CrackedRacquet
New User
Nice to see! Looking forward to the events!
Finally some tennis
Nice to see! Looking forward to the events!
Has the USO increased prize money for the first few rounds and qualifiers this year ?
Why no mention of the winner's prize money? Is it because it dropped nearly a million bucks? Busted.First-round singles prize money at the US Open is going up 5%, from $58,000 to $61,000, the only level where there is a jump. Paychecks for players who reach the second round ($100,000) or third round ($163,000) will remain the same.
The prizes then decrease in each round of singles: from $280,000 to $250,000 in the fourth, from $500,000 to $425,000 in the quarterfinals, from $960,000 to $800,000 in the semifinals, and from $1.9 million to $1.5 million for the runner-up.
Pat Cash said they had some crappy carpet lol.
Why no mention of the winner's prize money?
96 of the 128 players will be going home after Round 2 with more prize money than ever before, even though there is zero ticket revenue this year.
"Gee, I think I am not going to play the USO this year because the winner's prize money money has been cut ."
Said no ATP singles player in the history of the known universe.
Then why was he originally critical of the tournament?It is in his contract to praise the organisers for being great.
If the tournament doesn't go forward, he is screwed, so, of course that he will do his bit for that to happen.
There is nothing like a pandemic to make some appreciate the workforce.
We love your wonderful pretty colors!
Do you have an artistic bent?
Tennis_Hands strikes again with his wonderful insight into the thoughts in other people's minds
Then why was he originally critical of the tournament?
There is nothing like a pandemic to make some appreciate the workforce.
First round USO losers were paid essentially the same last year as well, so your thesis that the pandemic is driving progressivism falls flat.
We also notice that Democrats are supporting Medicare For All at age 60. Hillary supported Medicare For All at age 50.
Pandemic has actually driven them backwards on this progressive issue.
Sorry about your thesis.
Up until the pandemic hit, all the tennis "chatter" revolved around not paying money to people who lose in a first round due to it supposedly rewarding failure.
There was no such pre-pandemic chatter about not paying anything first round USO losers .
That is just preposterous!
You seem to read by closing your eyes and then transcribing whatever flashes upon the back of your eyelid.
The chatter was just the opposite. The concern was how to support struggling players outside the top 100. There were suggestions of sharing Slam prize money with low tier players that were not even in the tournament.
In such an atmosphere nobody was suggesting not paying the struggling player that clawed his way into the first round of an ATP tournament and lost.
This "chatter" was all inside your pretty little head!
There was that 'chatter', but then the backlash came. It was particularly virulent 'backlash chatter' around here.
Why do you suppose these players do not unionize?
Yes, it is an individual sport but nothing precludes them from forming a union just as baseball and basketball players do.
They can form an association within which they lobby. It's called the ATP.
What is the purpose of a players association lobby if they allow the US O to draft such a lopsided players waiver?
Tennis_Hands strikes again with his wonderful insight into the thoughts in other people's minds
Then why was he originally critical of the tournament?
He claimed that USO policy would automatically scrap the tournament after even just one player tested positive. Obviously the tournament could proceed if, for example, a losing player tested positive and had no contact with other players. It all depends on the circumstances.
The Troll has provided no link to such a policy, despite being asked countless times.
Then again, you claimed at some point that you don't read my posts, so how would you know that, despite of me posting it directly as an answer to your request?
1) what are the scenarios in which the USO organisers stop the tournament. Until this day we don't have that explanation, so you could still make good and explain what their plan for such emergencies is
2) what are the guarantees the USO organisers provide to the players as far as compensation goes, if players or other USO participants get ill. That was before the shameful waiver was issued and with it now we have the answer as to why you didn't want to answer that question
I actually provided the name of who said it, in what circumstances and then followed it up with quotes from other USO officials that showed how their position evolved from the original stance to where we are now, including the statement that any medical situation will be reviewed on a case to case basis, without them ever giving further details what that actually means. There was no link as that was said in an answer to a journalist question in a live Q&A session of which I am not aware to have a record.
He never stated any evidence/link for anything he "quoted" on this forum..
I temporarily released you from the killfile and waited for two weeks and there was no citation to this alleged USO policy from you.
I never claimed to know what the USO policy is regarding cancellation and we have not even bothered to look up whether the USO has published any official policy regarding what circumstances when the tournament will be stopped.
I never claimed to know what their compensation policy is if USO players get ill, nor am I particularly interested in researching whether they have officially published any policy.
I am only concerned that the players maintain distancing and behave themselves off the court. If this is done we are confident that the tournament will be a success. Just like the Prague Tournament.
LOL. The USO policy was still under discussion and nothing formal had yet been published and yet you still definitively claimed that a single positive case would automatically spell the end of the tournament.
It is all meaningless until the policy is published....
in any case, post the link of the USO official describing the scenario of how the tournament would automatically be cancelled after a single positive case.
LOL. The USO policy was still under discussion and nothing formal had yet been published and yet you still definitively claimed that a single positive case would automatically spell the end of the tournament.
It is all meaningless until the policy is published....
in any case, post the link of the USO official describing the scenario of how the tournament would automatically be cancelled after a single positive case.
There are times i dont find that kind of money in my pocketsFirst-round singles prize money at the US Open is going up 5%, from $58,000 to $61,000, the only level where there is a jump. Paychecks for players who reach the second round ($100,000) or third round ($163,000) will remain the same.
The prizes then decrease in each round of singles: from $280,000 to $250,000 in the fourth, from $500,000 to $425,000 in the quarterfinals, from $960,000 to $800,000 in the semifinals, and from $1.9 million to $1.5 million for the runner-up.
I actually provided the name of who said it, in what circumstances and then followed it up with quotes from other USO officials that showed how their position evolved from the original stance to where we are now, including the statement that any medical situation will be reviewed on a case to case basis, without them ever giving further details what that actually means.
There was no link as that was said in an answer to a journalist question in a live Q&A session of which I am not aware to have a record.
Oh you provided the USO official's name, is it? What was the name of the official? Can you remember that?
Even if you can't name him, what was the circumstances he was describing?
That one positive case from a singles player should automatically spell the end of the singles tournament?
Regardless, do you agree with such a blanket tournament cancellation policy? I do not. It should be based on the circumstances and whether that positive player had successfully maintained physical distancing with other players.
LOL.
It was Stacey Allaster, but I already told you that in the post some time ago. You claimed to have seen it, so why are you asking again?
She was describing what the USO organisers envisage in the situation that there is a registered infected participant at the USO. Considering how the players and staff wouldn't even know until it is found out, the organisers cannot guarantee anything.
I never claimed to have seen anything from Stacey Allaster... You claimed many weeks ago that USO officials were considering a policy of cancelling the tournament after discovering one positive player. That type of blanket policy simply does not make sense. It will depend on the circumstances. Obviously a losing player testing positive will be less consequential than a winning player testing positive.
Even now, the USO has not officially spelt out a specific policy on how many positives will
result a cancellation. That is simply impossible to do as it depends on the circumstances.
The only certainty is that the positive player will have to be removed from the tournament as per NYC Health Department quarantine laws.
Or maybe he just went there and saw by himself what the USTA is doing and that assuaged his concerns?Because at the time he listened to his brain. Now he is listening to his check book.
Besides, I was right about what the USO organisers were cooking. The waiver confirmed 100% what I previously anticipated, so I will go with the facts from the reality as a way of determining whether my interpretations of the events are correct.
Or maybe he just went there and saw by himself what the USTA is doing and that assuaged his concerns?
The waiver shouldn't have come as a surprise to anyone
...The matter here is the protection of theplayerslocal community...
[bolded added]
Get this straight. The only reason the USO is going forward is because it was sold as doable without putting the local community at risk. The primary purpose of the “bubble” is not to protect the players from the public (or from each other) but to protect the public from the players.
I can get behind that noble intention. It is just that I don't believe that the USO organisers believe in noble intentions.
Still, if the policies at the tournament result in that it will be great, indeed, so let's hope that that is the case.
The USTA ain’t in charge. The City or State can shut it down. It’s a high profile event and if Cuomo effs it up he’ll be as done as the Mayor.
And I’m not half as cynical as you. No ”USO organizer” wants to play a part in a new outbreak. Does it even have to be mentioned that the “USO organizers” live and work in the area. As do their families. As do their employees. And the constant harping by posters on the TV revenue as the deciding factor is grossly overblown. Reportedly $70 million TV revenue. They’re paying out around $53 million or so prize money plus they have expenses. That bubble isn‘t free.
USTA is in charge of the event. Other big events have gone ahead, were effed up and nothing happened to anyone in charge. That is the reality.
First-round singles prize money at the US Open is going up 5%, from $58,000 to $61,000,...