According to The Guardian they are not renewing his contract. Same effect as being sacked but less chance of a law suit.
Sort of like the Jonathan Ross situation, although he did briefly return following his suspension to see out his contract before the BBC didn’t renew it and he went to ITV.
The BBC might think it crystal clear that that show will continue, but they don't seem to understand that the trio above are the show. Any other combo of the tall gobby one, the small pretty one and the urbane fellow from a previous age does not work anywhere nears as well. As we've all seen with the poor man's US and Aussie versions of Top Gear.
They do understand. Why else did you think the BBC invested in the trio so much all these years?
Well, you'd be wrong because that's specifically what a non-compete clause is designed to do. It's usually time-limited so there may be nothing stopping him cloning TG in a year or two.
I believe you were thinking of restraint of trade clause, not non-compete clause. The non-compete clause is pretty useless in this country, anyway.
Hmm well see. If JC is indeed sacked he is going to be the first person they call to replace him.
But, as with any of the names being bandied about, Chris would have to want to do it (and quite possibly relinquish another day or two of his Radio 2 programme in order to fit it in. This might be something that he does not want (and let's face it, he is unlikely to be swayed by any financial offers seeing as he is pretty wealthy now).
And as I recall, he as good as said earlier this month that he didn't want the job.
Sort of like the Jonathan Ross situation, although he did briefly return following his suspension to see out his contract before the BBC didn’t renew it and he went to ITV.
I thought that it was Ross himself who decided not to renegotiate his contract and that it was time to move on
Plus he's not entertaining or as funny as Clarkson. It'd be like replacing Mick Jagger. Rest of the band might still be the same but it would be not as good.
b) He is stringing us along until the official announcement
c) He has seen his sacking announced in the press before anyone from the BBC (which should at least be Tony Hall) has even had the common decency to tell him first.
d) the Telegraph story is wide of the mark as it stands
Evans made it pretty clear on his radio show this morning that he has no interest in the role. However, that's not to say that the Telegraph is incorrect - their claim was that BBC bosses are trying to persuade him to do it.
According to The Guardian they are not renewing his contract. Same effect as being sacked but less chance of a law suit..
So another "source" at the BBC ..... the Corporation seems to be like a sieve at the moment. Leaks all over the place. Not good when they are supposedly dealing with someone's BBC career, and not good if Clarkson himself has not been told officially. In this respect, the BBC seem clueless again.
But, as with any of the names being bandied about, Chris would have to want to do it (and quite possibly relinquish another day or two of his Radio 2 programme in order to fit it in. This might be something that he does not want (and let's face it, he is unlikely to be swayed by any financial offers seeing as he is pretty wealthy now).
And as I recall, he as good as said earlier this month that he didn't want the job.
He said earlier this month he doesn’t want the job, and he reiterated this morning he still doesn’t want the job and that it’s never going to happen despite the rumours.
As you’ve said it would probably impact his Radio 2 Breakfast Show job too, and seeing as that’s currently getting 10 million listeners I’d be surprised if the BBC even suggested something to him that could risk that success. Plus he’s busy working on the return of TFI Friday for Channel 4.
Whatever happens with Clarkson, I don’t believe we’ll see Chris Evans presenting Top Gear. Period.
Surely, the evidence is that Top Gear is the most successful factual TV show in the world today. American networks love money over all else, and Top Gear makes that in shed loads. Therefore, buying up the winning formula - which would by definition include the freedom of expression that has made it into such a successful show - would be a no brainer.
It's a 'brand' that has built up over the years if with gay abandon Clarkson & his bosom pals went elsewhere they would not take the Top Gear brand.
American Idol was extremely successful with Simon Cowell on board and continued to be so when Cowell jumped ship and set up X-Factor US, but .... didn't X-Factor get dropped?
What is your source to confirm there is no news yet?
That'll be The Telegraph Live Blog keeping us up to date with non-events as they fail to happen. The last actual fact was at 09:55 when Clarkson tweeted that he knew nothing yet.
It will depend on the circumstances, the courts generally don't want to prevent someone from earning a living. But if the individual has a non-compete clause in his/her contract, and the former employer has a valid reason to enforce the clause, it very likely will be deemed enforceable.
ETA: and why has another source now said that he won't be offered a new contract.
Two different stories now.
It appears that "sacked" and "not offered a new contract" are being interpreted, by the Telegraph and the Guardian respectively, as essentially the same thing. "Sacked" of course sounds more dramatic.
I don't think it makes a difference with regard to speculation about Clarkson suing the BBC for wrongful termination of contract. If he did what he is alleged to have done, then the BBC would in all likelihood be well within their rights to end the contract with immediate effect.
And yet he's managed not to **** anybody during that time using his bad back as an excuse. Amazing! How did he manage it?
How many excuses have found their way into the media since it looked like Clarkson was bang to rights for this ? I've lost count...
About the same number of unfounded claims against him, like "he punched him" for example. You can't base your argument on one rumour while dismissing another rumour as unfounded.
One reporters 'sacked' is the same another reporters 'contract not renewed'.
So the source, being one & the same person, was not being quoted and the papers were applying their own interpretation?
Well, there's a surprise.
Although that still does not alter the fact that this person was way out of line talking to the press in my view (and it's not as if he/they/the BBC had anything to gain by doing so).
This is dealing with talent issues the BBC way - perhaps they should write a book on it.
It will depend on the circumstances, the courts generally don't want to prevent someone from earning a living. But if the individual has a non-compete clause in his/her contract, and the former employer has a valid reason to enforce the clause, it very likely will be deemed enforceable.
For sure, but not so much in the entertainment / TV / film / publishing industries where the clause is a little too broad or slippery for this country's taste. A non-disclosure agreement is the usual replacement as most seem to believe it offers a better traction.
Comments
Oh yeah, scoop from the Western Gazette...! Honestly, why do these local papers rip these national stories off from national newspapers?!
He will be allowed to present Have I Got News For You in April though. Expect lots of fun there especially if he/they have alternative roles.
What is your source to confirm there is no news yet?
Sort of like the Jonathan Ross situation, although he did briefly return following his suspension to see out his contract before the BBC didn’t renew it and he went to ITV.
They do understand. Why else did you think the BBC invested in the trio so much all these years?
I believe you were thinking of restraint of trade clause, not non-compete clause. The non-compete clause is pretty useless in this country, anyway.
And as I recall, he as good as said earlier this month that he didn't want the job.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2015/03/11/chris-evans-categorically-not-and-never-after-jeremy-clarksons-top-gear-role
I thought that it was Ross himself who decided not to renegotiate his contract and that it was time to move on
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8445628.stm
Well Clarkson is always joking so it has to be B.
So another "source" at the BBC ..... the Corporation seems to be like a sieve at the moment. Leaks all over the place. Not good when they are supposedly dealing with someone's BBC career, and not good if Clarkson himself has not been told officially. In this respect, the BBC seem clueless again.
Well, if it is B, then why are the BBC stalling with that announcement.
ETA: and why has another source now said that he won't be offered a new contract.
Two different stories now.
He said earlier this month he doesn’t want the job, and he reiterated this morning he still doesn’t want the job and that it’s never going to happen despite the rumours.
As you’ve said it would probably impact his Radio 2 Breakfast Show job too, and seeing as that’s currently getting 10 million listeners I’d be surprised if the BBC even suggested something to him that could risk that success. Plus he’s busy working on the return of TFI Friday for Channel 4.
Whatever happens with Clarkson, I don’t believe we’ll see Chris Evans presenting Top Gear. Period.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32046547
It's a 'brand' that has built up over the years if with gay abandon Clarkson & his bosom pals went elsewhere they would not take the Top Gear brand.
American Idol was extremely successful with Simon Cowell on board and continued to be so when Cowell jumped ship and set up X-Factor US, but .... didn't X-Factor get dropped?
Yes, but I suspect that will also be the official line from Clarkson too if it goes that way.
Non-compete clauses are absolutely enforceable in the UK.
http://www.steenandco.co.uk/thomas-v-farr-plc---important-court-case-on-non-compete-clauses-_60/
It will depend on the circumstances, the courts generally don't want to prevent someone from earning a living. But if the individual has a non-compete clause in his/her contract, and the former employer has a valid reason to enforce the clause, it very likely will be deemed enforceable.
Because they want to break it gently to David Cameron's daughter first?
It appears that "sacked" and "not offered a new contract" are being interpreted, by the Telegraph and the Guardian respectively, as essentially the same thing. "Sacked" of course sounds more dramatic.
I don't think it makes a difference with regard to speculation about Clarkson suing the BBC for wrongful termination of contract. If he did what he is alleged to have done, then the BBC would in all likelihood be well within their rights to end the contract with immediate effect.
One reporters 'sacked' is the same another reporters 'contract not renewed'.
As I stated the other day I wasn't sure how it was thought he could sue for unfair dismissal if the BBC merely didn't renew his contract.
About the same number of unfounded claims against him, like "he punched him" for example. You can't base your argument on one rumour while dismissing another rumour as unfounded.
Well, there's a surprise.
Although that still does not alter the fact that this person was way out of line talking to the press in my view (and it's not as if he/they/the BBC had anything to gain by doing so).
This is dealing with talent issues the BBC way - perhaps they should write a book on it.
For sure, but not so much in the entertainment / TV / film / publishing industries where the clause is a little too broad or slippery for this country's taste. A non-disclosure agreement is the usual replacement as most seem to believe it offers a better traction.