An interesting twist today in the story of the newly formed Snooker Players’ Association as correspondence between the body and the WPBSA has found its way onto The Snooker Forum…
To view the thread in its entirely, registered members over at TSF can click here. Note that links to both a letter from the SPA and the WPBSA’s response can be found in the second post of the thread.
To summarise, Pat Mooney on behalf of the SPA appears to have contacted the WPBSA with a view to organising a meeting to discuss issues such as the snooker calendar and the process of awarding an event ranking event status. Elaine Eyers on behalf of the EPBSA however has replied stating that there is no need for any such meeting due to the fact that the 96 professional players already have an Association in the form of the WPBSA.
Whether the formation of the SPA is a positive development for snooker or not appears to be quite a talking point among snooker fans and insiders alike at the moment. For some it is just what snooker needs, a means of allowing the players to get involved and work with the WPBSA for the benefit of the sport as a whole. Others however are not so sold on the idea and believe that the current structure offers ample opportunity for the players to voice their opinion.
Either way however, with the likes of Steve Davis, John Higgins, Stephen Hendry, Shaun Murphy and reportedly Ronnie O’Sullivan giving their backing to the organisation, the SPA clearly carries a degree of influence and it will be interesting to see what their next move will be…
Loading tweets...
4 comments
1 ping
Monique
September 30, 2009 at 7:43 am (UTC 0)
I’m afraid this last incident just shows once again that WPBSA is in denial of the real state of things and in particular the players discontentment about the way the sport is run. WPBSA might argue that their structure offers all the players need to voice their opinion, the very fact that prominent players felt the need to launch the SPA proves that they do feel otherwise. Negating the situation and seeking to punish the rebels, as WPBSA has done so often in the past, will not solve the problems and will do no good to the game.
I would only have been courteous to accept the meeting and at least to listen and try to understand how and why things got there. After that maybe the two organisations would have concluded that they only could agree to disagree. But at least they would have talked. This is both sad and worrying.
Editha
September 30, 2009 at 8:52 am (UTC 0)
This picture what i have is that the WSA is an dictatorship.
When player say her estimation tells they became a pain.
The WSA must wake up.Anybody must have the privilege say what they think.
The WSA takes not new Tournaments for the MT.
What they doing abside from to controll the players what they say??
Simon Smith
September 30, 2009 at 2:10 pm (UTC 0)
WPBSA need to decide whether they want to be a governing body or a players union – they can’t be both, and it is not in theirs or the sports interest for them to try to be both.
Andy
September 30, 2009 at 4:57 pm (UTC 0)
It’s quite amusing to read the letter from the WPBSA, …they clearly have no respect for the SPA and hold them in no regard whatsoever.
The WPBSA do have a point though, which was one of my points from the very beginning. The snooker players would have to arrange/request their views to be channeled through the SPA with the WPBSA before the WPBSA will recognise the SPA. Which kind of makes perfect sense.
A chicken-and-the-egg situation has been created. The players could never be bothered to vote or talk with the WPBSA so the SPA was created, and now, for the SPA to be recognised, the players have to talk with the WPBSA, something they never did in the beginning anyway….
)
Andy
2009 in Review: Part Three « Pro Snooker Blog
December 29, 2009 at 8:19 am (UTC 0)
[...] from the table, unrest was building as the governing body gave short shrift to the ideas of the newly formed Snooker Players Association. As we now know however, they was not [...]