Following the release of the latest episode of the OneFourSeven podcast, David Caulfield has published a very interesting piece on his blog.
Amongst other things he shares Shaun Murphy’s views on Ronnie’s withdrawal
“I’ve seen lots of things written about this,” Shaun Murphy said on the latest episode of the OneFourSeven Snooker Podcast.
“I’m curious. I want to understand and gauge the temperature and opinion of the snooker fraternity.”
“I think there’s quite a bit of misunderstanding here. No one is obliged to play in anything.
“Obviously he and I don’t see eye to eye on many things – everyone knows that – but he’s not obliged to play in anything.
“He’s well within the rules to withdraw from any event that he wants to. The reasons he gives? That’s a different subject.
“But he actually hasn’t done anything wrong by the letter of the law from WST’s point of view, so I’m confused where the narrative comes from.
“I think there is a nuanced difference between someone like Stephen Hendry, who has a tour card and chooses not to enter tournaments, versus someone who enters tournaments and withdraws last minute.
“Those two things are slightly different, and if you look at it from the point of view of the first reserve in this case, who is Anthony Davies’ son Alfie, he got the call to go to Edinburgh four or five hours before – it was completely undoable.
“Now, if O’Sullivan knew he had no intention of going and withdrew last minute, that’s not very good, because that obviously spoils the opportunity for young Mr. Davies.
“But you have no option in these cases but to take the player at their word.
“O’Sullivan has again cited health concerns, and I go back to what I said in the podcast a few episodes ago, he has had it really bad in recent times.
“He has been really poorly. He has been really ill, and to be that ill and to pull out of that many events on medical grounds, and then still turn up and win the UK Championship is incredible really.
That coming from Shaun, who admittedly often disagrees with Ronnie, does put things in a different light. Most of us only see the players on television, or from afar in the arena. But players like Ronnie and Shaun, who have been on tour for over 25 years and regularly meet at events, it’s different. They see each other close-up and away from the cameras. If Shaun says that Ronnie has been in ill health in recent months, then surely that’s true. They are not close friends, why would he lie about this? Of course, it’s worrying and it makes Ronnie’s UK victory even more extraordinary. So, yes, get well soon, Ronnie, or at least better, fingers crossed!
Shaun also speaks about what is at stake as the new board elections are about to take place
Murphy was also asked about his opinions on the ongoing saga between the World Snooker Tour and its players concerning contracts, players’ rights, and the possibility of a breakaway tour.
“This thing isn’t going to go away – the serious battle between the players, and the WPBSA players’ body that represents them, and WST with their players contract.”
“This isn’t going anywhere. It’s only going to increase in velocity and in seriousness, because these two parties are going to clash over this.
“I’m not sure which way it’s going to go. It’s a big week this week in snooker politically. We’ve got the AGM of the WPBSA and the elections to the WPBSA Players Board.
“Such is the interest in this – normally you have to crowbar players into these meetings and nominations – there are three spots available and there are seven candidates.
“That’s the first time in history that there are more candidates than spaces.
“Depending on who gets through the candidacy and the nomination process, if certain members find their way onto that board, that could cause WST a headache going forward.
“I know a few of the players who have put themselves forward have this as one of their key mandates to try to get a fairer and better deal out of WST.
“You know, we want a review of the contract. We want it looked at, we want to sit down and talk. It’s going to be interesting.”
So … it’s not just “some spoiled celebrities” … it’s the WPBSA representing the players vs the commercial body, WST. Note that Shaun, who is by no means an anarchist, uses the words “fairer” and “better deal”. That suggests that even him, known to be respectful of the authorities, finds the contract too onerous and too restrictive.
Interesting times ahead for sure …
David Caulfield on his blog always tries to be fair and expresses balanced opinions. I can only recommend any snooker fan to follow it, especially if they are Irish.
I’m grateful to David and a few others who regularly write about the most interesting topics discussed in the numerous snooker podcasts that are now available to the snooker fans… provided they aren’t partially deaf 😉 THANK YOU!
Yes, they deliberately violated the terms. The WST informed them well ahead of the exhibition of their being in breach of their contract, and the players still wouldn’t relent.
Also, if you carefully read the piece involving Selby’s statements, you find terms like “was allowed to go ahead” or “it got passed”, which to me indicate the exhibition in Finland was pre-cleared with the WST, while Macau was not. Also, my impression is that in Finland the absence of TV / streaming was clear, whereas in Macau it was not.
But then, Monique, why jump to conclusions and render judgment on things that remain largely unclear?
If there is anything about the whole affair I find egregious, it is the secrecy surrounding the exact terms of the players’ contracts, and the lack of transparency as to the WST’s deliberations and decisions. On these issues the WPBSA would be well advised to throw their weight around and make the WST explain what, indeed, superficially looks like inconsistency. I suspect it is not, but that the WST declines to comment and leaves this situation to fester cannot entail anything good for the future of snooker.
I know for certain that the Macau exhibition wasn’t streamed and was NEVER planned to be streamed. It was clear from day 1. There is no difference there. And I’m not sure either that they knew well ahead that this would be a breach of their contract. Once this became clear, they all agreed to move the event. Personally, I’m certain this IS an inconsistency and that the “core” of the conflict is that Finland was always going to be a one-off whilst if Macau was a success, then more events would follow because the promoters have the means to do that, effectively providing an “alternative” lucrative tour.
I’ve said, right from the start, that the proper, grown-up way to solve this is to sit down and renegotiate the terms of the contract. That appears exactly what’s going to happen.
That’s distinct from over-entitled, spoiled-brat snooker celebrities going ahead and violate the terms of their contract.
I’m not sure they deliberately violated the terms of their contract and the fact that WST didn’t react to the Finland exhibition illustrates why. There is no consistency on WST part.