GoggleBake?

what are they suppose to do - ask the licence payer for more money??

Exactly! Then people would complain about that too! there's only so much they can offer, blame greedy LP

They would rather lose their highest rated show than cut back on Exec. salaries. C4 haven't paid mega bucks as they just don't have the money.

It's government who have forced the BBC to involve itself with private media firms.

It makes no sense in terms of serving the public, it just costs more.

Rather like with healthcare and education.

and yet: Jon Snow defends high pay for Channel 4's top executives
http://www.theguardian.com/media/201...top-executives

I never ever watch a commercial channel 'live' I always record a programme and fast forward through the ads, so it won't bother me in that respect. Long as it's still an hour long without the ads time added on.

Just seen a headline from a paper on Sky News. £75m. 20m too much for the BBC.

What do people think are the figures involved in this? A couple of weeks ago, I was reading that the BBC had secured the show for around £15 million, less than the £20 million being attributed to ITV as a rival bid.

What happened that this number wasn't acceptable, after the previous deal was done at £7.5 million? I also can't rationalise a number around £20 million with a C4 bid - can they pay that kind of money, given the ratings scope of their channel? Right now, their top show is Gogglebox, and that's around the 3.5 million mark (after on demand is added). Will they get bigger numbers than anything else on the channel simply because at least some of the 13 million+ audience will follow it to whatever channel it's on?

If the formula changes, and any one of Mel, Sue, Mary or Paul are not with the show at the start of the new series, I wonder just how massive the drop off will be? Are they banking on 2.5-3 million being satisfactory?

Edit: Just seen the previous post - £75 million?!!!! On Channel 4?! Honestly, Love Productions have made out like bandits and just left the show for dead - there's no way the current format supports a £75 million deal. They are literally throwing money at the show - I imagine the presenters have been offered really, REALLY silly money to stay, and some (maybe all) will not be able to say no to the kind of money that means family security for a very, very long time.

Awww I nearly felt like crying when Michael went out, his little face.. and then when he said 'Hopefully my mum will still be proud of me!'

A really interesting site that brakes down viewing figures, if anyone is interested
http://www.barb.co.uk/viewing-data/weekly-top-30/

BBC and ITV are waaaay above Ch4

How does this deal make sense for Love Productions beyond money? They've just automatically lost 75% of their audience, unless people tune into C4 in numbers not seen for a decade, outside of sports coverage! If they were looking for 'brand growth and protection' C4 seems almost the unlikeliest of places to try and secure that. I just don't get this deal, other than the fact vast sums of money have been thrown at it.

I do hope they will remain the same format, with the original judges and presenters. More about it on Newsnight.
I was hoping GBBO continue to stay on the BBC, because it is one of my fav show and I don't watch many tv programmes on the BBC! Sometimes I wondered what I'm paying my tv licence for.. . Also The Voice has moved to ITV, what other programmes considering leaving too? Ch4 is ok. They have got quite a number of cookery shows and with well-known chefs and cooks!

I'm not a business person by any means, but.. Love Productions make a lot of other programs as well and maybe this deal means a big injection of cash to develop future programs & income. After so many years on BBC, maybe it was time to cash in.
Interesting how many programs they've done:
www.loveproductions.co.uk/programmes/2016

Newsnight says that the talent is not yet signed up, and that Channel 4 were probably willing to take the risk that the presenters wouldn't move with the format. So the deal was done on the format alone. Which is about 10% of the success of GBBO, in my view. The rest is down to the chemistry of the presenters and the whole hour without interruptions (if I don't see a programme live I have to watch online, where there's no avoiding ad breaks). I doubt if all four presenters will move to Channel 4.

New Top Gear crashed because the success of Top Gear was entirely about the presenters and their unique act. The BBC tried to replicate the format and it failed almost entirely because it didn't have Clarkson, Hammond and May.

Ripper Street, OTOH, was taken up by Amazon, who employed the same actors and writers and continued the story (also without adverts). The third season (the Amazon resurrection) was superb. But it was the actors who really made it good.

RIP, GBBO. Nadiya will have been your brilliant high point. This year's winner will be overshadowed by the loss. I'm so sad. I wanted more.

Oh do me a favour. If you added up all the executive salaries at the BBC in total they wouldn't come to what LP was allegedly asking for.

It's not the salaries that have stopped BBC paying for GGBO, it's the current government loading them with the world service (previously paid for by the FCO) and pulling a massive lump of their revenue back by giving everyone over 75 a free licence. Between those two they probably reduced the BBC's funds by just short of a hundred million pounds a year. Just how many executives do you think the BBC has?

Apparently they weren't even involved, they only found out the same time everyone else did.

Given I suspect Mary and Paul at least have absolutely no requirement to keep on working on telly, I think a) they'll be a bit pissed off and b) In her case at least, it may very well more be about that than how much money she might be offered to move. She strikes me as a woman not to be crossed lightly.

I read a few articles saying the presenters (especially Mary) wanted it to stay with BBC but that they had no say and where not consulted.
But they are all professional presenters and there's no point turning down big money just to be loyal to the BBC - it's moving whatever they do now. If their involvement is basically the same as before (and it's the same production company) there's no reason for them not to go with the program and if it doesn't work, then they can still leave having tried it.

As the unofficial GBBO agent, that's what I would recommend.
That will be 15%, please.

I won't watch it if Channel 4 spoil it with ads.

Channel 4's disappeared from my TV in the last 15 mins! #TheBakelashBegins

As professional presenters, they have to guard their own image and value...and Channel 4 is a backwater in TV terms. The money is only part of the package - the damage from being on a 'lesser' channel could cost them in the long run.

I wouldn't say Channel 4 is a backwater but I see your point. Both Mel and Sue (Sue probably slightly moreso) have long running relationships with the BBC now (although the talk show on ITV last year didn't damage any of that). It will be interesting to see what happens next. It seems Sue isn't happy with the move from her retweet (Mel doesn't have Twitter).

Channel 4 is still missing in action on my TV. #TheBakelashBegins

Adverts are going to completely ruin the tension and flow of the programme. Does this mean it will be shorter in order to get the adverts in or will they pad it out for longer?

"And the winner of the Great British Bake Off 2017 is ... " go to adverts.

Love productions? Greed productions, more like.

Who's going out tomorrow then guys and who's staying? I need tips for my work predictor! I'm thinking Val has to go... but I also think Candice and Selasi could be in the firing line too.
For star baker Andrew has been so close on a few occasions but I have a feeling someone like Jane or Kate would fair better on batter week for some reason.

Thoughts?

This. Thank you! Someone actually defending the BBC for once. Makes me sad that so many people seem so keen to do away with the licence and lose a fantastic British institution that does much more than simply providing the BBC TV programmes