players are not showing an interest because it's not worth it financially. If they don't reach at least the quarters or even semis, they will make a loss and, from UK, it's twice a nearly 30 hours grueling trip at best, to play in the middle of nowhere, in the dead of the winter. Would YOU do it? I'm sure you wouldn't. Why should they? Give them a decent reward and they will. Not fortunes, just decent. Covering their minimal expenses would be a start.

Wild WC wrote:

Monique wrote:
I don't pity them. They want snooker for cheap? They get it cheap. That's how markets work. And Barry Hearn selling it cheap is devaluating the sport in the eyes of broadcasters and sponsors and that will harm the game in the long term big time.

mon seriously are you this nieve or just plain stupid.

they will offer what they think snooker is worth and by players not showing an intrest im sorry to say but the players have Proved them Right...

they want comitment that is THE ONLY way Prize money will grow if i was Barry Hearn id walk away and let them Stew in failure.

If the sport regresses in the next couple of years I believe Hearn will leave snooker. He doesnt need the money, has enough interests in other sports/ventures.

Perhaps he should install Allen as chairman of World Snooker!

The players would probably love to see the circuit played in close proximity to Antrim

Wild, very few snooker players are millionaires and their predecessors didn't do anything for them. Stop dreaming. It just isn't like that.
And selling the game cheap will not help the money grow, quite the opposite. If sponsors, say in Japan, know that the Aussies could organise a tournament for very little, why would they offer more? They won't. Nobody will. On the contrary, they will all try and get the prizes lower.
Jus think about this. Imagine that next season they sell the Crucible tickets for 1£. What will happen? They will sell them very fast, probably, and make a loss. But then in the following years people will expect to get them very cheap again and it will become more difficult to sell them at their real value and the authorities will have created a long term problem for themselves.
If there isn't enough interest in Australia for the sponsors to pay decent money for the product "snooker", well it means the market isn't there and WSA should ditch it.

There you are insulting again.

And sorry, but the one in cloud coocoo is you. Because sponsors are not ready to pay something decent, the players should make losses? In what kind of coocoo land are you living? You wouldn't do it if you were in their shoes, and rightly so. Why should they?

Wild WC wrote:

Monique wrote:Wild, very few snooker players are millionaires and their predecessors didn't do anything for them. Stop dreaming. It just isn't like that.
And selling the game cheap will not help the money grow, quite the opposite. If sponsors, say in Japan, know that the Aussies could organise a tournament for very little, why would they offer more? They won't. Nobody will. On the contrary, they will all try and get the prizes lower.
Jus think about this. Imagine that next season they sell the Crucible tickets for 1£. What will happen? They will sell them very fast, probably, and make a loss. But then in the following years people will expect to get them very cheap again and it will become more difficult to sell them at their real value and the authorities will have created a long term problem for themselves.
If there isn't enough interest in Australia for the sponsors to pay decent money for the product "snooker", well it means the market isn't there and WSA should ditch it.

monique its not selling the little kittens playing sport little kittens playing cheap its building from the ground up....

little kitten me how stupid can one person little kittens playing be ?

your in cloud coocoo land no chameleon little kittens playing country going to pay mega bucks to players if they end up banckrupt could someone with more patience than me bang their head against a brick wall trying to explain common sense to this womman PLEASE

What does all this little kittens chameleons etc. mean?

Anyway, it feels like im butting in on some long standing argument between the 2 of you

I can see your points Monique but I have to side more with wild here. If the tournaments has to be as big as you say from year 1 there will probably be no new tournaments in new markets at all.

Also here is a FACT to get you thinking

In 1999 the total prize money for the China Open was 305 000 £. In 2011 it was 325 000 £. Now if you compare the value of the £ as a money between those two years, and the cost of "living", you will see that in fact in 12 years the prize money has gone DOWN, not UP, and it's not by lack of success of the sport in the country. Snooker got bigger and bigger in China. In 2012, The Chinese sponsors boosted it to 400 000, which probably still isn't equivalent to what it was in 1999 in terms of "value" and I suspect it's partly because of the competition between the various Chinese tournaments. They all want to be the more prestigious.
Prestige and image are keys for the sponsors and that will never go hand in hand with making it cheap.

I doubt that the players were negotiating the prize money themselves. So don't blame them for that. they probably wouldn't be able to, it's not their job. No more than it is the job of the financial manager - or whatever their title - to play in tournaments. Barry Hearn is a business man and it's up to him to negotiate decent prize money. If he does the players will follow him, I have no doubts. He shouldn't expect them to do their jobs properly, win matches AND make losses. He wouldn't do that himself, believe me.

Wild WC wrote:Sorry Mon its just frustrating because i cant see how a Company or WSA going to throw money at events unless they prove themselves like you seem to think they should no Sponsor going to bankrupt themselves for a unproven sport it takes time to build up fanbase and intrest fro more Profitable sponsors.

And no player is going to bankrupt himself for an hypothetic - unproven - happy future for the next generation. Why should they? Nobody did it for them. They have to make a living, for themselves and their families NOW, put bread on the table, pay school fees, etc. Like everyone.

Wild WC wrote:

Monique wrote:

Wild WC wrote:Sorry Mon its just frustrating because i cant see how a Company or WSA going to throw money at events unless they prove themselves like you seem to think they should no Sponsor going to bankrupt themselves for a unproven sport it takes time to build up fanbase and intrest fro more Profitable sponsors.

And no player is going to bankrupt himself for an hypothetic - unproven - happy future for the next generation. Why should they? Nobody did it for them. They have to make a living, for themselves and their families NOW, put bread on the table, pay school fees, etc. Like everyone.

thats where you are wrong without the groundwork in the 70s from thoes players Snooker Today wouldnt exist in 1972 Alex Higgins got £480 as World Champion in 5 years at the Crucible John Spencor got £6,000 12x more than 1972....that dont just happen because players think they worth it its because of the popularity of the sport and in places like Australia and Brazil they havent got prooff of it popularity so until thats proven and New exiting sponsors show a intrest Prize money will be small unfortunately but that will have to be backed up with star names playing.....with respect Barry Hawkins and Mark Davis as top 4 seeds wont get the intrest high.

Wild, and this is my last post on the subject because we are going off topic, the growth in the 70th was more linked to the television taking an interest in snooker than anything else. And that interest was partly technological coincidence - with colour television spreading - and partly linked to the controversial personality of ONE player, Alex Higgins. Without both of those things it would not have developed, despite the players best efforts. And during the 80th and early 90th nobody can accuse the players not to do their bits to the best of their abilities and possibilities, but the sport started to stagnate nonetheless because the managers were not investing in the right things.

Wild WC wrote:

Monique wrote:

Wild WC wrote:Sorry Mon its just frustrating because i cant see how a Company or WSA going to throw money at events unless they prove themselves like you seem to think they should no Sponsor going to bankrupt themselves for a unproven sport it takes time to build up fanbase and intrest fro more Profitable sponsors.

And no player is going to bankrupt himself for an hypothetic - unproven - happy future for the next generation. Why should they? Nobody did it for them. They have to make a living, for themselves and their families NOW, put bread on the table, pay school fees, etc. Like everyone.

thats where you are wrong without the groundwork in the 70s from thoes players Snooker Today wouldnt exist in 1972 Alex Higgins got £480 as World Champion in 5 years at the Crucible John Spencor got £6,000 12x more than 1972....that dont just happen because players think they worth it its because of the popularity of the sport and in places like Australia and Brazil they havent got prooff of it popularity so until thats proven and New exiting sponsors show a intrest Prize money will be small unfortunately but that will have to be backed up with star names playing.....with respect Barry Hawkins and Mark Davis as top 4 seeds wont get the intrest high.

Mmmm ... share your concern a bit Wild, but I think as long as Robbo is in the competition, and there are players good enough so it doesn't look like a walkover for him, I suspect the Australian interest will be good enough for the sponsors. It's perhaps just as important to increase the Australian contingent so that, somewhen down the line when there's no Robbo, there are Aussie players that are competitive enough to sustain the local interest.

i have a million and one things to say on this thread but its far too nice to be sitting inside posting nonsense online so MY RANTS will have to wait to later.

A flavour of what i have to say is that im somewhere in the middle between Wilds opinions and Moniques opinions, agree with both to an extent but also differ a lot too from them.

What i will say though is, those STILL AGAINST a flat 128 set up.............

IT HAS TO HAPPEN NOW

sod the so called elite, theyve stabbed Hearn and snooker in the back with their petty self interest and the Aussie mass pull out confirms this, so let them suffer for their actions, and let the rest prosper.

If we lose a generation of so called stars, then so be it.

As it is, the top 16 is full of old men threatening to retire or past their best, has beens whove found a bit of form and others who arent worthy of being in the top 16 (yous know who they are!)

The sport should be about hungry players with a good work ethic who want to play which is what a pro is all about.

BUT on the Monique point of view, yeh i agree prize money is a joke AT ALL LEVELS tbh.

And im going to criticise Hearn here for once, i think hes running before he can walk, IM all for the expansion of the game but in hindsight its clear that unless the money is there, then this aint going to happen.

And global expansion is laughable to be honest, Snooker should just accept its going to be a Europe and China based sport and focus on them meantime.

Hearn has sold Snookers UK soul to the devil with full focus on China and anywhere bar the UK. Golf and tennis arent comparis0n sports we can really do with snooker, i think darts is the ideal model to use as the players are virtually all British and / or UK based so a WORLD sport on this basis will never work.

The game needs rebranded in the UK to an extent and i think to generate income to sustain some more tournaments in the UK some more events like the Shootout or even rankers played with a noisier crowd have to happen. Darts rakes in a fortune from crowds but snooker isnt cashing in on this.

And the money we are currently getting from the Chinese is a joke, ive always said that. But as ive always said too, the move to an Order of Merit will encourage events to compete with each other and increase prize money to attract top players.

Witz, I've always said that the flat structure would help. It would help young hungry players to climb faster because of the level playing field, and it would help older players with other commitments in life to better balance their professional and private life because it would render ranking largely irrelevant and they would have the same chances as anyone to win the ones they enter if they are good enough.

Where I differ is that no player will "prosper" with events like the Australian Open with the current prize money, because all of them, bar the last four will lose money with it rather than win any and that's a big ask to reach the semis and not worth it, with the trip - long, grueling and costly - and the jet-lag that could cripple their chances in the next event if the calendar is full. That's why this tournament, as it is, is a nonsense and the players are right to send Barry Hearn a signal about it. It's not being lazy, it's being sensible. If the sponsors can't put more money in it, then it has to be organised differently. Trying to negotiate a tax exoneration for the players, if that's possible, would be a start. Australian taxes only actually cut what they earned by half.

And of course I agree about focusing on China and Europe for now. That's what I've been saying from the start. Focus on proximity or proven markets first, until resources increase. Only then, think to expand in more "adventurous" markets.

Wild WC wrote:but mate its not going to happen without doing nothing if A Country comes forward like Australia or Brazil and offer to put a tournament on what is Hearn supose to do say NO THANKS ?

Regarding the Amataer way the PTC Has been Run.... well to some extent that was because Hearn was asked to Put on More Events by Players but hes not a miracle worker and New Events was never going to be on a Par with the Crucible they were Quickly put together hastily even because PLAYERS Wanted to Play Snooker.

the Mess Snooker found itself in sorry but the Buck stops with players.

Barry Hearn should tell them " Look guys, here is what it costs to organise the thing, bring the fitters, the refs, in some cases the tables (Brazil). This is what it costs to the players without taking any luxury into account (economy flight, decent but no luxury hotel, food and other necessities when there). Can you make certain that the players who actually win a match go home with something reasonable for themselves? Yes? Great. No? Sorry.
These are not charity events. This is their job and they need and deserve to make a living out of it.