Robert Irvine versus Gordon Ramsay - Page 4

The point is a lot of people on here think these guys actually own all of their places and built and financed them alone. And as I said I look at some of them like a franchise.!  Or its like who do you know and not what you know. And in theory you do not own your house till title is turned over and mortgage to lender or financial institution is paid in full, at least not here in Florida..

Quote:

Originally Posted by chefedb 

... And in theory you do not own your house till title is turned over and mortgage to lender or financial institution is paid in full, at least not here in Florida..

Well, you may not "own the home", but you certainly "own the equity in the home" (yes, I know, I KNOW, in this day and age that equity may be negative!).
 

Didn't mean to turn this into a discussion of real estate laws and practices (although, Ed, I suggest you check Florida's homestead act before you make categorical statements about home ownership in that state). The point was that a partner is a partner, whether you brought talent to the table or finances, or merely buy stock in a company. So long as you have an equity position you are an owner.

Anyone want to make a case that my ten shares in GM don't make me an owner?

Ownership, and partnership, doesn't mean that everybody has an equal share in the business. But whether you hold 1% or 99% you are still an owner. And come what may, that's all a restaurant is, a business whose function is delivering prepared food to customers.

More to the point, suggeting that anyone here, let alone "a lot of people on here," believes that the celebrity chef whose name is on the door put up the financing out of his own pocket, built the building, stocked the furniture, etc. is naive at best. He/She may or may not have contributed to those decisions. But they do not determine whether he/she is an owner.

Mario Batali's name is on the door because it brings in customers, whereas Joe Bastianich's name wouldn't attract dinner #1. But that doesn't make either one of them more or less an owner.

Or its like who do you know and not what you know.

I think not. Something can only be marketed if it's marketable. If your name is Bobby Flay, or Robert Irvine, or Mario Batali, or Gordon Ramsey, than you have something a moneyman is willing to take a chance on. If your name is Ed Buccanan, maybe not so much.

But let's say you're name had that kind of draw, and you wanted to open a turnkey restaurant. Obviously, you don't have a whole lot more money than I do. So you turn to my son, Seth, who is an investment banker. As a rule, he insists, on the companies he helps, in taking part of his fee in stock. You agree, up front, that you will retain 40% of the stock, for the value of your name. Seth with take a 10% equity position. You further agree that, while you will be in charge of menu design, recipe development, oversight, etc. you won't be running the place day to day. Here's how it breaks down:

ChefEd: Owner

Seth: Owner

Investers: Owners

Architect: Non-owner, is paid a fee.

Contractor: Non-owner, is paid a fee.

Design consultant: Non-owner, is paid a fee.

Actual chef: Non-owner, but might have a share of revenues.

What you've been arguing is that given these circumstances you are not really an owner, despite holding title to 40% of the joint. If the place is successful I doubt that your heirs and assignees will feel quite the same.

KYH I suggest you also check the laws. re. Homestead. 

. Homestead in Florida is in this day and age strictly for saving on taxes. You can still be foreclosed on and even the marshall can come to the premise and assist in throwing you out.Trust me I already had to foreclose on someone that I sold house to.that I held paper on. Homesteading by the way was done when Florida was developing and state issued an incentive to own and purchase homes.

You would be surprised how many students as well as others think the chef did it all. Unlike you and I that are involved in the business on a daily  basis some people don't know. Also when you purchased your 10 shares of GM you PURCHASED an equity share.

Also when you purchased your 10 shares of GM you PURCHASED an equity share.

So what? Maybe I bought them. And maybe I was gifted with them. And maybe they were issued to me in return for services rendered. Doesn't matter how I obtained title. Just legally having them makes me an owner in the company.

Same with a restaurant or any other business. If I have title to any part of it, then I can describe myself as an owner.

some people don't know

I'm sure some people---2 or 3 or even a dozen---don't. But that's a long way from "lots of people on here." Given the thousands of people belonging to this community, and their positions as industry professionals, passionate home cooks, and serious foodies, I doubt if there's a significant number who are unaware of how restaurants are fiscally organized.

I'd really be interested in hearing from those who, until this thread, believed that the typical chef-owner self financed his restaurant.

Then call it a matter of interpretation. yours and mine totaly differ. You are entitled to yours and I mine, thats what makes the world go around.

While I really don't like Ramsay as a person or as a chef, I can't stop watching his shows. Being from down under I don't imagine that episode will be on here for a while but I'm looking forward to it.

Breadmaker - hi from another Aussie :)  I'm the same  with Ramsay's shows.  I know he knows his stuff.  It's just that to me, as to you I think, his shows become addictive.  He is very well marketed you'll have to give him and his P.R./marketing  team a pat on the back.   They package him well for the audience.

 The shows of his I like best are the Kitchen Nightmare ones (I think that's the right name).  Followed closely by Hell's Kitchen just for the hilarity.

So far i'm liking Ramsay's "nightmare" better than Irvine's. Has nothing to do with either of them as chef's but more with the production of the show. Maybe i'm just used to Ramsay's show and the progression each episode takes. With that said we're only two episodes in on Irvine's version so i might just warm up to it. I certainly hope they don't bring back the design duo from the first show.... that was an unmitigated disaster and I doubt their work on TV will net them any business. It was a trainwreck. 

Gordon was marketed in the United States as a beast but I believe it's more of a production and sales stand point. If you watch his UK show "boiling point" he's a far shade away from what he is portrayed as in Heil's Kitchen, which, IMO is the Jerry Springer of cooking shows but hey.... it sells and people eat it up. 

I think Restaurant Impossible tries to do it all too fast.  2 days is absurd, and a $10k budget is also not a great thing.  I like Irvine's behavior better than than Ramsay's.  Irvine isn't being degrading, insulting, etc.  However, Ramsay doesn't set a budget and constrain the "help" provided by a specific cost.  Ramsay's week-long adventure is, IMHO, much more helpful than two days.  If Restaurant Impossible had the same timeline and less focus on a specific dollar amount, I think it would be a better show. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by piratechefny 

So far i'm liking Ramsay's "nightmare" better than Irvine's. Has nothing to do with either of them as chef's but more with the production of the show.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by DC Sunshine 

Breadmaker - hi from another Aussie :)  I'm the same  with Ramsay's shows.  I know he knows his stuff.  It's just that to me, as to you I think, his shows become addictive.  He is very well marketed you'll have to give him and his P.R./marketing  team a pat on the back.   They package him well for the audience.

 

 The shows of his I like best are the Kitchen Nightmare ones (I think that's the right name).  Followed closely by Hell's Kitchen just for the hilarity.

Very true. It's like they have a stipulation that he has to go completely off-tap at someone at least once in every episode.

it comes down to how much money the networks are willing to shell out to make it happen. Ramsay operates on a bigger budget that's for sure, and i'm sure that they get nice donations from the manufacturers when they use their equipment. that's all on Food TV though, and i know first hand that they are cheapskates. if they want a better show then they need to pony up and allow for a longer remake of the venue and open up the budget. i doubt that will happen though.... they will most likely get enough viewers to sustain the show without doing it well.

Ramsay has run into some real stubborn schmucks who need a good kick in the pants and i don't expect him to go in and baby these people. they called the show for a reason and are in serious trouble. Irvine takes a different approach but i have yet to see him deal with some of the pigheaded people Ramsay has. another part of it is that they are trying to maintain some of that beast in the kitchen attitude that made the soap opera hail's kitchen so popular. again... whatever sells; but i don't think either of his US based shows are an accurate representation of the guy. he is known to be tough (coming up in Marco's kitchen could/should do that) but not to the extreme that we see here on TV. 

I'm an American and I've never heard of Irvine.  What network?  When?  I've never seen him.

I'm looking for an alternative to Ramsay.  At first I saw his shouting and belittling the poor contestants on his show as a device for ratings.  OK for a while, but I'm sick and tired of it now.  He is probably a pretty good chef, but he certainly doesn't share that with the world.  The few times I've seen him on other shows, the recipe was very simple - can't remember exactly what now, but it was like a peanut butter sandwich or something, I thought: any 10 year old could do that.

DD

Irvine is British, but he made his celebrity bones on the Food Network. His primary claim to fame is a show called "Dinner Impossible," in which he and his crew have less than a day to prepare a meal for some really offbeat parties. Naturally there are all sorts of twists, turns, and unlikely scenarios tossed in.

In a fit of moral high dungeon (which is really funny, considering the source), FN fired him for inconsistences (read lies) in his credentials. But his replacement was a dud. Ratings being everything, they quietly hired him back, pretending that there never was a flap over his resume.

He's appeared in a number of their special shows as well, such as Iron Chef America and The Best Thing I Ever Ate. And appeared as a guest alongside a long list of their other stars, including Paula Dean, Rachael Ray, and Guy Fieri.

His newest show, also on FN, is Restaurant Impossible, in which he has two days and ten grand to remake a failing restuarant. Although I'm sure the success of Kitchen Nightmares has much to do with it, there used to be a similarly formatted show on FN that it's more likely based on. I misremember who starred. And there was a similar show, aimed at home kitchens, that Cat Cora starred in.

KYH - that's interesting about Irvine and MI.  I had no idea that had happened.  Personally, I am not one to care much for credentials as such.  The proof is in performance.  I enjoyed that show, if for nothing but the theatre.

I guess eventually we may see Restaurant Impossible here.  If it's along the lines of Kitchen Nightmares and at least half as good, it should be watchable.

I have really never seen Ramsey get in there and do everything like Irvine. They are both good at what they do. I would sooner work side by side  with Irvine.To pull off what he does with $10,000.00 and 1 day or 2 is pretty resourceful.. His prep seems to be done with a lot of shortcuts, but you do what you have to do, As long as patrons walk out happy thats fine.He seems to be a good organizer and good with people, even though he was not Queen Elizabeth's chef.as the food channel said his resume stated.

Mr Irvine may be British, but his fame appears to be based on his work the USA. I have never seen a programme he's 'starred' in, so I have no personal knowledge of his skills or otherwise.

However ... his lies on his CV and training - including Leeds University -  were astounding.  Why LIE?  He seems to be a well-respected chef over there and his TV shows are obviously popular.

A chef who really DID cook for the Queen on HMS Britannia is Tony Singh, an Edinburgh-born Sikh, who owns 2 restaurants in Edinburgh, including the amazing Oloroso.   http://www.oloroso.co.uk/about/index.html   Now, he really WAS trained by cooking for queen and VIPs!  Unlike Mr Irvine who seems to have been abstemious with the truth regarding his White House experiences!

What bothers me more than his exaggerations is FN's attempt to take the moral high ground over the issue.

Why did he lie? He's the only one who knows for sure. But we're talking about the entertainment industry, which is built on lies and half-truths. If the producers can do it, why not the talent?

Here's an example. Bobby Flay's Throwdown show. In each case, the ones being challenged are told they'll be part of a special FN is producing, usually  a look at X type thing. So they're all geared up for that, and spend several days cooking, and addressing the cameras, and incurring out of pocket costs, and so forth. Each participant in this special finishes up with a party to demonstrate the highlighted food item(s).

During the party, Bobby Flay shows up unannounced. Surprise! Surprise! It was all a joke. I'm here to challenge you to an X throwdown.

Now here's the $64,000 question: How is FN's format of that show and Robert Irvine's resume different? My contention is, not at all. Or, at best, there's a difference of degree, not of kind.

And ultimately FN really ate crow. After publicly berating Irvine for what he'd done, and taking this phony moral position, they went and hired him back when ratings slipped. Ya gotta love that kind of ethical position: "All is forgiven, Robert. Come home----and make us more money."

Of course, FN has always operated on a double standard when it comes to morality. I'll never forget, during one of the next food network star episodes when Suzie Fogelman---who was herself wearing a dress that demonstrated the old adage that if you give some girls an inch they've got a new bathing suit---berated one of the contestents for using her chest instead of her cooking chops, to garner support. Say what? Does Suzie ever watch her own shows? Giada, and Sandra Lee, and..... well, we all know who they are.

If Hugh Hefner started producing a cooking show called Boobs and Bourguignon he'd only be copycatting many of FNs shows. But it's immoral for a contestent to behave as the current stars do. Gimme a break.

Thanks!  I have to confess my life got better in most ways when I dropped cable.  So I won't be seeing Irvin.   For a while I was on food network withdrawal, I used to leave the TV on all day and since I could not stand soaps, it was mainly on HGTV or FN.  But after  while I got hooked on NPR and after a year or so of watching little to no TV, I dropped cable.   Now days I only turn on the tube when I'm engaged in hobbies, thinking I'll watch when I do them.  But mostly it is on for noise, I could do radio with no loss. 

DD

I like the difference in leadership styles between Irvine and Ramsay, and how they focus individuals.

Gordon is the old military a-type leader: Break them down and then build them back up in the image/form you want them to be.

Robert employes the new synergy-style leadership: Accept people where they are and coach them to adopt new methods where needed.

Both leadership styles have a valid application - I don't think you can just use one or the other. It has to be blended and the right tools need to be adapted to the person or the environment.

Another show that could be a case study for leadersgip is that new Gold Miners show on Discovery I believe. It is about a group of men who head to Alaska to strike it rich.

The show is littered with communication, leadership, personality, group interactions that are almost textbook leadership and management cases.

Very cool to watch, in spite of the fact I could care less about the actual gold minimg point of the show.

Emeril was the only one I cared to watch.  I'd watch Iron Chef if they would give Alton the boot.  

I can think of no one that could do the job that Alton does on ICA better than Alton does it.  I'm amazed at what he does during the show.  The "chairman" is a waste of time, IMHO.  I am curious when they will stop with "The Next Iron Chef", because at some point, they'll have all of the talent as Iron Chefs and no one to compete against them. 
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by redzuk 

Emeril was the only one I cared to watch.  I'd watch Iron Chef if they would give Alton the boot.  

Ah, I can see it now... "Ultimate Cage Cooking!"
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by gobblygook 
...at some point, they'll have all of the talent as Iron Chefs and no one to compete against them.

Prep a meal for 10 with a Blindfold on and Hands Tied together / . Winner is admitted into ''The Order of the Golden Toque.''