• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Big Brother
Biggins Is Not Getting His £150k Fee
MACTOWIN
06-08-2016
According tomorrows papers BB are refusing to pay him his fee.
SpiritedAway
06-08-2016
Par for the course when a housemate gets himself ejected, surely. That's why the rules are so important, it ties to the money and is included in the contract. However, with Biggins being removed so unceremoniously and without much (from our vantage point) support, I thought BB would pay him anyway.

Really, if the producers are going to pull something like this, they should show the audience all the "offensive or unacceptable language" (that's what the damn disclaimer is for) as well as all the warnings. Not only because this show is meant not to be constructed reality but also to help cover the showrunners own asses when they kick a housemate out over f*ck all.
lon_chaney
06-08-2016
Part of the negotiated settlement with Biggins probably was - we'll keep quiet about the jew comment but you dont get your $150K.
No wonder nobody wants to do CBB and those that do either keep quiet while in the house or just want to get voted out asap. Least grant got his money.
M_J2
06-08-2016
Good, he signed a contract, he knew the rules.....he broke the rules and his contract (according to big brother), so no pay.

Now he will go on the media circus apologising or complaining about "freedom of speech" and maybe getting a bit of money for that.

He can go around with his own free will to talk about all manners of subjects in his local pub.
Nearly New
07-08-2016
To think if he'd kept his opinions to himself and instead gobbed in drinks and smashed mirrors he'd be sitting pretty still.
Jim_Bob5
07-08-2016
Makes no difference to me what goes in his bank account.
JamesLaFleur
07-08-2016
Good. Hopefully we don't see him on SOTS anymore either.
sutie
07-08-2016
Originally Posted by Nearly New:
“To think if he'd kept his opinions to himself and instead gobbed in drinks and smashed mirrors he'd be sitting pretty still.”




Quite. Having an opinion and daring to state it is now against the rules. May as well go the whole hog now, and fill the house with brainless bimbos and moronic grunts who haven't evolved enough yet to even HAVE an opinion.
onfencewithrach
07-08-2016
They probably didn't feel they were getting out of Biggins what they'd hoped for in paying him so much money and decided to get out of it by ejecting him over this so called offensive rule break. Slimy and underhanded.
confuddled
07-08-2016
If what we've seen is the extent of his remarks I hope he sues them.
SULLA
07-08-2016
Originally Posted by confuddled:
“If what we've seen is the extent of his remarks I hope he sues them.”

Me too
marshey
07-08-2016
Originally Posted by onfencewithrach:
“They probably didn't feel they were getting out of Biggins what they'd hoped for in paying him so much money and decided to get out of it by ejecting him over this so called offensive rule break. Slimy and underhanded.”

I was thinking on similar lines. Biggins seemed to be 'comfortable' in the house and was letting the obnoxious behaviour of the Z listers wash over the top of his head. The producers never let us see the grossly offensive stuff that he said .... yes. that's called editing, so how and why are the viewing public offended!?
Spidey1
07-08-2016
He's overrated anyway. all he does is lays back, starts a sentence and does a stupid laugh half way through it . he has nothing to say of relevance.
M_J2
07-08-2016
Originally Posted by marshey:
“I was thinking on similar lines. Biggins seemed to be 'comfortable' in the house and was letting the obnoxious behaviour of the Z listers wash over the top of his head. The producers never let us see the grossly offensive stuff that he said .... yes. that's called editing, so how and why are the viewing public offended!?”


Is it the "viewers" that was or maybe offended or is it possibly the sponsors that would have been the ones the producers/channel are scared of offending? plenty of possibilities...
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map