TSB - Ronnie O’Sullivan Statement

[nrage]

Nrage, he owes us an explanation because he carries the title of World Champion. He represents the sport and is the chief amabassador on the playing side until someone else becomes World Champion. To mess the sport around like this, if he is indeed demanding appearance money, is wrong and ungrateful. He has a responsibility as WC to carry forward the image of the sport in a good light, not a bad one. This fracas isn't doing the sport any good. If this is down to Ferguson, ok, no problem Ronnie. Then Ferguson and Hearn need to explain themselves. In reality it's probably down to all parties, all parties being wrong; life is rarely black and white. Further, he owes his fans and supporters an explanation because they've put up with his 'tantrums' down the years, put wedge in his pocket and given him the support and confidence to carry on when ordinarily he may have quit a long time ago.

I agree about leeway in contracts, but there is no way World Snooker can pay one player appearance money, what, does he think he's bigger than the sport itself? Imagine if they did give in to his demands, the other players would be furious and discord would follow. I don't hear Tiger Woods, Federer, or Hamilton asking for appearance money, and they head up truly global sports with massive audiences. Perhaps that's why ROS thinks he can demand appearance money, because snooker is a goldfish bowl in terms of global reach, and a big fish can influence that bowl or at least he thinks he can?

Yes, he is World Champion. Yes, you could say he is chief ambassador. Yes, if he decides to muck about it could be damaging to the sport. But, at best, all that means he owes the sport or it's governing body something, why does he owe us?

We're just fans, we choose to follow the sport (not the other way round) and it doesn't owe us anything in return. It's in Ronnie's interest for snooker to do well, it's in the sport's interest to be nice to it's fans but neither of them owe us anything, they've already delivered everything we've "paid" for so what does that leave?

If you're going to say they owe us just for being fans, well that's a bit like saying you owe your stalker something because they've decided to spend all their time stalking you.

I agree World Snooker should not be paying one player appearance money and no another, you can't have a tournament with just 1 player and every player is necessary to make it something worth watching and therefore worth sponsoring and lets face it, the sponsorship and money involved is what is going to make the sport grow, in terms of television coverage, and thus exposure, and thus encouraging more young players to start playing.

It's only once that starts happening in earnest that we'll see any change in our local areas, if there is money to be had people will start spending more on local clubs, tournaments, and so on. More money means larger prizes which in turn encourages more people to seriously consider it as a viable profession, instead of giving up and doing something else. Retaining those players is also important for the sport as a whole.

Snooker needs more exposure of the right kind, which is why they're coming down hard on the wrong sort of comments and why the contracts are (rightfully) placing some restrictions on what players are allowed to comment on. Is this a restriction of freedom of speech? Not really, no. You are still "free" to say anything you like, the difference is that players are now aware of what is ok and what is not and of the consequences of those actions.

Some players have perhaps gotten too used to being able to do whatever they like, whenever they like, but that's not good for snooker as a whole because it's not good for sponsors, it's sad but it really does all come down to the money at the end of the day. As a result, players will have to become a bit more "professional" and that ultimately means they will have more responsibilities, which to the some established players (especially those with families) will seem onerous but to younger players will seem like a cost they're perfectly willing to pay for their shot at fame and fortune. It's all about perspective and lifestyle at the end of the day, and why perhaps they need some flexibilty in contracts etc.

[Gerry Armstrong]

Would that be the same player's contract that stopped a charity Pro-Am in aid of Breast Cancer charities being streamed on the internet?

[nrage]

Would that be the same player's contract that stopped a charity Pro-Am in aid of Breast Cancer charities being streamed on the internet?

I'm not trying to defend the current players contract(s), I have no knowledge of what's actually in them.

I'm just saying, I can see why Hearn wants players agreeing to do certain things, and agreeing not to do others. No contract is perfect, obviously it's not great for snookers image that this particular event wasn't streamed, that should be enough to make them take notice and do something about it, assuming they can.

[Gerry Armstrong]

Surely then you can't say that it's right that the contracts are placing restrictions on what players are allowed to comment on if you don't know what is in the contracts? How do you know the contracts say this if you yourself state that you have no knowledge of what's in them?

[gavpowell]

Take the bat and ball away from him if they don’t like the way he is doing it.

He owns the controlling interest in Worldsnooker, he made quite sure of that before he took the job.

[nrage]

Surely then you can't say that it's right that the contracts are placing restrictions on what players are allowed to comment on if you don't know what is in the contracts? How do you know the contracts say this if you yourself state that you have no knowledge of what's in them?

I don't know the specifics of the contracts. I thought I recalled Hearn mentioning in interviews following players comments (Mark Allen and Mark Williams most recently) that the contracts they signed had restrictions on what they could say, and that was the basis for the fines they recieved.

That is the basis of my presumption, maybe I'm wrong.