Well, if it was in the papers, it must be true!


The Independent just lives on clickbait crap, same as the Huffington Post, the latter of whom don't even pay their contributors. They must do it for the love of appearing in such a well-respected publication(!)

Which kind of proves the point that the production company works with the broadcaster to tune the format. So the success of GBBO is partly down to the BBC.

Select Committee Enquiry into C4's acquisition of GBBO:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...-probed-by-co/

ComRes poll includes question on Bake Off (!)

BBC should have paid more money to keep GBBO - 23%

BBC were right not to pay more money to keep GBBO - 58%

Don't know - 19%

So large majority supports BBC decision not to pay more.

https://twitter.com/NCPoliticsUK?ori...w_p=tweetembed

What a palaver. The response should simply be as Jay Hunt says, commercial programming is still required to help fund the type of innovative programming required in their remit.

I don't think you can lump the Financial Times in with "the papers". It's in a totally different class to the usual fare. It's certainly not in the same class as the Daily Star.

So where's your evidence that the presenters will all be staying with the programme? Oh, of course, none - it's just your own idea with no foundation.

Quite right too. The Government owns Channel 4 so should be overseeing/questioning its practices to make sure it does what is was set up to do.

Clare Balding says she has no interest in presenting Bake Off for C4 - Sunday Express

If this morning's reports have any truth, Mary Berry didn't want to commit long term to the show even if if had remained with the BBC, so the show was likely to change had it continued anyway. Nothing lasts forever.

A change of one judge wouldn't have been a problem, but the underhanded tactics and a complete change of personnel is.

Watching Jay Hunt squirm under questioning promises to be more compulsive viewing than even the final few eps of GBBO.

I have to say I was surprised because Channel 4 obviously have a remit to be distinctive and different.

I accept that they need to also at the same time generate revenue which they do through selling advertising and they make popular programming which fulfils that objective. But in this case they have essentially poached a show, which is very successful, from another public service broadcaster at some considerable cost, so I think it raises questions even before it was discovered they’d failed actually to get the presenters to come with the show simply as to whether or not it is appropriate for Channel 4 to be bidding against the BBC for a show which was created by the BBC.

I think that kind of contradicts one of the strongest arguments that surrounds this from the complainers, that the show is successful because of its current "magic formula" line up of presenters and judges. Now losing one wouldn't have been an issue. I think some people need to make their minds up.

The main point when the MPs have C4 in front of them should be that by buying it (and changing it) they know they will halve the audience at best. How is that good PSB to deny @5m a show they like!?!?!? Sky or Netflix could defend themselves from that kind of accusation but C4 has no real excuse for doing what they did. If they need tent-pole shows to prop up the rest of their minority programming (although they've long since left those days behind for the most part) then come up with their own blockbuster formats, don't destroy a successful one on the BBC by asset-stripping theirs!

One has been lost, that's the starting position. So now we consider which cook/chef would perhaps fill that void the best (should the BBC wish to do so), on the basis that it's far easier to replace one quarter of a partnership than three quarters, especially given that it's another show that we are talking about.

Although, on the subject of Mary Berry, her loss would be more difficult to replace

Doesn;t contradict anything. It wouldn't be a problem because it would be well known in advance and viewers appreciate that Mary isn't getting any younger (although before you say it, far from old, which is all in the mind). It wouldn't be the sudden shock that this debacle has been of change of channel, change of personnel, adverts, e.t.c. and concern on how all those changes will alter the programme that is enjoyed by so many in it's present advert free, gentle form.

I wonder if Channel 4 were aware of that when they paid so much? Did Love tell them?

I doubt the audience for the changed programme on Channel 4 will be anywhere near five million.

Hope they televise the Committee of Enquiry and list when it's going to be on. A squirming Jay Hunt would be a delight to watch.

She might be the golden girl at Channel 4, but I don't think MPs will see her that way.

Perhaps she will be willing to continue for a few years with a contract that allows her to drop out if she feels it is getting too much for her. If they can keep Mel & Sue and find a good replacement for Hollywood then after a year or so then someone could be found who Mary Berry knows would not change to feel of the programme.

If an approved combination can be found then she could be a judge at the final to show her continued support,

Of course this is unsourced, so could be PR bull:


http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/m...ritish-8908844

That bit in bold does not seem to sit happily with what we were told about LP requiring a matching bid, or what C4 had previously said about the team, or the fact that they wanted all four, and that the show would be unchanged.

And the bit in bold is not a reason for seeking a new home. A reason has to have some connection with an event, and that has no connection with the event at all.

Looking for a new judge because one said they don't want to do the three years is a reason for looking for a new judge, but has absolutely no connection with moving channels.

It's a bit like saying I'm moving to Scotland because my guinea pig died. Nonsense.

BAKE OFF BLUNDER Careless Channel 4 bosses signed Bake Off deal without asking if stars were on board

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbi...were-on-board/

Whilst this, " The Sun" -article is a rehash of what everyone already knows, it us true.

The C4 executives who agreed this deal, are complete idiots. No due diligence on what thry were actually buying for £75 million. ITV were very wise to say, no deal unless the four main personnel are signed up, that is wise and diligent management.

C4 executives have been hoodwinked, even Michael Grade said C4 purchased a nice looking car, that only has one wheel on it.

If C4 wanted to start a similar cooking show without paying for the format, thry could. Thry could have tried to poach the key staff.

As for Love, first award is for doggy second hand salesman of the century, sell a format for an excessive amount, that is at its peak and would fade anyway soon. Sell it without key personal on board, and knowing another major TV network said no, without the key talent. They have acted in a deceitful way, motivated by excessive money demands only.

Love can't be trusted, will stop anyone commissioning any new shows with them, trust gone, reputation in tatters and both C4 and Love are the laughing stock of the national and international media community.