I know nothing about snooker, but the other week I noticed that someone called Ronnie O'Sullivan almost refused to pot the final black in a maximum break (whatever that means) because there wasn't a decent bonus for doing so. Previously he would have got £147,000 but it's been dropped because it can't be insured against any more since the maximum break thing is too common an occurrence. So O'Sullivan would only have got an extra £4000 which he'd already won for the highest break (whatever that means). He said it wasn't worth the effort, especially once he'd paid tax on it. £25,000 would have been OK, apparently, at least he could have bought himself a holiday. Now he's saying that everyone has misunderstood him and it's not about the money, it's a matter of principle. But isn't it sort of odd to expect to get an extra prize for something you've already won a prize for?
Or am I confusing snooker players with bankers? 'It seems that the wave of public anger towards bank bonuses may be ebbing a little,' according to Benjamin Williams of the Centre for Economics and Business Research. Because of the new tax rate for incomes over £150,000, it seems that of the nearly £7 billion likely to be dished out in bankers' bonuses this year, £4.1 billion is going to government and only £3.8 billion goes to city workers after tax. I feel much more relaxed about that, and it makes Ronnie O'Sullivan's holiday requirements look like a Butlin's budget getaway.