Snooker: is it corrupt?
Posted: Tue Aug 21, 2007 3:52 pm
Bear in mind that the following is expressed as an opinion. Feel free to discuss the points raised.
Snooker is widely acknowledged to have been run like a cartel in the 60s and 70s: the narrowmindedness of the top pros at the time ensured the game was an exclusive clique, in order to keep the money circulating amongst a select few.
Enter Alex Higgins- he was mouthy, brash and a genius to boot. He offended many of the top players at the time (indeed, most were probably jealous of his charisma and talent)....and went against the stuffy, po-faced image of snooker.
I believe, even at this early stage, his 'card was marked', being what 'the establishment' would call 'an undesirable'. It was hoped that he would fizzle out.... and he remained. The charges brought about in most cases by the WPBSA were petty and they tried to hound him out of the game. I maintain that it was attempted to have him 'randomly' drugs tested on many random occasions, in order to doctor a sample and have him booted out for good, IMHO.
IMO, all of this low activity by the WPBSA was a precipitating factor in Alex going slightly mental where, by hook or by crook, the WPBSA eventually nullified his apparent nuisance.
The WPBSA are low: check out Clive Everton's recent spat. For honest journalism trying to ensure the snooker public know the facts of snooker, they attempt to discipline him, and he has to give up his membership. They also attempt to tarnish his integrity- leaving Mr Everton no other reasonable option except to sue to preserve his reputation, a case which he WON.
I have never known such a narrow-minded, sinister little organisation to have so much power in a major sport. Any person who opposes 'the regime' gets crushed- see under Hann, Quinten. Although a 'bad boy', his outlandish behaviours resulted in the WPBSA destroying him- I believe he was probably set up and told to go quietly; which he did. But in the lead-up to his exit- the 'rapes' that never were. Was it coincidence that with Quinten being 'in the bad books' that his ladies-man persona was exploited to bring him personal and national disgrace? Quinten Hann, a top talent, I believe, was set up by the snooker mafia.
The players don't use their votes, a mentalist proxy voting system is in place, whereby the directors canvas the players for their votes..... it's nuts. I feel the current regime is less than democratic and more of a dictatorship in disguise.
On top of that, historically, we had master hypocrite Rex Williams' maladministration of the game, and Eddie Charlton rigging the draw in 1975 in order to satisfy his big ego to win the WC in Australia, and there has been talk of reports of Charlton fiddling expenses also. These two got away with murder, whilst the likes of Alex and Quinten and some others get victimised.
Now, snooker of today is going down the pan with lack of decent sponsors. A half-decent entrepreneur would revamp our game, as the market potential is definately there, but with the WSA as it stands: it seems to me that they must have their own agenda, like in the 60s/70s.
The game is going forward in terms of the standard of snooker and calibre of player; sadly it is declining and in recession in terms of prizemoney, number of tournaments and sponsors. Good players will come through, but the board must be accountable for the current state of decline.
With Ding Junhui being a meal-ticket to big western companies to tap China's untapped market, there should be no shortage of sponsors wanting exposure to 200m viewing figures in China. We would have 11 ranking tournaments in a season, and good prizemoney.
Under the WSA as it currently stands, we are now a part-time, 6-months-a-year sport.
Snooker is widely acknowledged to have been run like a cartel in the 60s and 70s: the narrowmindedness of the top pros at the time ensured the game was an exclusive clique, in order to keep the money circulating amongst a select few.
Enter Alex Higgins- he was mouthy, brash and a genius to boot. He offended many of the top players at the time (indeed, most were probably jealous of his charisma and talent)....and went against the stuffy, po-faced image of snooker.
I believe, even at this early stage, his 'card was marked', being what 'the establishment' would call 'an undesirable'. It was hoped that he would fizzle out.... and he remained. The charges brought about in most cases by the WPBSA were petty and they tried to hound him out of the game. I maintain that it was attempted to have him 'randomly' drugs tested on many random occasions, in order to doctor a sample and have him booted out for good, IMHO.
IMO, all of this low activity by the WPBSA was a precipitating factor in Alex going slightly mental where, by hook or by crook, the WPBSA eventually nullified his apparent nuisance.
The WPBSA are low: check out Clive Everton's recent spat. For honest journalism trying to ensure the snooker public know the facts of snooker, they attempt to discipline him, and he has to give up his membership. They also attempt to tarnish his integrity- leaving Mr Everton no other reasonable option except to sue to preserve his reputation, a case which he WON.
I have never known such a narrow-minded, sinister little organisation to have so much power in a major sport. Any person who opposes 'the regime' gets crushed- see under Hann, Quinten. Although a 'bad boy', his outlandish behaviours resulted in the WPBSA destroying him- I believe he was probably set up and told to go quietly; which he did. But in the lead-up to his exit- the 'rapes' that never were. Was it coincidence that with Quinten being 'in the bad books' that his ladies-man persona was exploited to bring him personal and national disgrace? Quinten Hann, a top talent, I believe, was set up by the snooker mafia.
The players don't use their votes, a mentalist proxy voting system is in place, whereby the directors canvas the players for their votes..... it's nuts. I feel the current regime is less than democratic and more of a dictatorship in disguise.
On top of that, historically, we had master hypocrite Rex Williams' maladministration of the game, and Eddie Charlton rigging the draw in 1975 in order to satisfy his big ego to win the WC in Australia, and there has been talk of reports of Charlton fiddling expenses also. These two got away with murder, whilst the likes of Alex and Quinten and some others get victimised.
Now, snooker of today is going down the pan with lack of decent sponsors. A half-decent entrepreneur would revamp our game, as the market potential is definately there, but with the WSA as it stands: it seems to me that they must have their own agenda, like in the 60s/70s.
The game is going forward in terms of the standard of snooker and calibre of player; sadly it is declining and in recession in terms of prizemoney, number of tournaments and sponsors. Good players will come through, but the board must be accountable for the current state of decline.
With Ding Junhui being a meal-ticket to big western companies to tap China's untapped market, there should be no shortage of sponsors wanting exposure to 200m viewing figures in China. We would have 11 ranking tournaments in a season, and good prizemoney.
Under the WSA as it currently stands, we are now a part-time, 6-months-a-year sport.