I'm just glad Ryan and Jimbob have cleared up the fact that Nick has the final say. I didn't know.

Haha! I love it when mike posts.

Okay it looks like snooker arent ready to step up to pools high level.

And nick has the say in everything on here not just tournaments yer know

i think its the opposite really

i think there should be more normal orig and reg tournies..

What has happened to the Original Marathon Tournaments!?!

Also, Why is Regular Semi's only 1 frame? Something i've always questioned.

I don't think hourly tounrnaments 24 hours because there would be very little entries in tournaments in the very early mourning. But maybe more during the day between hours of 10Am - 12Pm (obviously we keep the Arcade Night Tournament).

People will say that there aren't enough entrants in existing tournaments to add more tournaments to the tournament schedule.

Maybe if we we're given the option to be allowed to continue our breaks when our opponents leave early then more people would enter the current tournaments, thus opening up the possibility of adding more tournaments to the schedule.

Just a Suggestion

Double Post

Edited at 20:52 Wed 26/08/09 (BST)

To make a point though , I have always campaigned for more carom tournaments, but on monday night , there were 5 entrants, that to me is pathetic.

but your suggestion is kind of irrelevant to the thread and maybe if you want to discuss that you should post on one of the hundreds of threads that already exist for that topic. This thread is asking is snooker ready for hourly tournaments, not is mooney happy with the process once your in one.

Dunno whether your just being awkward because you have something against me.


My point was if people were allowed to continue, then more people might enter in the tournaments we currently have available. This would mean there would be healthy competition in tournaments across the game. Which could lead to the possibility of having more tournaments to keep up with demand.

How you think my post is irrelevant i don't know. I clearly said that we don't have enough entrants in the post and i only suggested a reason why this could be. Wouldn't hurt to try now would it?

Also, you say that i should post on a topic relating to that matter. If you looked i created a thread for it and had fairly positive feedback from what i remember. I see no one else coming up with a solution and what i say seems to go ignored, as always.

mate ignore him, i agree with what youve said hes just awkward as always.

Im honestly hoping that it aint you Martin (extreme, deadend) etc.

it is.heheee

yes it is me, but how is that relevant, and when am i ever awkward, i just think biscuits (mooney etc) was irrelevant to the topic and was trying to steer it to the debate we have all had 100's of times. Thats just my opinion.

Awkward as always basics (love_it etc)

Dont see where im being awkward. Just my opinion.

Why are you hoping this isnt me Yj (Ran to nick cos he deactivated)

Edited at 07:32 Thu 27/08/09 (BST)

The simple answer to this would be to always have a minimum number of entrants too. e.g. enough for at least 4 rounds (16 players) - if the minimum is not reached, then cancel that particular event.

Otherwise, IMO, the tournies will get seriously devalued.

Who can say they're proud to have won with just 4 others taking part....?

thats my point. I think that if there was a minimum of 16 for the tournament to go ahead it wouldnt hurt anyone to have more tournaments, good idea baff.

whats with comments like that?wouldnt you say there irrelevant, and not to the point of this thread? you leave comments looking for an argument.
back to topic, reg and orig need more tournies,carom doesnt have the numbers at the moment....