Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...

[Countdown]

FourWheelDrift said:

Owned by the UK State owned Network Rail and if Scotland goes independent they have every right to dismantle it and ship it south of the border

Scotland is part of the UK so it owns a part-share of ALL UK assets. This means it owns part of the bridge. It also means that Scotland owns part of the Houses of Parliament, Tower Bridge, St Paul's Cathedral, Buckingham Palace.....

If people insist on dismantlung/repatriating "their" share of state owned assets it could get a tad messy.....

[Halb]

On assets created posted 1707 maybe? Since the two Kingdoms kept their own laws and suchlike, I would think a lot of stuff is only tired together from the modern era.

[Halb]

On assets created posted 1707 maybe? Since the two Kingdoms kept their own laws and suchlike, I would think a lot of stuff is only tired together from the modern era.

edit.
It got me thinking.
The trickiest part might be the crown lands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate#Crown_l...

[Otispunkmeyer]

marshalla said:

One of the things I really hate about BBC "management" is their obsession with ratings - they need to be reminded that they don't need to worry about audience share because they don't need to generate income from commercial sources. It's handed to them on a plate. They should just get on with producing good programmes and forget about chasing the "trends". Their role should be to do exactly what the commercial outfits don't.

So that's how we've ended up with televisual wk stains like the voice !

[200bhp]

marshalla said:

One of the things I really hate about BBC "management" is their obsession with ratings - they need to be reminded that they don't need to worry about audience share because they don't need to generate income from commercial sources. It's handed to them on a plate. They should just get on with producing good programmes and forget about chasing the "trends". Their role should be to do exactly what the commercial outfits don't.

But they do have motivation to make popular programs - Look how much money Top Gear has made for them over the years. The money from that goes into other projects that wouldnt be possible with the licence fee alone.

The format of shows like Strictly Come Dancing have been sold worldwide and made lots more money for them.

If the government is going to cut the licence fee portion of their income, their survival will be dependant on producing popular shows.

A quick look online shows that whilst the licence fee generated 3,726M they generated 1,340M elsewhere

[cologne2792]

I'm a huge Top Gear fan and enjoy all the daftness but consider this scenario: The live tour lasts six months and is essentially Top Gear in all but name. The BBC realise that in the likelihood of the licence fee being scrapped they'd better do something to generate some revenue and in a a rare moment of clarity decide that a Top Gear Reboot isn't going to do that. What's the betting that at the end of the live shows the three reunite for a video version...then a Christmas Special...then another video...then a series, initially called Clarkson, Hammond & May but eventually changing - in a year or so - to Top Gear as the BBC 'bows' to public opinion...

[r11co]

cologne2792 said:

The BBC realise that in the likelihood of the licence fee being scrapped they'd better do something to generate some revenue...

The licence fee is not going to be scrapped and replaced with nothing. The proposal is to switch to a conditional access model (ie. viewing card) with subscriptions. All well and good except (a) the most commonly available CA system in the UK is controlled by Rupert Murdoch (OK, so they 'sold' NDS on but it is still his ex. Mossad chums doing the research work) and (b) conditional access only protects broadcast TV and can be defeated by restreaming over IP.

I don't think ditching the licence fee is a good thing because of (mainly) 'a' above. I suspect though that if the BBC actively curtail their leftie bias and ditch some of their champagne socialist (like Danny Cohen) then the question of the licence fee might go away, or at least fall dormant for a while.

[Scuffers]

r11co said:

I don't think ditching the licence fee is a good thing because of (mainly) 'a' above. I suspect though that if the BBC actively curtail their leftie bias and ditch some of their champagne socialist (like Danny Cohen) then the question of the licence fee might go away, or at least fall dormant for a while.

just can't see that happening without breaking it up.

The cosy carrousel of appointees in the BBC is simply too great to deal with.

one solution is to separate out the BBC as a broadcaster with the production units, ie, things like Top Gear and Strictly are perfectly capable of being stand-alone productions, commissioned by the BBC, but no content management from on high (other than their original contracted brief).

the bigger problem is what you do with the news team(s) and associated output?

I like Andrew Marr and the daily politics show's, but it's hard to get away from the blatant bias of some of the individuals, and their propensity to bring in the same tired old leftie's to comment is beyond a joke, they must have some of them on retainers.

[Smollet]

200bhp said:

But they do have motivation to make popular programs - Look how much money Top Gear has made for them over the years. The money from that goes into other projects that wouldnt be possible with the licence fee alone.

The format of shows like Strictly Come Dancing have been sold worldwide and made lots more money for them.

If the government is going to cut the licence fee portion of their income, their survival will be dependant on producing popular shows.

A quick look online shows that whilst the licence fee generated 3,726M they generated 1,340M elsewhere

As a master of interest do the BBC sell their soaps such as Eastenders, Casually or say Holby City around the world or are they just a national production?

[200bhp]

Smollet said:

As a master of interest do the BBC sell their soaps such as Eastenders, Casually or say Holby City around the world or are they just a national production?

I dont think they sell the format of the show in the same way that they do Strictly Come Dancing. However, Eastenders is shown on pay TV here in Australia (Foxtel) so I assume the Australian network (and those in other countires) pay per episode.

Actually, among the recent furore regarding the Clarkson incident it was said that foreign networks paid per series of Top Gear so one could assume that is the case for the rest.

[Otispunkmeyer]

r11co said:

cologne2792 said:

The BBC realise that in the likelihood of the licence fee being scrapped they'd better do something to generate some revenue...

The licence fee is not going to be scrapped and replaced with nothing. The proposal is to switch to a conditional access model (ie. viewing card) with subscriptions. All well and good except (a) the most commonly available CA system in the UK is controlled by Rupert Murdoch (OK, so they 'sold' NDS on but it is still his ex. Mossad chums doing the research work) and (b) conditional access only protects broadcast TV and can be defeated by restreaming over IP.

I don't think ditching the licence fee is a good thing because of (mainly) 'a' above. I suspect though that if the BBC actively curtail their leftie bias and ditch some of their champagne socialist (like Danny Cohen) then the question of the licence fee might go away, or at least fall dormant for a while.

with you here. I don't think it will be scrapped wholesale. I'd like to see it stay with the caveat that there is a decent spring clean and a sort out. They do produce a lot of rubbish like the voice that panders to the numbers, but then there are also gems hidden away on the lesser channels that are stunningly produced and would never be made by a commercial channel. Like that sharks program, who else is gonna fund a guy to swim around in a swamp for 11 months to capture a few fleeting moments of footage of a particular type of shark?

[Diderot]

M

Otispunkmeyer said:

r11co said:

cologne2792 said:

The BBC realise that in the likelihood of the licence fee being scrapped they'd better do something to generate some revenue...

The licence fee is not going to be scrapped and replaced with nothing. The proposal is to switch to a conditional access model (ie. viewing card) with subscriptions. All well and good except (a) the most commonly available CA system in the UK is controlled by Rupert Murdoch (OK, so they 'sold' NDS on but it is still his ex. Mossad chums doing the research work) and (b) conditional access only protects broadcast TV and can be defeated by restreaming over IP.

I don't think ditching the licence fee is a good thing because of (mainly) 'a' above. I suspect though that if the BBC actively curtail their leftie bias and ditch some of their champagne socialist (like Danny Cohen) then the question of the licence fee might go away, or at least fall dormant for a while.

with you here. I don't think it will be scrapped wholesale. I'd like to see it stay with the caveat that there is a decent spring clean and a sort out. They do produce a lot of rubbish like the voice that panders to the numbers, but then there are also gems hidden away on the lesser channels that are stunningly produced and would never be made by a commercial channel. Like that sharks program, who else is gonna fund a guy to swim around in a swamp for 11 months to capture a few fleeting moments of footage of a particular type of shark?

Or the groundbreaking footage birth of a polar bear cub in a zoo and then claim it was shot in the wild. .

[Ayahuasca]

A million each per year to Hammond and May if they stay with 'new' TG. If they take it will they be seen a teeny bit like Judases?

[p1stonhead]

Ayahuasca said:

A million each per year to Hammond and May if they stay with 'new' TG. If they take it will they be seen a teeny bit like Judases?

Its a trio as far as im concerned. Without Clarkson it would be just like one of their standalone solo shows - May's are often great, Hammond's are dire.

It just wouldnt be Top Gear.

I really hope Netflix buy it.

They would make a fortune distributing it around the world surely.

[pork911]

Ayahuasca said:

A million each per year to Hammond and May if they stay with 'new' TG. If they take it will they be seen a teeny bit like Judases?

they won't and it wouldn't anyway

how many times have you resigned/not renewed in support of a colleague clouting another colleague?

[wolves_wanderer]

Ayahuasca said:

A million each per year to Hammond and May if they stay with 'new' TG. If they take it will they be seen a teeny bit like Judases?

Only by idiots I would imagine. Still, it would represent a logical start point to pay negotiations for any "new" Top Gear that Clarkson/Wilman would want to do.

[DrDoofenshmirtz]

How much did they earn from the BBC before?
I thought it was more than that?

[soad]

DrDoofenshmirtz said:

How much did they earn from the BBC before?
I thought it was more than that?

£500k per series?

[Ayahuasca]

DrDoofenshmirtz said:

How much did they earn from the BBC before?
I thought it was more than that?

Apparently they earned 500k per season of TG. JC earned double that amount. So the BBC is offering to double Hammond and May's TG income. The Beeb must be desperate.

[Esseesse]

p1stonhead said:

I really hope Netflix buy it.

Indeed, or, Apple are rumoured to have been making bigger moves with Apple TV recently. They need some quality content on there.