If your employer was the only person to offer you a job when everyone else turned you down - then he cared for you, nurtured you, trained you and helped to make you a great success, then yes, he might feel betrayed if you then demanded a 400% pay rise or else you'll go and work for his rival.

How should I know? I don't work at the Beeb do I?

That happens day in, day out. Apprentices get taken on, put through education and training and then want the commensurate pay when they qualify. More often than not, to get the going rate they have to switch jobs. Nothing new.

Do we have proof that these questions have been asked, ot is it simp-ly "insiders" or "a BBC source"?

Even so, of course there will be a review, and even if they do seek to find out if/why the shortfall could not have been funded, it does not mean that the decision was wrong or that the review would come out in favour of the "Robbing Peter" principle when they know that "Peter" would have had to suffer even more cuts

Love Productions weren't asking for "commensurate pay" - they asked for a 400% pay increase. Who else in your scenario of fair play is able to demand a 400% pay increase in the current economic climate? Pure opportunistic greed is a betrayal in my eyes, if not in yours.

it was certainly commensurate with being the UK's most watched TV show, as Channel 4 seemed to agree.

It's very likely Channel 4 are going to live to regret their decision. GBBO does not cost £25 million a year to make. All they've done is bump up the price of independent productions. Every commissioning channel is going to suffer as a result - and so will the viewers in the future when channels start showing more repeats because they've run out of money, having spent it all on one or two programmes.

Maybe, but that remains to be seen.

Nobody seems to mention just what a great deal the BBC had with Bake Off for this current run however. They got the highest rated show on TV for a song. Now that Love Productions have exploited its true value, everybody is crying about it.

The BBC nurtured a winner, LP got lucky when the BBC decided to promote it to BBC one. Hoisted by their own petard really, as if it had stayed on BBC Two it would not have grown to be this juggernaut that we now talk about, and would not have attracted as much (if any) attention from other broadcasters. Of course, LP might then have tried to hawk the programme elsewhere if they felt that the BBC wasn't exploiting its full potential. But it was the BBC that presumably amended the original format (of bakers visiting a themed place each week into a static location and marquee in the grounds of a stately home. It was the BBC who decided to take a chance and promote a lowly and very twee baking programme to its main entertainment channel where it would have an opportunity to catch a wider audience (and I for one was very sceptical about that move, fearing a dumbing-down or a loss of the double entendres, both of which never happened).

You just refuse to get it, don't you?

It's been an unwritten rule, for as long as there have been independent production companies, that you stick with the channel you originally had an contract with for the life of the programme, unless that channel decides to drop it when the production company is free to go elsewhere and rival channels are free to bid for it, as e.g. in the case of 'Men Behaving Badly'. You stay loyal to the channel who broadcast and nurtured your programme and provided you with income, especially when no-one else would.

Love Productions have broken that unwritten rule by demanding a huge increase in their fee which the BBC couldn't afford, dismissing the fact that without the BBC taking the programme in the first place, which was refused by all other channels, they have had all those years of income, and which they wouldn't have had if the BBC hadn't taken it up.

I haven't heard even one production company saying that what Love Productions has done is right. In fact they have all condemned it and they are saying that a loyalty clause will now have to be inserted into future contracts and make negotiations more difficult.

Love Productions have single-handedly destroyed the trust between the independent companies and the channels for one quick chunk of income, which will make other channels wary of dealing with them in future. They have shot themselves in the foot for a quick buck which could end up destroying them.

None of which negates that fact that for this run at least, the BBC are airing a ratings juggernaut very cheaply. You win some, you lose some <shrugs>

I agree with this more reasoned outlook

https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...-bbc-channel-4

Will Love Productions be refunding the BBC for the licence fee money used to develop the show ? After all without it C4 would not be offering £75 million over three years, they probably wouldn't even be interested.

At the time the contract was signed, neither party could have known how it would develop. And the BBC get precious little out of that in money terms, just the kudos of airing a successful and now mainstream show (which, prior to Whittingdale's departure as Culture Secretary would have counted against the BBC anyway).

But that does not mean that LP have not been greedy (and somewhat underhand) in demanding £25 million a year, whilst at the same time reaching a very advanced stage of negotiations with C4, to an extent where a £75 million contract could be agreed and signed within a couple of hours of LP issuing its first public "it's now over with the BBC" statement last week.

But this has been pointed out & discussed more often that Come Dine With Me is repeated on Channel 4!

Well you obviously know more about it than those who are actually involved, so we and they will just have to bow to your superior knowledge.

What the BBC paid for the last round of rights with Love Productions is pretty much public knowledge. Knowing what the show rights are currently valued at, you could say that the BBC are doing pretty well out of it this year.

People and businesses talk to rival companies to which they are affiliated all the time without letting on until a deal is done. Would you tell an employer you are going for an interview for a better position with one of his competitors? Of course you wouldn't. You wait until the job offer is given in writing before you go and hand your notice in.

You still don't get it.

I think I do thanks.

Moving to Channel 4 is certainly not going for a "better position". The programme couldn't wish for a better slot and better support than it was already getting from the BBC. The only difference for Love Productions is they wanted more money. A lot more money.

That remains to be seen. It wasn't the point of that post however.

Who made GBBO the show it is BBC or Love Productions? Love Productions couldn't sell the format to the commercial sector and in the first season only had 2 million viewers. The BBC tweaked and promoted it heavily and took it to BBC One from BBC Two. Without the BBC GBBO would have just been another low profile food programme either on daytime TV or never seeing the light of day.

And as such, the BBC have got a run of programming on air currently for £6m that has been commercially valued at £25m, not to mention the ongoing international rights. So forgive me if I don't get my violin out for them. They've done okay out of Bake Off.

You won't convince him.

He'd be happy in the same position working for a company and building up a customer base, then having that customer base handed over to someone else. He wouldn't complain one bit if he lost commission because of it.

Or, alternatively, being the star employee who signed three years ago for £6 an hour, realising I could get £25 an hour elsewhere, and declining the £15 an hour offered to stay. Sure, the company put me through my apprenticeship and trained and nurtured me, but if they aren't going to pay me what I'm worth, I'm off to someone who will.