Ssb - hearn's board takes shape

[MySockPuppet]

Barry Hearn has appointed Pat Mooney and Brandon Parker to the WPBSA board and accepted the resignation of Dr Hamish McInnes.

Mooney is manager of John Higgins and promoter of the World Series. Parker looks after Shaun Murphy and promotes the annual Paul Hunter Classic in Germany.

Having player managers on the board - 110sport's Lee Doyle is also there - is not always a welcome idea as it leads to the suspicion, whether true or not, that they might be more alive to their own clients' concerns than the rest of the players.

However, under Hearn there seems to be a genuine desire for everyone to work together and there's no doubt that Doyle, Mooney and Parker all have something to offer the sport.

No reason was given for the resignation of McInnes but he was associated with the previous board, which was rejected by the majority of the players at last month's AGM.

Hearn is meeting the BBC tomorrow to discuss the future, with the contract up for renewal at the end of next season.

He has also had discussions with other broadcasters about possible future tournaments.


More...

[GOMH71]

I'm shocked there's been no reaction to this news.

Has it been discussed elsewhere ?

Hats off to Pat and Brandon though.

Poachers turned gamekeepers ...

[ore]

Uhm, unfair to those players who's managers aren't there.

And some general conflict of interest... But maybe there are no such people around who would not have conflicts of interest and would be qualified enough to be there? (Which I do not have much idea about, but sounds likelly?)

[ferret]

To be honest I think most people seen this coming from the start especially Pat being appointed to the board. I understand the reasons for Brandon being appointed but is it needed at this point in time? well maybe, but we will not know until we see Barrys full plans for Snooker, you got to keep in mind that the financial worrys for Snooker are still there at the moment and there is not a huge amount of cash in the bank so can the sport afford to pay a large board? are the board members going to take a reasonable wage or a over rated one like the previous board?

I would like to see the board members take a reasonable wage for what they are doing, the last puplished accounts saw SRW being paid £68k+ and others from £15k to £30k while the lower ranked players struggle on next to nothing.

The Chairman should get a decent wage for what he/she does no matter what administration is in place but it should be performance related pay, if The board produces a 20% increase in profit / sponsorship / prize money then the chairpersons wage should increase on the last annual wage by 20% but if it drops so should the chairpersons wage. Should the boards initial wage be put in place by a independent firm who is employed to look at the accounts and set a base rate?

Other members of the board should be given a wage directly related to the average wage of the players ranked between 96 and 64 so as the board works harder and helps these players increase their income, so the boards income is also increased.

or a basic wage of say £12k and a bonus scheme related to how much each member brings to the sport via sponsors, TV right etc

I know everybody on the board will be working hard to bring the sport back to what it was years ago but do we need someone on the board who is going to work for the sport on a 9 to 5, Monday to Friday basis? or is the current mash-up of part time members good enough as all the current members do have other business's and interests to look after before their roles at The WPBSA

What I do know is that the current board is alot stronger than the out going administration and they will do their jobs so much better than the previous board members could of ever dreamed of.

[ferret]

Uhm, unfair to those players who's managers aren't there.

Not really as a individual player will not gain form their manager being on the board.

And some general conflict of interest... But maybe there are no such people around who would not have conflicts of interest and would be qualified enough to be there? (Which I do not have much idea about, but sounds likelly?)

Putting people form the world of Snooker onto the board is always going to cause a conflict of interest but to what degree are we talking about? personally I am very suspicious of the Ian Doyle / 110Sport deal with the qualifyers and a few months ago I was of the opinion that Mr Doyle should of resigned but I am sure if Barry Hearn is happy with his being on the board then it must be for the benefit of the sport.

People may see Pat Mooney being on the board as a conflict because of his interests in The Snooker Players Association but Pat has said before that he does not want to run the association and is happy to put people in place to run it when it has been setup properly and it is a non-profit organisation so there is no money interests with The SPA.

If there were businessmen appointed to the board who had no interest in Snooker would they be the right people for the job? for instance if Sir Alan Sugar was on the board I am sure there would be lots of interest form sponsors and a increase in tournaments but prize money would go down and profit for the board would go up as he is a money man and not a Snooker man.