• 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
  • Broadcasting
BBC Loses Great British Bakeoff
<<
<
30 of 89
>>
>
skp20040
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by CrowleySr:
“If that was the case, neither should have deserted commercial television, where they made their names, for the bbc. Shameful disloyalty”

Their contracts had expired you don't get to stay without a contract, if they had left ITV or C4 mid contract for the BBC then one might say that was bad behaviour but they didn't.

Originally Posted by CrowleySr:
“And Love Productions are ensuring their show is kept on the air, meaning no backroom staff loses their jobs. They spent 12 months negotaiting with the bbc with no success. It's no wonder they walked away and showed loyalty to their staff”

Are you aware of something I am not ? had Loves costs increased more than 200% of late ? the BBC offered a 200% increase Love turned it down as they wanted 400% , and have Love who are apparently just being loyal to their staff given a massive payrise to their staff due to this 400% increase ?
DVDfever
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Charnham:
“the reasons best left unlooked into, I was watching Newswatch a few nights ago, and it seems someone (and it would not shock me if it was someone from this forum) has been having a moan about the airtime given to Bake Off. To counter this BBC News then used this as an excuse to talk about it somemore, without even a generic talking head, saying the usual lines

BBC News trolling I think,”

Not necessarily. They used a comparison that the amount of energy produced by Hinkley Point C would power X,000 number of TVs to watch Bake Off, when they could've just said "....to watch an hour of television".

Originally Posted by Janet43:
“It;s also been stated that they didn't know about the move until just before it was announced.”

Believe that and I've got some magic beans to sell you.

Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“Let's hope Mel and Sue set the new standard, that of integrity and doing what is ethically and morally right.”

Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“No bruv. They did the right thing by turning their backs on the dough and the commercial sector. They (Mel and Sue) have high standards. Respect to them.”

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! Sucked in! Stop believing the hype!

Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“Love broke several rules here this week. 1. They forgot the viewers and ignored them 2. They forgot the broadcaster (and the people) who invested in them in the first place 3. They didn't consult the on screen team and currently have non of them signed up 4. The forgot their public service ethos by putting profit and greed front and centre.”

Rules??

1. All those viewers can still watch it, but on Channel 4. It's only three channel changes away.

3. Again, believe that, I'll sell you some magic beans, too.
Steve9214
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“You are missing the point.
The BBC were not going to axe Bake Off.
The BBC wanted to continue to show Bake Off.
The BBC offered £15 million per year (that is just £3million less than Strictly btw) to Love Productions.
Love Productions over valued Bake Off to ensure BBC would not pay the asking price.

It was already on air. Had Love Productions accepted the BBC's new offer it would have stayed on air. There was no risk to it not being on air.

Now do you understand? The only people who put Bake Off at risk was Love Productions.”

The way this was done sounds to me a lot like the "Snatch of the Day" in the late '70's, when Michael Grade and LWT offered over 3X what the joint BBC/ ITV deal was worth for iTV to have the "exclusive" rights to show football highlights.

The main issue with this was that apparently ITV had a negotiating team made up of executives from all the ITV regional companies, and Grade had ignored them and done the deal without their backing.
Whilst LWT were perfectly capable of showing highlights on a Saturday night - IIRC -some of the other ITV companies were not geared up to be able to do this.

The OFT stepped in and the deal was declared void, as LWT had bypassed the agreed ITV procedures.
skp20040
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Not necessarily. They used a comparison that the amount of energy produced by Hinkley Point C would power X,000 number of TVs to watch Bake Off, when they could've just said "....to watch an hour of television".



Believe that and I've got some magic beans to sell you.





BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! Sucked in! Stop believing the hype!



Rules??

1. All those viewers can still watch it, but on Channel 4. It's only three channel changes away.

3. Again, believe that, I'll sell you some magic beans, too.”

So you believe the BBC, Love and Channel 4 are all lieing, that they all knew in advcne it was leaving the BBC and going to C4 and when BBC announced they had lost the contract and Love announced it was going to C4 that actually this was all done well in advance and just announced that day and they lied for no reason ?
Mark.
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Not necessarily. They used a comparison that the amount of energy produced by Hinkley Point C would power X,000 number of TVs to watch Bake Off, when they could've just said "....to watch an hour of television".



Believe that and I've got some magic beans to sell you.





BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHA! Sucked in! Stop believing the hype!



Rules??

1. All those viewers can still watch it, but on Channel 4. It's only three channel changes away.

3. Again, believe that, I'll sell you some magic beans, too.”

And you're doing it again.

Why are you incapable of interacting in this thread without being rude and insulting?
CrowleySr
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by skp20040:
“Their contracts had expired you don't get to stay without a contract, if they had left ITV or C4 mid contract for the BBC then one might say that was bad behaviour but they didn't.”

So if Berry and Hollywood stay, they won't get any abuse on these forums? That already started when the announcement was made

Originally Posted by skp20040:
“Are you aware of something I am not ? had Loves costs increased more than 200% of late ? the BBC offered a 200% increase Love turned it down as they wanted 400% , and have Love who are apparently just being loyal to their staff given a massive payrise to their staff due to this 400% increase ?.”

They chased the money. Big deal, that's what business does. That's what the bbc did when they resurrected Dr Who, a celebrity version of Come Dancing, House Party, etc. Anyway, when you have 4 presenters on the show, their salary demands tend to rise with each negotiation. That was reflected in LP's talks with the bbc. This is not a betreyal, it is business

After 12 months. LP still had no contract with them. Channel 4 stepped in and now they have a contract. No-one loses their jobs, the show goes on
skp20040
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by CrowleySr:
“So if Berry and Hollywood stay, they won't get any abuse on these forums? That already started when the announcement was made



They chased the money. Big deal, that's what business does. That's what the bbc did when they resurrected Dr Who, a celebrity version of Come Dancing, House Party, etc. Anyway, when you have 4 presenters on the show, their salary demands tend to rise with each negotiation. That was reflected in LP's talks with the bbc. This is not a betreyal, it is business

After 12 months. LP still had no contract with them. Channel 4 stepped in and now they have a contract. No-one loses their jobs, the show goes on”

That is not however what you said you said they had to ensure their show stayed on air and make sure staff kept their jobs , that is very different from refusing a 200% increase and going for 400% .
Ash_M1
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“Thankfully, those nasty Tories of yours have given the BBC a bit of a reprieve. They don't have to put 100% of shows out for indy's but have to offer 40%. But, and here's the big point, any show an indy works on that is already a BBC show remains property of the BBC. This should mean that Indy's won't be able to fleece the BBC again.”

I have been reading the article Wizzy. Some key points:

"The corporation will tell the independent producers it plans to open up competition for 40% of the network drama, comedy, entertainment and factual programmes currently made in-house over the next two years...that figure will reach 100% by the end of the 11-year charter, meaning that even shows such as EastEnders could be made by someone other than the BBC...."

This bits slightly ambiguous Whizz:

"...the BBC will retain the rights to shows..."

Does this mean just shows currently/originally produced by BBC Studios or all shows regardless of who produces them? This bit concerns me a great deal. I don't want the BBC to turn into Channel 4, essentially a publisher broadcaster.

For anyone else interested in reading the whole article:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...itish-bake-off
sat-ire
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by davads:
“Mel Perkins and Sue Giedroyc?!

Does the article say anything about Mary Hollywood and Paul Berry? ”

Yep, if you read the article it will become clear why the names were mixed up. Then again, it didn't seem all that clear to...

Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“Whoops...just realised that The Guardian made a boob. .”

No, they didn't.

And it wasn't 'The Guardian' anyway. It was an opinion piece written by Stewart Lee, a comedian who trades in extremely subtle irony. The fact that you didn't spot that says it all really. He appears on the BBC btw, that's probably why you are unfamiliar with him

The next para following your quoted bit really should've alerted you to it. But I guess you were too busy looking for something that suited your agenda that you tend to miss out on subtlety.

(Although this is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, to be fair).

Quote:
“And in so doing, Mel and Sue will be remembered by today’s disenfranchised young people with the same significance older idealists idolise the unknown Chinese protester who single-handedly stopped the tanks of Tiananmen Square in 1989.”

Anyway, don't let me keep you from your trolling
Ash_M1
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by DVDfever:
“Rules??

1. All those viewers can still watch it, but on Channel 4. It's only three channel changes away.

3. Again, believe that, I'll sell you some magic beans, too.”

1. It will no longer be the show millions love. It will be Channel 4d.

3. Some may call you a cynic.
eggchen
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“That isn't what I said in that post. Don't put words in my mouth.

"But I do believe that some people do have integrity and a sense of morality, and that Mel and Sue have left GBBO as they said and for the reasons they said". That's why I believe they have left - they have the integrity and morality to do AS THEY SAID :- "We will not be following the dough.".”

That doesn't really answer my question as to why there is some kind of "morality" at play here, whether they went to Channel 4 or not, or even if they ultimately changed their minds and went after saying they wouldn't.

Where is the immorality in all this, you must think there is some somewhere to bring up the idea that Mel and Sue have somehow shown a sense of morality.

The same question can be put to Ash_M1 who seems to keep bringing this point up also.
Ash_M1
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“Yep, if you read the article it will become clear why the names were mixed up. Then again, it didn't seem all that clear to...



No, they didn't.

And it wasn't 'The Guardian' anyway. It was an opinion piece written by Stewart Lee, a comedian who trades in extremely subtle irony. The fact that you didn't spot that says it all really. He appears on the BBC btw, that's probably why you are unfamiliar with him

The next para following your quoted bit really should've alerted you to it. But I guess you were too busy looking for something that suited your agenda that you tend to miss out on subtlety.

(Although this is about as subtle as a sledgehammer, to be fair).



Anyway, don't let me keep you from your trolling ”

I'm not sure there is any need for your hostility is there?
Ash_M1
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“That doesn't really answer my question as to why there is some kind of "morality" at play here, whether they went to Channel 4 or not, or even if they ultimately changed their minds and went after saying they wouldn't.

Where is the immorality in all this, you must think there is some somewhere to bring up the idea that Mel and Sue have somehow shown a sense of morality.

The same question can be put to Ash_M1 who seems to keep bringing this point up also.”

Allow me to put it simply. Had it not been for the BBC, there would have been no Bake Off. Love have forgotten this. They were quite happy to take public money back in the day. It should still be good enough for them now. Love have totally sold out not giving two hoots about the millions of viewers who have contributed to the show and the millions of viewers who enjoy the show. Greed is never a good quality. Love place the indies in a very bad light.

Re: Mel and Sue, they have stuck to their word. As it's a rare quality, they have hit the headlines. They should be commended.
sat-ire
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“I'm not sure there is any need for your hostility is there?”

Oh, come on, yours is the parody account to end all parody accounts. I'm calling you on it, that's not hostility. In fact I salute you for getting people to respond to you for page upon page on an almost daily basis.

However, I'm not surprised you misjudged the tone of my post considering you totally misjudged the tone of the article from The Guardian...
eggchen
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“Love Productions over valued Bake Off to ensure BBC would not pay the asking price.”

Love Productions were in negotiations for a long time with the BBC but no agreement could ultimately be reached.

Interesting view here in the Metro, apologies if has been posted already. Sounds like there is to be some introspection at the BBC over the loss of GBBO.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/18/bbc-bo...e-off-6135091/
Ash_M1
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“Oh, come on, yours is the parody account to end all parody accounts. I'm calling you on it, that's not hostility. In fact I salute you for getting people to respond to you for page upon page on an almost daily basis.

However, I'm not surprised you misjudged the tone of my post considering you totally misjudged the tone of the article from The Guardian...”

I am completely genuine and consistent in all that I say. I suspect the fact that I am very articulate, arguing opinions which clearly you disagree with/disapprove of, is the main reason for your unnecessary hostility. You are not forced to read or respond to anything I say. I suggest you put me on 'ignore'.
eggchen
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“Allow me to put it simply. Had it not been for the BBC, there would have been no Bake Off. Love have forgotten this. They were quite happy to take public money back in the day. It should still be good enough for them now. Love have totally sold out not giving two hoots about the millions of viewers who have contributed to the show and the millions of viewers who enjoy the show. Greed is never a good quality. Love place the indies in a very bad light.

Re: Mel and Sue, they have stuck to their word. As it's a rare quality, they have hit the headlines. They should be commended.”

You could try answering the question posed instead of the usual maybe?
Ash_M1
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Love Productions were in negotiations for a long time with the BBC but no agreement could ultimately be reached.

Interesting view here in the Metro, apologies if has been posted already. Sounds like there is to be some introspection at the BBC over the loss of GBBO.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/18/bbc-bo...e-off-6135091/”

Isn't The Metro owned by The Daily Mail group? Always view print media through the prism of their agenda.

The only people at fault here are Love mate.
wizzywick
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“I have been reading the article Wizzy. Some key points:

"The corporation will tell the independent producers it plans to open up competition for 40% of the network drama, comedy, entertainment and factual programmes currently made in-house over the next two years...that figure will reach 100% by the end of the 11-year charter, meaning that even shows such as EastEnders could be made by someone other than the BBC...."

This bits slightly ambiguous Whizz:

"...the BBC will retain the rights to shows..."

Does this mean just shows currently/originally produced by BBC Studios or all shows regardless of who produces them? This bit concerns me a great deal. I don't want the BBC to turn into Channel 4, essentially a publisher broadcaster.

For anyone else interested in reading the whole article:
https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...itish-bake-off”

It basically means that all BBC shows, in-house or otherwise, will be available for any production company, BBC Studios or otherwise, to bid fo rfor the purpose of producing them. It is up to the BBC as to who they choose in accordance with their duty to provide value for money for the licence fee payer. Very often BBC Studios will retain the production duties as per the current situation.
sat-ire
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“I am completely genuine and consistent in all that I say. I suspect the fact that I am very articulate, arguing opinions which clearly you disagree with/disapprove of, is the main reason for your unnecessary hostility. You are not forced to ... respond to anything I say. I suggest you put me on 'ignore'.”

When I see you lifting a paragraph from a comedian's article in a newspaper in order to further your agenda, then I am going to pull you up on it.

Articulate? That's a high opinion you've got of yourself!

Arguing opinions? You batter everyone who disagrees with you with a verbal sledgehammer until they basically give up. Many of the people who used to argue with you have, I see, long since given up bothering
Ash_M1
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by wizzywick:
“It basically means that all BBC shows, in-house or otherwise, will be available for any production company, BBC Studios or otherwise, to bid fo rfor the purpose of producing them. It is up to the BBC as to who they choose in accordance with their duty to provide value for money for the licence fee payer. Very often BBC Studios will retain the production duties as per the current situation.”

...and what about the rights whereby the original idea originated from the BBC?

Given the Bake Off debacle this week, I am very nervous about 100% 'outsourcing' (barring News, Sport and Current Affairs). The BBC must make sure that contracts are totally tight. They must also ensure that they don't go for 'the cheapest option' at the expense of quality. I like the BBC producing content I really do.
Ash_M1
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“When I see you lifting a paragraph from a comedian's article in a newspaper in order to further your agenda, then I am going to pull you up on it.

Articulate? That's a high opinion you've got of yourself!

Arguing opinions. You batter everyone who disagrees with you with a verbal sledgehammer until they basically give up. Many of the people who used to argue with you have, I see, long since given up bothering ”

...and of course you will notice that I know longer interact with them. The 'ignore' feature is a very useful device. When people get things wrong (because they have an anti-BBC agenda) I and others will rightly put them right.
sat-ire
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“...and of course you will notice that I know longer interact with them. The 'ignore' feature is a very useful device. When people get things wrong (because they have an anti-BBC agenda) I and others will rightly put them right.”

BiB: Extremely articulate

You will "rightly put them right"...you're excelling yourself, your façade is slipping

Considering the fact that you got the tone of a comedian's article in a newspaper so very wrong isn't it possible that maybe you might be the one who gets things wrong?
Antbox
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“Love Productions were in negotiations for a long time with the BBC but no agreement could ultimately be reached.

Interesting view here in the Metro, apologies if has been posted already. Sounds like there is to be some introspection at the BBC over the loss of GBBO.

http://metro.co.uk/2016/09/18/bbc-bo...e-off-6135091/”

"The Beeb’s factual department lost the show after reportedly refusing to cough up the £25million a year demanded by Bake Off makers Love Productions, and instead offered a comparatively paltry £15 million.

But as the corporation continues to lick its wounds over the huge loss, it’s now claimed that the BBC will chair an inquiry to discuss how they can avoid losing other hit shows in the future.

An insider told The Mirror: ‘BBC bosses are furious there was no joined-up thinking. All the departments run far too separately, with no cross-over. The entertainment department could have made up the difference for the factual section. Now there’s a full review to look at the whole system of departments.’

‘The public doesn’t care which one produces what show. They just want the best programmes from the BBC.’"


Sounds like the Beeb are coming around to the very point that Love were making from the beginning.
Ash_M1
18-09-2016
Originally Posted by sat-ire:
“BiB: Extremely articulate

You will "rightly put them right"...you're excelling yourself, your façade is slipping

Considering the fact that you got the tone of a comedian's article in a newspaper so very wrong isn't it possible that maybe you might be the one who gets things wrong?”

So you have chosen to pick me up on a typo...I'm not sure we have anything else to say to each other?

Back on topic...
<<
<
30 of 89
>>
>
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