Post a reply

Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Monique

Read carefully and completely before (over-) reacting <cool>

http://snookerscene.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... amble.html?

THE BARRY HEARN GAMBLE
Barry Hearn is promising 11 televised tournaments plus 12 Pro Tour events each worth £10,000 to the winner and an increase in prize money of at least £1m next season.

The new WPBSA chairman wants control of the game’s commercial rights in exchange, although these will revert back to the players if he fails to hit his targets.

In a bullish, at times confrontational letter to the players, Hearn has set out his master plan to revive snooker’s fortunes.

At the centrepiece of this is the Pro Tour which will be open to all 96 players on the main tour.

It will include some established events, including the Paul Hunter Classic in Germany, and new ones and have its own order of merit. TV coverage and internet streaming of some events is a possibility.

The top 24 at the end of the season will go into a televised Players Championship worth £60,000 to the winner.

The players, with justification, have complained of not having enough tournaments to play in. The finances are not there to stage legions more ranking events. If they were, the previous WPBSA administration would have done it.

But a Pro Tour along the lines of the successful PDC darts model would provide significantly increased playing opportunities and the chance to earn more money.

These new events may also, in time, be built up into bigger ranking tournaments, just as many of Hearn’s overseas tournaments for Matchroom in places like China, Thailand and Dubai in the 1980s were.

However, one of the major differences between the Hearn chairmanship and those of the past is that he believes the association should reward achievement and not mediocrity. He has told the players as much.

As Hearn sees it, the players deserve only one thing: an opportunity. What they make of this is up to them but if they fail to make the grade they should do something else.

This will be hard to hear for some players, although in reality most of them will be no worse off than before. The pro circuit will still consist of 96 players. The top 64 will still be safe and those relegated will have an immediate chance to re-qualify through a new Cue School held after the 2011 Betfred.com World Championship.

New tournaments include a ranking event in Germany, a gloriously tacky one-frame shootout on Sky Sports which will have purists crying into their back issues of Snooker Scene, a World Seniors Championship and a World Open, featuring the 96 main tour players and amateurs, which will replace the Grand Prix.

This is because the BBC has stated they will drop the Grand Prix in any new contract renewal. Hearn has therefore immediately instituted the World Open in the hope the BBC will be sufficiently impressed with it to take it in 2011, which would be the first year of their new contract.

Hearn is not the sort to do things by committee. He likes to be in control and, as such, is proposing to purchase the game’s commercial rights for the nominal fee of £1. He will then issue share capital in this new company worth £500,000 and control 51% himself.

Players will be able to purchase shares with priority given to those who have won most based on a points system taking into account tournament wins, meaning Stephen Hendry, Steve Davis, Ronnie O’Sullivan and John Higgins would have first chance to become shareholders.

Prize money would rise from £3.5m to a minimum of £4.5m next season and by more in the years that follow. If it does not, the rights would be ceded back to the WPBSA.

The new commercial body would pay an annual licence fee to finance the WPBSA’s rules and regulatory functions, still controlled by the players. Hearn describes this as a ‘win-win situation.’

The Hearn plan includes support for the Snooker Players Association and a new ranking system that will change during the season rather than at the end of it.

Not everyone will agree with all of it. Cost cutting has seen the end of CueZone – which was popular with many fans, although at some tournaments it was little more than a table in a foyer – and courtesy cars for the players.

Some players lower down the rankings will fear for their own futures but, in reality, they aren’t any better off now. Snooker Scene’s own player columnist Jordan Brown spent in the region of £8,000 in expenses in his debut season and earned less than £1,000. Had he turned pro under the new Hearn plan he would have had the chance to play more, to earn more and to improve, possibly even keep his tour place if the results started to come his way.

At its core, the Hearn plan is a major attempt to increase snooker’s profile, the players’ opportunities and end the stagnation in the qualifying system and ranking list. Even Hearn’s critics would be hard pushed to deny his enthusiasm and commitment to making it work.

So will it work?

Hearn is a great ideas man but some of the fine detail needs to be ironed out. Players should attempt to ascertain how all this will operate in practice and have the perfect chance to because, unusually for a WPBSA chairman, Hearn has given every player his mobile number and email address and invited them to contact him with any questions or concerns they have.

But he will resign the WPBSA chairmanship if they reject his proposals in May, which would most likely sink the entire plan and deal a possibly fatal blow to snooker’s credibility with the broadcasters and sponsors he has been negotiating with.

We’ve been here before. The Hearn plan shares many similarities with the Altium bid, which failed to attract enough player support in 2002.

They were promising significant investment into the sport in exchange for its commercial rights. The players clung to the rights themselves, after which prize money fell dramatically and the number of tournaments on the circuit were reduced.

Players should read Hearn’s plans and consider them carefully rather than asking their managers – or those who call themselves managers – what it says and what it means. If they have any queries, they should address them directly to Hearn instead of relying on rumour.

Black propaganda was what did for Altium in the main, with talk of hidden agendas and ‘taking over the game,’ as if the game belongs to anyone in the first place.

On May 5, the players will get their chance to decide their own futures – again.

They should ask themselves three simple questions:

1) Do we really want to play more?

If they do, as they have always said, then the Hearn plan is a no-brainer.

2) Why should we care who runs the game’s commercial rights?

Surely players should concentrate on playing and earning money from their sport. As long as the money is going up, why does it matter who is in charge?

3) What is the alternative?

Most of them aren’t happy with the way the game has been the last few years. Supporting Hearn may be a gamble but turning down this chance to reinvigorate the sport is a bigger one.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby JohnFromLondonTown

My initial reaction is one of trust.

By Dave H asking those 3 simple questions, I believe sum's it up quite well. If your good enough your in, if your not, make way for someone who is.

Picking up the commercial piece isn't a surprise. He wants out of what he's putting in. Understandable. Its business to the Man.

I'm still confident the beneficiary of all this will be Snooker.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Roland

It really is a no brainer isn't it?

I may have been sceptical when Hearn first got the job and read some of the things he came out with in interviews, but personally I am mightly impressed with the blueprint and would be very surprised if it didn't get the go ahead. The problem previously especially with Altium was there were two parties and the governing body were trying to scupper any fresh ideas whereas this time the governing body are suggesting these ideas and you have Steve Davis who everyone respects on the board, and Ronnie O'Sullivan the most famous player in the world right now openly backing Hearn.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Roland

That's obviously to be confirmed but if you're a player and you're not confident of finishing top 64 whatever the system then you shouldn't be playing.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Casey

Sonny wrote:That's obviously to be confirmed but if you're a player and you're not confident of finishing top 64 whatever the system then you shouldn't be playing.


Very true. I am just wondering about the top 16 players currently outside that on the one year list, do you think it would mean they have to qualify for the first event next season?

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Monique

The good news for players who are relegated, especially the debutants who miss out narrowly is that they get a chance to re-qualify right away. Now they have to wait for a year at least. When you are Chinese, Thai or even European that's a big ask.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:That's obviously to be confirmed but if you're a player and you're not confident of finishing top 64 whatever the system then you shouldn't be playing.


but you cant have a ranking system based on money earned thats marmite with a capital S

i want a overhaul of the rankings but that would be a backward step.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Rocket_ron

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Sonny wrote:That's obviously to be confirmed but if you're a player and you're not confident of finishing top 64 whatever the system then you shouldn't be playing.


but you cant have a ranking system based on money earned thats marmite with a capital S

i want a overhaul of the rankings but that would be a backward step.

Whats your proposal wild for the rankings?

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:Once again you did not read properly. It's nowhere said that the rankings will be based on money earned.
It's the points system for acquisition of shares that is.


again i did and the fact i picked up on that and not much else is i like most of it.

what i wont like is the fact ranking points is in conjunction with money on offer for a tournament and that would make the rankings cockerel eyed even more so than today.

we need rolling rankings and im over the moon hes mentioned that but based on a sound ranking system that makes every tournament be equal and not how much cash on offer.

but im not going yeyyyy hearn because i dont trust him and im waiting to see what the reality is.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Roland

The reality is, you dipshit, that he openly says he doesn't know the best way forward and is asking for meetings with all the players to come to the best solution for working out the ranking points system. Did you read his proposals or what?

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Monique

wildJONESEYE wrote:
Monique wrote:Once again you did not read properly. It's nowhere said that the rankings will be based on money earned.
It's the points system for acquisition of shares that is.


again i did and the fact i picked up on that and not much else is i like most of it.

what i wont like is the fact ranking points is in conjunction with money on offer for a tournament and that would make the rankings willy eyed even more so than today.

we need rolling rankings and im over the moon hes mentioned that but based on a sound ranking system that makes every tournament be equal and not how much cash on offer.

but im not going yeyyyy hearn because i dont trust him and im waiting to see what the reality is.


well, where does it say the ranking system would be based on earnings? It is said that it will change and it is suggested it will be a rolling system. I don't see where it's said it will be based on earnings when it comes to the official rankings. My understanding is that there is a separate ranking for the PTC, that will determine who in the end will compete in the final event and that one is based on money. .
The point systems based on earnings mentioned in the document is related t priorities to acquire shares.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Wildey

Monique wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:
Monique wrote:Once again you did not read properly. It's nowhere said that the rankings will be based on money earned.
It's the points system for acquisition of shares that is.


again i did and the fact i picked up on that and not much else is i like most of it.

what i wont like is the fact ranking points is in conjunction with money on offer for a tournament and that would make the rankings willy eyed even more so than today.

we need rolling rankings and im over the moon hes mentioned that but based on a sound ranking system that makes every tournament be equal and not how much cash on offer.

but im not going yeyyyy hearn because i dont trust him and im waiting to see what the reality is.


well, where does it say the ranking system would be based on earnings? It is said that it will change and it is suggested it will be a rolling system. I don't see where it's said it will be based on earnings. The point systems based on earnings mentioned in the document is related t priorities to acquire shares.


The Ranking System

After three months I am still trying to understand the reasoning and logic within the current points system.

I am not a fan, but I need to take longer to consider the current system and the alternatives.

The two basic criteria that I believe are essential for any ranking system are:-

1. The acknowledgement due to players who have achieved results on the table, whereby they have played a major part in the advancement of the game.

2. The unrestricted opportunity to new and old players to advance their ranking rapidly dependant only on results.

I have always been a big fan of prize money ranking lists and we will use this system in the new PTC Rankings. Of course the PTC events will also carry points under the old System of Merit.

Providing there are enough events and everyone gets enough opportunities then any ranking system should be accurate in arriving at the Order of Merit.

This is exactly the sort of situation where I need a fully functional Players Union to give me the Players viewpoint on the fairest system in their minds. Hopefully that can be put into place quickly.

What I do not understand is why events throughout a year are seeded on the basis of rankings at the beginning of a season and not on rankings adjusted for results during a year?

This needs to be changed immediately to prevent the same match-ups in every event. I would have thought that commonsense decrees that current form should be illustrated via an up-to-date ranking list.


it doesn't say it will be but he has said "I have always been a big fan of prize money ranking lists"


if hes a fan he will try to make it happen well im saying im not a fan for the reasons ive said.

its 2 dependant on sponsors and not who the best is.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Wildey

What I do not understand is why events throughout a year are seeded on the basis of rankings at the beginning of a season and not on rankings adjusted for results during a year?


i absolutely love that and the first time ive seen anyone in snooker administration even mentioning it.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Monique

wildJONESEYE wrote:
What I do not understand is why events throughout a year are seeded on the basis of rankings at the beginning of a season and not on rankings adjusted for results during a year?


i absolutely love that and the first time ive seen anyone in snooker administration even mentioning it.


Wild, today's ranking points allocated to events are in direct proportion to the prize money available. Where's the difference? The GP with that stupid and unfair random draw is carrying more money than the Welsh for the same type of format. Why? Just because it's a BBC tournament with bigger prize money. Get real! You can re-christen a rabbit and call it a cat, it's still a rabbit and it always was a rabbit.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Wildey

and i dont agree with that.

ranking points should be in conjunction of how many frames needed to win it and nothing at all to do with money.

this season it was stupid the winner of the grand prix got 2,000 more points than welsh open winner for winning same number of frames.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:More pressure and status for winning the Grand Prix though. You only think differently because you're Welsh.


thats bullocks if the welsh got a sponsor and that sponsor decided to fork out more than the Grand Prix sponsor then the Welsh would then be of a higher status than the grand prix ???

i happen to think the Grand Prix is of higher status but they win same number of frames .

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Roland

Well in an ideal world the events with the same formats should carry the same points but if you had to choose then you'd give the GP more status because of its history.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Rocket_ron

Sonny wrote:Well in an ideal world the events with the same formats should carry the same points but if you had to choose then you'd give the GP more status because of its history.

your 100% correct here, they will always have the GP in some form. and the fact they have renamed it world open backs up what the wsa board and pro's feel about it

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Wildey

Sonny wrote:Well in an ideal world the events with the same formats should carry the same points but if you had to choose then you'd give the GP more status because of its history.


yes but on that basis there should be a different of status between the China Open with history going back under different guises to 1995 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Open_(snooker) and the shanghai masters which has a 3 year history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Masters_(snooker) but there isnt they are seen as equal.

i think best of 9,11,17 or 19 Rankers should have same status if they want different status give them more frames.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Wildey

rocket_ron wrote:so you want points based on frames played :chin:
not sure about that


more work more points...... better than less work more money more points.

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Rocket_ron

wildJONESEYE wrote:
rocket_ron wrote:so you want points based on frames played :chin:
not sure about that


more work more points...... better than less work more money more points.

I don't know wild.
I think china open needs the be elevated to an higher prestige

Re: Dave H. reflections on Barry Hearns plan...

Postby Wildey

rocket_ron wrote:
wildJONESEYE wrote:
rocket_ron wrote:so you want points based on frames played :chin:
not sure about that


more work more points...... better than less work more money more points.

I don't know wild.
I think china open needs the be elevated to an higher prestige


so do i thats why it should have a UK Championship format now its done it apprenticeship.