Readers will doubtless recall, at least some of you will, that EASB stands for English Association for Snooker and Billiards, and that this is the body that was set up with the blessing of the WPBSA, to run the amateur game after the death of the B&SCC (Billiards and Snooker Control Council). The B&SCC went down the drain because, for one reason or another, they ran out of cash. The administration of the B&SCC was said to be inept, though they said the collapse was due to the withdrawal of the Sport's Council Grant and that this was a bit of bad luck.
It is now reported that the EASB made a loss of £54,000 on last year's trading. I had heard a whisper of this state of affairs but was reluctant to publish until I saw it confirmed in the pages of the October issue of "Snooker Scene" (Page 3). I suppose that this is also a bit of bad luck. I remember very well going to a meeting held in October 1992 at the Braunstone WMC, Leicester, a meeting which effectively put the EASB into orbit.
The unfortunate WPBSA representative at that meeting was Mr Nigel Oldfield. There was a lot of talk, and even more hot air, about this, that, and the other, but the upshot was that the new body (EASB) would take over the administration of the amateur game, and would initially be funded by the WPBSA. It was envisaged that the EASB would become self financing within three years. Many of those present pledged to leave no turd unstoned in the relentless search for funding. I remember quite distinctly the rather thoughtful look on Mr. Oldfield's face as he left the meeting for the long drive back to Bristol.
It was shortly after this that leaflets began to circulate offering membership of the new body under the heading of, "A New Dawn". The EABA (English Amateur Billiards Association), a group of enthusiasts pledged to the continuance of the English Amateur Championship and which did manage to keep the oldest championship in the game alive, eventually became recognised as the billiards committee of the EASB.
There were those present, and I admit to being one of them, who wondered just what the EASB had to offer that the old B&SCC had not offered. The thought of going into a draw for tickets to the World Snooker Championship did not particularly attract me; neither did the thought of getting Wayne Witless (Ranked about 400) down to our club for the annual prize giving sound very exciting. The thought occurred to me that there seemed no good reason why the new EASB should be any more successful than the old B&SCC. In fact, I voiced these opinions and doubts in an article published in the, "Snooker Scene" for October 1992 (Page 28).
However, on the premise that any sport has to have an administrative body of some sort, I joined the EASB. I am still a member - though it is possible that if my views annoy them they may throw me out. As the EASB enters into its third full year of being, the situation would seem to be that the majority of amateur players (billiards) have been alienated by the acceptance of the IBSF proposals to open up amateur tournaments to professional players and the subsequent disappearance of the major amateur championship. The billiards committee has resigned en bloc, and:-
They (The EASB) have a deficit on last year's trading of £54,000.
This deficit is to be underwritten by the WPBSA. It is very difficult to see how the EASB can become self financing by its third year. It would take a bit of very clever creative accounting just to break even let alone show a trading profit.
I wonder how long the WPBSA will maintain support before either abandoning the EASB altogether or taking them over completely. How long will the snooker fraternity, and particularly their managers, accept the financing of a body set up to run the amateur game with money that comes from professional snooker?
I shouldn't think that they would accept this situation for very long at all, unless, of course, it can be pointed out that the EASB is no longer running amateur championships, but that what were once upon a time amateur championships are now open to professional players, (apart from the very top men) and that therefore the subsidy is being recycled into the professional game. Is this the reason, or one of the reasons, for the WPBSA's insistence on the acceptance of the IBSF proposals? Or am I just being cynical?