2nd D-Day for Snooker

[crucible77]

all the qualifiers are going to be held at the eis !!!!!!

[Souwester]

1. A new company would be set up to acquire World Snooker Limited for £1.
2. This company would have issued share capital of £500,000 (necessary to cover future losses while we build).
3. The shares in the new company would be allocated 51% to Matchroom Sport, a company controlled by me,(51% of future profits for 51p) 24% to other commercial partners (who and how long ? cost of 24p ?) and 25% to the Players who are voting members of the WPBSA at the time of acceptance of this proposal. ( A small voting %. What hope the next generation of players ? )
4. The Players 25% would be allocated on the basis of one point for each voting member, an additional point for players for each ranking event win or a Masters victory and a further additional point for any World Championship win i.e. two points.

If I were a member of a group, offered these proposals, I would certainly ask my legal eagles to look, very closely at the small print.

You misunderstand. The new company will comprise share capital of £500,000, and Hearn will own 51% of that at a cost of£255,000. The outside investors will have to stump up £120,000.

It is the new company which will be paying out £1 to buy the assets of World Snooker.

[Souwester]

I pointed out some issues arising from the statement about the new set-up, but the other topic seems to have died at birth.

This is what I posted (and forgive me for reposting):

So Barry Hearn's plan for the development of the game involves a new company being set up to acquire World Snooker for £1, including its £3m bank balance.

The new company is to have Matchroom as its majority shareholder (51%), with the existing Top 64 main tour players having options on 25% and 'commercial partners' having 24%.

The new company would acquire all commercial rights to the game.

In return Hearn is guaranteeing a 5% annual growth in total prize funds for the six year period 2010/11 to 2015/16, with further six year periods to be negotiated. That's 5% of original 2009/10 figure, not compound growth, according to the illustration given which shows an increase of £225kpa.

The existing £3m bank balance would ensure the growth over the three coming seasons, but further growth would be dependent on the company securing new deals and successfully exploiting the game's potential. Failure to meet the targets would mean a revocation of the company's licence from WPBSA, and the commercial rights would revert to WPBSA.

These outline plans, which are to be discussed and voted upon at a players meeting on 5^th May (to which players are encouraged to take a guest, manager, solicitor or advisor) raise a number of issues on first reading:

• The players’ shares can be sold on, so what’s to stop Matchroom acquiring all of those shares eventually, if they make a sensible offer to the players? Indeed Matchroom could presumably also acquire the other 24% initially to be allocated to ‘commercial partners’, and eventually become 100% owner of the game’s commercial rights. Even with 51% Hearn can effectively do as he likes.
• The plan makes no mention of issue of further new shares being issued to future Top 64 players. If the current Top 64 take up their shares and hang on to them, in years to come they’ll end up by potentially benefitting substantially from a game they are no longer involved in.
• Hearn confirms his intention to create more events worldwide, but at the same time is only *guaranteeing* an increase in the overall prize pot. Potentially that could mean the prize pot being spread more thinly over the larger number of events.
• The plans make no mention of a guaranteed proportion of additional revenues being added to the prize pot: what’s to stop that £225k minimum growth in the prize fund being paid from a £1m increased revenue, with Matchroom, the ‘commercial partners’ and current Top 64 laughing all the way to the bank with the other £775k?
• Should the current plan be accepted Hearn will basically have total control over the structure of the professional game for the next six years. What’s to stop him completely changing that structure from 2011/12, by, for example, cutting the main tour to 32 players? Provided the prize pot increases per the guarantee, what could be done to prevent him going down an unwelcome path?

Like the Chancellor’s Budget day speech, only the headlines catch the media attention, and a lot of the detail of the changes, and plenty more as well, comes from reading the small print. I’m sure that many of the issues raised above are adequately covered in the fine detail of the plan, but perhaps players ought to seek assurances that this is the case.

Certainly the proposed calendar looks a lot fuller than previously, with a new ranking event in Germany and ranking points available from the Players Tour Championship. One can’t deny that Hearn is planning to provide more opportunities for professional players.

[1lawyer]

I bid 2 quid.:snooker:

[ADR147]

I bid 2 quid.:snooker:

damn i was only going to bid £1.50.

[magicman]

Like others on here I have to offer thanks to ferret for posting this, although initially I was struggling to filter your opinion from fact, but as you went to the trouble I can't really complain when you put your own tuppence worth in. Now we have sufficient information to at least begin the debate!

Firstly, anyone who thought Barry Hearns was going to dedicate himself to the saving of snooker out of the kindness of his heart, was deluded. The man has always been, first and foremost, a businessman.

Consequently the players should come together before the vote, employ a competent solicitor to look at the proposal in detail, in order that their decision is an informed one. Assuming it's reasonably acceptable they should take his advice, commercial expertise and proposals as soon as possible and grasp the nettle with both hands.

I have to disagree with ferret about the Grand Prix and the somewhat cavalier attitude towards the BBC he proposes. When you already have a broadcaster in place for a tournament, you can't just accept their decision to drop it out of their schedule. It's common knowledge that the current director general of the BBC is not a snooker fan and is looking to cull events from their coverage. If you let this one go, then how long before another bites the dust and in a few years the only one the beeb is covering is the World? Barry's idea of re-vamping the format and re-naming the event is a good one and I, for one, hope he persuades the BBC to reconsider their decision.

There are things that on first reading appear a little harsh to me. One has been touched on, with the 'Q school' each paying a grand but receiving no money, no matter how well they do. £1000 x 100 players presumably gives £100,000 into the kitty for World Snooker Ltd. Sounds wrong to me, but as this is 'amateur' or '2nd division' at best I get the feeling Barry has given it little thought beyond what cash can be added to the pot.

The fact that it takes place over such a short time frame is also a negative imo. Buzz your ass off for two weeks and your on the MT. I see where he's coming from with 4 events over two weeks with regards to saving travelling expenses etc, but maybe 6 events over 3 separate occasions would be fairer? They'd certainly be easier to complete. Give each winner a place and the next highest six ranked players. That way, if you won the first event, you could choose to go home, save on accomodation over the next week/fortnight and not even have to turn up for the second/third batch of competitions.

There are no indications of 'real' o/o/merit ranking points the PTC events will carry. Is this meant to be discussed with the players once the manifesto has been accepted? Players have to have competed in half, ie 6 out of 12, in order to be in the 'finals'. If Barry really wants to advertise snooker then he could have gone further than this, and demanded entry in all events or only count 10 out of 12 performances? This would ensure these events have top players in them for the locals abroad and at home to watch. Or maybe even make sure the prize money for the 'PTC finals event' pays so well that players can't ignore entering the run of the mill tour events. I think he's bottled this a bit in order to get the gig.


Reducing costs, upper management wages, expenses, luxuries, unnecessary frivolous rubbish is a very good thing imo, and about time too.


Let's all remember that this is a potential positive step forward. It may not be the right step, we might choose a different route in the future, but for now - what's the alternative? Did anyone really believe Sir Rodney Walker was going to succeed? Whether you like all his proposals or not, and whether all these will still be in place in two to three years, most players/punters/fans are excited by what Barry MAY do for snooker.

[Moroney]

Rankings

I agree that the current rankings situation is a disaster and discourages promoters from hosting tournaments.
The fact that for example players play an event in China in September and it is nearly 1 year before that event has any effect on the rankings, yet then sits on the rankings until almost 3 years later is silly, but it is a disaster for a promoter if a lesser known player does well.

If a qualifyer such as Steve Davis or Ken Doherty, or at the other end of the scale, a known promise such as Judd Trump or Liang Wenbo come through and knock out a couple of seeds, that is exciting, but two unknown players playing each becomes every sponsors nightmare, as the match as no context, e.g. this unknown new boy is about to hit the top 32 if he wins this match, or he is only two matches away from qualifying for the Masters, etc.
As this does not happen, promoters prefer to host invitation events.

But please do not use the provisional rankings, they are meaningless, better to use a real 2 year rolling ranking.
i.e. when you turn up the the World Championship, the rankings use cover all tournaments from the Worlds two yars before up to the China Open the previous month, after the World CHampionship, the event held two years ago drops and is replcd by the points from the current event.
Entry to the Masters would be decided as of 31st December - is it not time the MAsters carried ranking points a splayers really care who wins, along with the qualifying tournament.

[Souwester]

- is it not time the MAsters carried ranking points a splayers really care who wins, along with the qualifying tournament.

Most pundits are arguing that the present system protects the Top 16 to the extent that it is difficult to drop out. Since the Masters is not an open tournament, but open only to the top 16 and wildcards, then that goes against the general feeling of making the ranking points more reflective of the current achievements of *every* player. Allocating ranking points to the Masters would serve only to further protect the position of the Top 16.

[Moroney]

Most pundits are arguing that the present system protects the Top 16 to the extent that it is difficult to drop out. Since the Masters is not an open tournament, but open only to the top 16 and wildcards, then that goes against the general feeling of making the ranking points more reflective of the current achievements of *every* player. Allocating ranking points to the Masters would serve only to further protect the position of the Top 16.

My mistake, I meant it should carry points along with the masters Qualifying tournament.
Good point, but by having a rolling 2 year ranking, players will drop in and out of the top 16, according to their results. This includes the Masters, so if you are in the Top 16 at the end of the year, e.g. all points scored between Jan 1 2009 and December 31 2010, you play in the 2011 Masters, otherwise you try to qualify.

[Wolds Cueman]

Broadly speaking, I welcome what Barry Hearn is proposing and I also welcome the plain speaking that comes with it. The message that he is sending out to the players in particular cannot be any clearer - the game adapts or it dies. It is as stark and as simple as that.

I have to say I thought the proposal may go further than it has in introducing new formats for tournaments, but those that are on the table sound very interesting and I'm pleased that we don't seem to be going too far down the road of Premier League Darts-type events, with the possible exception of the one frame competition.

Couple of other points I would make, the first of which concerns the qualifying school. If the players are good enough to go a fair distance in the game, £1,000 to enter the qualifying school, in the long term, should be chicken feed.

The other point concerns TV coverage. I hadn't heard the suggestion that there were murmurings within the BBC to reduce their snooker coverage until now. If that is the case, it is very disappointing, but it should not be regarded as a disaster, at least for the moment. Sky certainly and ITV probably, perhaps with others, are bound to be interested in a sport run by a man with the pedigree and track record in sports promotion of Barry Hearn. Anyone who is in any doubt that snooker is in good hands now only has to look at PDC darts.

[SnookerJAG]

@ferret - what is the source of your Article/Post? Please name the source! Thx

[ADR147]

@ferret - what is the source of your Article/Post? Please name the source! Thx

it was sent to all the players and some other people in the business.

[tcollick]

I like it, very impressive stuff. A great mix of different events and formats that should keep the game vibrant. Classic Mr.Hearn. A bit surprised that they are planning on holding the UK PTC events at the academy though. Surely it would create more of a buzz if they had four different locations around the country like the premier league does. Or maybe even at major snooker clubs across the country...imagine the buzz at the clubs hosting the event! I guess it comes down to logistics of moving around and the cost of doing it. If they created members pay area on the worldsnooker website with live stream, maybe that would cover the cost. I'd join!

[SnookerJAG]

it was sent to all the players and some other people in the business.

....by whom?

[Looki]

....by whom?

Barry Hearn?