Telegraph readers have their brains in (top) gear
Discussion
The Telegraph are clearly trying to s
t-stir with this article, but it goes a little awry when you read the comments section...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/top-gear/90024...
Seems the Telegraph readers have their heads screwed on as the article has completely failed to stir the screeching harpies they hoped it would (and as it would over on the Guardian site).
So Clarkson made a cool £2m from TG. Good for him - I'll bet the BBC made tens of millions thanks to him. I really do hate journalists sometimes.
t-stir with this article, but it goes a little awry when you read the comments section...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/top-gear/90024...
Telegraph said:
Jeremy Clarkson pockets £2.14m from Top Gear
Jeremy Clarkson made £2.14m from Top Gear last year thanks to a lucrative deal struck with the corporation.
The figures, twice what he received last year, underlines how he has become one of the BBC's most successful performers in spite, or because, of his ability to cause controversy.
His annual windfall is thanks to a complex deal he struck with BBC Worldwide to ensure he benefits from the motoring show being shown in 198 different countries as well as the spin-off DVDs, merchandise and live shows.
Accounts filed at Companies House for Bedder 6, a company he specifically set up a few years ago to take advantage of the Top Gear brand, show that his own cut amounted to £1.79m in the year to March 2011, up from £829,000 the previous year. On top of this, he is paid £350,000 as a performance fee by the BBC, taking his total annual pay from Top Gear up to £2.14m.
This payment tops a colourful year for Clarkson, which ended with the Top Gear Christmas special pulling in 5m viewers, his ex-wife accusing him of being a "bully and a hypocrite", while he received a barrage of criticism for his joke that public sector workers should be "executed" for going on strike. His comments, made on the BBC One Show, saw the corporation receive almost 32,000 complaints.
The BBC allowed Clarkson to set up his company in 2006 after fears that the presenter would leave, seriously damaging the global success of Top Gear, which is now broadcast in nearly every country in the world. BBC Worldwide has 50pc stake in the company, but in return Clarkson along with his old friend Andy Wilman, a co-producer on the show, receives the remainder of all the money made from Top Gear T-shirts, remote-controlled cars, watches, mugs, magazines as well as the crucial television royalty fees. Fans can even buy a £6.99 Stig Soap on a Rope, while John Lewis sells a £20 Top Gear board game, all of which helps boost Clarkson's pay.
Pre-tax profits at Bedder 6 jumped from £9.06m to £14.8m, while the dividend paid to the three shareholders – Clarkson, Mr Wilman and BBC Worldwide – increased from £1.68m to £5.95m. The success last year came about mostly because of the increasingly popularity of Top Gear in America, where it was remade for the local audience, and Australia, which receives the British version staring Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May.
BBC Worldwide owns half of Bedder 6, while Clarkson owns 30 per cent and Mr Wilman has a 20 per cent stake.
Clarkson's performance fee from the BBC ensures he is technically not one of the highest paid BBC stars. Last year 19 individuals were paid more than £500,000, but the deal with Bedder 6 calls into question how other corporation stars have structured their finances. Graham Norton is understood to have a similar deal, whereby his production company shares some of the royalty fees from the BBC show.
It is only in the last couple of years that Mr Clarkson has been able to reap the substantial rewards from the worldwide success of the show. Two years ago his dividend was £317,000.
Not only do they fail to state that the because the BBC has a 50% stake in Bedder 6 that they will make as much from it as Clarkson and Wilman combined, but also that it's only thanks to them that the BBC has a successful show on its hands at all. The amount the BBC receives from the franchise must be astronomical.Jeremy Clarkson made £2.14m from Top Gear last year thanks to a lucrative deal struck with the corporation.
The figures, twice what he received last year, underlines how he has become one of the BBC's most successful performers in spite, or because, of his ability to cause controversy.
His annual windfall is thanks to a complex deal he struck with BBC Worldwide to ensure he benefits from the motoring show being shown in 198 different countries as well as the spin-off DVDs, merchandise and live shows.
Accounts filed at Companies House for Bedder 6, a company he specifically set up a few years ago to take advantage of the Top Gear brand, show that his own cut amounted to £1.79m in the year to March 2011, up from £829,000 the previous year. On top of this, he is paid £350,000 as a performance fee by the BBC, taking his total annual pay from Top Gear up to £2.14m.
This payment tops a colourful year for Clarkson, which ended with the Top Gear Christmas special pulling in 5m viewers, his ex-wife accusing him of being a "bully and a hypocrite", while he received a barrage of criticism for his joke that public sector workers should be "executed" for going on strike. His comments, made on the BBC One Show, saw the corporation receive almost 32,000 complaints.
The BBC allowed Clarkson to set up his company in 2006 after fears that the presenter would leave, seriously damaging the global success of Top Gear, which is now broadcast in nearly every country in the world. BBC Worldwide has 50pc stake in the company, but in return Clarkson along with his old friend Andy Wilman, a co-producer on the show, receives the remainder of all the money made from Top Gear T-shirts, remote-controlled cars, watches, mugs, magazines as well as the crucial television royalty fees. Fans can even buy a £6.99 Stig Soap on a Rope, while John Lewis sells a £20 Top Gear board game, all of which helps boost Clarkson's pay.
Pre-tax profits at Bedder 6 jumped from £9.06m to £14.8m, while the dividend paid to the three shareholders – Clarkson, Mr Wilman and BBC Worldwide – increased from £1.68m to £5.95m. The success last year came about mostly because of the increasingly popularity of Top Gear in America, where it was remade for the local audience, and Australia, which receives the British version staring Clarkson, Richard Hammond and James May.
BBC Worldwide owns half of Bedder 6, while Clarkson owns 30 per cent and Mr Wilman has a 20 per cent stake.
Clarkson's performance fee from the BBC ensures he is technically not one of the highest paid BBC stars. Last year 19 individuals were paid more than £500,000, but the deal with Bedder 6 calls into question how other corporation stars have structured their finances. Graham Norton is understood to have a similar deal, whereby his production company shares some of the royalty fees from the BBC show.
It is only in the last couple of years that Mr Clarkson has been able to reap the substantial rewards from the worldwide success of the show. Two years ago his dividend was £317,000.
Seems the Telegraph readers have their heads screwed on as the article has completely failed to stir the screeching harpies they hoped it would (and as it would over on the Guardian site).
So Clarkson made a cool £2m from TG. Good for him - I'll bet the BBC made tens of millions thanks to him. I really do hate journalists sometimes.
Bill Carr said:
So the Telegraph is doing the politics of envy now? Is nothing sacred?!
In what way does the article suggest that? It's just a statement of fact.And more to the point, it shows how popular Top Gear - and therefore cars - are regardless of what self-appointed voices of the people tell us.
So Clarkson earns the BBC 6m a year? Good work! And an astute decision by the BBC because otherwise they would have been left with nothing.
ETA: On re-reading the article I'm not sure if the 6m is each, or split 3 ways. Still, 2m pays for a fair bit.
ETA: On re-reading the article I'm not sure if the 6m is each, or split 3 ways. Still, 2m pays for a fair bit.
Edited by UnderTheRadar on Monday 9th January 18:44
someone on website said:
No one can begrudge Clarkson this sort of money.
Let's face it, we have £4.5 billion a year taken from us to fund the BBC, and Top Gear represents at least 50% of the watchable output, so £2.14 million does seem that bad.
Plus, the BBC makes vast amounts of money exporting Top Gear around the World - probably helping the Beeb stay afloat and pay for all those copies of The Guardian.
Let's face it, we have £4.5 billion a year taken from us to fund the BBC, and Top Gear represents at least 50% of the watchable output, so £2.14 million does seem that bad.
Plus, the BBC makes vast amounts of money exporting Top Gear around the World - probably helping the Beeb stay afloat and pay for all those copies of The Guardian.
Well maybe 25% of the watchable output
Daniel1 said:
Haggleburyfinius said:
I'm surprised he doesn't earn more to be honest.
Yeah, so am I. Thought it would be a lot more. Clarkson will be paid that £350,000 up front for the show but he also gets a fairly hefty amount of money for all the follow on showings on Dave and others around the world. I saw something stating James May had got a few hundred thousand for them.
I should think that "Bedder 6" only takes a cut of the licensing. It'll be "owned" by BBC Worldwide, the commercial bit, which probably also makes the most use of the licensing. I think that's probably quite a tax-efficient way of doing it. IIRC BBC income from Top Gear in total is more along the lines of £60m a year. Hate him as many do, but he's the best value employee the BBC have.
Ozzie Osmond said:
RacerMDR said:
It's entrepreneurial and I applaud him.
Think you'd better get a new dictionary. Whatever Clarkson may be, you'd have to try very hard indeed to attach the word entrepreneurial to it.- entrepreneurial - willing to take risks in order to make a profit
What people have their knickers in a twist about it would seem is that a company founded by a person they dislike doing something they bemoan had the temerity to make a profit and then share that with its shareholders.
Its one of the few programs that me and my 13yo son both enjoy. I also have a shower everyday. Haggleburyfinius said:
I'm surprised he doesn't earn more to be honest.
That's only his income from activities that use the services of the BBC. On top of that you need to include revenue from non Top Gear DVDs, books, journalism contracts, public speaking, TV appearances, income from property assets etc etc.
The BBC income is the smaller element of the machine which is why they gave him 50% of certain revenues from the show as they knew the amount they could pay him directly wouldn't be enough to guarantee his retention.
My only single concern would be just how much of the income is channeled via the purposely purchased property on the Isle of Mann and this avoids UK tax?
I do doubt that any worldwide revenues touch UK shores which is a shame but also how much of the UK derived income is channelled via the IoM?
Funk said:
Bill Carr said:
So the Telegraph is doing the politics of envy now? Is nothing sacred?!
I was disappointed to read that too. Normally the sort of thing you'd get on the Wail or Grauniad.Edited by Funk on Monday 9th January 16:54
heppers75 said:
Really I thought someone who setup a business became a director of said business with the risks that entails should said business fail, as well as I assume employing people within that business and taking a personal level of responsibility for that is exactly that, indeed the definition I found of the word....
- entrepreneurial - willing to take risks in order to make a profit
What people have their knickers in a twist about it would seem is that a company founded by a person they dislike doing something they bemoan had the temerity to make a profit and then share that with its shareholders.
I don't mind what the guy earns but what 'risk' did he take to be classed as an entrepreneur?- entrepreneurial - willing to take risks in order to make a profit
What people have their knickers in a twist about it would seem is that a company founded by a person they dislike doing something they bemoan had the temerity to make a profit and then share that with its shareholders.
He was an employee until he decided to leave, when the Company was set up, mainly to be tax efficient. The foundation for his Company was provided by the publicly owned BBC, he took no personal financial or other risk. His 'business' was also given a running start by being founded on a well established programme, the rights of which were also owned by the BBC.
Hardly an entrepreneur.
JC was smart enough top realise the public appetite for the tacky, celebrity and outrageous has never been greater and he cashed in. Good for him but let's not credit him with doing great works.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff