Hearn responds to Ronnie's "blackmail" comments

Jewell wrote:That's great that will be four tournaments next season which will have a £100k plus winners cheques. I think the players get peeved for being criticised when they don't turn up to joke events such as the Brazilian Masters.

Pretty much every snooker tournament started out as a "joke" event and got built up because pros attended and helped grow the event. Pros survived for years on the few events that previous generations of pros built up for them and now they baulk at helping the game grow further

Snooker will go nowhere if the pros don't make an effort to promote the game and Barry was quite right to give them grief about not going to the Brazilian Masters.

Players can keep up their whining and then Hearn will just wash his hands of the sport.

Too many seem to think Hearn needs snooker and that's just not the case. They better wakeup before Barry decides he's had enough of the whining and decides he'll just develop a tour in China, screw the UK.

Jewell wrote:That's great that will be four tournaments next season which will have a £100k plus winners cheques. I think the players get peeved for being criticised when they don't turn up to joke events such as the Brazilian Masters.

but each tournament they played in china in the mid 80s was the equivelant to the Brazilian Masters fast forward 25 years and theres 5 ranking events in china with one having £125,000 to the winner...

each country has to start small and get bigger...

Ooooohh just get a room you pair

Simple fact is that if you are either seeded(which will soon not be the case with a flat draw) or you have qualified for the latter stages of events, whether they are in China or not you are entitled to Prize money according to that round and in the case of China and that disgrace of a tournament in Australia it should be enough to cover flights and hotels and a little more. I am not talking about fortunes here and I'm not advocating reward for not winning but if your in the latter stages you need to get paid..End of.

snooky147 wrote:Simple fact is that if you are either seeded(which will soon not be the case with a flat draw) or you have qualified for the latter stages of events, whether they are in China or not you are entitled to Prize money according to that round and in the case of China and that disgrace of a tournament in Australia it should be enough to cover flights and hotels and a little more. I am not talking about fortunes here and I'm not advocating reward for not winning but if your in the latter stages you need to get paid..End of.

no mate its called doing your bit so that sponsors think the sport is worth giving more to.

all sports has had to go through this peanut phase before they got on mega money unless players shape up it will just continue to be peanuts and snooker will not grow in to a global sport and stay well china bound and china bound only because past generations used to do the groundwork in china for the current crop of players

If I was a player I'd consider not going to Australia. Mark Williams reached the final and only cleared a few quid once expenses and tax had been taken into account. You can say what you like about players showing support for the game, but if they know they're more than likely to be out of pocket then my advice would be stay at home and save your money.

Sonny wrote:If I was a player I'd consider not going to Australia. Mark Williams reached the final and only cleared a few quid once expenses and tax had been taken into account. You can say what you like about players showing support for the game, but if they know they're more than likely to be out of pocket then my advice would be stay at home and save your money.

If heard top 16 players (not Ronnie) saying that they wouldn't go to Australia if it wasn't for the fact that this time the Wuxi Classic, the Six-Red Champ and Australia are close in time and they won't come back to the UK between the events. It's not just the poor money, it's also a grueling trip for very little. With events "grouped", it "breaks" the trip in shorter chunks and that helps. It also saves some money.
Now I wonder what qualifiers will do, especially those who will have qualified for just one of the events. It will be worth keeping a very "open" eye on the last qualifiers round …

Sonny wrote:If I was a player I'd consider not going to Australia. Mark Williams reached the final and only cleared a few quid once expenses and tax had been taken into account. You can say what you like about players showing support for the game, but if they know they're more than likely to be out of pocket then my advice would be stay at home and save your money.

well that will be absalutly useless advise for the long term future of the sport.

so if i was a player id ignore sonny and go otherwise this sport will get nowhere apart from china

all your eggs in one basket is useless.

Simple fact is wild the prize money for the Australian Open isn't good enough.

Sonny wrote:Simple fact is wild the prize money for the Australian Open isn't good enough.

and it will NEVER Get good if players take that atitute.

Austalia will say Snooker buck off stay Small World Tour my bottom.

Does anyone know what the prize money for this year's Australian Open is? Only Stuart Bingham actually made any money from the trip last year.

Alpha wrote:Does anyone know what the prize money for this year's Australian Open is? Only Stuart Bingham actually made any money from the trip last year.

yea but players goes on holiday in the summer and im sure they dont get payed when they go on holiday so why not go on holiday to Australia and get some cash back in the process and if you win you get a free Holiday.

Wild WC wrote:

snooky147 wrote:Simple fact is that if you are either seeded(which will soon not be the case with a flat draw) or you have qualified for the latter stages of events, whether they are in China or not you are entitled to Prize money according to that round and in the case of China and that disgrace of a tournament in Australia it should be enough to cover flights and hotels and a little more. I am not talking about fortunes here and I'm not advocating reward for not winning but if your in the latter stages you need to get paid..End of.

no mate its called doing your bit so that sponsors think the sport is worth giving more to.

all sports has had to go through this peanut phase before they got on mega money unless players shape up it will just continue to be peanuts and snooker will not grow in to a global sport and stay well china bound and china bound only because past generations used to do the groundwork in china for the current crop of players

You can do your bit and still be paid a reasonable amount, you don't seem to get that. To you it's all about the players sacrificing this or that for the good of the game. You can bet your life that when Hearn took Davis and Co out to China all those years ago there was shedloads of money involved. It's just naieve to think otherwise. Last year it took getting to a quarter final to even get to breaking even stage.

in the 80s Players treated it as a Holiday and whatever money they made it was a bonus and by the end of the 80s yes they made shedloads but believe me early 80s it was a case of trying to sell the sport and nobody was going to pay mega cash for a mis spent youth.

snooky147 wrote:

Wild WC wrote:

snooky147 wrote:Simple fact is that if you are either seeded(which will soon not be the case with a flat draw) or you have qualified for the latter stages of events, whether they are in China or not you are entitled to Prize money according to that round and in the case of China and that disgrace of a tournament in Australia it should be enough to cover flights and hotels and a little more. I am not talking about fortunes here and I'm not advocating reward for not winning but if your in the latter stages you need to get paid..End of.

no mate its called doing your bit so that sponsors think the sport is worth giving more to.

all sports has had to go through this peanut phase before they got on mega money unless players shape up it will just continue to be peanuts and snooker will not grow in to a global sport and stay well china bound and china bound only because past generations used to do the groundwork in china for the current crop of players

You can do your bit and still be paid a reasonable amount, you don't seem to get that. To you it's all about the players sacrificing this or that for the good of the game. You can bet your life that when Hearn took Davis and Co out to China all those years ago there was shedloads of money involved. It's just naieve to think otherwise. Last year it took getting to a quarter final to even get to breaking even stage.

And another thing that you don't get Wild is that by selling the game cheap, you actually devaluate it in the eyes of the sponsors and the public. Sponsors are after an image for their products and they don't want to be associated with something that is cheap and unglamorous.
Stop comparing it with the 80th. The world has changed. And even then, I'm sure the guys weren't living out of thin air and fresh water.

As for treating a professional tournament like a holiday, that's probably one of the most preposterous idea you've come up with - and there were quite a few over the years - and it just shows that you have no clue about what it takes to be a professional.

Sponsors put up money so they dictate how cheap something is not the Governing Body.

as a Governing Body of a Sport they were asked to put on a tournament in Australia so they went there in the Hope over Time cash will inflate the only other Option is Not Go hence one less opertunity for Snooker to Grow.

Wild WC wrote:Sponsors put up money so they dictate how cheap something is not the Governing Body.

as a Governing Body of a Sport they were asked to put on a tournament in Australia so they went there in the Hope over Time cash will inflate the only other Option is Not Go hence one less opertunity for Snooker to Grow.

asked by whom?

to be fair to Wild, in the 80s it was a bit of a Jolly Boys outing for the snooker players. Between the Mathroom Mob and the other cliques of party animals which formed (even the so called boring players then loved to live a bit) there was great camarardary (!?!) and the players definetly would have mixed business with pleasure when abroad.

Unless your trying to tell me Alex, Jimmy, Knowles, Kirk didnt go to the nearest pubs and discos

Witz78 wrote:to be fair to Wild, in the 80s it was a bit of a Jolly Boys outing for the snooker players. Between the Mathroom Mob and the other cliques of party animals which formed (even the so called boring players then loved to live a bit) there was great camarardary (!?!) and the players definetly would have mixed business with pleasure when abroad.

Unless your trying to tell me Alex, Jimmy, Knowles, Kirk didnt go to the nearest pubs and discos

Yes, they did witz. But at the time many of them were still largely relying on the "exhibition" spirit to build their image and make a living. I'd say it's Steve Davis who came along and changed that. And, also, it was before they were expected to be "ambassadors" of a "clean and respectable" sport whatever that means.

parden me monique but your understanding of profesional sport is not worth knowing

Wild WC wrote:parden me monique but your understanding of profesional sport is not worth knowing

Just as well ridicule doesn't kill.

Do you seriously think for a minute, no a second, that Stephen Hendry ever treated a professional ranking tournament as a holiday? Do you? Or that he would have the tally he has if he had?

Witz78 wrote:to be fair to Wild, in the 80s it was a bit of a Jolly Boys outing for the snooker players. Between the Mathroom Mob and the other cliques of party animals which formed (even the so called boring players then loved to live a bit) there was great camarardary (!?!) and the players definetly would have mixed business with pleasure when abroad.

Unless your trying to tell me Alex, Jimmy, Knowles, Kirk didnt go to the nearest pubs and discos

I dont give a toss where they went mate, the point is they didn't go there and get paid in Cadbury's Buttons. They were paid money to go. I would imagine enough to make it worth their while. You can bet everything you have that they didn't say "Hey, Let's do this for the good of the game in 20 years time. They got paid and if they had a good time over there that was their business.

I suppose with planning players could go early to acclimatise and do a few exhibitions in nearby towns if the demand is there.

Sonny wrote:I suppose with planning players could go early to acclimatise and do a few exhibitions in nearby towns if the demand is there.

That's if the schedule allows them to. As it is, in China certainly, they are expected to do quite a lot of promo work.

Sonny wrote:I suppose with planning players could go early to acclimatise and do a few exhibitions in nearby towns if the demand is there.

With respect mate, that's not my point. My point is clear and that is that players who have qualified or are seeded for the latter stages should be paid enough to more than break even. I gaurantee you that 90 percent of players today do not give a toss about the future of the game. They want paid now. Selfish???YES. Not helpful in terms of promoting the Sport?? YES DEFINITELY. But it's the way it is and has always been and no deluded grand vision of anything otherwise will happen.

Oh yes I agree, as I said before the money in last years Australian wasn't good enough. I know Mark Williams said he won't be going this time if the money is the same and who can blame him?

Monique wrote:

Wild WC wrote:parden me monique but your understanding of profesional sport is not worth knowing

Just as well ridicule doesn't kill.

Do you seriously think for a minute, no a second, that Stephen Hendry ever treated a professional ranking tournament as a holiday? Do you? Or that he would have the tally he has if he had?

and you started with ridiculing "and it just shows that you have no clue about what it takes to be a professional"

with respect mon what do you know anyway ???

your idea of Pro Sport is what Wet nursing players ????

snooky147 wrote:

Witz78 wrote:to be fair to Wild, in the 80s it was a bit of a Jolly Boys outing for the snooker players. Between the Mathroom Mob and the other cliques of party animals which formed (even the so called boring players then loved to live a bit) there was great camarardary (!?!) and the players definetly would have mixed business with pleasure when abroad.

Unless your trying to tell me Alex, Jimmy, Knowles, Kirk didnt go to the nearest pubs and discos

I dont give a toss where they went mate, the point is they didn't go there and get paid in Cadbury's Buttons. They were paid money to go. I would imagine enough to make it worth their while. You can bet everything you have that they didn't say "Hey, Let's do this for the good of the game in 20 years time. They got paid and if they had a good time over there that was their business.

they went because they loved to play snooker no more no less if the money camee along later great but acording to Joe Johnson on Twitter a few Months back he was very Lucky if he broke even in thoes days.

once we move to a flat 128 system the scope for prize money districution will be better as no losers will recieve a penny so everyone who gets paid will have earned their money.

Last 128 - nothing, if you lose you dont get paid, simples

Last 64 - if you win one game you get at least enough to cover your expenses for the x number of days at the qualifiers

Last 32 - if you qualify for the venue and lose in round 1 at the venue, you will at least recieve enough cash to cover your flights, hotels, expenses for going to the venue too

And once you start making the last 16 , last 8 etc onwards then you are making profit.

This is an initial idealistic model, a worst case scenario id expec and hope for.

Witz78 wrote:once we move to a flat 128 system the scope for prize money districution will be better as no losers will recieve a penny so everyone who gets paid will have earned their money.

Last 128 - nothing, if you lose you dont get paid, simples

Last 64 - if you win one game you get at least enough to cover your expenses for the x number of days at the qualifiers

Last 32 - if you qualify for the venue and lose in round 1 at the venue, you will at least recieve enough cash to cover your flights, hotels, expenses for going to the venue too

And once you start making the last 16 , last 8 etc onwards then you are making profit.

This is an initial idealistic model, a worst case scenario id expec and hope for.

ive come round to the flat system but never a ranking system that makes Carter top 8 based on one run at the worlds.