Nope, just another Clarkson "woe is me" column masquerading as the opposite of what it is. The irony which you seem unable to discern is, he's been the whale in the analogy calling the shots for as long as anybody can remember so it's a bit rich to now suggest he's the "plankton"!!!
Quandary for you though - Support Clarkson or the BBC? Toughie....
The first time the BBC attempted to cancel Doctor Who, in 1984, they were forced into a u-turn within a week due to negative publicity. This didn't help Doctor Who in the long run as senior management no doubt resented being forced into the u-turn, & TV just got more subtle about how to kill off long running shows with fanbases. They change the timeslot, put it opposite Coronation Street, make changes to the format, cut the budget, keep stalling and say there might be more but it's not decided yet etc etc. You need to make people not care first, because if you axe something that people have nostalgia for and could be argued still has legs you're risking a backlash.
Under normal circumstances the above would probably have been how Top Gear faded away when the beeb had had enough of it. Maybe it is fitting it's going out with a bang instead. :cool:
Hmm.
Which of the actors in Dr. Who at that time, were under investigation for being in breach of the terms and conditions of their employment?
The biggest lie in show business has always been "Back by public demand."
Nope, just another Clarkson "woe is me" column masquerading as the opposite of what it is. The irony which you seem unable to discern is, he's been the whale in the analogy calling the shots for as long as anybody can remember so it's a bit rich to now suggest he's the "plankton"!!!
Now that is your personal interpretation (with Clarkson as the whale). It is different from mine.
Quandary for you though - Support Clarkson or the BBC? Toughie....
It's no quandary. especially if it is accepted that there is a region that can be seen by those that want to that exists between black and white.
Probably nonsense but I expect in Danny Cohen's eyes a Left Wing, Gay, Luvvie would be the perfect replacement. Just add a Lesbian and a Muslim as co-presenters and that would be his dream team.
The Stig being hetro would be OK because he doesn't speak
No it says that the BBC appoints presenters by quota not ability. Do you really think if Clarkson were pitching Top Gear to Danny Cohen today he'd allow such a 'white' hetro show on TV?
The fans who've lobbied so hard to have TG and Clarkson back, might perhaps ask themselves whether it's in the best interests of Jeremy Clarkson to have a long rest without the pressures of TG.
He's put endless energy into the programme for 13 years, he does not take care of his body in any way, his private life is a mess that cannot support or sustain him, he had no proper time to mourn his mother and the end of his marriage last year, and he needs serious medical intervention if the stories are true.
It looks very much as if he's having the biggest mid-life crisis In The WORLD.
His crisis is hurting many more people than himself. He's hurt his wife and children, he's probably wrecked the career of a blameless producer, his colleagues have been essentially suspended along with him and may not be in a position to renew their own contracts which expire around now, an entire production crew is in limbo. This is not their fault - they didn't report him. It's not the BBC's fault - they have procedures they have to follow. It's not the young producer's fault (and if it's true that JC went round to talk it through - still 6'3" and stressed - I think Tymon was very wise not to answer the door. What was JC thinking? ) He needs time and space to sort himself out.
The fans just want him to 'perform' for their pleasure, it seems to me.
The fans who've lobbied so hard to have TG and Clarkson back, might perhaps ask themselves whether it's in the best interests of Jeremy Clarkson to have a long rest without the pressures of TG.
He's put endless energy into the programme for 13 years, he does not take care of his body in any way, his private life is a mess that cannot support or sustain him, he had no proper time to mourn his mother and the end of his marriage last year, and he needs serious medical intervention if the stories are true.
It looks very much as if he's having the biggest mid-life crisis In The WORLD.
His crisis is hurting many more people than himself. He's hurt his wife and children, he's probably wrecked the career of a blameless producer, his colleagues have been essentially suspended along with him and may not be in a position to renew their own contracts which expire around now, an entire production crew is in limbo. This is not their fault - they didn't report him. It's not the BBC's fault - they have procedures they have to follow. It's not the young producer's fault (and if it's true that JC went round to talk it through - still 6'3" and stressed - I think Tymon was very wise not to answer the door. What was JC thinking? ) He needs time and space to sort himself out.
The fans just want him to 'perform' for their pleasure, it seems to me.
i agree with some maybe even much of this. 'you're only as good as your last ...' springs to mind here. yes JC has been wrong in some of the things he has said, yes it's wrong to punch someone full stop, however those things aside (don't mean that in a flippant way) folk should also remember JC has given millions of viewers a great deal of enjoyment over the years and yes, he has been an integral part of TG.
having said all that, i 'do' feel it's time for him to go and i believe TG can still be a success with him 'if' they get the presenter and content mix right moving forward.
having said all that, i 'do' feel it's time for him to go and i believe TG can still be a success with him 'if' they get the presenter and content mix right moving forward.
Whether it is time for him to go (as in "move on from Top Gear") should be addressed separately and not as part of the disciplinary hearing (and any subsequent sanctions).
Is Top Gear in global decline? I know it still makes good money but the US series is cancelled and ratings are down in some regions like Russia and China, where they used to be strong.
Is it possible they know their days are numbered anyway, so Clarkson decided to go out with a bang rather than fade away after the money it makes the BBC free-falls in a couple of years?
Come off it - that food chain analogy is little different from saying "small cog in a large machine",
I can see what he's getting at. I'm surprised that you cannot.
At the end of the day Clarkson punched someone he worked with. Anyone else would have lost their job for gross misconduct without any recourse at all, let alone probably having the police involved for assault.
But of course, the idiots who sign the 'petition' are effectively signing that they believe he's above employment law and common law.
Even though the BBC will probably continue Top Gear anyway with or without Jeremy Clarkson, I don't think the show would work without him.
That's an opinion of course, but I don't think at any time soon the BBC will be coming to you (or me) for advice on whether it will or not.
it depends a lot on what the format of any new version is like and how well it's received. It doesn't necessarily have to appeal to "the old guard" it just needs sufficient people to watch it, for the BBC to trot out the often used phrase, "We're satisfied with the ratings." So not necessarily in the same sort of numbers that it once was.
They might gear it towards viewers who are interested in cars, rather than those who like to watch three old farts play silly buggers,.
What about Chris Evans as a possible replacement? He's high profile, very much a 'BBC face' and now seen as safe but not boring, and he likes fast cars and may be able to get all those Formular 1 people involved like he does on his radio show.
I'm not asking whether people like him personally or not, just whether he's a likely candidate for a lead presenter in a possible new-format Top Gear that perhaps moves well away from the current format - which is somewhere inbetween 'Last of the Summer Wine', The Word and 'Auf Wiedersehen, Pet'.
I'm not sure if a 'normal' and practical motoring show giving long and boring reviews of the new Ford Focus would get many viewers these days. Like computers, modern cars used to be very varied and people got excited by them but now they're all much of a muchness. It's only expensive sports/luxury cars that are exciting, especially when you race them against fighter jets and stuff.
What about Chris Evans, Suzy Perry and Tiff Needel?
At the end of the day Clarkson punched someone he worked with. Anyone else would have lost their job for gross misconduct without any recourse at all, let alone probably having the police involved for assault.
But of course, the idiots who sign the 'petition' are effectively signing that they believe he's above employment law and common law.
Even though the BBC will probably continue Top Gear anyway with or without Jeremy Clarkson, I don't think the show would work without him.
This is the thing. I think the BBC are fully capable of producing another car-related show that is successful. I think the BBC are fully capable of producing another entertainment show that is successful. The BBC may be fully capable of producing another car-related entertainment show. But they are not capable of producing Top Gear without Jeremy Clarkson, and I also highly doubt an alternate show would reach anywhere near the levels of success.
What the BBC has done more than anything else is prove its incompetency regarding all of these Top Gear/Clarkson controversies. There are a great deal of controversial and scandalous identities managed by agents, broadcasters and corporations around the world...far more effectively than the Beeb does with Clarkson, even though many of them commit far worse scandal. At the end of the day the BBC enjoys a scapegoat.
They saw fit to let him take a lot of the rap for the whole Argentina controversy, which to some extent seems to have been remembered as a Clarkson problem rather than a Top Gear problem. It was never indicated that he purchased the car with the controversial number plate as opposed to the producers who plan and arrange these road trips. It was also quickly proved that the vehicle in question had had that number plate for well over a decade, though no attempts were made to put Clarkson in the clear. Aside from all of that, the presenters were actually very civil in the Patagonia Special, with James May even describing the Argentinian and Chilean people as "charming" whilst they were held up in their hotel.
Worse still was the handling of the whole "ni**er" song scandal. A piece of unbroadcast footage, where the objectifiable word is hard enough to distinguish (I genuinely don't believe he said it) and Clarkson put out a public video of apology for anyone it may have offended...and yet he was put on a 'last warning'. The BBC shot themselves in the foot with that one, compromising Clarkson's position big time and indeed that of Top Gear...
But of course, the idiots who sign the 'petition' are effectively signing that they believe he's above employment law and common law.
...which brings us to the farce that has been this recent Oisin Tymon problem. Because it's not about believing that Clarkson is above employment law, it's because there isn't a universal rulebook concerning these issues and that sometimes common sense is the correct direction to take... a lot of other people are too idiotic to realise that though.
Thinking objectively, it would be a massive blow to the BBC to sack Jeremy Clarkson. It is a gamble at best (and it's straining credulity) to try and continue Top Gear without the man, so the BBC needs to realise that sacking Clarkson is essentially a bullet to Top Gear. James May and Richard Hammond are likely to go with it too. But then you look further and see the cost of everything else surrounding this scandal, and how the BBC are on very thin ice if they don't do what they can to reinstate the man...
- The show gets cancelled, resulting in the loss of BBC2's biggest brand, as proven by the fact that all the episodes aired this year make the 'most watched' shows of the year for the channel, including the top spot.
- The BBC loses millions in revenue. Top Gear is their most marketable franchise and earns a massive fortune in merchandise around the globe, it's test track having an iconic status, The Stig being one of several patented items from the programme, and the show having a Live Tour equivalent that is scheduled to go ahead in Norway in the near future.
- The BBC has already had to begin making compensation arrangements to the territories that Top Gear is distributed in (which is a lot) as a result of cutting Series 22 short and causing hassle with international broadcasting schedules (as a result of Series 22 being simulcast). Top Gear is distributed to over 210 territories... by comparison the hugely successful Game of Thrones is distrubuted to fewer than 150...just for some perspective on how big the show is, and how costly it is to the BBC to lose it.
- If the show is not reinstated, the BBC will have to renegotiate a lower cost to the 210+ territories for the distribution rights to Series 22, as a result of it being shorter than it was in the original contract of purchase. Again, more money lost...and in a time when the BBC already has a fight on its hands trying to justify the TV licence.
- The entire crew of Top Gear will be out of a job if the show is cancelled, including one Oisin Tymon. This is not a problem for the likes of Clarkson, May and Hammond who will find easy work...even likely all together on a motoring show with a rival network. It is in fact everyone else who loses out, with jobs that aren't necessarily easy to replace.
- The BBC will be forced to fund and invest in new content to fill the annual schedule gap of Top Gear, which this year amounts to an astonishing 12 weeks of weekend television. That's the equivalent task of losing Doctor Who, and finding a new sci-fi show to fill the void. Or losing Merlin and finding a new fantasy show to fill the void - we saw how that worked out with the costly and ultimately unsuccessful Atlantis.
- At least (and almost certainly more than) 1 in 5 regular viewers of Top Gear has signed the petition to reinstate Clarkson. These are the people who help fund the BBC by means of the TV licence. The BBC has no conditions to receive said petition but would be considered unwise to ignore the public voice, or forget that they described Top Gear as an alternate voice, or something to that effect.
If Clarskon committed a seriously violent act then letting him go seems the only course of action - though his own actions are something we can all personally dispute here, without ever being closer to knowing what happened.
However if this altercation was only minor, and either hyped by the media or exagerrated by Clarkson/Tymon themselves then that should be heavily considered also. The two have attempted to reconcile to some extent or other, and both have made it clear that they would love to keep their jobs. It was Clarkson who reported this 'fracas' in the first place, perhaps entitling him to the benefit of the doubt where this is all concerned, though again that is at the dependence of the severity of what he did.
Most fundamentally though, again, there is no universal rulebook for this. There isn't a one-outcome-fits-all solution, and anyone who tries to suggest that he simply deserves the sack clearly isn't doing very much thinking. Sometimes common sense has to prevail, and unfortunately not a lot of it seems to be going around - from the BBC itself, to the people hastily shooting Clarkson down, to those who undermine the severity of what it would mean to lose him. At the end of the day, Clarkson is here to stay - he's either going back to Top Gear or he'll find work elsewhere, he's popular and employable. The only entities set to lose out are the poor unfortunate people out of work because of this, Oisin Tymon who will be out of work and remembered (perhaps unfairly) as the man who brought down Top Gear, and the BBC itself who is looking increasingly incompetent in their dealings with these kinds of issues.
///Most fundamentally though, again, there is no universal rulebook for this. There isn't a one-outcome-fits-all solution, and anyone who tries to suggest that he simply deserves the sack clearly isn't doing very much thinking.///
If he is found guilty of gross misconduct after receiving a final warning (his words and what did that mean, if he offended again, he'd have has sweets stopped for a day?)
Then under the terms and conditions of his employment he should be sacked.
With employment law, you can't have one rule for one and not for another, just because it's financially inconvenient.
Abomination - that really is a top post and worthy of some kind of award. Sadly it's almost certain to fall on deaf ears as too many people can't possibly imagine a resolution that doesn't follow some rule book to the absolute letter. Seems that's already happened actually...
Good post though, and in line with what a lot of people have been saying but are finding themselves being shouted down by the rules is rules mentality.
What about Chris Evans as a possible replacement? He's high profile, very much a 'BBC face' and now seen as safe but not boring, and he likes fast cars and may be able to get all those Formular 1 people involved like he does on his radio show.
I'm not asking whether people like him personally or not, just whether he's a likely candidate for a lead presenter in a possible new-format Top Gear that perhaps moves well away from the current format - which is somewhere inbetween 'Last of the Summer Wine', The Word and 'Auf Wiedersehen, Pet'.
I'm not sure if a 'normal' and practical motoring show giving long and boring reviews of the new Ford Focus would get many viewers these days. Like computers, modern cars used to be very varied and people got excited by them but now they're all much of a muchness. It's only expensive sports/luxury cars that are exciting, especially when you race them against fighter jets and stuff.
What about Chris Evans, Suzy Perry and Tiff Needel?
If we assume for a moment that Clarkson is going and the other 2 will stay around, then the new presenter needs to be someone that gets on well with the existing 2 first and foremost. They need to be able to a bit childish when required and have the charisma to front a show watched by 1/4 billion people. Being interested in cars probably comes 4th on the list.
I just can't see any of the people on the list fitting the bill and TBH I can't think of anyone else who could. The problem is if you get rid of Clarkson, you need someone like him to fill the spot, to balance out the other 2.
Comments
On the basis of that plankton analogy?
Come off it - that food chain analogy is little different from saying "small cog in a large machine",
I can see what he's getting at. I'm surprised that you cannot.
What? Painting himself as the victim? Yes, that's crystal clear.....
Nope, just another Clarkson "woe is me" column masquerading as the opposite of what it is. The irony which you seem unable to discern is, he's been the whale in the analogy calling the shots for as long as anybody can remember so it's a bit rich to now suggest he's the "plankton"!!!
Quandary for you though - Support Clarkson or the BBC? Toughie....
Hmm.
Which of the actors in Dr. Who at that time, were under investigation for being in breach of the terms and conditions of their employment?
The biggest lie in show business has always been "Back by public demand."
The BBC won't do anything they don't want to do.
It's no quandary. especially if it is accepted that there is a region that can be seen by those that want to that exists between black and white.
Says more about your views than those of the BBC
No it says that the BBC appoints presenters by quota not ability. Do you really think if Clarkson were pitching Top Gear to Danny Cohen today he'd allow such a 'white' hetro show on TV?
He's put endless energy into the programme for 13 years, he does not take care of his body in any way, his private life is a mess that cannot support or sustain him, he had no proper time to mourn his mother and the end of his marriage last year, and he needs serious medical intervention if the stories are true.
It looks very much as if he's having the biggest mid-life crisis In The WORLD.
His crisis is hurting many more people than himself. He's hurt his wife and children, he's probably wrecked the career of a blameless producer, his colleagues have been essentially suspended along with him and may not be in a position to renew their own contracts which expire around now, an entire production crew is in limbo. This is not their fault - they didn't report him. It's not the BBC's fault - they have procedures they have to follow. It's not the young producer's fault (and if it's true that JC went round to talk it through - still 6'3" and stressed - I think Tymon was very wise not to answer the door. What was JC thinking? ) He needs time and space to sort himself out.
The fans just want him to 'perform' for their pleasure, it seems to me.
i agree with some maybe even much of this. 'you're only as good as your last ...' springs to mind here. yes JC has been wrong in some of the things he has said, yes it's wrong to punch someone full stop, however those things aside (don't mean that in a flippant way) folk should also remember JC has given millions of viewers a great deal of enjoyment over the years and yes, he has been an integral part of TG.
having said all that, i 'do' feel it's time for him to go and i believe TG can still be a success with him 'if' they get the presenter and content mix right moving forward.
Is it possible they know their days are numbered anyway, so Clarkson decided to go out with a bang rather than fade away after the money it makes the BBC free-falls in a couple of years?
At the end of the day Clarkson punched someone he worked with. Anyone else would have lost their job for gross misconduct without any recourse at all, let alone probably having the police involved for assault.
But of course, the idiots who sign the 'petition' are effectively signing that they believe he's above employment law and common law.
http://bigamericannews.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/640px-Picard-facepalm.jpg
That's an opinion of course, but I don't think at any time soon the BBC will be coming to you (or me) for advice on whether it will or not.
it depends a lot on what the format of any new version is like and how well it's received. It doesn't necessarily have to appeal to "the old guard" it just needs sufficient people to watch it, for the BBC to trot out the often used phrase, "We're satisfied with the ratings." So not necessarily in the same sort of numbers that it once was.
They might gear it towards viewers who are interested in cars, rather than those who like to watch three old farts play silly buggers,.
I'm not asking whether people like him personally or not, just whether he's a likely candidate for a lead presenter in a possible new-format Top Gear that perhaps moves well away from the current format - which is somewhere inbetween 'Last of the Summer Wine', The Word and 'Auf Wiedersehen, Pet'.
I'm not sure if a 'normal' and practical motoring show giving long and boring reviews of the new Ford Focus would get many viewers these days. Like computers, modern cars used to be very varied and people got excited by them but now they're all much of a muchness. It's only expensive sports/luxury cars that are exciting, especially when you race them against fighter jets and stuff.
What about Chris Evans, Suzy Perry and Tiff Needel?
These posts are so tiresome now.
This has been answered before they are not complete. As they film the links the Wedensday before the Sunday transmission.
This is the thing. I think the BBC are fully capable of producing another car-related show that is successful. I think the BBC are fully capable of producing another entertainment show that is successful. The BBC may be fully capable of producing another car-related entertainment show. But they are not capable of producing Top Gear without Jeremy Clarkson, and I also highly doubt an alternate show would reach anywhere near the levels of success.
What the BBC has done more than anything else is prove its incompetency regarding all of these Top Gear/Clarkson controversies. There are a great deal of controversial and scandalous identities managed by agents, broadcasters and corporations around the world...far more effectively than the Beeb does with Clarkson, even though many of them commit far worse scandal. At the end of the day the BBC enjoys a scapegoat.
They saw fit to let him take a lot of the rap for the whole Argentina controversy, which to some extent seems to have been remembered as a Clarkson problem rather than a Top Gear problem. It was never indicated that he purchased the car with the controversial number plate as opposed to the producers who plan and arrange these road trips. It was also quickly proved that the vehicle in question had had that number plate for well over a decade, though no attempts were made to put Clarkson in the clear. Aside from all of that, the presenters were actually very civil in the Patagonia Special, with James May even describing the Argentinian and Chilean people as "charming" whilst they were held up in their hotel.
Worse still was the handling of the whole "ni**er" song scandal. A piece of unbroadcast footage, where the objectifiable word is hard enough to distinguish (I genuinely don't believe he said it) and Clarkson put out a public video of apology for anyone it may have offended...and yet he was put on a 'last warning'. The BBC shot themselves in the foot with that one, compromising Clarkson's position big time and indeed that of Top Gear...
...which brings us to the farce that has been this recent Oisin Tymon problem. Because it's not about believing that Clarkson is above employment law, it's because there isn't a universal rulebook concerning these issues and that sometimes common sense is the correct direction to take... a lot of other people are too idiotic to realise that though.
Thinking objectively, it would be a massive blow to the BBC to sack Jeremy Clarkson. It is a gamble at best (and it's straining credulity) to try and continue Top Gear without the man, so the BBC needs to realise that sacking Clarkson is essentially a bullet to Top Gear. James May and Richard Hammond are likely to go with it too. But then you look further and see the cost of everything else surrounding this scandal, and how the BBC are on very thin ice if they don't do what they can to reinstate the man...
- The show gets cancelled, resulting in the loss of BBC2's biggest brand, as proven by the fact that all the episodes aired this year make the 'most watched' shows of the year for the channel, including the top spot.
- The BBC loses millions in revenue. Top Gear is their most marketable franchise and earns a massive fortune in merchandise around the globe, it's test track having an iconic status, The Stig being one of several patented items from the programme, and the show having a Live Tour equivalent that is scheduled to go ahead in Norway in the near future.
- The BBC has already had to begin making compensation arrangements to the territories that Top Gear is distributed in (which is a lot) as a result of cutting Series 22 short and causing hassle with international broadcasting schedules (as a result of Series 22 being simulcast). Top Gear is distributed to over 210 territories... by comparison the hugely successful Game of Thrones is distrubuted to fewer than 150...just for some perspective on how big the show is, and how costly it is to the BBC to lose it.
- If the show is not reinstated, the BBC will have to renegotiate a lower cost to the 210+ territories for the distribution rights to Series 22, as a result of it being shorter than it was in the original contract of purchase. Again, more money lost...and in a time when the BBC already has a fight on its hands trying to justify the TV licence.
- The entire crew of Top Gear will be out of a job if the show is cancelled, including one Oisin Tymon. This is not a problem for the likes of Clarkson, May and Hammond who will find easy work...even likely all together on a motoring show with a rival network. It is in fact everyone else who loses out, with jobs that aren't necessarily easy to replace.
- The BBC will be forced to fund and invest in new content to fill the annual schedule gap of Top Gear, which this year amounts to an astonishing 12 weeks of weekend television. That's the equivalent task of losing Doctor Who, and finding a new sci-fi show to fill the void. Or losing Merlin and finding a new fantasy show to fill the void - we saw how that worked out with the costly and ultimately unsuccessful Atlantis.
- At least (and almost certainly more than) 1 in 5 regular viewers of Top Gear has signed the petition to reinstate Clarkson. These are the people who help fund the BBC by means of the TV licence. The BBC has no conditions to receive said petition but would be considered unwise to ignore the public voice, or forget that they described Top Gear as an alternate voice, or something to that effect.
If Clarskon committed a seriously violent act then letting him go seems the only course of action - though his own actions are something we can all personally dispute here, without ever being closer to knowing what happened.
However if this altercation was only minor, and either hyped by the media or exagerrated by Clarkson/Tymon themselves then that should be heavily considered also. The two have attempted to reconcile to some extent or other, and both have made it clear that they would love to keep their jobs. It was Clarkson who reported this 'fracas' in the first place, perhaps entitling him to the benefit of the doubt where this is all concerned, though again that is at the dependence of the severity of what he did.
Most fundamentally though, again, there is no universal rulebook for this. There isn't a one-outcome-fits-all solution, and anyone who tries to suggest that he simply deserves the sack clearly isn't doing very much thinking. Sometimes common sense has to prevail, and unfortunately not a lot of it seems to be going around - from the BBC itself, to the people hastily shooting Clarkson down, to those who undermine the severity of what it would mean to lose him. At the end of the day, Clarkson is here to stay - he's either going back to Top Gear or he'll find work elsewhere, he's popular and employable. The only entities set to lose out are the poor unfortunate people out of work because of this, Oisin Tymon who will be out of work and remembered (perhaps unfairly) as the man who brought down Top Gear, and the BBC itself who is looking increasingly incompetent in their dealings with these kinds of issues.
Thanks.
It wasn't made clear in the news as to why the episodes would not be aired.
If he is found guilty of gross misconduct after receiving a final warning (his words and what did that mean, if he offended again, he'd have has sweets stopped for a day?)
Then under the terms and conditions of his employment he should be sacked.
With employment law, you can't have one rule for one and not for another, just because it's financially inconvenient.
That's all the "thinking" that's required.
Good post though, and in line with what a lot of people have been saying but are finding themselves being shouted down by the rules is rules mentality.
I just can't see any of the people on the list fitting the bill and TBH I can't think of anyone else who could. The problem is if you get rid of Clarkson, you need someone like him to fill the spot, to balance out the other 2.