I think that it would be a shame if it did move for there to be no tournament at the Crucible at all.

Barry mentioned they could change the worlds every year or maybe the Tour Championship for example should be at the Crucible every year. Problem with that is it will feel like a bit of downgrade.

Just to clarify, the Tour Champs idea was my idea, not Barry's idea.

How big is the Manchester Central Complex - could just do a swap with the Crucible.................

I think in an ideal world the Crucible would be rebuilt, bigger, and purposely redesigned for snooker. Although that wont be very appealing for the other 11 months of the year.

I would be open to it alternating between the Crucible and a venue in China. The 2 biggest markets in the game.

Saudi can f off until they actually have a proven track record and some kind of heritage in the game.

The only way I could see a purpose built snooker venue being built is if it incorporated some type of snooker museum and maybe moved its HQ there etc. Otherwise it would make more sense to use a 'general events building' which has worked for other tournaments.

The shared idea could work, but I can imagine it being in an amazing bit in China with great facilities etc, and players would complain even more about the Crucible. Also would you have a different sponsor for each country - you might end up with more prize money for the China event, which wouldn't go well.

Snooker seniors tomorrow! I'd like a rebuilt Crucible, but can't see it, hope it can stay in Sheffield

Also would prefer a rebuilt Crucible, but can’t see it either. I can understand the need for better practice facilities, but I don’t really buy the “too small attendance” argument at just under 1,000. The UK champs only has 1,500, and the Masters just under 2,000 (I think) and is noisy as feck. You can’t really have much bigger than those and still see a 12 foot by 6 foot table without binoculars! Gate receipts are surely a drop in the ocean anyway, whether it’s current size or double that … in the context of the overall revenue generation from sponsors, TV money etc? Hearn basically just wants to take it to whichever country/state pays (him) the most … that’s the real driver!

comment by _Viva_Vida (U6044)
posted 5 hours, 20 minutes ago
I think in an ideal world the Crucible would be rebuilt, bigger, and purposely redesigned for snooker. Although that wont be very appealing for the other 11 months of the year.

I would be open to it alternating between the Crucible and a venue in China. The 2 biggest markets in the game.

Saudi can f off until they actually have a proven track record and some kind of heritage in the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
we are talking about the Hearns heritage isn't important when millions in their pocket is an option.

It's not for me to decide but I really dislike him effectively holding Sheffield council to ransom and demanding tax payers build him an arena. Even if they did he'd still be off.

I think the WST is in a dangerous place when Barry (while I don't think he's great) eventually decides to step down and the snooker tour will be Eddie's plaything.

I think at the moment Snooker has larger problems with a lack of talent coming through

I've been to the Masters final and didn't think it was that noisy. If you doubled the capacity, 1000 extra seats over 17 days, I reckon that's a fair whack of money, to be fair.

I just feel that the WCs should be at the biggest and best venue. No doubt if it does move, people will say it's not the same etc, but it will create its own atmosphere etc once people get use to it - it's the WCs after all and you will still get that tension, wherever you play it. I think Hearn has been realistic, money is of course a driver, but it still has to be in a great venue.

As Steve Davis said, snooker 'found' the Crucible, it can find a new venue

Slightly off topic but I was watching the end of the 2004 UK final on YouTube where Maguire beat Gray.

In that tournament, I think the top 8 were all beaten by the quarters.

So they predicted a top 8 for 2009 and to be fair, got many correct. Most had Maguire as 1, Ronnie as 2, Higgins, Williams and Hendry were also in many top 8. They also had Ding and Judd in many of them and some picked Robbo, Murphy and one picked Carter I think. Most picked Hunter as well which was sad to watch. No one picked Selby or Dott surprisingly even both had reached ranking finals.

comment by JustTrue (U13155)
posted 1 day, 18 hours ago
Slightly off topic but I was watching the end of the 2004 UK final on YouTube where Maguire beat Gray.

In that tournament, I think the top 8 were all beaten by the quarters.

So they predicted a top 8 for 2009 and to be fair, got many correct. Most had Maguire as 1, Ronnie as 2, Higgins, Williams and Hendry were also in many top 8. They also had Ding and Judd in many of them and some picked Robbo, Murphy and one picked Carter I think. Most picked Hunter as well which was sad to watch. No one picked Selby or Dott surprisingly even both had reached ranking finals.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have always considered Selby a bit of a late developer, in terms of when he made the step up to one of the top players, so maybe back then they couldn't quite see it.

I think Dott has always been under-rated, even after he won his world title

https://www.eurosport.com/snooker/world-championship/2023-2024/huge-12500-capacity-venue-in-sheffield-t

Anyone think this a compromise that could work?