Debate Mansion
Debate Mansion

India-Forums

   

Endorsements - Go Team India (Page 2)

...M... IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 20 October 2006
Posts: 21657

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 12:07am | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.
Sound IF-Rockerz
Sound
Sound

Joined: 18 November 2005
Posts: 5053

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 12:11am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Maya_M

Now from BCCI's point of view

It would be fallacious to state that these Cricketers play for India and not for themselves. Almost all of them have selfish reasons to excel and that is to make their wallets heavier. Now it is decided that players would be paid depending on their performance in a game. If a player is allowed to endorse products then he might lack the spirit to win the game because even if he loses the match or scores less he has made 5 times more with endorsements. So by restricting them to 2 endorsements they will have to eye the perks which come from winning Cricket matches which will naturally boost their performance.


That is a very very valid point MayaClap
raj5000 Moderator
raj5000
raj5000

Joined: 01 January 2006
Posts: 11737

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 12:15am | IP Logged

Originally posted by Sound

Originally posted by mermaid_QT

MAYA, I joined you first on fence and brought chips and guacomole too and then posted this thread here LOL LOL

I think I am joining Raj now.. Endorsements are clearly the players' personal affair.
Fans can choose to control themselves and control worshipping players who are performing below-ordinary. With reduced popularity, ad agencies won't follow these players.  Endorsements will automaically be limited and athletes will get their act together Big smile . But that is if and when people stop hero-worshipping big names atleast after they duck repeatedly Confused.
 
BCCI need not ban endorsements I think.

eg.  Kevin Garnett is not seen in ads anymore - He was MVP not too long ago.

Or they could make a certain number of hours mandatory for net practice such that no time is left for endorsements. Practice kara kara ke maar daloLOL. Na rahenga baans, na bajegi bansuri.

Neet's LOLLOL are you related to my BossWinkLOL ....

QT - yeah will hold my ground unless Maya throws a bomber... yeah if endorsement are impacting the play... player are growup to make a decision orelse they won't be liable for any future endoresement with bad play.

BTW - saw zee awards - Vinod Khanna got life time award and Rishi kapoor/Neetu singh (a darlin) presented it, Rishi made mentioned his first movie with vinod/amit was Amar/Akbar/anthony, was reminded of you guys....minus the gender and ageWink thoughLOLLOL

 



Edited by raj5000 - 08 April 2007 at 12:15am
raj5000 Moderator
raj5000
raj5000

Joined: 01 January 2006
Posts: 11737

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 12:19am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Sound

Originally posted by Maya_M

Now from BCCI's point of view

It would be fallacious to state that these Cricketers play for India and not for themselves. Almost all of them have selfish reasons to excel and that is to make their wallets heavier. Now it is decided that players would be paid depending on their performance in a game. If a player is allowed to endorse products then he might lack the spirit to win the game because even if he loses the match or scores less he has made 5 times more with endorsements. So by restricting them to 2 endorsements they will have to eye the perks which come from winning Cricket matches which will naturally boost their performance.


That is a very very valid point MayaClap

Tongue 5 times more till what time? I just mean if the play is impacted he might loose the endorsements, IMO if endorsements are in players miind they will make to sure to consistently perform. Banning won't help.

mermaid_QT IF-Sizzlerz
mermaid_QT
mermaid_QT

Joined: 25 September 2005
Posts: 11613

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 12:20am | IP Logged
LOL Raj - @ AAA MINUS age /sex.

LOL neetu - u'll make a scientist exactly like my boss PLUS the sunsilk hair Wink and HP
Sound IF-Rockerz
Sound
Sound

Joined: 18 November 2005
Posts: 5053

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 12:23am | IP Logged
Originally posted by raj5000

Originally posted by Sound

Originally posted by Maya_M

Now from BCCI's point of view

It would be fallacious to state that these Cricketers play for India and not for themselves. Almost all of them have selfish reasons to excel and that is to make their wallets heavier. Now it is decided that players would be paid depending on their performance in a game. If a player is allowed to endorse products then he might lack the spirit to win the game because even if he loses the match or scores less he has made 5 times more with endorsements. So by restricting them to 2 endorsements they will have to eye the perks which come from winning Cricket matches which will naturally boost their performance.


That is a very very valid point MayaClap

Tongue 5 times more till what time? I just mean if the play is impacted he might loose the endorsements, IMO if endorsements are in players miind they will make to sure to consistently perform. Banning won't help.


It's still long enough before they are either dropped or the offers for endorsements stop pouring in. By the time the changes are implemented the bank balance is already full. So if they kept on their toes at all times, they are better chances probably.
I wasn't sitting on the fence earlier, but now that coke and popcorn is luring meWink
Sound IF-Rockerz
Sound
Sound

Joined: 18 November 2005
Posts: 5053

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 12:26am | IP Logged
Originally posted by raj5000

Neet's LOLLOL are you related to my BossWinkLOL ....


LOLLOL Not yet, but how much does your boss earn??WinkLOL




Originally posted by raj5000


BTW - saw zee awards - Vinod Khanna got life time award and Rishi kapoor/Neetu singh (a darlin) presented it, Rishi made mentioned his first movie with vinod/amit was Amar/Akbar/anthony, was reminded of you guys....minus the gender and ageWink thoughLOLLOL
 

LOLLOL arre you had to minus the age and gender just for me. Qt and Maya only needed gender reversalLOL



Edited by Sound - 08 April 2007 at 12:27am
raj5000 Moderator
raj5000
raj5000

Joined: 01 January 2006
Posts: 11737

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 12:29am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Sound

Originally posted by raj5000

Originally posted by Sound

Originally posted by Maya_M

Now from BCCI's point of view

It would be fallacious to state that these Cricketers play for India and not for themselves. Almost all of them have selfish reasons to excel and that is to make their wallets heavier. Now it is decided that players would be paid depending on their performance in a game. If a player is allowed to endorse products then he might lack the spirit to win the game because even if he loses the match or scores less he has made 5 times more with endorsements. So by restricting them to 2 endorsements they will have to eye the perks which come from winning Cricket matches which will naturally boost their performance.


That is a very very valid point MayaClap

Tongue 5 times more till what time? I just mean if the play is impacted he might loose the endorsements, IMO if endorsements are in players miind they will make to sure to consistently perform. Banning won't help.


It's still long enough before they are either dropped or the offers for endorsements stop pouring in. By the time the changes are implemented the bank balance is already full. So if they kept on their toes at all times, they are better chances probably.
I wasn't sitting on the fence earlier, but now that coke and popcorn is luring meWink

Something to look forward to as a player (when I say player I mean who performs consistently) will be out of hand, match fee is not so promising these days when srk is earning 2C for 2 hours of hosting. Banning might further lead to frustating minds trying to play ball.LOL

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Author Replies Views Last Post
Dev Team - Congratts Return_To_Hades...

2 3

Author: raj5000   Replies: 22   Views: 1551

raj5000 22 1551 02 February 2009 at 2:42pm by Morgoth
India is not India...it's America...

2

Author: SmarterDesiKid   Replies: 10   Views: 2398

SmarterDesiKid 10 2398 10 August 2007 at 10:59pm by UDman
Does Endorsements affect Consumers?

2 3

Author: Too_Much   Replies: 16   Views: 1244

Too_Much 16 1244 26 April 2007 at 9:42am by mermaid_QT
india vs not-india

2 3 4 5 6

Author: simi1295   Replies: 40   Views: 4963

simi1295 40 4963 11 February 2006 at 2:56pm by heart girl
~celebrity endorsements~

Author: dare_dis_devil   Replies: 5   Views: 513

dare_dis_devil 5 513 20 December 2005 at 12:10am by jasunap

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category / Channels
Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.

Popular Channels :
Star Plus | Zee TV | Sony TV | Colors TV | SAB TV | Life OK

Quick Links :
Top 100 TV Celebrities | Top 100 Bollywood Celebs | About Us | Contact Us | Advertise | Forum Index