• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

The ‘I have something to say about Forest that doesn’t warrant its own thread’ Thread

OLDMANRED

Jack Burkitt
It's not.

They released a "charity single".

If they go to form, they'll make 6 times what the charity will get.

It's not a charity single if only 15% goes to the charity and 85% to the 'artist'.

That's the key issue and now the debate is over.
oh no it isn't
 

Redemption

Agenda Benda

I'm Red Till Dead

Stuart Pearce
It's not.

They released a "charity single".

If they go to form, they'll make 6 times what the charity will get.

It's not a charity single if only 15% goes to the charity and 85% to the 'artist'.

That's the key issue and now the debate is over.
But 85% probably wouldn't would it? Was the studio free? Did the lookalikes appear for free? Did they teleport to the studio and to any promos? Did the download vendors like Amazon waive their fees? Do they have accountants monitoring the monies working for free?

There are certain fixed and variable costs associated with making a record and a video to go with it so unless you can get everyone associated with those to waive their fees, Revenue - what goes to charity isn't the amount that goes to Ladbaby is it.

I don't know the details of their costs etc, but I don't think that it is unreasonable that they get some recompense for their efforts. As I said in an earlier post most charities pay people to collect money for them. The folks at the National Lottery make a nice little business out of it. A relative of mine manages a charity shop and gets paid for it whilst others in the shop volunteer, is it wrong that she makes money from doing that?

Getting more out of making the records than the charity earns doesn't sound good but if they charge a fixed amount then the more downloads that sell the more the equation moves in favour of the charity.

At the end of the day though if they raise £5-10,000 for the charity that it wouldn't get anyway that's a good thing isn't it? And whilst a greater proportion of any money would go to a charity if they donated it directly, many probably wouldn't bother doing that particularly without some
going out of their way to draw attention to it.

And that's another unknown isn't it? How many direct donations have been generated mearly because Ladbaby have drawn attention to the charity through their single?
 

Omar Devone Little

Mr Realistic
It's not.

They released a "charity single".

If they go to form, they'll make 6 times what the charity will get.

It's not a charity single if only 15% goes to the charity and 85% to the 'artist'.

That's the key issue and now the debate is over.

15% more than if some twat like Ed Sheeran got Christmas no1.
 

Redemption

Agenda Benda
But 85% probably wouldn't would it? Was the studio free? Did the lookalikes appear for free? Did they teleport to the studio and to any promos? Did the download vendors like Amazon waive their fees? Do they have accountants monitoring the monies working for free?

There are certain fixed and variable costs associated with making a record and a video to go with it so unless you can get everyone associated with those to waive their fees, Revenue - what goes to charity isn't the amount that goes to Ladbaby is it.

I don't know the details of their costs etc, but I don't think that it is unreasonable that they get some recompense for their efforts. As I said in an earlier post most charities pay people to collect money for them. The folks at the National Lottery make a nice little business out of it. A relative of mine manages a charity shop and gets paid for it whilst others in the shop volunteer, is it wrong that she makes money from doing that?

Getting more out of making the records than the charity earns doesn't sound good but if they charge a fixed amount then the more downloads that sell the more the equation moves in favour of the charity.

At the end of the day though if they raise £5-10,000 for the charity that it wouldn't get anyway that's a good thing isn't it? And whilst a greater proportion of any money would go to a charity if they donated it directly, many probably wouldn't bother doing that particularly without some
going out of their way to draw attention to it.

And that's another unknown isn't it? How many direct donations have been generated mearly because Ladbaby have drawn attention to the charity through their single?
It's not abiytv whther the give to charity or not. That's fine if they make some donations.

The issue is that the records are marketed as a "charity record" when in fact only a small percentage of the total sales goes to charity.

People buy the record thinking a large part goes to the charity. But after the fixed the costs, the remainder is split 6 for Ladbaby 1 for the charity.

That's not a charity in my books. It's a grift.
 

I'm Red Till Dead

Stuart Pearce
It's not abiytv whther the give to charity or not. That's fine if they make some donations.

The issue is that the records are marketed as a "charity record" when in fact only a small percentage of the total sales goes to charity.

People buy the record thinking a large part goes to the charity. But after the fixed the costs, the remainder is split 6 for Ladbaby 1 for the charity.

That's not a charity in my books. It's a grift.
I honestly don't know how the money breaks down for the singles, but I doubt that Ladbaby have the clout to get free studio time etc. nor do I know whether they take out more than their expenses.

I was just on the phone to my brother who used to have shops in Nottingham and he said he knew a couple of guys with charity shops there who only paid over 3% to charities there and they were greatful that they got that.

If you are sure of your figures then you could take to social media and point it out and again next year when they announce what their chosen charity is you can explain it again and suggest that people donate directly instead, but woe betide if your figures aren't correct and you face libel charges.

From the charity point of view though I imagine that they welcome any extra money and the free publicity that the singles bring them.
 

Viktor

Bee Gees Fan Club member #00001
So... Do I need to set up different thread about LadBaby being a bell-whiff?
 

Cortez the Killer

Impressive member
It's not abiytv whther the give to charity or not. That's fine if they make some donations.

The issue is that the records are marketed as a "charity record" when in fact only a small percentage of the total sales goes to charity.

People buy the record thinking a large part goes to the charity. But after the fixed the costs, the remainder is split 6 for Ladbaby 1 for the charity.

That's not a charity in my books. It's a grift.
I've bought things in the past that were for charity, despite the 'product' being awful, just because of the charity aspect. The Ladbaby songs are absolutely abysmal, and certainly not anywhere near the alleged 7p in each pound donation to charity.
That's taking the bloke's politics out of it, which is an entirely different thing.

Sent from my SM-G780G using Tapatalk
 

EmmersonForest4

Steve Chettle
I’m trying to find a Forest idea on YouTube. I think it’s forza garibaldi who did it but I can’t find it on their YouTube channel. It’s the one after the playoff final and they sang a song on it to the tune of December 1963 (oh what a night). Can anyone remember it?!?!
 

Notcher

Stuart Pearce
I’m trying to find a Forest idea on YouTube. I think it’s forza garibaldi who did it but I can’t find it on their YouTube channel. It’s the one after the playoff final and they sang a song on it to the tune of December 1963 (oh what a night). Can anyone remember it?!?!
Vaguely yes. I can't remember if it was to the original or the 90s remix by clock.

 

Redemption

Agenda Benda
Nine years ago today we beat Leeds 4-2 and O’Driscoll was sacked just after. I very very nearly stopped supporting Forest that days, would have switched to Stamford or Melton.

Fawaz was such a f***ing bellend.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yeah, but the boring interviews
 

sammy the snake

Jack Armstrong
Off subject but I was shocked to hear that Maxi Jazz of Faithless has passed.

Faithless for me not only changed everything so much for that genre of music house trance..it’s something I associate heavily with Forest re insomnia.. but also Salva Mea. I can be anywhere in the world and the moment I hear Faithless, it’s Forest. Rip man, incredibly talented song writer and artist. Would love an extended tribute from Forest next home game
 

Finding Remo

The artist formerly known as Forest_1865

I'm Red Till Dead

Stuart Pearce
If you want to help, you're far better off directly helping those supposedly benefiting from the charity.

Most charities are non-profit businesses that enjoy tax perks and exist to make their board of directors a tidy wage (the average being £80k).

For anyone interested here is a list of main charities and their CEO salaries
I agree that the charities are better off with direct contributions, but my point is that many of the people who bought the track probably wouldn't have thought about donating to that charity without the song acting as a form of advertising campaign for them. Some people might have thought what a great idea, on hearing the song and donated directly, some may have made a donation as well as buying the track on too, but many of those people probably wouldn't have donated a penny to the charity without the single.

Whilst I would love to see all the profits from the song I don't know what the costs of making it are. I don't know if/what Ladbaby make from from the singles, but I'm sure that the charity gets extra revenue that they wouldn't have otherwise got and that the charity are glad of every penny that comes there way.

Without the song, the charity could well have missed out on £1,000's.
 

football post

I'm still here Crewton

We should have coughed up for all the loan players. That team was immense and would have been a menace to the prem (yes I've had a few).
I've not had a drop and totally agree mate.
We certainly wouldn't be any worse off
 

Rzar

Bob McKinlay
I never get the idea that the loan players would be doing better.

Johnson alone shows how big the step up was and there is no guarentee. You could argue the only player from last year to make the step up has been Yates.

Spence & Garner have made no impact at all. Davis isn't really even rated by Watford fans yet.

It was a wonderful team and we all feel connected to it but this notion that we would be better off with that team in my eyes is a complete myth. Of course it's not based on fact so it's impossible to prove / disprove what would have happened but I don't buy it.
 
Top Bottom