Tweet
EXCLUSIVE SS Article 4 - Should snooker have confidence is Walker?
Sir Rodney Walker’s announcement that he is to stand for re-election to the WPBSA board at its December 2 AGM (although he was not obliged to do so until December 2010) amounted to inviting a vote of confidence.
“Given the comments that have been circulating in the media about snooker, the board and I have agreed that we need to show sponsors and broadcasters that we have a strong and established mandate as a board. As chairman, I am the public face of the boards,” he said.
“If we are to gain further long term sponsors for the game we need to show stability and continuity in its management. If I am re-elected at the AGM I will be able to demonstrate to broadcasters and sponsors that I will be in position for the next two years and that there will not be a material change of direction in the sport they are investing in.”
However, “a material change of direction” is just what the board’s critics, notably the Snooker Players Association, believe the professional game needs.
Although it is true that sponsorships have become even more difficult to secure in Britain’s long running recession, the image of snooker that WPBSA presents to the business and sponsorship world is also an aspect of this problem.
Nor is the exit of IMG as WPBSA’s exclusive sponsorship agents for BBC tournaments likely to ameliorate this difficulty.
“A sport that cannot offer stability and continuity in its governing body and rights ownership will not be an attractive option to any sponsor,” Walker contended.
It is certainly true that 888.com (World Championship), Saga (Masters), Royal London Watches (Grand Prix) and Maplin Electronics (UK) have all quit the scene in that last two years but “rights ownership” has played no part – and is unlikely to play any part - in this situation as no one has even suggested that BBC and/ or Eurosport should be kicked into touch.
“I am therefore offering myself for re-election in the knowledge that with the members endorsement I can sit down with broadcasters and sponsors and confidentially refute any suggestions of turmoil within the sport. Talk of division may sell newspapers but it doesn’t sell sponsorship.”
So, the lack of sponsors, in Walker’s reasoning, is all the fault of the press, wicked people like the editor of Snooker Scene and Matthew Syed of The Times.
And by its very nature a confidential briefing from Walker would be one-sided, unlikely to take account of legitimate concerns raised by critics, not just in the press but in other parts of the game.
But on two sentiments Walker and Snooker Scene are in unison: First, “the WPBSA belongs to you, the members. I would urge you to attend the AGM and use your vote.” Secondly, “the high viewing figures attracted [for snooker] are testament to the skill of the players and the competitive yet sportsmanlike image of the game.”
The WPBSA does show “net currant assets” of £ 3,255,936 as at June 30, 2009 although, as any accountant will tell you, this is a snapshot. The position could look entirely different on July 1, let alone December 1.
One theory is that a large tranche of BBC money – thought to be in the order of £5m a year – arrived between the World Championship and June 30. If so, there would be six months running costs before the next tranche.
This may be wrong. Without accounts broken down in much greater detail than WPBSA supply it is impossible to say. However, all would agree that without the BBC’s money for the Grand Prix, UK, Masters and World Championship, WPBSA would be skint.
Walker mentions in his chairman’s report that “we did invest in the market in the Middle East and a proportion of our reserves was spent on a ranking tournament in Bahrain. Promised sponsorship did not materialise.”
Rather a lame excuse for this fiasco. It is not good practice to go ahead with any tournament depending on sponsorship unless at least 50% of it has been delivered upfront.
“We continue to proactively search the market place for replacement investment and new sponsors for any unsponsored tournaments. We remain hopeful of success.”
That’s obviously alright then.
So what are the success stories? The China Open and Shanghai Masters are underwritten by £1m a year from Chinese investors, a deal on for which the spadework was done by no one connected to the current board, as was the case with the Northern Ireland Trophy, which now disappears from the circuit for “funding reasons outside our control.”
Walker boasts of WPBSA’s “new Pro Challenge tour, combining four traditional 15 red ball (sic) tournaments with three events played under the new World Snooker Super Sixes format.”
The fact is, though, the WPBSA invested only £90,000 prize money in these seven tournaments, perhaps because they could not afford any more out of their £3,255,936 reserves as at June 30, 2009.
And by what right does Walker assume ownership for World Snooker of the “six reds format”? This is exactly the six reds format pioneered in the professional game by Sindhu Pulsirivong in Thailand two summers ago and to be used in the six reds tournament in Dublin on December 15-18 billed, independently of the WPBSA as the six reds World Championship.
“Our prime objective remains to develop additional ranking events and we are all continuously working towards this common goal,” Walker asserts.
Who is working? How continuously is Walker, with his extensive portfolio of other positions, working?
Walker points proudly to a “cumulative trading profit” of £3,574,330 in the five years he has been chairman of WPBSA and its wholly owned subsidiary, World Snooker Ltd, but he is missing the point.
WPBSA came into being not to retain profits (except for a prudent rainy day reserve) but to re- distribute income from such sources as television rights and sponsorships to its player/ members in the form of prize money.
“Given the comments that have been circulating in the media about snooker, the board and I have agreed that we need to show sponsors and broadcasters that we have a strong and established mandate as a board. As chairman, I am the public face of the boards,” he said.
“If we are to gain further long term sponsors for the game we need to show stability and continuity in its management. If I am re-elected at the AGM I will be able to demonstrate to broadcasters and sponsors that I will be in position for the next two years and that there will not be a material change of direction in the sport they are investing in.”
However, “a material change of direction” is just what the board’s critics, notably the Snooker Players Association, believe the professional game needs.
Although it is true that sponsorships have become even more difficult to secure in Britain’s long running recession, the image of snooker that WPBSA presents to the business and sponsorship world is also an aspect of this problem.
Nor is the exit of IMG as WPBSA’s exclusive sponsorship agents for BBC tournaments likely to ameliorate this difficulty.
“A sport that cannot offer stability and continuity in its governing body and rights ownership will not be an attractive option to any sponsor,” Walker contended.
It is certainly true that 888.com (World Championship), Saga (Masters), Royal London Watches (Grand Prix) and Maplin Electronics (UK) have all quit the scene in that last two years but “rights ownership” has played no part – and is unlikely to play any part - in this situation as no one has even suggested that BBC and/ or Eurosport should be kicked into touch.
“I am therefore offering myself for re-election in the knowledge that with the members endorsement I can sit down with broadcasters and sponsors and confidentially refute any suggestions of turmoil within the sport. Talk of division may sell newspapers but it doesn’t sell sponsorship.”
So, the lack of sponsors, in Walker’s reasoning, is all the fault of the press, wicked people like the editor of Snooker Scene and Matthew Syed of The Times.
And by its very nature a confidential briefing from Walker would be one-sided, unlikely to take account of legitimate concerns raised by critics, not just in the press but in other parts of the game.
But on two sentiments Walker and Snooker Scene are in unison: First, “the WPBSA belongs to you, the members. I would urge you to attend the AGM and use your vote.” Secondly, “the high viewing figures attracted [for snooker] are testament to the skill of the players and the competitive yet sportsmanlike image of the game.”
The WPBSA does show “net currant assets” of £ 3,255,936 as at June 30, 2009 although, as any accountant will tell you, this is a snapshot. The position could look entirely different on July 1, let alone December 1.
One theory is that a large tranche of BBC money – thought to be in the order of £5m a year – arrived between the World Championship and June 30. If so, there would be six months running costs before the next tranche.
This may be wrong. Without accounts broken down in much greater detail than WPBSA supply it is impossible to say. However, all would agree that without the BBC’s money for the Grand Prix, UK, Masters and World Championship, WPBSA would be skint.
Walker mentions in his chairman’s report that “we did invest in the market in the Middle East and a proportion of our reserves was spent on a ranking tournament in Bahrain. Promised sponsorship did not materialise.”
Rather a lame excuse for this fiasco. It is not good practice to go ahead with any tournament depending on sponsorship unless at least 50% of it has been delivered upfront.
“We continue to proactively search the market place for replacement investment and new sponsors for any unsponsored tournaments. We remain hopeful of success.”
That’s obviously alright then.
So what are the success stories? The China Open and Shanghai Masters are underwritten by £1m a year from Chinese investors, a deal on for which the spadework was done by no one connected to the current board, as was the case with the Northern Ireland Trophy, which now disappears from the circuit for “funding reasons outside our control.”
Walker boasts of WPBSA’s “new Pro Challenge tour, combining four traditional 15 red ball (sic) tournaments with three events played under the new World Snooker Super Sixes format.”
The fact is, though, the WPBSA invested only £90,000 prize money in these seven tournaments, perhaps because they could not afford any more out of their £3,255,936 reserves as at June 30, 2009.
And by what right does Walker assume ownership for World Snooker of the “six reds format”? This is exactly the six reds format pioneered in the professional game by Sindhu Pulsirivong in Thailand two summers ago and to be used in the six reds tournament in Dublin on December 15-18 billed, independently of the WPBSA as the six reds World Championship.
“Our prime objective remains to develop additional ranking events and we are all continuously working towards this common goal,” Walker asserts.
Who is working? How continuously is Walker, with his extensive portfolio of other positions, working?
Walker points proudly to a “cumulative trading profit” of £3,574,330 in the five years he has been chairman of WPBSA and its wholly owned subsidiary, World Snooker Ltd, but he is missing the point.
WPBSA came into being not to retain profits (except for a prudent rainy day reserve) but to re- distribute income from such sources as television rights and sponsorships to its player/ members in the form of prize money.
Comment