So it looks like the winner might be walking away with £116,100. Add to that Jack's £23,900 and Sam and Chloe's £5,000 each and you get a total prize fund of £150k, just as advertised. So Joel was totally right about his Monopoly money theory, and a lot of FMs who are quick to jump to the most derogatory conclusions about HMs and the BB production team will be looking rather eggy-faced.

Nobody's tripping over themselves to admit they were mistaken, I see.

IIRC BB said Jacks money was seperate from the prize fund.

Sorry but I'm not understanding your thread. BB has a total prize fund & that total prize fund was never all going to the winner.....it's been like that for a few years now.

What are you talking about? The 'total prize fund' is the phrase that I chose to use.

Let me guess, you've got an eggy face? Come on, admit what you've said!

IIRC In the task room, BB said the money - that Jack won - was not part of the prize fund.

Was it the question mark in the title that was throwing you off? I've removed it now. I started this thread during the break before we saw BB announcing the prize fund.

How the Hell does someone win some money but it not be considered part of the total prize fund?!

Total prize fund = The total amount of money that the production has put aside for prizes

Total prize fund = Winner's prize money + Jack's winnings + Chloe's winnings + Sam's winnings

So much for the "BB are skint and have to cut the prize money to pay Nikki!" story a few days ago...

Okay, so all of a sudden the forum doesn't care to discuss the money? I mean, it's only been central to the whole of the past week's tasks, and how that relates to how the HMs have been judged by the viewers.

Hindsight changes things, does it not?


..Am I speaking the wrong language here?!

Boom! There we go. Thank you. That's one.

Next?

Joel spent £2,500 of Monopoly money on a small pizza.

After the hit the buzzer task in which Jack won, £24k would have been added to the prize fund one way or another.

That is precisely the point that the op was making.

It didn't matter what anyone bid on pizza, suitcases, football scores etc. It didn't even matter how many tasks they won or lost (because they didn't win them all) - the total cash prizes was always going to equal £150k.

If Jack had not done the fish bath task or he had eaten kfc and breakfast bb would have accordingly upped the amount on offer for the spray tan task at the end knowing he would do it.

I am the OP, you plonker! I was trying to get the discussion going, that's all.

(And spelling it out, as I seemed to have caused some confusion.)

Exactly. He even knew it would wash off. We saw more ham acting from Jack tonight than we saw all series from Showbiz.

My bad. I even thought it while I wrote that post but still thought the point was valid and would explain it to the numpties.

Hasn't the prize fund been reduced before and not put back up to its full amount though? What happened after kitten lost them done of the prize fund in one of the channel 4 bbs?

It's amusing to be quite honest.

Joel was right on the money but ignorance prevailed. Looking into the house, you can see the difficulties with managing a balanced society.

That the total = the original prize amount doesn't mean Joel was right.

I think the point is that whatever the fund was in bb's head was always going to be that figure. If the fund turned out to be 25k in the end it wont have been as a direct result of them buying back cases etc, it will be because bb had already decided.

Bb is always in control of the final figure.

Surely not so blatantly as BB saying, "The prize fund will now be reduced for every time someone spoke" though?

Why was it always going to?


Yes, in at least bb5 and bb10. The amount lose in bb5 because of Kitten was only a part of the total loss. Gaph.

Specifically what he said about BB getting to choose whether the money goes up, down or sideways, regardless of the actions of the HMs, was shown to be completely correct. I'm paraphrasing, obviously.