Debate Mansion

   

Endorsements - Go Team India (Page 6)

Post Reply New Post

Page 6 of 14

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 3:50pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by chatbuster

Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by chatbuster

Originally posted by mermaid_QT

so we have anita on the same side.. Big smile ..
6 agree and 1 on fence..

oh in that case, lemme offer myself as a poor lion before the six and a half lambsTongue

ban those endorsements is what i say (or at most slash them down to only a few days in a year). just pay them a good salary for making it to the team with big-time bonuses thrown in for good performance. that's how top firms pay their star employees- whether it's wall street or corporations. compensation should be tied to their cricketing performance, not their acting celebrity. if latter is what they want, they should get out of the game and join shilpa shetty and sushmita sen in running around those trees.Wink

and incidentally, we do have similar restrictions on other professions in a democratic set-up. cant have banking officials take positions with hedge funds while they are with the government, cant have judges presiding over cases where they have financial interest, cant have even tenured professors take research positions with other universities....and one can go on...Smile

so there- ban all that endorsement nonsense. Smile

and what is the relationship of a cricketer and a endorsementLOL

oh, this was for whoever had suggested that in a democracy, people shld be allowed to pursue their moonlighting interests. not necessarily so is what i am saying with those examples. hope you get the point nowWinkSmile

Sachin and Mcgrath both appear in a Pepsi commercial, so Mcgrath wont get a wicket of Sachin and Sachin wont hit any 4's or 6's against McgrathLOLLOL

no no, he will have a few 4s. maybe even a few 6s. but those are more like statistical outliers which shld be discardedWink

you can only use that example of banking industry and say similar if you can prove a quid pro quo between endorsements and on field performanceLOL

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Endorsements - Go Team India (Page 6)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

chatbuster

IF-Rockerz

chatbuster

Deactivated on request

Joined: 13 January 2006

Posts: 7780

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 4:05pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by sareg

you can only use that example of banking industry and say similar if you can prove a quid pro quo between endorsements and on field performanceLOL

arre yaar, kya rok laga rakhee hai?LOL intelligence is all about being able to correlate and draw inferences from disparate subjects. Smile

anyway, here's the hypothesis: endorsements=> lead to time spent on non-cricketing activities/ mental and physical distractions/ lack of hunger at least monetarily=> together affects game performance. remember, so much of peak performance (as in olympics and elsewhere) relates to mind-over-body control, to single-minded focus. fwiw, our team wld be better off without those distractions than with them. even if it's a hypothesis that cannot be proved/ disproved because of small sample sizes, i'd rather err on the side of common sense than give the benefit to players. there are more where they come from, but that's not the case for the team that represents India. there's just one team and the focus should be on the team, not the payoffs to individual players.

which is why perhaps the aussies chucked shane warne out for a year because of his off-field activities. and different teams have curfew etc for nite-time (off-field!) activities before matches. 

again, what's wrong with the comp structure i came up with?

 

mermaid_QT

IF-Sizzlerz

mermaid_QT

Joined: 25 September 2005

Posts: 11613

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 4:19pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by chatbuster

Originally posted by sareg

you can only use that example of banking industry and say similar if you can prove a quid pro quo between endorsements and on field performanceLOL

arre yaar, kya rok laga rakhee hai?LOL intelligence is all about being able to correlate and draw inferences from disparate subjects. Smile

Thumbs Up I agree with that

anyway, here's the hypothesis: endorsements=> lead to time spent on non-cricketing activities/ mental and physical distractions/ lack of hunger at least monetarily=> together affects game performance. remember, so much of peak performance (as in olympics and elsewhere) relates to mind-over-body control, to single-minded focus.

Thumbs Down I disagree with that!  Endorsements and sportsmen are linked globally in every sport.  If Duane wade and Labron James can go on giving their best shot w/o letting it affect their game,  if Peyton Manning & Tom Brady  can focus on football, I don't think it is right to blame player's inadequacy on their endorsements.  I will tell you what according to me affects their performance.  People's frenzy, blind faith and hero-worship.  That makes them bold and brazen - not the endorsements.

Yes, fans also go fanatic way and burn down their houses every once in a while.  But the sheep come back to rejoice older statistics and idolize these sports stars once again Dead

fwiw, our team wld be better off without those distractions than with them. even if it's a hypothesis that cannot be proved/ disproved because of small sample sizes, i'd rather err on the side of common sense than give the benefit to players. there are more where they come from, but that's not the case for the team that represents India. there's just one team and the focus should be on the team, not the payoffs to individual players.

I agree with that. But banning their endorsements ill make them more unhappy

Unhappy person --> unhappy professional --> reduced team energy --> recipe for disaster

which is why perhaps the aussies chucked shane warne out for a year because of his off-field activities. and different teams have curfew etc for nite-time (off-field!) activities before matches.

Sure!  That should be employed as a strategy.  Again, thas doesn;t have much to do with endorsements though..   I am sure Aussie public doesn't sit protesting to get Aussie back on team LOL

again, what's wrong with the comp structure i came up with?

mermy

chatbuster

IF-Rockerz

chatbuster

Deactivated on request

Joined: 13 January 2006

Posts: 7780

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 4:29pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by mermaid_QT

Originally posted by chatbuster

Originally posted by sareg

you can only use that example of banking industry and say similar if you can prove a quid pro quo between endorsements and on field performanceLOL

arre yaar, kya rok laga rakhee hai?LOL intelligence is all about being able to correlate and draw inferences from disparate subjects. Smile

Thumbs Up I agree with that

anyway, here's the hypothesis: endorsements=> lead to time spent on non-cricketing activities/ mental and physical distractions/ lack of hunger at least monetarily=> together affects game performance. remember, so much of peak performance (as in olympics and elsewhere) relates to mind-over-body control, to single-minded focus.

Thumbs Down I disagree with that!  Endorsements and sportsmen are linked globally in every sport.  If Duane wade and Labron James can go on giving their best shot w/o letting it affect their game,  if Peyton Manning & Tom Brady  can focus on football, I don't think it is right to blame player's inadequacy on their endorsements.  I will tell you what according to me affects their performance.  People's frenzy, blind faith and hero-worship.  That makes them bold and brazen - not the endorsements.

Yes, fans also go fanatic way and burn down their houses every once in a while.  But the sheep come back to rejoice older statistics and idolize these sports stars once again Dead

fwiw, our team wld be better off without those distractions than with them. even if it's a hypothesis that cannot be proved/ disproved because of small sample sizes, i'd rather err on the side of common sense than give the benefit to players. there are more where they come from, but that's not the case for the team that represents India. there's just one team and the focus should be on the team, not the payoffs to individual players.

I agree with that. But banning their endorsements ill make them more unhappy

Unhappy person --> unhappy professional --> reduced team energy --> recipe for disaster

which is why perhaps the aussies chucked shane warne out for a year because of his off-field activities. and different teams have curfew etc for nite-time (off-field!) activities before matches.

Sure!  That should be employed as a strategy.  Again, thas doesn;t have much to do with endorsements though..   I am sure Aussie public doesn't sit protesting to get Aussie back on team LOL

again, what's wrong with the comp structure i came up with?

mermy

the key qualifier in all this is "all else equal". the examples you cite of manning and tom brady are not "all else equal". those guys actually go through intensive training/ off-season regimen for months to strengthen their mental/ physical abilities. our guys? fatten up on masala dosas, kheer, cholas, dhoklas and what not.LOL

also, their total take-home compensation is very bonus-oriented ie. performance-related. Ad money is pocket money for them. Unlike our guys whose main compensation is ad money. which is why i suggested the compensation structure above. if you want good cricketing, pay them for cricketing. if you want good ads, pay them for good acting. gotta tie incentive with the performance you're interested inSmile

mermaid_QT

IF-Sizzlerz

mermaid_QT

Joined: 25 September 2005

Posts: 11613

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 4:44pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by chatbuster


the key qualifier in all this is "all else equal". the examples you cite of manning and tom brady are not "all else equal". those guys actually go through intensive training/ off-season regimen for months to strengthen their mental/ physical abilities. our guys? fatten up on masala dosas, kheer, cholas, dhoklas and what not.LOL

ROFLROFLROFL  Seriously!! 

also, their total take-home compensation is very bonus-oriented ie. performance-related. Ad money is pocket money for them. Unlike our guys whose main compensation is ad money. which is why i suggested the compensation structure above. if you want good cricketing, pay them for cricketing. if you want good ads, pay them for good acting. gotta tie incentive with the performance you're interested inSmile



Now I am totally with you. 
Pay them and renew their contracts based on their CURRENT performance.  Repetetive ducks do not get to be in the team.  Great performers will be paid more based on the performance.  (well, this is a good wicked gate for more politics though Dead
If they perform well, be their fans and let ad companies give them commercials too.   If they fail to perform, give them incentive to improve, but don't reward them. 
I think the endorsements should be allowed such that AD companies will be forced to scrap the ad if the player fails.  Ad companies make the contract with BCCI, not the player himself & BCCI will decide if the ad stays / is taken off.  That way, ad companies will stop throwing money around randomly.   Just pondering. 

(I am so bad with money matters, that if I balance my checkbook and for once fill tax returns, I can make my husband happy LOL)

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 4:56pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by chatbuster

Originally posted by sareg

you can only use that example of banking industry and say similar if you can prove a quid pro quo between endorsements and on field performanceLOL

arre yaar, kya rok laga rakhee hai?LOL intelligence is all about being able to correlate and draw inferences from disparate subjects. Smile

disparate topics need to have a similarity, you havent proved the similarity, intelligence is that which can correlate similar things

you are trying to apply a concept like non-compete or quid pro quo to sports and endorsements, there is absolutely no relationship  or similarity whatsoever.

anyway, here's the hypothesis: endorsements=> lead to time spent on non-cricketing activities/ mental and physical distractions/ lack of hunger at least monetarily=> together affects game performance. remember, so much of peak performance (as in olympics and elsewhere) relates to mind-over-body control, to single-minded focus. fwiw, our team wld be better off without those distractions than with them. even if it's a hypothesis that cannot be proved/ disproved because of small sample sizes, i'd rather err on the side of common sense than give the benefit to players. there are more where they come from, but that's not the case for the team that represents India. there's just one team and the focus should be on the team, not the payoffs to individual players.

and that gets fixed by putting a timeline before the matches, no player can take part in endorsements say 15 days before a match, they already have that provision in placeWink

your similarily again falls tlat there, try better next timeWink

which is why perhaps the aussies chucked shane warne out for a year because of his off-field activities. and different teams have curfew etc for nite-time (off-field!) activities before matches. 

that was the day of the match, off field activities was drugs, etc, doing drugs and endorsements is similar?

Let me explain, in an endorsement, you shoot a video, when it is done it gets aired, BCCI has made a regulation all this should finish 15 days prior to a match

15 days is enough to recuperate for an athlete from the stresses of an endorsementsLOL 

again, what's wrong with the comp structure i came up with?

B'cos it has nothing to do with the endorsements, you can make payments to players subjective of their performance, great, what the player does in his personal life has no relationship



Edited by sareg - 08 April 2007 at 5:13pm

sareg

IF-Dazzler

sareg

Joined: 10 January 2006

Posts: 3976

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 5:00pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by mermaid_QT

Originally posted by chatbuster


the key qualifier in all this is "all else equal". the examples you cite of manning and tom brady are not "all else equal". those guys actually go through intensive training/ off-season regimen for months to strengthen their mental/ physical abilities. our guys? fatten up on masala dosas, kheer, cholas, dhoklas and what not.LOL

ROFLROFLROFL  Seriously!! 

also, their total take-home compensation is very bonus-oriented ie. performance-related. Ad money is pocket money for them. Unlike our guys whose main compensation is ad money. which is why i suggested the compensation structure above. if you want good cricketing, pay them for cricketing. if you want good ads, pay them for good acting. gotta tie incentive with the performance you're interested inSmile



Now I am totally with you. 
Pay them and renew their contracts based on their CURRENT performance.  Repetetive ducks do not get to be in the team.  Great performers will be paid more based on the performance.  (well, this is a good wicked gate for more politics though Dead
If they perform well, be their fans and let ad companies give them commercials too.   If they fail to perform, give them incentive to improve, but don't reward them. 

now the BCCI is going to dictate to a company to be a fan of a particular player? Dont we allow businesses to have their own brains?

I think the endorsements should be allowed such that AD companies will be forced to scrap the ad if the player fails. 

Now BCCI controls what other businesses do?

Ad companies make the contract with BCCI, not the player himself & BCCI will decide if the ad stays / is taken off.

you are calling for bonded labor, didnt we spend hundred years to get out people out of that

That way, ad companies will stop throwing money around randomly.   Just pondering. 

it is their money they should be allowed to make their own choices(atleast in a democracyWink), if your employer comes to you and tells you how to spend your money will you accept it?



Edited by sareg - 08 April 2007 at 5:07pm

chatbuster

IF-Rockerz

chatbuster

Deactivated on request

Joined: 13 January 2006

Posts: 7780

Posted: 08 April 2007 at 5:16pm | IP Logged
Originally posted by sareg

Originally posted by chatbuster

Originally posted by sareg

you can only use that example of banking industry and say similar if you can prove a quid pro quo between endorsements and on field performanceLOL

arre yaar, kya rok laga rakhee hai?LOL intelligence is all about being able to correlate and draw inferences from disparate subjects. Smile

disparate topics need to have a similarity, you havent proved the similarity, you know that

the similarity is in terms of how disparate professions themselves impose restrictions on off-field/ off-the-job behavior. Wink

btw, if you're looking for your kinda similarity, maybe the only thing one can offer is cloningLOLLOL coz anything else will be found to be dissimilarLOL

anyway, here's the hypothesis: endorsements=> lead to time spent on non-cricketing activities/ mental and physical distractions/ lack of hunger at least monetarily=> together affects game performance. remember, so much of peak performance (as in olympics and elsewhere) relates to mind-over-body control, to single-minded focus. fwiw, our team wld be better off without those distractions than with them. even if it's a hypothesis that cannot be proved/ disproved because of small sample sizes, i'd rather err on the side of common sense than give the benefit to players. there are more where they come from, but that's not the case for the team that represents India. there's just one team and the focus should be on the team, not the payoffs to individual players.

and that gets fixed by putting a timeline before the matches, no player can take part in endorsements say 15 days before a match, they already have that provision in placeWink

15 days. another adhoc random number from the bureaucratic stableWink

your similarily again falls tlat there, try better next timeWink

your saying so doesnt make it so. one needs to think more and correlate moreWink

 

which is why perhaps the aussies chucked shane warne out for a year because of his off-field activities. and different teams have curfew etc for nite-time (off-field!) activities before matches. 

that was the day of the match, off field activities was drugs, etc, doing drugs and endorsements is similar?

for our guys it seems the opium is ad moneyWink 

incidentally we shld be looking at the highest common factor, not the least common denominator here. aussies and other athletes also train very hard all year long. not so our guys.

again, what's wrong with the comp structure i came up with?

B'cos it has nothing to do with the endorsements, you can make payments to players subjective of their performance, great, what the player does in his personal life has no relationship

of course it does. if u're a player who's driving drunk and knocks someone off, that personal behavior will likely have an impact on your game. Winknow before you go citing how this example is an extreme, the point is to first realize that off-field behavior does have bearing on on-field performance. you seem to be denying that unless i am misunderstanding your positionWink

you're also beating up the same thing about endorsements, yet ignoring how people in very smart industries choose to compensate people. and that compensation is primarily incentive driven, not perks from other activities. now dont go saying how these fields are not very similar and all that...LOLLOL



Edited by chatbuster - 08 April 2007 at 5:19pm

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Dev Team - Congratts Return_To_Hades...

2 3

raj5000 22 1430 02 February 2009 at 2:42pm
By Morgoth
India is not India...it's America...

2

SmarterDesiKid 10 2249 10 August 2007 at 10:59pm
By UDman
Does Endorsements affect Consumers?

2 3

Kool Ahmed 16 1107 26 April 2007 at 9:42am
By mermaid_QT
india vs not-india

2 3 4 5 6

simi1295 40 4618 11 February 2006 at 2:56pm
By heart girl
~celebrity endorsements~ dare_dis_devil 5 468 20 December 2005 at 12:10am
By jasunap

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

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.