Penny Pinching WSA Scrap Part of the UK Champinships

[drlog147]

nothing ever suprises me with the way the wsa do things its a total shambles
what other sport is there when you go on the main wsa web site looking for info on the coming tournament's and to buy tickets there is no draw sheet and sheldule of play
its seems people in this post believe the wsa cant afford the arena i would like to know WHERE HAS ALL THE MONEY GONE!!!!

[dannyd0g]

O'Sullivan was seeded 5 last year although he was in the top 4 on ranking thus his match wasn't held over.
The last 32 matches they showed were
Ding Junhui (seed 1) V Ryan Day
Graeme Dott (seed 2) V Scott Mackenzie
Stephen Hendry (seed 3) V Dave Harold
Ken Doherty (seed 4) V Mike Dunn

I see - I didnt realise it worked like that. Shame i cant go back and edit my posts on this thread now you have replied to them.

[snooky147]

This has absolutely nothing to do with money imho, it's more to do with guaranteeing Ronnie, Ding Etc on a TV table. It's nothing more than manipulation because they are not in the Top 4 in the rankings. To be honest I am totally sick of the constant double standards shown by an organisation that is supposed to be run for the benefit of it's members .

[dantuck_7]

Also - some of the upcoming players won't get the recognition they deserve for getting through the early qualifying rounds.

[GOMH71]

This has absolutely nothing to do with money imho, it's more to do with guaranteeing Ronnie, Ding Etc on a TV table. It's nothing more than manipulation because they are not in the Top 4 in the rankings. To be honest I am totally sick of the constant double standards shown by an organisation that is supposed to be run for the benefit of it's members .

For "Members" read "Owners".

The Players own the Tour. The Board are merely their representatives. And pretty useless ones at that.

Although this year's Election should shake things up a fair bit ...

[Semih_Sayginer]

This has absolutely nothing to do with money imho, it's more to do with guaranteeing Ronnie, Ding Etc on a TV table. It's nothing more than manipulation because they are not in the Top 4 in the rankings. To be honest I am totally sick of the constant double standards shown by an organisation that is supposed to be run for the benefit of it's members .

if this is the case, and i wouldnt say its far off the mark (possibly), then no matter who the players that could miss out on tv stages, be it Hendry, Davis, O'Sulkiman, Ding.....etc, it SHOULD NOT be altered to suit.

if top players, past or present, no matter how well liked arent producing the goods, then things shouldnt be changed to suit them. if they are, then therell be less new faces emerging because of it (i know weve had a few new ones in recent years, but maybe more if things like this werent happening)...

[Monique]

I'm bloody ignorant. That's a fact.
Still I would like to know who is the person, or the organisation, Alex is quoting in the very first post on this thread. Reading this post my understanding is that there is a change in the format that will have on impact on the TV broadcasting (fact) and that it is the opinion of the author that this has been done to favour some players. Until we know who will actually play on the TV table, this is just an opinion based on certain assumptions by the author. Or do we know this for sure?
Next. If it is actually the case, I'm not saying it is fair. But it is understandable on a pure economic point of view. Snooker audience on TV is not increasing, or is it? If it continues to go down ... the consequences will be simply less snooker, or even in longer term no snooker at all (at least life). This will be damaging to all players and all fans. So it is logical, from the persons in BBC responsible to "defend" the time slots and budget allocated to snooker, to try to maximize the audience. Maybe they do it the wrong way, in the sense it is unfair, but it's probably the efficient way, like it or not. At least for a while...
The sad situation is that the events are shortened in the first placed and moved to less attractive venues. This is adding pressure on the players (a snooker tournament should not be primarly an physical endurance test) and has a negative impact on audience, particularly for people living outside UK. And this is again related to decreasing "audimat" and lack of sponsorship. This is a spiral ... can it be stopped and how? That's the real question.
There is a general trend in sports to make things shorter and faster. It seems that more and more people are unable or not willing to maintain focus and attention for long. They want things speedy and intense. An example of this trend is the way they changed the table tennis format: from 21 points sets to 11 points sets. Faster sets, less chances to come back if behind ... Snooker is not fit for that change: it would definitely betray the very "soul" of the game

And before anybody come to me with assasine intentions: yes I'm a Ronnie fan BUT I have NO TELEVISION! So this NOT dictated by self interest!

[Ekphantos]

Good points Monique! We really have to wait and see who is going to play on the TV tables to understand the motives, so some preliminary thoughts:
I understand the BBC, viewers don't care much about the rankings, they want to see their favourites, no matter what. I think this keeps snooker on TV alive in a world where everything gets faster and a sport like snooker has a big disadvantage.
I don't really think there is going to be a downwards spiral due to this. I think the number of people who actually go to the venue won't decrease that much (I figure this is what you mean, if I am wrong, sorry) and if there are more attractive matches on TV, more people will watch these, which should satisfy the sponsors.
How difficult it is for the players, I can't tell...

[PaulTheSoave]

It has to do with the image of the sport. Image is made by location, audiences, venues, TV coverage. not solely the viewing figures, though its an important contributor. Olympics, world cups (football, rugby, athletics) are all held in cities which have a global appeal. Its called selling the product. The whole package deal, called "doing the business". It cannot convince me that shortening The UK, and holding it in a town no one ever heard off (even some UK citizens) will "do the business", will give the sport the injection it needs. Ever decreasing circles (WSA) springs to my mind.

[Ekphantos]

Hm, for me personally the venue doesn't matter at all, they could play in a rural village, I really wouldn't mind. I understand that it makes a difference in outdoor sports, but indoor, like snooker? You don't see much of the city anyway if you watch it on TV.
But of course, if a lot of people care, it's a big problem for the sport to move to unattractive venues.

[ADR147]

It has to do with the image of the sport. Image is made by location, audiences, venues, TV coverage. not solely the viewing figures, though its an important contributor. Olympics, world cups (football, rugby, athletics) are all held in cities which have a global appeal. Its called selling the product. The whole package deal, called "doing the business". It cannot convince me that shortening The UK, and holding it in a town no one ever heard off (even some UK citizens) will "do the business", will give the sport the injection it needs. Ever decreasing circles (WSA) springs to my mind.

this is a splendid post. but i suspect the reasons are there we just don't know them!

[Semih_Sayginer]

It has to do with the image of the sport. Image is made by location, audiences, venues, TV coverage. not solely the viewing figures, though its an important contributor. Olympics, world cups (football, rugby, athletics) are all held in cities which have a global appeal. Its called selling the product. The whole package deal, called "doing the business". It cannot convince me that shortening The UK, and holding it in a town no one ever heard off (even some UK citizens) will "do the business", will give the sport the injection it needs. Ever decreasing circles (WSA) springs to my mind.

indeed PTS

"everyone" wants to see as much of their favs on tv as they can. i do too, but the reason a lot of them got to be favourites is by being succesful, and then getting on tv "all the time"

that said, i wouldnt complain if Hendry was NOT televised (hes my favourite player) as hes done very little RECENTLY to deserve it, and if theres only a limited amount of space, then get better results hendo, or fall out of tv stages......all but MHO

[Aggrolite]

Haha, man Paul, you really hate Telford....

[Sam147]

Hm, for me personally the venue doesn't matter at all, they could play in a rural village, I really wouldn't mind. I understand that it makes a difference in outdoor sports, but indoor, like snooker? You don't see much of the city anyway if you watch it on TV.
But of course, if a lot of people care, it's a big problem for the sport to move to unattractive venues.

it's true we don't get to see much of the city/location on telly but what about those that travel to see the event live? i'm sure they would like to see an attractive city, find nice restaurants/pubs/sight seeing... etc before & after the event. IMO, the bigger the city (reputation-wise), the more ppl will go & watch the event, hence the impact on the economical aspect of the city. however, in a sport like snooker where the live viewership isn't as big as say a sport like "track & field", this wouldn't stand as an argument. but then again, if i were to go to a place like "Telford" & not like the city, i'd still enjoy the snooker but it's the whole experience that matters really & i might be reluctant to do it again in the future and this in itself is a negative impact on the sport IMO

[Monique]

It's exactly what I had in mind. If I'm to take a plane and make quite a trip to go and watch snooker, I prefer to combine that with some interesting other activities (taking one or two days more if worth it). But this I think is diverging from the initial topic... sorry for that.