Prize Money Rankings are here!

Although, as I already said, I don't expect "seldom winners" players to have a guaranteed income that would allow them to make a decent living, neither do I think it's desirable. However I'm all for giving them some financial support to help them face the very high costs of the current tour. They should not take things for granted, or believe anyone "owes" them but they still deserve something for their efforts. In principle, yes, they should take a part time job. However if you think about it, even that is not so easy. If they don't win much, they will probably have time on their hands. The problem though is that they won't know when. The should all try their best to win and therefore when embarking on a tournament, they won't know how far they will go, and they will hope to stay in it as long as they can. For some tournaments, like the Welsh Open, the TV stage is almost right after the qualifiers which is good for the sport but won't help the situation. Employers usually expect their employees to be reliable and will want to know, at least a few days in advance when they will be available.
Even if they work freelance - assuming they have got the education and training for some job than can be done freelance - they will have deadlines to respect and they can't take a job unless they know they will be able to complete it in time.

Wild WC wrote:

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 was never looking for them to get a minimum wage per se, but yes, travelling expenses and accomodation, enough so they are not bloody bankrupt by the time the next event comes along. Those who don't cut it will fall off the tour and it just might give those who may have needed a touch longer to establish themselves that chance to do just that, otherwise a lot of good up and coming talent will fall by the wayside.

If World Snooker's going to do a tour comprised of 128 players, then no matter what ranking system it employs, there should be enough money in the pot to support 128 players. If World Snooker can't afford to pay first round losers a simple £500 (enough so that these young players get a decent shot at a pro career in snooker), then the tour should not be increased in the first place.

Its a joke this is suddenly such a big talking point that players might not get "paid".

From day one its been the case that the bulk of lower ranked players didnt earn a dime.

If anything, by levelling the playing field Hearn is at least offering a fair chance to earn for the newcomers and lower ranked players, unlike previous years.

Witz78 wrote:Its a joke this is suddenly such a big talking point that players might not get "paid".

From day one its been the case that the bulk of lower ranked players didnt earn a dime.

If anything, by levelling the playing field Hearn is at least offering a fair chance to earn for the newcomers and lower ranked players, unlike previous years.

Maybe so, but then again they weren't told to go get a loan to fund trips to China and Europe. Basic travel and Hotel expenses are all I have ever argued for round one. Not talking about making a living from the game while losing.

Heres some facts, figures and stats from last years World Championship

2012 World Championship Prize Money

Winner: £250,000 x 1 = £250,000
Runner-up: £125,000 x 1 = £125,000
Semi-final: £52,000 x 2 = £104,000
Quarter-final: £24,050 x 4 = £96,200
Last 16: £16,000 x 8 = £128,000
Last 32: £12,000 x 16 = £192,000
Last 48: £8,200 x 16 = £131,200
Last 64: £4,600 x 16 = £ 73,600

Total prize money = £1,100,000

Total prize money at venue stages = £895,200 (81%)

Total prize money at qualifying stages = £204,800 (19%)

Players paid = 64 (67%)

Players not paid = 32 (33%)

Average prize money per "paid" players = £17,188

Average prize money per the 32 players at venue = £27,975

Avergae prize money per the "paid" players who didnt qualify = £6,400

Average prize money per the 64 players not qualifying = £3,200

Players paid prize money who lost opening match
Last 64 - 9 players x £4,600 = £41,400
Last 48 - 6 players x £8,200 = £49,200
Last 32 - 8 players x £12,000 = £96,000
TOTAL = £186,600 (17% of prize fund paid to seeded players who didnt win a game)

8 players won a game and didnt earn a penny of prize money

Witz78 wrote:Heres some facts, figures and stats from last years World Championship

2012 World Championship Prize Money

Winner: £250,000 x 1 = £250,000
Runner-up: £125,000 x 1 = £125,000
Semi-final: £52,000 x 2 = £104,000
Quarter-final: £24,050 x 4 = £96,200
Last 16: £16,000 x 8 = £128,000
Last 32: £12,000 x 16 = £192,000
Last 48: £8,200 x 16 = £131,200
Last 64: £4,600 x 16 = £ 73,600

Total prize money = £1,100,000

Total prize money at venue stages = £895,200 (81%)

Total prize money at qualifying stages = £204,800 (19%)

Players paid = 64 (67%)

Players not paid = 32 (33%)

Average prize money per "paid" players = £17,188

Average prize money per the 32 players at venue = £27,975

Avergae prize money per the "paid" players who didnt qualify = £6,400

Average prize money per the 64 players not qualifying = £3,200

Players paid prize money who lost opening match
Last 64 - 9 players x £4,600 = £41,400
Last 48 - 6 players x £8,200 = £49,200
Last 32 - 8 players x £12,000 = £96,000
TOTAL = £186,600 (17% of prize fund paid to seeded players who didnt win a game)

8 players won a game and didnt earn a penny of prize money

Heres what i propose for the World Championship under a flat set up

Last 128 - 64x 1600= 102400
Last 64 - 32x 4000= 128000
--------------------------------------------------
Last 32 - 16x 9000= 144000
Last 16 - 8x 16000= 128000
Quarters - 4x 30000= 120000
Semis - 2x 52000= 104000
Runner-up 1x 125000= 125000
WINNER 1x 250000= 250000

£1,101,400.00 (essentially same prize fund as 2012)

The points here are

- All 128 players earn money here as opposed to 64 last year

- £102,400 is paid to players who dont win a game as opposed to £186,600 in 2012

- £230,400 is paid to players who dont appear at the venue (last32) as opposed to £204,800 in 2012

- Quarter Finalists get an increase from £24,050 to £32,000 to fairer reflect their achievment

- Semi Finalists, Runner-up and Winner receive same prize money as before


In summary, then i think paying players a nominal fee in the last 128 is workable without damaging the prize fund to a great extent (ideally prize funds will rise though with the money ranking list incentive to promoters though)

Im more than happy to reward all players now instead of the previous set up where money was being lost in a big way to seeded players who lost their opening games anyway.

And with it being a level playing field, the new ladders are the increased money per wins at an event for all players, as opposed to the old ladder teired system. The more you win, the more you earn, but nobody will be out of pocket.

Given the fact the 128 set up will be fairer, the players reaching the last 32 and venues will be far more varied than before where 16 were automatically seeded through and you could say half as minimum of the 17-32 seeded guys would also win through to the venue.

Basically on average these 75% plus of the top 32 players were always at the venue so they took home the bulk of the prize money (80% at the venue) whilst the bulk of the tour below them were scrapping about for money that wasnt there to be won realistically.

Flat 128 solves all of this.

Witz mate, I dunno if you are taking the snake hiss or not mate, but if your not then well done for seeing some common sense. That is all I ever wanted anyone to look at this from, was common sense.

snooky147 wrote:Witz mate, I dunno if you are taking the snake hiss or not mate, but if your not then well done for seeing some common sense. That is all I ever wanted anyone to look at this from, was common sense.

if i was taking the snake hiss do you think id have went to all that effort

the money is there to be distributed to all under this set up (albeit minimal money to last 128 losers)

Witz78 wrote:

Witz78 wrote:Heres some facts, figures and stats from last years World Championship

2012 World Championship Prize Money

Winner: £250,000 x 1 = £250,000
Runner-up: £125,000 x 1 = £125,000
Semi-final: £52,000 x 2 = £104,000
Quarter-final: £24,050 x 4 = £96,200
Last 16: £16,000 x 8 = £128,000
Last 32: £12,000 x 16 = £192,000
Last 48: £8,200 x 16 = £131,200
Last 64: £4,600 x 16 = £ 73,600

Total prize money = £1,100,000

Total prize money at venue stages = £895,200 (81%)

Total prize money at qualifying stages = £204,800 (19%)

Players paid = 64 (67%)

Players not paid = 32 (33%)

Average prize money per "paid" players = £17,188

Average prize money per the 32 players at venue = £27,975

Avergae prize money per the "paid" players who didnt qualify = £6,400

Average prize money per the 64 players not qualifying = £3,200

Players paid prize money who lost opening match
Last 64 - 9 players x £4,600 = £41,400
Last 48 - 6 players x £8,200 = £49,200
Last 32 - 8 players x £12,000 = £96,000
TOTAL = £186,600 (17% of prize fund paid to seeded players who didnt win a game)

8 players won a game and didnt earn a penny of prize money

Heres what i propose for the World Championship under a flat set up

Last 128 - 64x 1600= 102400
Last 64 - 32x 4000= 128000
--------------------------------------------------
Last 32 - 16x 9000= 144000
Last 16 - 8x 16000= 128000
Quarters - 4x 30000= 120000
Semis - 2x 52000= 104000
Runner-up 1x 125000= 125000
WINNER 1x 250000= 250000

£1,101,400.00 (essentially same prize fund as 2012)

The points here are

- All 128 players earn money here as opposed to 64 last year

- £102,400 is paid to players who dont win a game as opposed to £186,600 in 2012

- £230,400 is paid to players who dont appear at the venue (last32) as opposed to £204,800 in 2012

- Quarter Finalists get an increase from £24,050 to £32,000 to fairer reflect their achievment

- Semi Finalists, Runner-up and Winner receive same prize money as before


In summary, then i think paying players a nominal fee in the last 128 is workable without damaging the prize fund to a great extent (ideally prize funds will rise though with the money ranking list incentive to promoters though)

Im more than happy to reward all players now instead of the previous set up where money was being lost in a big way to seeded players who lost their opening games anyway.

And with it being a level playing field, the new ladders are the increased money per wins at an event for all players, as opposed to the old ladder teired system. The more you win, the more you earn, but nobody will be out of pocket.

Given the fact the 128 set up will be fairer, the players reaching the last 32 and venues will be far more varied than before where 16 were automatically seeded through and you could say half as minimum of the 17-32 seeded guys would also win through to the venue.

Basically on average these 75% plus of the top 32 players were always at the venue so they took home the bulk of the prize money (80% at the venue) whilst the bulk of the tour below them were scrapping about for money that wasnt there to be won realistically.

Flat 128 solves all of this.

Nice Witz! Looks good to me.

Thats never Going to happen just too much cash will be spent on players that does nothing im sorry but that's the Harsh reality.

if there's more cash to spare they will be giving it to the Top 32+ that's won 2 Matches.

I don't get why they don't:
a) Make it easier on themselves and us
b) Do what they always used to do until (i believe) 2010/2011
and pay all prizemoney in GBP.

how the hell can this bullocks be right http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles ... 986,00.pdf

players that hardly play World no 4 and John Higgins higher than Mark Selby Give me a Break.

just looking at John's Position if he Reaches the World Semi final this year he could be dropping down to about 10 from 2.

money ranking lists are not a accurate reflection of the Best players is.

OK Ronnie is World Champion but its suppose to be a 2 year list not 1 tournament list both Ronnie and Higgins are top 4 based on 1 Tournament.

I'm not clicking on that link but it sounds like you're basing opinion on a non-flat 128 tour structure which of course the money list system will not be doing. Under a flat 128 system the rankings would look completely different. A money list system will only be fair under a flat 128 system.

Sonny wrote:I'm not clicking on that link but it sounds like you're basing opinion on a non-flat 128 tour structure which of course the money list system will not be doing. Under a flat 128 system the rankings would look completely different. A money list system will only be fair under a flat 128 system.

but still Based on a Few Results as appose to consistency.

if Money comes in then Flat 128 is the only fair way.

I like the money list because it rewards winners of events more.

And it means if a player has won a few events earlier in the season and want to take it easy in the warm up events before the worlds they can.

can we have a money list updated for after worlds please

Why has the 2 year money list not been updated since welsh open

GJ wrote:Why has the 2 year money list not been updated since welsh open

Mike Ganleys been too busy shagging Snoopies

"Business or Pleasure" to quote the man himself

witz

question for you on 128 thread ?

cheers

When are the prize money rankings introduced?

Money Rankings will not be used to seed players this season it will still be points based the Money Rankings will be used to seed players during the 2014/2015 season.

obviously Money Ranking Points will be collected Ready during this season so when it comes to change they wont have to re calculate a 2 year period.

they first started collecting Money Rankings During this Season and by the Time Wuxi Classic 2014 comes round they would have collected 2 years worth of Money Rankings.

Wild WC wrote:Money Rankings will not be used to seed players this season it will still be points based the Money Rankings will be used to seed players during the 2014/2015 season.

obviously Money Ranking Points will be collected Ready during this season so when it comes to change they wont have to re calculate a 2 year period.

they first started collecting Money Rankings During this Season and by the Time Wuxi Classic 2014 comes round they would have collected 2 years worth of Money Rankings.

I think it´s great that Prize Money Ranking comes round by the time of Wuzi Classic 2014. Not all (or many..?) agrees, but I think that money is the thing and force of Western World. So it´s a good to have rankings which shows and indicates how much players have amassed.

Money and freedom + liberty of society walks hand in hand. I live probably in the most eastern country on the planet where we have real freedom. After the WW2 where if was succefully defended most of music and movies for example are about just that; freedom. And the nature beauty here also....

http://www.worldsnooker.com/staticFiles ... 264,00.pdf

ronnie miles ahead on money rankings

despite playing 1 event this season


system has to be flawed surely

so play 1 event a year and win it and you top the rankings

sorry no other sport would have that flawed system

FACT

its like saying federer wins wimbledon takes the rest of the year off , no chance he ends the season number 1

Dannyboy wrote:Not flawed at all - he's won the last two World Championships. He's the best player in the world.

its a 2 YEAR List last time i looked 2 year consisted of more than 4 weeks

The issue is the points rankings have ronnie 18th

money have him number 1

Somewhere in the middle is fair