Prize Money Rankings are here!

Wild WC wrote:

snooky147 wrote:

Sonny wrote:£500 for first round losers = £32,000 spent on no matches won. That's not right surely.

Why on earth not?, Considering what they have spent to get to that point in entrance fees, travel and hotel and food.
My point has always been that once you are on that tour you ARE a professional. You have done your time, paid your dues to be there but then your expected to cough up further with absolutely no reward, no thanks.
The ones that dont win consistently at all over the season will drop off. The others have at least minimum subsidsence in prize money. Its only fair.

Barry hearn came in with a message no mediocrity so if players cant win matches find another job Snooker will not bankrupt itself any more subsidizing the uselessness of players that cant win Matches.

How is paying them £500 rewarding mediocrity? Where is the reward? When you take into consideration their entry fee and expenses I would doubt £500 would cover costs for most and maybe break even for the few. This isn't a reward, but it would help the players not to be so much out of pocket.

that whats been happening in snooker For years

£500 per Main Ranking tournament = £5,000 per player without nothing to show for it

64 players per flat system not won a match £32,000 per event without a win

if 10 players not won a match all season = £ 50,000 out of the game and not a single win.

Wild WC wrote:that whats been happening in snooker For years

£500 per Main Ranking tournament = £5,000 per player without nothing to show for it

64 players per flat system not won a match £32,000 per event without a win

if 10 players not won a match all season = £ 50,000 out of the game and not a single win.

Do you think £5,000 is a lot to show for a full time professional? Do you think £5k covers their expenses for the year? Someone who earns £5k over 12 months is hardly being 'rewarded' and will also fall off the tour.

If also brings me back to my point about what the games stakeholders gain from that match. Just beacuse a player loses a match does not mean World snooker did not profit from it.

Casey wrote:

Wild WC wrote:that whats been happening in snooker For years

£500 per Main Ranking tournament = £5,000 per player without nothing to show for it

64 players per flat system not won a match £32,000 per event without a win

if 10 players not won a match all season = £ 50,000 out of the game and not a single win.

Do you think £5,000 is a lot to show for a full time professional? Do you think £5k covers their expenses for the year? Someone who earns £5k over 12 months is hardly being 'rewarded' and will also fall off the tour.

If also brings me back to my point about what the games stakeholders gain from that match. Just beacuse a player loses a match does not mean World snooker did not profit from it.

im saying how Barry Hearn thinks about it..

He said he wanted to reward success and get rid of mediocrity that what he said when taking over.

Mediocrity doesn't mean only players that's been at it for years going nowhere it means new players too.

He ain't the messiah for everything snooker related mate, no matter how well its going. He is sitting there spouting words like mediocrity whilst lower down the list these so called medocre players suffer huge financial losses with no prospects of even getting basic expenses reimbursed. Its quite simply disgraceful. I am not necessarily saying £ 500 but in the spirit of natural justice pay them something.
Also, 90 percent of the players on tour now do not give a toss about the future so why should they be the sacrifices you so casually say they should be.

Well Barry obviously wants to protect his bottom line and has little concern for those struggling to make a living.

It’s those at the top that line Barry’s pockets so those at the bottom can make up the numbers at their own costs as far as he is concerned.

Could you imagine tennis players not getting paid for losing in the first round of Wimbledon or footballers not getting paid every time they lose a game!

snooky147 wrote: I am not necessarily saying £ 500 but in the spirit of natural justice pay them something.

why ?

pay them for not being worthy of being called a professional.

thats been done for years and its kept journeymen happy with their lot.

Wild WC wrote:

snooky147 wrote: I am not necessarily saying £ 500 but in the spirit of natural justice pay them something.

why ?

pay them for not being worthy of being called a professional.

thats been done for years and its kept journeymen happy with their lot.

Two things -

1. Nobody would be happy or could live on £5k a year - remember these guys have to put their hand in their own pocket.

2. Under the new ranking system they wouldn't stay on tour, they would fall off.

I don't think any of the players would say to themselves 'well its ok if I lose because I will get £500'.

I will say it again, first rounder losers are still contributing to the tournament, they are needed and add value to the stakeholders.

Casey wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

snooky147 wrote: I am not necessarily saying £ 500 but in the spirit of natural justice pay them something.

why ?

pay them for not being worthy of being called a professional.

thats been done for years and its kept journeymen happy with their lot.

Two things -

1. Nobody would be happy or could live on £5k a year - remember these guys have to put their hand in their own pocket.

2. Under the new ranking system they wouldn't stay on tour, they would fall off.

I don't think any of the players would say to themselves 'well its ok if I lose because I will get £500'.

I will say it again, first rounder losers are still contributing to the tournament, they are needed and add value to the stakeholders.

you could also argue the way Barry hearn has Gone about it has Pushed the likes of Mark Davis to strive for better because no longer could he rely on a handout he had to go and get it or sink.

the Need is what gives Ambition to get better let them strive for it rather than sit back hoping.

Casey wrote:Well Barry obviously wants to protect his bottom line and has little concern for those struggling to make a living.

It’s those at the top that line Barry’s pockets so those at the bottom can make up the numbers at their own costs as far as he is concerned.

Could you imagine tennis players not getting paid for losing in the first round of Wimbledon or footballers not getting paid every time they lose a game!

thats utter tripe mate

Hearns done more for younger and newer players on tour than anyone has done

If he was purely for the elite players

WHY would he increae the tour to 128 players? I remember all the anti-Heanr critics suggested he would reduce the tour to 64 or 48 and have shotclock galore when he got into power

WHY would he introduce a flat 128 system, a level playing field in effect, if he was soely focused on the so called big names. If they were his priority hed have kept their protection and seeded them to the final. or better still hed have just cherry picked the tour for the big names and formed a breakaway PDC style snooker tour.

Hearns done more than anyone to give the "bottom" players opportunities, up until now these guys always had to win 2 games at least before they picked up any prize money, now under the flat 128 set up they will only have to win 1 game.

The biggest injustice before was guys further up the ranking guaranteed to protect their ranking by picking up a few opening round wins per season as well as guaranteed prize money win or lose, whilst those below them won far more games yet hardly earned a penny.

Now its a level playing field and there no such thing as a bottom or top player, all players have equal opportunities to earn

Would you please give this strive for better Hearn line a rest please mate. Mark Davis is an example of someone who always worked and and now he has clicked into a sustained run of form. It is sod all to do with any perception of a handout, which IF YOUR A PRO is not a handout, it's called trying to COVER EXPENSES.
Those who don't win consistent will drop off. Oh and not worthy of being called a professional???????? Who the hell are you or Hearn to say that?. Your not going to sit back hoping if all your doing is getting PART of your expenses covered. Many years ago I was involved in bringing, or trying to bring some youngsters, apart from Graeme into the pro ranks. I know what it cost then because Alex Lambie, Graeme's Manager paid for it all. He had a vision for Scottish Snooker and it was just a pity that he never got the credit he deserved for the work that he and SOME others did. My point is here that these boys nowadays work their socks off, they get onto a tour, PAY THEIR ENTRY FEES and are then expected to play for sod all. I know the good old days are over money wise but there is enough there in a flat system to give 64 players MINIMAL EXPENSES.

Why not just pay all the players a nominal sum of 10k at the start of the season then?

the Sport owes nobody a Living.

in every walks of life there's winners and there's losers.

if you cant make it as a pro you pinpoint it and act accordingly and move on.

Witz78 wrote:Why not just pay all the players a nominal sum of 10k at the start of the season then?

£1,280,000 just for turning up

Correct Wild, the sport does not owe them a living. £500 for a loss against their expenses isn't a living. I keep saying it and you have yet to address but the players that play in the first round pay their entry fee like everyone else and they contribute to the tournament? Why shouldn't they get a nominal fee?

Wild WC wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Why not just pay all the players a nominal sum of 10k at the start of the season then?

£1,280,000 just for turning up

exactly haha . im not in favour of these handouts for turning up.

Theres an old saying.....WIN or BUST

Wild WC wrote:the Sport owes nobody a Living.

in every walks of life there's winners and there's losers.

if you cant make it as a pro you pinpoint it and act accordingly and move on.

You just never stop this do you?. It's not about owing anyone a living, it's about going part way to ensuring that they get a proper chance at it when it comes. Some mature at older ages. I'm NOT saying support them without them having to work for it nor am I willing as Witz suggests to GIVE them 10 grand. All I am asking for is a nominal sum to offset expenses. The winners and the losers will sort themselves out over the two seasons without the losers being bankrupt at the end of it. I know your all for the good of the game and its future and I respect that hugely but in my opinion you are wrong on this. Ultimately, if a bit of common sense is shown the rewards will be seen in the future.

Call me cynical if you like mate but is this suddenly an issue because Dotts no longer going to be guaranteed cash at each event win or lose?

And in the bigger picture i dont see why Hearns suddenly copping a lot of flak from a lot of yous for the fact round 1 losers wont get paid. Its always been the case that a lot of players low down the rankings didnt get paid for 1 or even 2 wins. It seems to be more of an issue now for some reason because the richer top players might not earn a penny.

Doesnt anyone realise instead of countless hundreds of thousands being wasted on losing players as was the case before, now the cash is there to be earned, not handed out so the cash pot available to these lower younger players is greater for them to aim at now, as a lot of it isnt already earmarked to reward mediocrity, be these losing seeds in last 64, 48 or 32 of an event.

Witz78 wrote:Call me cynical if you like mate but is this suddenly an issue because Dotts no longer going to be guaranteed cash at each event win or lose?

And in the bigger picture i dont see why Hearns suddenly copping a lot of flak from a lot of yous for the fact round 1 losers wont get paid. Its always been the case that a lot of players low down the rankings didnt get paid for 1 or even 2 wins. It seems to be more of an issue now for some reason because the richer top players might not earn a penny.

Doesnt anyone realise instead of countless hundreds of thousands being wasted on losing players as was the case before, now the cash is there to be earned, not handed out so the cash pot available to these lower younger players is greater for them to aim at now, as a lot of it isnt already earmarked to reward mediocrity, be these losing seeds in last 64, 48 or 32 of an event.

I would appreciate it if you kept Graeme out of this arguement as its got nothing to do with him. He does not in fact agree with me on this and that is the last time I will discuss him in this thread. I HAVE MY OWN VIEWS.

snooky147 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:the Sport owes nobody a Living.

in every walks of life there's winners and there's losers.

if you cant make it as a pro you pinpoint it and act accordingly and move on.

You just never stop this do you?. It's not about owing anyone a living, it's about going part way to ensuring that they get a proper chance at it when it comes. Some mature at older ages. I'm NOT saying support them without them having to work for it nor am I willing as Witz suggests to GIVE them 10 grand. All I am asking for is a nominal sum to offset expenses. The winners and the losers will sort themselves out over the two seasons without the losers being bankrupt at the end of it. I know your all for the good of the game and its future and I respect that hugely but in my opinion you are wrong on this. Ultimately, if a bit of common sense is shown the rewards will be seen in the future.

Look

is Sport a Job or a Profession ?

if its a Job they Turn up to every Work going and earn a Living or its a Profession where as they are aloud to pick and choose what events they play at.

if they want a minimum wage then its a Job of Work and they cant do what the hell they want on a whim and keep their Job.

it seems to me some want players to have the freedom of self employment and the security of employment in other words have their cake and eat it.

couldnt have put it better Wild

I totally agree with snooky.
What you don't seem to realise is how much it does cost nowadays just to be able to play and make the necessary trips. I will say it again people can't spend money they don't have, it's not a matter of not being prepared to make sacrifices. The amounts of money snooky is putting forward for first round losers wouldn't even allow them to make any kind of living out of snooker, it would just help them to cover basic expenses, if that. It's not a reward to mediocracy, it's an investment for the future of the game. Players who are not good enough will drop off, so "mediocre" pros won't survive on the tour.
But it will make a huge difference for many, the difference between being able to afford to give the MT a proper go or not.
Do you guys really want that snooker becomes so expensive that only those with a posh background can try themselves at it? I don't. Snooker has deep roots in the working class; industrial and mining areas have produced top pros. The Paul Hunter foundation is working at help kids from disadvantaged backgrounds through snooker. All this will be lost if snooker becomes a sport only the rich can afford.
Just think about some of the current top players.
Both John Higgins and Graeme Dott come from a modest family. They worked hard to become the to pros they are, but don't underestimate the efforts their family had to make to support them. Would they have been able to do it in the current setup if there is no minimal money for the players? I doubt it.
Neil Robertson came from Australia with next to nothing in his wallet. Would he have been able to face today's expenses, travels, not to mention all the logistic it involves, by himself with the money he had? Surely not. And, remember, he dropped off the tour after his first year. Is he "mediocre"? I don't think so, he just needed time to find his foot in the MT, like many.
Not supporting the players financially at all is a very dangerous path to take. It will mean that many talented youngsters will not even give it a go, not because they don't want to but very simply can't afford to. And it might deter many parents to support their kids into a snooker career again because the financial risk is simply far too big for them to even contemplate it. I know for fact that this is already the case, notably in some European countries, Ireland and Scotland. It's a big shame.
And it wouldn't even cost more if the flat structure is into place.
Just considere this scenario for the UK under a flat structure:
Last 128 losers: £1000
Last 64 losers: £3000
From Last 32 on as it was this season.
Well that would cost £36000 less than what it costed last December with Last 64 losers getting only £2000 but last 48 losers getting £5500.

That wont happen and neither it should .....

A year or so ago i put forward an idea that this 147 roll over prize would be better spent covering expenses for the lower ranked players and at the time you poured cold water on it.

You cant have everything Monique. Barry Hearn or snooker cant afford to give players everything at the moment anyway.

After years of players rule and appointing idiots to run the sport that's where we was at when Barry took over.

Profit margins are slowly growing but only slowly.

In life if you cant afford something you don't do it why should that rule not apply to snooker professionals.

As I said you want your cake and eat it.

If snooker is a job with a minimum wage then they should treat it as such with a set amount of days off per year and play in everything and when there's no tournament or when they are knocked out of something then endless promotion of the sport.

I just showed you that I wouldn't cost more under the flat structure, on the contrary it would cost less than what it costs now. They can afford it.
And as usual you just repeat your usual anthem, but you don't actually answer my points, or snooky's.

Monique wrote:I just showed you that I wouldn't cost more under the flat structure, on the contrary it would cost less than what it costs now. They can afford it.
And as usual you just repeat your usual anthem, but you don't actually answer my points, or snooky's.

pot Kettle Monique

you will Actually take Money away from players that win a Match and give it to players that dont ?

how about Take money from players that win something in the region of £75,000 then because they can afford it more.

How am I taking money from players who win matches? In my scenario the prize money of each round has either stayed the same or being increased. It's simply that with a flat structure players play less rounds.

Wild, it takes two to play a match of snooker but only one will win even if both play fantastic. Even the loser actually does a useful work. They have spent money to enter the tournament, to travel to the venue, get accommodations and if needed official documents. It does cost and it's not cheap. Just by playing they have entertained people (if it isn't a closed door event and those IMO are pointless), they have given sponsors exposure, they have given broadcasters (whatever form broadcasting takes) something to show hence allowed them to earn something, they have hopefully attracted audience, the bookies have done business about it. In short they have generated money for quite a number of people. It's only fair they get a small share of it.

Monique wrote:How am I taking money from players who win matches? In my scenario the prize money of each round has either stayed the same or being increased. It's simply that with a flat structure players play less rounds.

Wild, it takes two to play a match of snooker but only one will win even if both play fantastic. Even the loser actually does a useful work. They have spent money to enter the tournament, to travel to the venue, get accommodations and if needed official documents. It does cost and it's not cheap. Just by playing they have entertained people (if it isn't a closed door event and those IMO are pointless), they have given sponsors exposure, they have given broadcasters (whatever form broadcasting takes) something to show hence allowed them to earn something, they have hopefully attracted audience, the bookies have done business about it. In short they have generated money for quite a number of people. It's only fair they get a small share of it.

Earning opportunities is there and you cant really argue against a Flat(er) system like i have in the past because you have Fraser Patrick a Amataur and Michael Wasley a new year Pro at the Last 32 of the German Masters so that's positive Move and i admit when im Wrong...Jury still out on Prize Money Rankings ....Sponsorship on the up since Hearn come in anyway nothing to do with Prize Money Rankings.

but Rewarding players £1,000 for every event without winning a Match im not sure its worth it but they could keep cash back for traveling expenses. so they dont Lose out but in Sport you got to strive Hard for a Win.

I never said £1000 for every event. I took the example of the UK that is a tournament with huge prize money because I had the numbers handy in the last SS issue. Obviously how much they would get for losing in round 1 should be proportional to the overall prize money. The goal would be that with less rounds to play under the flat structure, some money could and should be given to first round losers and last 64 money increased while still keeping the overall cost of the tournament even or possibly even lower. My example shows how it can be done. My main concern in suggesting this is to make the game more affordable for the debutants who might need some time to find their foot in the main tour, as talented and dedicated as they might be. If some others benefit for it, so be it. Even with that help, if they aren't good enough they will drop off and nobody will be able to make a living with that sort of "wages", at best they will cover their basic mandatory expenses.

It's easy to come up with slogans about not rewarding mediocrity but theres no clear definition about what mediocrity is. There are more than 128 snooker players so the players at the lower end of the rankings are still among the best in the world. Having a tourcard is itself a fairly impressive achievement but it would be pointless if they aren't going to pay half the players in every tournament.

It's fairly safe to assume that the more money is put into the game, the more rewards those at the lower end can expect. Currently year on year the prize money is increasing by far more than Hearn promised when he first took over so it stands to reason that World Number 96 will be earning more next season than he would have 3 seasons ago. The fact he also needs a part-time job to survive is just the way of the world, after all if you're 96 in the world then you'll have more time on your hands than those who progress further in tournaments won't you?