Gordon Ramsay: the culinary hot ticket is beginning to cool down

Gordon Ramsay's blustery, loud-mouthed persona is not going down so well with the public these days. Photograph: Channel 4

Gordon Ramsay has been no stranger to bad news in the last couple of years. His restaurant empire has faltered; he has been accused of torrid sexual wrongdoings; former proteges have turned against him.
Through it all, the two central relationships in his life have appeared to stand firm: that to his wife, Tana, and to his father-in-law and business partner, Chris Hutcheson. Last week, however, the second of these was shown to be less resilient than was thought when it was announced that Hutcheson had left his position as CEO of Gordon Ramsay Holdings Ltd.
It isn't yet clear what caused the rupture (all we know is that it followed a blazing row) but the implications for Ramsay cannot be anything other than extremely worrying. More than any other setback to have befallen the Glasgow-born chef in recent times, this one surely casts severe doubts over his future. It isn't much of a secret that Hutcheson has been integral to Ramsay's meteoric rise over the last 12 years, acting as his adviser, role model and even surrogate father, and effectively overseeing the day-to-day running of the business while Ramsay was busy turning himself into a TV celebrity.
It could be argued that Ramsay is now big enough (and rich enough) to flourish without his former mentor. After all, after a rocky patch following the credit crunch his business is no longer in the red financially (it posted impressive profits of £4.2m in the 11 months leading up to August) and he'll no doubt be able to find someone else to run it for him. Moreover, his fame won't disappear overnight.
The truth, though, is a bit more complex. Ramsay's success has always rested on a delicate balance between three things: his reputation as a chef; his acumen (aided by Hutcheson) as a businessman; and his fame as a TV personality. The three have reinforced each other in a sort of virtuous circle; remove any one from the equation, and it's hard to see how the other two would survive.
Ramsay's greatest current difficultly, arguably, is that, although he is still doing well in purely financial terms, the other two prongs of his success – his culinary reputation and fame – are beginning to look somewhat tarnished. The reputation of his restaurants is no longer what it was. Back in the early 2000s his flagship Royal Hospital Road restaurant was rightly seen as the most exciting place to eat in London, if not Britain. In the newly published 2011 Harden's guide to London's restaurants, it is ranked just 17th.
In addition to his own (much neglected) skills in the kitchen, Ramsay's other great strength has always been his ability to discover and nurture talent. But his two most brilliant proteges – Marcus Waering and Angela Hartnett – are no longer with him. Restaurant empires are ultimately propped up by the chefs, and Ramsay's, these days, seems worryingly lacking in this respect.
And while he remains very much a presence on our TV screens, there is evidence that here, too, the Ramsay shtick is starting to wear thin. People have grown tired of his all-swearing, tough-guy persona. But his attempts to convince us that, beneath the bluster, he is really a kind soul – the subtext of his voyage of discovery round India in Gordon's Great Escape this year – have so far proved unconvincing. Nor does his latest series, Ramsay's Best Restaurant, based on a segment from his magazine show The F-Word, seem set to revive his reputation: in both critical and audience terms, it has so far met with an unenthusiastic response.The one thing we can be certain of about Ramsay is that his will to succeed is incredible, and it is much too early to write him off. But without Hutcheson these will be severely testing times for him both professionally and personally. Those close to him may have to get used to a lot more swearing.

Russell Brand and Katy Perry marry in India

Katy Perry covers herself with a jacket as she arrives with Russell Brand at the airport in Mumbai. Photograph: Punit Paranjpe/AFP/Getty Images

The singer Katy Perry and entertainer Russell Brand were married on Saturday at a "private and spiritual ceremony" at a wildlife sanctuary in India. The wedding took place at the Aman-e-Khas luxury resort outside the Ranthambhore tiger sanctuary, 80 miles from the "pink city" of Jaipur. A spokesman for the couple said a friend of Perry's family conducted the service. A hotel official said Brand and Perry wore traditional Indian clothes, with the bride and female guests in saris. Brand's wedding procession from a nearby resort was said to include 21 camels plus elephants, horses, dancers and musicians. PA

Russell Brand and Katy Perry's very big day

A baby elephant marked Russell Brand's arrival. Photograph: Digital Zoo/Getty Images

Russell Brand and Katy Perry tied the knot in India over the weekend at a luxury resort within a Rajasthani tiger reserve. The most extravagant wedding of the year reportedly featured:
▶ A Bollywood banquet with drummers, dancers, fire eaters and snake charmers.
▶ Camels, horses and a baby elephant for Brand's arrival, a tiger named Machli as a gift for his bride, and another that got into the wedding party to the horror of security staff.
▶ 1,380 cans of soft drinks and 4,800 bottles of mineral water.
▶ Celebrity attendees including P Diddy, David Walliams and Jonathan Ross.
▶ A fortune-telling parrot, who informed the newlyweds they would have a long marriage, children and, most importantly, successful careers.
(William Hill is offering odds of 7-2 on a break-up before the end of 2011.)

George Osborne should introduce a Rooney tax

Wayne Rooney. Photograph: Tom Jenkins

Naturally enough, the first thing I did on hearing that Wayne Rooney had squeezed another £42m out of Manchester United was wonder what economists would make of such a jackpot. The second thing I did was read a bunch of monographs to find out. Yes, I'm serious. No, I can't help it. Stop shaking your head.
Pug-faced footballers interest me about as much as conveyancing solicitors, who have had far more impact on my life. There was even a brief period at school when I thought this Man U everyone else was talking about was actually a Burmese military dictator. So if you want an in-depth discussion about whether Rooney just wanted to play alongside his mate Carlos Tevez, then my advice is to move on to the sports section, whose writers will take good care of you.
What interests me is how a striker who has only scored one goal this season, who had a terrible World Cup, who is in what's widely described as the worst form of his career, can command a weekly wage reportedly between £200,000 and £250,000. And for that, economists have some answers. Even better, whether left or right, Chicago or Cornell, their arguments yield some common suggestions for what can be done about it. Best of all, in these austere times, those suggestions involve imposing higher taxes on the people who earn such huge amounts. We can even call it a Rooney tax, and demand that George Osborne introduces one in his next Budget.
The first thing economists suggest about the explosion in players' wages is that there is little incentive for the clubs to stop paying out so much. Put bluntly, clubs pay top dollar for top talent because it keeps them at the top of the table. Studying the performance of 40 English clubs over two decades, the sports economist Stefan Szymanski found that their wage bills accounted for 92% of the variation in their league positions. In Italy, the link was a tad stronger at 93%.
Set aside precise calculations of value for money, put out of your mind the (very real) prospect that a manager might overpay for a forward who then spends most of his time on the bench or in physio, and turn a blind eye to the recklessness that some clubs have shown in running their finances. The implication of this finding is clear: a club that wants to go places is under a huge amount of pressure to spend a lot on players. The same goes for directors hiring staff at investment banks and producers casting actors for a film.
I'm lumping Cristiano Ronaldo together with Bob Diamond and Robert Pattinson for a reason: they're all examples of what economists sometimes refer to as superstars. And the second thing economics teaches us about superstar pay is that it is fruitless to work out whether Yaya Touré really is that much better than other midfielders. In The Economics of Superstars, published in 1981, the Chicago academic Sherwin Rosen argued that those generally agreed to be the best in their field generally scoop the vast majority of the rewards.
"If a surgeon is 10% more successful in saving lives than his fellows, most people would be willing to pay more than a 10% premium for his services," Rosen wrote.
The other point Rosen made was that when it became possible for more people to witness a brilliant performance, then the top performer would make even more money. And if you think about it, audiences from Nepal to Nebraska are better able than ever before to witness the same performances – through satellite TV, DVDs and iTunes.
Rosen's work on superstars is probably the most widely quoted in the entire field – proof perhaps of his own theory. As a description of a process it is both ingenious and elegant. But it is less good for football and other team pursuits (banking, films) than solitary sportsmen and novelists. Still, here is the main point to take away from his argument: a significant sum of the wages paid to superstars is not merited solely by their talent, but by the simple fact that they are in pole position in their field. It is the rank that is being rewarded, not the person.
Put that argument together with Moshe Adler's work on superstars. Adler believes that people are naturally attracted to what other people value – it gives them something to talk to others about, and a common culture. So it is that hordes of people will read the latest Dan Brown or teenage girls will all get into the Saturdays.
Ranking, the spread of technology, and the development of a common culture: superstars benefit from all of these and yet have little to do with any of them. There is therefore no reason why film stars, footballers or financiers should hold on to so much of their earnings.
The lesson from Rooney's negotiations, according to my economics monographs, is that we would be quite entitled to levy a higher rate of tax – call it the Rooney rate – on superstars. It's hard to see what harm it would do. RPattz is unlikely to throw in his job to work at Tesco. Tevez is unlikely to retrain as a corporate lawyer. As for Rooney, it might even encourage him to spend more nights indoors with Coleen.

Can celebrities deal with airport security?

Jedward obeying the 'Do not climb on luggage trolleys' rule at Heathrow airport. Photograph: Infphoto.com

Airport security. A place where queuing is mandatory. Where answering, "Of course not, my people see to that" to the question "Did you pack that suitcase yourself, sir?" is not going to go down well. Where your stash of smack is considered neither creative nor cool. In short, one of the few places where celebs have to play by the same rules as the rest of us.
No wonder so many come unstuck. The latest to fall foul of it are Jedward, who claim they are being repeatedly stopped for being famous – we're using that term loosely – rather than out of understandable curiosity to check whether they are, in fact, human. So on the off-chance you are a celebrity, here's a list of Don'ts to make your next flight easier:
Don't look like an idiot If you really don't want to get held up, then don't backcomb your hair so it stands two feet in the air.
Don't treat airport staff as if they were your own This one's for Diana Ross. Your minions might be grateful for the odd beating, but it goes down badly elsewhere. PS, the staff aren't trying to cop a feel, as you claimed in 1999: they are searching you for drugs and weapons. It's their job. Not that you know what a job is . . .
Don't take any drugs with you As John Lennon memorably said when Paul McCartney was busted at Tokyo airport, "What the hell did he think he was doing? We've got people to do that sort of thing for us" (or words to that effect). Whitney Houston take note.
Don't forget to count When a sign says "Only one piece of hand baggage allowed" it doesn't mean "Apart from Sharon Stone".

Blake Lively and Penn Badgley: It's Over!

Gossip Girl stars Penn Badgley and Blake Lively have ended their three-year romance, a rep for the twosome exclusively tells the new issue of Us. OMFG!
They called it quits in mid-September, amicably. "They’re professionals," an insider says of the pair. "They're still good friends and hang out on the set."
The duo, who met as preteen actors in L.A., then began dating as their characters were dating on Gossip Girl, "kept this news to themselves for a while."

Blake Lively and Penn Badgley have broken up after almost three years.

Indeed, they have always taken a drama-free approach to their relationship, and that includes the breakup aspect of it. They just go about their business.
Even those closest to the twosome may be shocked to hear the news. "Nobody on set had any idea," says the insider. "They're really just private."
We're sorry to hear about this breakup news, although it does put a new spin on Blake's rumored hookup with Ryan Gosling earlier this month.

Audrina Patridge Reality Show: Picked Up By VH1!

Audrina Patridge may have been voted off Dancing With the Stars for no reason last night, but at least she received some unrelated good news to lift her spirits.
Her new reality show got the green light!
"The show with Mark Burnett got picked up by VH1 so the journey continues!" she told Us backstage Tuesday. "It's a reality show about me and my family."

From The Hills to DWTS to ... The Audrina Show?

"Everything that people have wondered about me, they'll now get to see! And I hope Tony [Dovolani, her Dancing With the Stars partner] will be on it! I'd love to make some trips to NY to see him because we are such good friends now!"
As for getting the boot on Dancing With the Stars despite great efforts, Audrina Patridge said, "There's nothing I can really say. It was meant to be, I guess."
"I've learned a lot about myself. I've found a new confidence. I feel like I'm maturing more. There are so many things going around in my head right now."
No word on what her new show will be called, but we're happy for The Hills alum, and hope this softens the blow of last night's absurd elimination somewhat.