Do you think she would have paid for the film crew and sound people that were there filming with her as well ?

I've already politely explained the likely circumstances, so why the sarcasm?

The trouble is Quizmike, that their most recent major story on Strictly turned out to be true, and even if people don't believe everything they read, the tabloids recent success has given them some credibility - however short-lived and however undeserved...

I think some actual comments from the people involved, rather than a BBC spokesperson might help, but it's as likely to happen as Rochdale winning the Champions league.

What about the musicians, singers, cameramen, sound guys, producers etc, they have to be paid too, and without them then there would be no show either, so everyone's costs must come out of a budget somewhere. The BBC ( and god help me as i am not defending them) but they have had so much stick over the expenses etc that they have to tread very carefully when it comes to paying performers, and it all comes down to market value i'm afraid. You get what you are worth to the show( and what your representatives can screw them out of). I'm sure the pros realise they are on a good thing and wont rock the boat, even if some did leave i dont think it would affect the show as they would be replaced with someone equally as good.

I think Madeley's press person has already said he was approached but declined (although not saying why). I sure La Osborne will release some screeching self-publicising statement in which she somehow manages to make this about Dannii Minogue within a few days.

I remember a few years back a poster saying that in one of the BBC's SCD annuals a pro had said that the producers choose the music.

We'll never get a straight story. The pros won't rock the boat and will go along with anything the BBC tell them to say.

Got to say that in the past, there's been some "modern" choices I believe no pro dancer in their right mind would choose.



If you think about it, the BBC ensure there's always a "balance" between old and new, to appeal to "yoof."
When you could present this show for decades using different classic old and more recent established ballroom dance tunes that the core audience would recognise.

I'll be surprised now if some BBC "suit" at the BBC doesn't try to introduce this tune this year, given its present appeal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-94JhLEiN0

(actually I like it).

So it's to be a line up of soap stars and washed up singers again, with no big names. Oh I forgot they signed up Alesha she's the star of the show now.

It's becoming less and less likely that I'll even turn it on to watch.

Why do people want Richard M on anyway? he is a ****. I'm pleased he is out. Sharon would have been fun but no one likes her anymore so she wouldn't have got enough votes to stay past week two!

My understanding is that the pro gives the production staff a choice of three or four songs per dance and the producers have the final say.

I've heard that quite a few pros wanted to use Marcy by Duffy for their cha cha last year, but of course only one could have it (Ola...maybe the catsuit swung it!)

They should have just let Erin use it. It was totally wasted on Andrew Castle!

I don't disagree that SCD7 is already a public relations disaster thanks to very badly managed changes implemented to the show (personally, I don't think the changes go far enough - but that's another story ).

However, it is obvious that certain newspapers have leapt on the mistakes made and are milking them for all they are worth. And those newspapers are ones with vehement anti-BBC agendas.

While it is easy to go OTT about Jonathan Ross, his BBC One show doesn't actually get that many viewers - so, despite all the 'outrage', there is a limit to the impact a story slagging him off will have. The die-hard Daily Mail saddos will continue to hate him; his core audience will remain pretty loyal.

Attacking Strictly, on the other hand, is potentially much more damaging to the BBC. It's an extremely popular show with a high profile and one of the Corporation's big hitters. And the BBC needs those shows to help justify the Licence Fee. After all, if nobody is watching, the argument for the LF is weakened. And that is clearly what the newspapers supporting the Tory government-in-waiting want.

Those newspapers lambasted the BBC last year over Sergeant-gate, then the stupidity with the voting in the semi-final. The mess made of replacing one of the judging panel spells just the beginning of a concerted campaign against the show. Sharon Osbourne and Richard Madely electing not to compete isn't actually a big deal in itself - but it can, of course, be spun into a story that makes the programme look stupid.

Strictly will remain in the spotlight for some time to come, and not necessarily for the right reasons. You have been warned ...

Richard Madeley also said last year in his weekend column that he had been approached last year and turned it down as he really couldn't dance or hold any sort of rythm, so I was surprised to see him as a possible contender this year.

I haven't had time to watch today so thanks for the link - it has been in my favourites on YT since I first saw it - guaranteed to make me smile!

I'm pretty sure it was Nicole Cutler who told a DS member when they met at some event what happens about the choice of music.


I didn't know about his lack of rhythm, but I saw him in an interview saying his autobiography was what prevented him doing SCD last year, but he was keen. Why he wants to do it if he really has no rhythm is beyond me though!

If they reduced the numbers of couples to twelve they would save nearly £300,000! It would be much better and then thery wouldn't need the boy/girl separate weeks.


Didn't seem to make a difference for Phil Daniels, Gary Rhodes, Andrew Castle or Mark Foster last year!

Very true! And I agree they could save money by going back to 12 couples!

It didn't seem right starting virtually in the summer last year - SCD is log fires and red wine

That could have been me.

Nicole told us about (I think) her tango week with Barnesy and that she gave the BBC a list of 5 songs she would like to use and they refused them all... and then she gave some more (while training John on a certain song) but again refused... and the Beeb turned round and gave her a song I think only 2 days before the show.

Unfortunately although they'd "save" by doing that, they would then have to spend money on a Saturday peak-time programme for those early weeks. I shudder to think what dire rubbish we'd get.
In my opinion I think it does go on for too many weeks now.
But as a show, how long can it continue?

As I see it, all these new "initiatives" with which they come up each year lesson the programme.

"Come Dancing" went on for years, it's death was more to do with poor presentation, (Rosemary Ford for cryin' out loud), moving it around the schedules and those two clowns Donnie Burns and Gaynor Fairweather camera hogging and so in your face all the time.

They could start it now then, Jude, looking at the weather outside my window.

That is disgraceful.

I wish the pros could just pick songs they like

Absolutely right. It's an obscene amount and particularly compared to what the dancers get. I hope they're not getting their already-quite-paltry salaries cut.

If we did a poll of what makes us watch Strictly, listing all elements separately, i.e. each of the judges, each of the professionals, the celebs, tess and bruce, I'd have a bloody good guess which end of the spectrum bruce and tess would be at.

He isn't funny. Not ever. The Generation Game years are long gone and his whole style just hasn't aged well at all.

Tess is even worse!!

Frankly you could get in any gurning blonde bint ("for the Dads") to do her job, and a lesser known replacement could be a fraction of the cost. Pretty girls are 2 a penny in showbiz and I doubt she would be missed much.

That she earns a hell of a lot more than the pro's beggars belief tbh...

You missed the reasons why there are 1001 celebs.

The minor one is that the voting is so destructive and irrational that they need spare good and excellent celebs to make sure at least 1 or 2 excellent ones get to the final.There have to be lots of dsposable and awful ones to take the fire and go early.

The mega one is that whilst you might save 300k by cutting the numbers of celebs you would leave a gigantic hole in BBC1's programming which would cost more than 300k an hour to fill. The series is long because it fills up the end of year's weekend peaktime slots and its cheap spreading the cast cost and overheads over so many weeks. It even fills BBC2 slots too with ITT . It would take more than 300k I imagine to even fill ITT's slot for a couple of weeks.

I wouldn't be at all surprised if a big majority of the SCD audience watched Brucie in the same Time Slots 35 or whatever years ago . In that sense he is vital to the show and 500k is actually the market rate for the return he brings in. Put another way how many people do you think watch for Brucie and how many for Craig - if their salaries reflect that they are right in market terms.

Well I was in the so-called "big majority" and would never watch for Bruce! I prefer to watch Craig to be honest.

But I see your point.