ATP Finals back in Tokyo in 2021

#51
There was no actual power shift before the voting, so the timing of the events is crucial, if you want to ascribe the decision to it (even then you will have to show how exactly what this or that player want can influence such a choice via his favourite, but that is one step further than where we are now).

Let's pretend that you got carried away with your willingness to explain the events and nothing more.

:cool:
How can you say there was no power shift before the voting when your argument was that no vote has taken place. Suddenly now you know the timing of events?

So when did the vote take place?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#52
How can you say there was no power shift before the voting when youre argument was that no vote has taken place. Suddenly now you know the timing of events?

So when did the vote take place?
Because if there was Federer, Nadal, Wawa and possibly others wouldn't have been surprised by the outcome, would they?

Also, I was talking about the vote that ousted Kermode, not the choosing of a venue.

:cool:
 
#53
Because if there was Federer, Nadal, Wawa and possibly others wouldn't have been surprised by the outcome, would they?

Also, I was talking about the vote that ousted Kermode, not the choosing of a venue.

:cool:
There is a power shift going on. Thats why theyre surprised. If here was no power shift things would have stayed the same and there would be no surprises.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#54
There is a power shift going on. Thats why theyre surprised. If here was no power shift things would have stayed the same and there would be no surprises.
You are not reading what I write: I said that unless the voting for the venue happened after the voting that ousted Kermode the result doesn't have anything to do with that power shift and the reasons for that choice shouldn't include the power shift at all.

I never said that there was no power shift. Actually, I said a kind of the opposite.

:cool:
 
#55
You are not reading what I write: I said that unless the voting for the venue happened after the voting that ousted Kermode the result doesn't have anything to do with that power shift and the reasons for that choice shouldn't include the power shift at all.

I never said that there was no power shift. Actually, I said a kind of the opposite.

:cool:
Also who votes for the ATP Finals location? Kermode lost because he failed to get players reps - the tourney reps were behind him.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#57
Also who votes for the ATP Finals location? Kermode lost because he failed to get players reps - the tourney reps were behind him.
I am not sure what the answer to that question is.

There is an application process handled by Deloitte, but after that it is unclear who and how decides the host city.

One clear thing is that they look into the potential profit from the tournament. When China hosted it the deal was criticised, because ATP basically received a license fee of $10 mil and that was it, whereas the current arrangement is such that ATP shares the revenue with the owner of the O2.

:cool:
 
Last edited:
#58
You are not reading what I write: I said that unless the voting for the venue happened after the voting that ousted Kermode the result doesn't have anything to do with that power shift and the reasons for that choice shouldn't include the power shift at all.

I never said that there was no power shift. Actually, I said a kind of the opposite.

:cool:
Which is what I read it as the first time round. If you claim the vote for the location hasnt even taken place yet on one hand, how can you then imply that the vote took place before Kermode got sacked on the other hand?

Also the 2 can go hand in hand. The power shift can also be causing both the sacking of Kermode and the changing of the ATP finals. Change is afoot behind the scenes.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#59
Which is what I read it as the first time round. If you claim the vote for the location hasnt even taken place yet on one hand, how can you then imply that the vote took place before Kermode got sacked on the other hand?

Also the 2 can go hand in hand. The power shift can also be causing both the sacking of Kermode and the changing of the ATP finals. Change is afoot behind the scenes.
I am not claiming/implying anything. I merely pointed out at the controversies in your statements and the conclusions that you make.

Your second sentence is a glaring example of that problem: the power shift IS manifested by the sacking of Kermode, and unless you know something noone here claims to know (i.e. who makes the decision for the next host city and on what grounds) you are speculating again that the power shift is behind that change (of the host city).

So, instead of going back and forth I will ask you directly:

1) Do you know if the vote for the host city has taken place, if yes, point at your source
2) Do you know how the host city is selected (source)

Thanks.

:cool:
 
#60
I am not claiming/implying anything. I merely pointed out at the controversies in your statements and the conclusions that you make.

Your second sentence is a glaring example of that problem: the power shift IS manifested by the sacking of Kermode, and unless you know something noone here claims to know (i.e. who makes the decision for the next host city and on what grounds) you are speculating again that the power shift is behind that change (of the host city).

So, instead of going back and forth I will ask you directly:

1) Do you know if the vote for the host city has taken place, if yes, point at your source
2) Do you know how the host city is selected (source)

Thanks.

:cool:
You implied that the vote hasnt taken place yet which is what started this conversation off. You asked me not once but twice so it wasnt an accident , and now a third time. Then you based your own argument "that there was no actual power shift before the voting". You cant hold both positions at the same time.

Yes its speculation, thats what we do on these boards.

There appears shift in power that is going in the way of Djokovic and against the likes of Fed. If you want documentation to back my opinions im afraid I wasnt prepared enough for posting opinions on a forum. Im just pointing out the pattern of what appears to be happening.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#61
You implied that the vote hasnt taken place yet which is what started this conversation off. You asked me not once but twice so it wasnt an accident , and now a third time. Then you based your own argument "that there was no actual power shift before the voting". You cant hold both positions at the same time.

Yes its speculation, thats what we do on these boards.

There appears shift in power that is going in the way of Djokovic and against the likes of Fed. If you want documentation to back my opinions im afraid I wasnt prepared enough for posting opinions on a forum. Im just pointing out the pattern of what appears to be happening.
So, you don't know anything, since you didn't answer any of my questions.

Just to be clear, I said that unless you can prove that a voting for the host city happened (in case it has happened), it could have been related to the eventual power shift only if it took place after it (and it being signified through the ousting of Kermode), and that that is also not conclusive, but at least can be traced back to it, if other things match as well.

There was no statement from me that the voting for host city took place at all. It was just accepting a hypothetical.

However, you were talking about the connection between the two events in an unequivocal manner, which is what I addressed.

Now, unless you have useful information, let's just state that a connection between the power shift and potential vote for a host city that transpired cannot be established without that vote happening after the ousting of Kermode.

:cool:
 
#62
So, you don't know anything, since you didn't answer any of my questions.

Just to be clear, I said that unless you can prove that a voting for the host city happened (in case it has happened), it could have been related to the eventual power shift only if it took place after it (and it being signified through the ousting of Kermode), and that that is also not conclusive, but at least can be traced back to it, if other things match as well.

There was no statement from me that the voting for host city took place at all. It was just accepting a hypothetical.

However, you were talking about the connection between the two events in an unequivocal manner, which is what I addressed.

Now, unless you have useful information, let's just state that a connection between the power shift and potential vote for a host city that transpired cannot be established without that vote happening after the ousting of Kermode.

:cool:
"There was no actual power shift before the voting, so the timing of the events is crucial, if you want to ascribe the decision to it"

What you were trying to do is suggest is that Kermode wasnt sacked before the vote to move to Tokyo, and thus the sequencing would be wrong. Well given he was sacked , this implys the vote to move to Tokyo already happened and took place before the sacking.

So how come when I imply that the vote to move to Tokyo is real, based on the reports, I need to show you proof, but when you imply there was not power shift before the vote (thus implying the vote has already happened) you dont need proof of when the vote took place, to support your arguments?
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#63
"There was no actual power shift before the voting, so the timing of the events is crucial, if you want to ascribe the decision to it"

What you were trying to do is suggest is that Kermode wasnt sacked before the vote to move to Tokyo, and thus the sequencing would be wrong. Well given he was sacked , this implys the vote to move to Tokyo already happened and took place before the sacking.

So how come when I imply that the vote to move to Tokyo is real, based on the reports, I need to show you proof, but when you imply there was not power shift before the vote (thus implying the vote has already happened) you dont need proof of when the vote took place, to support your arguments?
That "before the voting" relates to the vote where Kermode was ousted. If you read on the next sentence talks about "the decision" which is the reference to the decision about the host city.

Here: "There was no actual power shift before the voting (to oust Kermode. If there was Federer, Nadal, Wawa etc wouldn't have been in the dark about it), so the timing of the events is crucial, if you want to ascribe the decision (for the host city) to it (the power shift/the ousting of Kermode)"

That is the whole part of my post with the clarifications that were embedded into it.

:cool:
 
#64
That "before the voting" relates to the vote where Kermode was ousted. If you read on the next sentence talks about "the decision" which is the reference to the decision about the host city.

Here: "There was no actual power shift before the voting (to oust Kermode. If there was Federer, Nadal, Wawa etc wouldn't have been in the dark about it), so the timing of the events is crucial, if you want to ascribe the decision (for the host city) to it (the power shift/the ousting of Kermode)"

That is the whole part of my post with the clarifications that were embedded into it.

:cool:
You qualified what you meant.

"You are not reading what I write: I said that unless the voting for the venue happened after the voting that ousted Kermode the result doesn't have anything to do with that power shift and the reasons for that choice shouldn't include the power shift at all."
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#65
You qualified what you meant.

"You are not reading what I write: I said that unless the voting for the venue happened after the voting that ousted Kermode the result doesn't have anything to do with that power shift and the reasons for that choice shouldn't include the power shift at all."
Yes, if there was a voting for the venue.

Facepalm.

:cool:
 
#66
Yes, if there was a voting for the venue.

Facepalm.

:cool:
Which is my original point...

My point was that if Kermode was fired by the Djokovic gang and then this vote to move to Tokyo happened afterwards, there is a pattern happening and im implying a possible link.

Either way both of our hypotheses rely on that there was a vote for the venue change that took place, youre simply saying its invalid if it happened before Kermode got fired. So why do I need to show you proof of the vote, when you make the same assumptions when youre hypothesising.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#67
Which is my original point...

My point was that if Kermode was fired by the Djokovic gang and then this vote to move to Tokyo happened afterwards, there is a pattern happening and im implying a possible link.

Either way both of our hypothesise rely on that there was a vote for the venue took place, so why do I need to show you proof of the vote, when you make the same assumptions.
I am happy that you accepted my hypothesis and are not claiming anymore things that you don't know.

That is more than enough for me and I will wait for any reliable info to occur.

:cool:
 
#68
Players will have to travel to Tokyo from Paris. I think ATP has to push this event back by 1 week to allow players to travel and acclimatize if they indeed move it to Tokyo.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
#69
Players will have to travel to Tokyo from Paris. I think ATP has to push this event back by 1 week to allow players to travel and acclimatize if they indeed move it to Tokyo.
They only had a week to acclimatise when travelling from Paris to Shanghai in the period 2005-8 so why should they need extra time to acclimatise themselves to Tokyo which is not much further?
 
#70
They only had a week to acclimatise when travelling from Paris to Shanghai in the period 2005-8 so why should they need extra time to acclimatise themselves to Tokyo which is not much further?
I guess players know how to acclimatize after all the years they've been on tour. Still, they could be tired at the end of the year(and indoor schedule is quite hectic if you take a look at the calendar), but I guess it's up to them to decide whether to have an extra week of preparation. They may just be okay with just one week.
 
#71
It was in Shanghai between 2005-2008? I don't see much problem for the players. It's almost a given that they'll be more tennis in Asia in the coming years be it from Saudi Arabia to Japan.
 
#73
The ATP will reveal today the city that will host the ATP WTF 2021. Tokyo as first rumored or Turin which will pay a lot ? We will see
 
Top