Peter Ramage

[Matt 0]

Economist fight!

 

Jumpers and sandals flying everywhere.

[gram 0]

Oddly, the example you make about cinema is an interesting choice given that Snakes On A Plane was a huge success after moviegoers suggested how it should be made!

 

Exception that proves the rule shirley

Not really. Market orientation always wins out. Simon Cowell is proof of that.

[gram 0]

Economist fight!

 

Jumpers and sandals flying everywhere.

I have real fucking patches on my jacket elbows mate, none of your trendy make believe shite

[ChezGiven 0]

Ramage has visibly lost confidence in the last few weeks and getting on his back isnt going to help that. He knows he is under pressure. He has put in some decent games this season but he has just had 2 absolute shockers.

 

The crowd is ready to get on any players back as soon as they have made one mistake tbh. I personally detest people who boo or get on the back of any of our players. What makes it worse for me is if the people who get on players backs say fuck all else all game. There are a few too many of these characters in the ground.

 

Also to clear an issue up, us, the paying fans DO NOT pay the players wages. You pay to watch the spectacle as a form of entertainment (sic). The exchange of cash for ticket entitles you to enter the ground and view the game. Nowt else. Wages are a contract between employer and employee and does not involve 'customers' tbqfh.

Legally correct, however, economically you are so wrong it is untrue!

A football club without fans has very little income whether that be direct or indirect income. The fans are the ones who pay for merchandise, tickets, food and that is so significant that if it was lost to the club then it wouldnt have a bloody ground (note that the loan for the expansion was based on future season ticket sales amongst other things). Without a ground I suspect we would struggle to get SKY along and any monies there would be lost.

Basically the club cant operate without its core customers. To say that fans expenditure doesnt pay for the players wages isnt economically correct. It does.

I have 2 economics degrees and am an professional economist so consider myself an expert in this field tbh.

 

You pay to watch the match. Once you have seen it, then you have received the service you paid for. Of course revenue contributes to the cost base and therefore all sources of revenue are relevant to how a company remunerates its employees. However, from a purely economical point of view, the fan pays to see the game. Once the club has allowed you entrance onto its property, you have exchanged a service for your cash. The value of that service (seeing the game) is implicit in the price of the ticket. Its called 'making a market'.

 

If you dont understand the nature of exchange in a market then there are a number of GCSE textboooks i could look up for you.

 

Paying for a ticket does not entitle you to owt else apart from a seat at the match. If you pay to go and see a Scorsese film, do you think that entitles you to a say in how he makes his next film? No, it entitles you to a seat in the cinema and that is it.

 

Same principle applies here.

Where did you get those degrees from? WH Smiths? I am an economist too funnily enough and have taught economics for years. Your point was that the fan doesnt pay for the wage. I agre that directly he/she doesnt. However, without the fan there is little point in a ticket being printed. Simple as that.

The fan base (or customer) will always indirectly pay the wages of the player. It really is that simple. We could wrap it up in all kinds of nonsense but the simple fact is that revenue generated from fans is the base of that market. Without that there is no player.

Nb: Please don't use degrees like they are Top Trumps. Its hardly a recommendation these days.

Well i'm glad i'm not one of your students as your understanding of markets is atrocious. Of course financially all markets are paid for by their customers but that is not the point of a market. You exchange something for money.

 

Hoping not to sound like a certain cuntface who used to manage our club, i'm sure on the ticket it doesnt say give up your £600 for a voice in the running of the business. That is what it says on a share though when you buy one of those.

 

I'm tearing off my brown cardigan and putting on my steel toe-duster sandals as we speak

[ChezGiven 0]

Oddly, the example you make about cinema is an interesting choice given that Snakes On A Plane was a huge success after moviegoers suggested how it should be made!

 

Exception that proves the rule shirley

Not really. Market orientation always wins out. Simon Cowell is proof of that.

 

Utter gibberish. Your students must be stunned by those insights in class.

[Optimistic Nut 107]

Rammage was doing ok with Taylor (who was looking brilliant) before his injury. Since he came back though he's had a really awfull run of games and I think everyone was relieved when he had to go off on Saturday.

But anyone like Ramage who gives his all every game doesn't deserve to to be abused. Any player is fair game for criticism but sometimes people go way over the top. I can understand it for players like Luque or Marcelino who don't give a fuck but if someone's trying their best (whether they are good enough or not) they deserve better.

 

This

 

Weren't you one of Andy O'Brien's fiercest critics Mr Kelly.

[gram 0]

Ramage has visibly lost confidence in the last few weeks and getting on his back isnt going to help that. He knows he is under pressure. He has put in some decent games this season but he has just had 2 absolute shockers.

 

The crowd is ready to get on any players back as soon as they have made one mistake tbh. I personally detest people who boo or get on the back of any of our players. What makes it worse for me is if the people who get on players backs say fuck all else all game. There are a few too many of these characters in the ground.

 

Also to clear an issue up, us, the paying fans DO NOT pay the players wages. You pay to watch the spectacle as a form of entertainment (sic). The exchange of cash for ticket entitles you to enter the ground and view the game. Nowt else. Wages are a contract between employer and employee and does not involve 'customers' tbqfh.

Legally correct, however, economically you are so wrong it is untrue!

A football club without fans has very little income whether that be direct or indirect income. The fans are the ones who pay for merchandise, tickets

, food and that is so significant that if it was lost to the club then it wouldnt have a bloody ground (note that the loan for the expansion was based on future season ticket sales amongst other things). Without a ground I suspect we would struggle to get SKY along and any monies there would be lost.

Basically the club cant operate without its core customers. To say that fans expenditure doesnt pay for the players wages isnt economically correct. It does.

I have 2 economics degrees and am an professional economist so consider myself an expert in this field tbh.

 

You pay to watch the match. Once you have seen it, then you have received the service you paid for. Of course revenue contributes to the cost base and therefore all sources of revenue are relevant to how a company remunerates its employees. However, from a purely economical point of view, the fan pays to see the game. Once the club has allowed you entrance onto its property, you have exchanged a service for your cash. The value of that service (seeing the game) is implicit in the price of the ticket. Its called 'making a market'.

 

If you dont understand the nature of exchange in a market then there are a number of GCSE textboooks i could look up for you.

 

Paying for a ticket does not entitle you to owt else apart from a seat at the match. If you pay to go and see a Scorsese film, do you think that entitles you to a say in how he makes his next film? No, it entitles you to a seat in the cinema and that is it.

 

Same principle applies here.

Where did you get those degrees from? WH Smiths? I am an economist too funnily enough and have taught economics for years. Your point was that the fan doesnt pay for the wage. I agre that directly he/she doesnt. However, without the fan there is little point in a ticket being printed. Simple as that.

The fan base (or customer) will always indirectly pay the wages of the player. It really is that simple. We could wrap it up in all kinds of nonsense but the simple fact is that revenue generated from fans is the base of that market. Without that there is no player.

Nb: Please don't use degrees like they are Top Trumps. Its hardly a recommendation these days.

Well i'm glad i'm not one of your students as your understanding of markets is atrocious. Of course financially all markets are paid for by their customers but that is not the point of a market. You exchange something for money.

 

Hoping not to sound like a certain cuntface who used to manage our club, i'm sure on the ticket it doesnt say give up your £600 for a voice in the running of the business. That is what it says on a share though when you buy one of those.

 

I'm tearing off my brown cardigan and putting on my steel toe-duster sandals as we speak

You just said what I said earlier I think the word you are struggling to find is stakeholder by the way Your cardigan is ashamed of you

[ChezGiven 0]

You just said what I said earlier I think the word you are struggling to find is stakeholder by the way Your cardigan is ashamed of you

 

No, you thought that buying a ticket was buying a share. I dont.

 

By calling a fan a stakeholder you dont change the nature of what was exchanged in the market. All fans are stakeholders, even ones who stream the games off the net for nowt and contribute to forums but add no revenue to the club.

[Invicta_Toon 0]

gate receipts (including corporate) account for only 40% of turnover, so no, fans do not pay the players wages

[gram 0]

You just said what I said earlier I think the word you are struggling to find is stakeholder by the way Your cardigan is ashamed of you

 

No, you thought that buying a ticket was buying a share. I dont.

 

By calling a fan a stakeholder you dont change the nature of what was exchanged in the market. All fans are stakeholders, even ones who stream the games off the net for nowt and contribute to forums but add no revenue to the club.

Nonsense. I said nothing of the sort about shares and tickets.

What I have said is that the revenue stream from fans is the core of the business. Without that there is no club. The point being that, whilst I accept that the literal idea of fans paying players wages is absurd, the financial stream from them is what makes a club like ours tick. Whether directly or indirectly, wages are paid from money generated from fans of NUFC. Without the fans we have it is unlikely we would be in the Premiership or have the SKY income. Whilst the nature of what is exchanged is clear, the flow of income is similarly obvious (well as clear as it can be with FFS). We havent diversified into areas which will subsidise our existence and we dont have a sugar daddy. So where does the money come from?

 

I seriously have doubts that you have a degree at all never mind one in economics Chez. It will be a long time til you earn your patches my boy. Economists arent wise to take a literal perspective.

 

Nb: there is endless empirical evidence of the influence of stakeholders and if you do have a look at Kotler you will find decent evidence about the prominence of market orientation.

[Invicta_Toon 0]

I don't recall the fans getting us promoted to the premiership

 

I didn't get my medal tbh

[gram 0]

gate receipts (including corporate) account for only 40% of turnover, so no, fans do not pay the players wages

 

 

 

Without the fans would there be any reason to have a match?

 

Without that would there be any TV revenue? Who buys the merchandise?

 

Why cant kids think anymore? I blame the fucking teachers

[gram 0]

I don't recall the fans getting us promoted to the premiership

 

I didn't get my medal tbh

You were still in your fathas plums and they couldnt force it hard enough down his Japs eye. If only they had managed and left the fucka wedged there you might not have got out

[Invicta_Toon 0]

 

We havent diversified into areas which will subsidise our existence

 

 

except conferences, hospitality and entertainment events (X-Factor etc)

[ChezGiven 0]

You just said what I said earlier I think the word you are struggling to find is stakeholder by the way Your cardigan is ashamed of you

 

No, you thought that buying a ticket was buying a share. I dont.

 

By calling a fan a stakeholder you dont change the nature of what was exchanged in the market. All fans are stakeholders, even ones who stream the games off the net for nowt and contribute to forums but add no revenue to the club.

Nonsense. I said nothing of the sort about shares and tickets.

 

 

I said "You pay to watch the spectacle as a form of entertainment (sic). The exchange of cash for ticket entitles you to enter the ground and view the game. Nowt else. Wages are a contract between employer and employee and does not involve 'customers' tbqfh."

 

You said you pay the players wages to counter that and to suggest that you are entitled to a voice within the club. Thats why we are talking about shares and tickets tbh.

 

And stop googling to back your shite arguments up

 

BTW do you have bad coffee breath and sweaty pits? Most teachers do tbh.

[Invicta_Toon 0]

gate receipts (including corporate) account for only 40% of turnover, so no, fans do not pay the players wages

 

 

 

Without the fans would there be any reason to have a match?

 

Without that would there be any TV revenue? Who buys the merchandise?

 

Why cant kids think anymore? I blame the fucking teachers

 

what was it about the above statement that you did not understand?

 

Man City / Bolton / Boro don't seem to have too many fans, where are they getting their money from I wonder?

[Invicta_Toon 0]

I don't recall the fans getting us promoted to the premiership

 

I didn't get my medal tbh

You were still in your fathas plums and they couldnt force it hard enough down his Japs eye. If only they had managed and left the fucka wedged there you might not have got out

 

that's your agrument? talking about plums?

 

yes, as you have said so often, you make Jesus cry

[gram 0]

You just said what I said earlier I think the word you are struggling to find is stakeholder by the way Your cardigan is ashamed of you

 

No, you thought that buying a ticket was buying a share. I dont.

 

By calling a fan a stakeholder you dont change the nature of what was exchanged in the market. All fans are stakeholders, even ones who stream the games off the net for nowt and contribute to forums but add no revenue to the club.

Nonsense. I said nothing of the sort about shares and tickets.

 

 

I said "You pay to watch the spectacle as a form of entertainment (sic). The exchange of cash for ticket entitles you to enter the ground and view the game. Nowt else. Wages are a contract between employer and employee and does not involve 'customers' tbqfh."

 

You said you pay the players wages to counter that and to suggest that you are entitled to a voice within the club. Thats why we are talking about shares and tickets tbh.

 

And stop googling to back your shite arguments up

 

BTW do you have bad coffee breath and sweaty pits? Most teachers do tbh.

Youre resorting to making this up Chez. I said that indirectly - note the use of the word throughout - we pay the players wages. It is an unwise economist that is quite so literal and I have grave doubts about your academic claims. As for googling? Hardly sunshine. The fact that you feel that is necessary when nothing has been noted beyond GCSE economics level tells its own story tbf.

 

As for coffee breath and sweaty pits? Well the NUT make it compulsory and I have been with them since they gave me the best pencil case during my teacher training many moons ago!

[gram 0]

gate receipts (including corporate) account for only 40% of turnover, so no, fans do not pay the players wages

 

 

 

Without the fans would there be any reason to have a match?

 

Without that would there be any TV revenue? Who buys the merchandise?

 

Why cant kids think anymore? I blame the fucking teachers

 

what was it about the above statement that you did not understand?

 

Man City / Bolton / Boro don't seem to have too many fans, where are they getting their money from I wonder?

You know when Sima mentioned about opening your mouth and removing all doubt? Take heed next time...

[Invicta_Toon 0]

gate receipts (including corporate) account for only 40% of turnover, so no, fans do not pay the players wages

 

 

 

Without the fans would there be any reason to have a match?

 

Without that would there be any TV revenue? Who buys the merchandise?

 

Why cant kids think anymore? I blame the fucking teachers

 

what was it about the above statement that you did not understand?

 

Man City / Bolton / Boro don't seem to have too many fans, where are they getting their money from I wonder?

You know when Sima mentioned about opening your mouth and removing all doubt? Take heed next time...

 

right so you don't have an answer then. OK.

 

 

p.s. It was me that set up the quote you dimwit.

Edited January 23, 2007 by Invicta_Toon

[ChezGiven 0]

You just said what I said earlier I think the word you are struggling to find is stakeholder by the way Your cardigan is ashamed of you

 

No, you thought that buying a ticket was buying a share. I dont.

 

By calling a fan a stakeholder you dont change the nature of what was exchanged in the market. All fans are stakeholders, even ones who stream the games off the net for nowt and contribute to forums but add no revenue to the club.

Nonsense. I said nothing of the sort about shares and tickets.

 

 

I said "You pay to watch the spectacle as a form of entertainment (sic). The exchange of cash for ticket entitles you to enter the ground and view the game. Nowt else. Wages are a contract between employer and employee and does not involve 'customers' tbqfh."

 

You said you pay the players wages to counter that and to suggest that you are entitled to a voice within the club. Thats why we are talking about shares and tickets tbh.

 

And stop googling to back your shite arguments up

 

BTW do you have bad coffee breath and sweaty pits? Most teachers do tbh.

Youre resorting to making this up Chez. I said that indirectly - note the use of the word throughout - we pay the players wages. It is an unwise economist that is quite so literal and I have grave doubts about your academic claims. As for googling? Hardly sunshine. The fact that you feel that is necessary when nothing has been noted beyond GCSE economics level tells its own story tbf.

 

As for coffee breath and sweaty pits? Well the NUT make it compulsory and I have been with them since they gave me the best pencil case during my teacher training many moons ago!

 

I made a point about buying a ticket entitling you to nothing more than entering the ground. You disagreed so i reiterated this disagreement for you. Simpleton.

 

All you've then said is that you doubt i have any qualifications, denied spuriously googling and admitted you've got bad breath. Not the greatest comeback i've seen.

 

I've said once what my credentials were. I accept you are a schoolteacher too. I dont doubt you are telling the truth.

[gram 0]

You just said what I said earlier I think the word you are struggling to find is stakeholder by the way Your cardigan is ashamed of you

 

No, you thought that buying a ticket was buying a share. I dont.

 

By calling a fan a stakeholder you dont change the nature of what was exchanged in the market. All fans are stakeholders, even ones who stream the games off the net for nowt and contribute to forums but add no revenue to the club.

Nonsense. I said nothing of the sort about shares and tickets.

 

 

I said "You pay to watch the spectacle as a form of entertainment (sic). The exchange of cash for ticket entitles you to enter the ground and view the game. Nowt else. Wages are a contract between employer and employee and does not involve 'customers' tbqfh."

 

You said you pay the players wages to counter that and to suggest that you are entitled to a voice within the club. Thats why we are talking about shares and tickets tbh.

 

And stop googling to back your shite arguments up

 

BTW do you have bad coffee breath and sweaty pits? Most teachers do tbh.

Youre resorting to making this up Chez. I said that indirectly - note the use of the word throughout - we pay the players wages. It is an unwise economist that is quite so literal and I have grave doubts about your academic claims. As for googling? Hardly sunshine. The fact that you feel that is necessary when nothing has been noted beyond GCSE economics level tells its own story tbf.

 

As for coffee breath and sweaty pits? Well the NUT make it compulsory and I have been with them since they gave me the best pencil case during my teacher training many moons ago!

 

I made a point about buying a ticket entitling you to nothing more than entering the ground. You disagreed so i reiterated this disagreement for you. Simpleton.

 

All you've then said is that you doubt i have any qualifications, denied spuriously googling and admitted you've got bad breath. Not the greatest comeback i've seen.

 

I've said once what my credentials were. I accept you are a schoolteacher too. I dont doubt you are telling the truth.

As you are unable to recall the evidence of this discussion I am afraid I seriously doubt yours. I have reiterated several times that in the literal sense then of course the fans dont pay the players wages. Without them, however, there is no market and hence no need for a wage. I am sure you can work the rest out. Its GCSE stuff man. Get a grip. You appear to have some evidence of this googling which is amusing when your performance here is more Peter Ramage than Peter Drucker

[David Kelly 1224]

Rammage was doing ok with Taylor (who was looking brilliant) before his injury. Since he came back though he's had a really awfull run of games and I think everyone was relieved when he had to go off on Saturday.

But anyone like Ramage who gives his all every game doesn't deserve to to be abused. Any player is fair game for criticism but sometimes people go way over the top. I can understand it for players like Luque or Marcelino who don't give a fuck but if someone's trying their best (whether they are good enough or not) they deserve better.

 

This

 

Weren't you one of Andy O'Brien's fiercest critics Mr Kelly.

I like to think of myself as his most fierce

But I never sat booing him at the match or anything like that because no matter how shite he was (and I think he was far worse than Ramage) he always tried his best. It wasn't his fault Robson kept faith with him no matter how badly he played.

[Guest alex]

Andy O'Brien's better than Ramage imo.

[David Kelly 1224]

At least when Ramage heads the ball it doesn't just go straight up in the air every single time.

 

But please don't get me started on O'Brien!