Post a reply

Winner takes all

Postby Casey

The Masters carries a prize fund of £500k with a top prize of £175k, that’s a lot of money. That being said, if the Masters is truly to be taken to the next level then increasing the winners prize is the way to go.
U
nder the money list the top 16 will be made up of players that are very well paid, so here is my suggestion –

Winner takes all (well nearly all) pay the winner £400k with £5k going to the other 15 players that take part, helping to cover expenses etc. The remaining £25k is for a maximum, if no maximum is made then this amount rolls over to the crucible.
£400k first prize helps boost snookers profile amongst the top sports out there.

The top 16 are not running short on earning big cheques so losing out on £9k for losing in the first round as opposed to standing a chance of taking home £400k, I would imagine would be appealing to them.

What do you think?

Re: Winner takes all

Postby GJ

Great idea IMO

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:I like it but it would devalue the Worlds possibly

it only devalues the worlds in a world of money whores.

ive never categorized prestige in terms of Cash so id be in favour of this idea

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Witz78

Wild WC wrote:
Witz78 wrote:I like it but it would devalue the Worlds possibly

it only devalues the worlds in a world of money whores.

ive never categorized prestige in terms of Cash so id be in favour of this idea


bit rich (pardon the pun) coming from you whos against a money order of merit on the basis sponsors might chuck more money at other events which devalue the Worlds as there then more important events, rankings wise

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Casey

Witz78 wrote:I like it but it would devalue the Worlds possibly


Good point, but I don't think it would though. The Masters would be the biggest cash prize against the World's biggest prize in terms of prestige.

Other sports have bigger prizes for some of their tournaments outside of their majors so maybe snooker can follow in that step?

It would have been a good one to put to Ferguson if I had of though of it at the time. :emu:

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Witz78

i suppose in 1991 the much hyped Mita Masters winner Jimmy earned 200k which must have been a good bit more than Parrott did for winning the worlds then (havent checked but id hazard a guess he earned around 120k ?)

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Casey

Ha, close - £135k.

Also just realised I have this in $$ not ££.

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote:
Wild WC wrote:
Witz78 wrote:I like it but it would devalue the Worlds possibly

it only devalues the worlds in a world of money whores.

ive never categorized prestige in terms of Cash so id be in favour of this idea


bit rich (pardon the pun) coming from you whos against a money order of merit on the basis sponsors might chuck more money at other events which devalue the Worlds as there then more important events, rankings wise

god you are such a stupid sausage.

im against money rankings period it has sod all to do with this or that...

its not a fair way of working out who the best players are.

ie Ronnies hardly picked up a cue in 2 years but based on one tournament out of about 50 hes still top 4 or 5.

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Witz78

Wild WC wrote:
Witz78 wrote:
Wild WC wrote:
Witz78 wrote:I like it but it would devalue the Worlds possibly

it only devalues the worlds in a world of money whores.

ive never categorized prestige in terms of Cash so id be in favour of this idea


bit rich (pardon the pun) coming from you whos against a money order of merit on the basis sponsors might chuck more money at other events which devalue the Worlds as there then more important events, rankings wise

god you are such a stupid sausage.

im against money rankings period it has sod all to do with this or that...

its not a fair way of working out who the best players are.

ie Ronnies hardly picked up a cue in 2 years but based on one tournament out of about 50 hes still top 4 or 5.


:doh:

cant you grasp that is the whole idea behind a money order of merit

achievers are rewarded instead of those happy to turn up and play every event and scrap a few wins here and there

its the perfect ranking system to stop the top players being raped by the system and having to play in almost every event

they can now focus on the big money events if they want, albeit they have to deliver at them

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Smart

I like the idea, in that it would give the Masters a USP.

I dont rate the Masters higher than the Worlds or the UK and dont give a stuff what the prize is for any of the tournaments. Rankings and prize money stats dont interest me, they are for runts.

The Masters is a tournament that with no ranking points on offer allows the players to show some flair and entertain (if they have that in their locker), and having a winner takes all* prize fund would be something to set it aside from anything else in the calendar.

Another suggestion is for players who live in a 400 mile radius of London, a National Express coach is chartered and is used to pick up and drop off the players and whichever hangers on they are bringing along to the tourney. This coach would negate the need to pay anyone anything unless they win the tourney as they will be getting the travel free.

The winner takes all tourney could be sponsored by Priemer Inns and part of the deal would encompass free bed and breakfast for all participating players.

Lenny Henry could be at the presentation ceremony and that would give snooker a boost amongst the AfroCaribbean community.

Let me think some more, I am on a hot streak it seems <bowdown>

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Wildey

Witz78 wrote::doh:

cant you grasp that is the whole idea behind a money order of merit

achievers are rewarded instead of those happy to turn up and play every event and scrap a few wins here and there

its the perfect ranking system to stop the top players being raped by the system and having to play in almost every event

they can now focus on the big money events if they want, albeit they have to deliver at them

firstly i know and grasp that and dont agree with it

1) rankings should be consistency and dedicated based over a period of time then its up to the players if they want to be no 1 or not and play in tournaments big and small.

2) winning a tournament shouldn't be worth double the points of getting to a final.

3) Runner up in this seasons International championship got 12,000 more cash than Runner up in the UK so its a bit cockerel eyed.

4) concentrating on big money events will mean getting in to the PTC Grand Finals so that means playing in PTC Events.

5) there's no guarantee you will have a good run in big tournaments so it will make sense to top up cash/rankings in everything.

6) when defending the money rankings in 2 years time unless you make sure you got points in the bank in smaller events you will be under massive pressure going in to a big tournament knowing you could go from 10th to outside the top 16 even by reaching a semi final if you won the event 2 years ago. (ok under a flat system thats not as important but it brings us nicely back to the winner takes all of this topic in the masters)

Re: Winner takes all

Postby PLtheRef

The Champions Cup used to use this as a season opener, wouldn't want it to be introduced to a Major though in principle it looks a good idea.

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Casey

Another question to ask – next season should you get paid for losing in the first round of the Masters, considering they won’t for the other tournaments?

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Wildey

Casey wrote:Another question to ask – next season should you get paid for losing in the first round of the Masters, considering they won’t for the other tournaments?

good question?

i think it would be fair but i doubt it will happen though

Re: Winner takes all

Postby PLtheRef

Casey wrote:Another question to ask – next season should you get paid for losing in the first round of the Masters, considering they won’t for the other tournaments?


On principle yes, the way you earn your money should be by winning games.

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Roland

You can't have a prestigious event with the history the Masters has and one all the players want to play in because it means they've hit the big time, and then not reward them for winning matches against quality opposition on international television.

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Witz78

Sonny wrote:You can't have a prestigious event with the history the Masters has and one all the players want to play in because it means they've hit the big time, and then not reward them for winning matches against quality opposition on international television.


yeh id go with that, the whole idea of the Masters is to reward the elite, its like a bonus event over and above the nitty gritty of the rest of the season

Re: Winner takes all

Postby Roland

RIP Michael Winner