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.”
“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.”
Indeed. Just as the BBC's contract with Love for GBBO had expired, and the BBC would not agree reasonable terms for a renewal. The BBC were failing to provide the investment in the show that is necessary for such a massively popular show to have the production resources it needs. Despite a full year of negotiations, the BBC would not budge from their massively misguided position that GBBO was a "factual" show and that - being factual - it would never be given as high a budget as the BBC gives to entertainment shows. Something which is in itself quite disgraceful and highlights how the supposed Public Service ethos of the BBC has been all but abandoned in favour of unchallenging, easy ratings-grabbing nonsense.
This is the real reason why those with vested interests are trying so hard to spin this discussion as being about 'loyalty' and 'greed' - to cover up the BBC's entirely broken system of management and its callous disregard of the value of, and failure to invest in, factual programming - the most important genre of programming and one which should be absolutely core to the BBC's values.
Remember, very little of that production budget is profit. If the BBC internally lobbied for a £10m a year increase in the money allocated to EastEnders, that money doesn't go in the producers' pockets - it gets spent on the shows and seen on the screen. The same applies to GBBO. To pretend that it's about "greed" is wilfully dishonest, and no less than would be expected of the posters on here who think the BBC can do no wrong. (It does a lot of good, true, but it has some serious problems as well.)
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 ?”
“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 ?”
It's a long-held view that the quality of the show "on the screen" is directly proportional to how much money is spent on it. Love Productions may well have thought that the BBC was limiting their show's success by refusing to invest adequately in it. To say nothing of the staff and talent who worked on the show. I would expect that Love probably had a real job on their hands having to explain to everyone who gave their all to the show that they'd continue to be paid a "tiny 2 million BBC2 show" fee for their work on the biggest show on BBC1 and British Television as a whole. There comes a point when you realise you're being taken for a ride.
Why was Mel (or was it Sue) actually already thinking about leaving the series anyway, before this all blew up? Because of long hours and a punishing production schedule - exactly what happens when production budgets are tight and the channel fails to invest in a show, and its staff.
So Kudos to Love for taking the risk and doing the right thing - no matter how much it may upset Ash personally.




