Is there a danger that OnQ Promotions becoming too powerful?
Before i start i will say that i totally commend what On Q Promotions have done with building and establishing their impressive Snooker Academy, as well as managing a wave of players, and having met the likes of Janie and Sarah i have no doubt that there 100% snooker people with their hearts in the right place, and from what ive heard of Paul Mount, he seems to be living a dream at the moment.
However i did stumble across a comment somewhere last week, on another site i think raising concerns that there may be a danger that OnQ could end up with political aspirations within the sport.
With the latest addition of Mark Allen, taking the stable of pros up to around 25 with numerous other amateurs also represented, is there a danger of On Q getting a monopoly of players interests and ultimately a lot of power within the game.
We did see this happen with 110sport in the past, and whilst i wouldnt compare On Q to them cowboys, its still a question that has to be raised IMO.
Id expect to get shot down to flames by some for even raising this subject, and i certainly dont expect, or wish for Sarah, Janie or anyone else to feel the need to defend or argue the case against.
Personally i dont really envisage any problems in the future, but it has crossed my mind that one party having a growing monopoly on players cant surely be healthy in the long run.
I do know that the Grove has a good few players on its books too, and it may just be that they are a smaller, London based version of On Q.
However i did stumble across a comment somewhere last week, on another site i think raising concerns that there may be a danger that OnQ could end up with political aspirations within the sport.
With the latest addition of Mark Allen, taking the stable of pros up to around 25 with numerous other amateurs also represented, is there a danger of On Q getting a monopoly of players interests and ultimately a lot of power within the game.
We did see this happen with 110sport in the past, and whilst i wouldnt compare On Q to them cowboys, its still a question that has to be raised IMO.
Id expect to get shot down to flames by some for even raising this subject, and i certainly dont expect, or wish for Sarah, Janie or anyone else to feel the need to defend or argue the case against.
Personally i dont really envisage any problems in the future, but it has crossed my mind that one party having a growing monopoly on players cant surely be healthy in the long run.
I do know that the Grove has a good few players on its books too, and it may just be that they are a smaller, London based version of On Q.
- Witz78
- Posts: 15036
- Joined: 02 February 2010