Beijing time on March 29, 27th, 2017 snooker China open qualifying, Ding Junhui identity problems because the chest was in trouble, the game was delayed and therefore was also fined 1. Although the pace of the episode did not affect him, but Xiao Hui still has a considerable impact on the mental, after the game, he sent a long article on the microblogging express dissatisfaction, also said in an interview after the match will send letter to Tsu. Today, the Tsu also responded on its website.
The Taiwan Solidarity Union said in a statement: “Ding said of the proposed ‘ excessive ‘ requirements, we are disappointed and shocked. The truth is, Ding was a trademark conflict with the tournament title sponsor, and he would like to go directly to the game. ”
“All players must sign and agree to abide by the contract rules and regulations. These rules clearly states that all trademarks should receive the World Snooker company (hereinafter referred to as WSL) approval, and no player logo with any WSL partners (that is the title sponsor) conflict. ”
“This is done to protect the rights of our business partners, and forms part of our contractual commitments to them, otherwise we would be a violation of the agreement. Eventually, the Tsu (WPBSA) and the WSL to maintain the project’s future with all professional players had signed such an agreement. ”
Official statement also said that so far, it has not received Ding Junhui’s lawyer’s letter.
In addition, after Ding Junhui comes in, like fighting the official “rocket” o ‘ Sullivan to help Xiao Hui vocal. In interview with Sina, he shied away out of view on this matter: “I think the world Taiwan Solidarity Union not too professional. Ding is a gentleman, he is not a troublemaker, who immerse themselves in the game. He did the right thing, he is a real professional. ”
In this regard, the Tsu has not forgotten the Sullivan’s comments were criticized: “with Sullivan’s criticism on the contrary, we believe that we are dealing with this matter was fully professional, and completely according to the execution of the contract. Denying this is obviously wrong and misleading. ”