I love how typically derided rags like the Sun get linked to if there is a nugget in there that people can nod solemnly in agreement with.

I made no comment about the article whatsoever. You predictably did though (accompanied by a disingenuous smilie) as you yet again top the post count in a thread about a subject you profess to care little about.

Oh stop it, you obviously thought it of some merit or you wouldn't have linked to it. Most people don't give it the time of day. All you have now is seemingly personal attacks, which saddens me.

The BBC are old hands at "managing change".

Look at how the BBC have handled Strictly,
first change was replace one judge with a previous winner.
Then replace her with an Internationally famous dancer who had already "guest judged" before.
Create spin off nightly show using former Pro dancers as "expert analysts"
Host wants to reduce workload so "Sunday" results show now hosted by Co-host and host of the spin-off.
Previous competitor takes over the spin off show, but same expert Pro's remain as analysts
Host leaves, Sunday show presenters take over main show as well.
Co-host has family emergency so Spin-off host joins presenting team to cover.
Head Judge announces he is leaving.
BBC now has choices - Current Pro has judged at last year's "People's Strictly", Former Pro and Spin off analyst will judge on the next Live Tour.

Strictly 2017 will have maximum 2 judges and only one host from the original line-up.

If Mary Berry wanted to wind down the BBC would have done the next Comic Relief "specials" with Paul H plus a "guest judge"
2017 main series would have best of those judges as a guest judge" for some weeks, 2018 Mary as the "guest judge" for opening and closing weeks, previous guest judge moves to being main judge with PH

Bake off is now like X-Factor with wholesale changes in lineup of presenters and judges - which is ratings poison.

Absolutely. It's beginning to look like Love Productions deliberately withheld a vital piece of information that would greatly affect the value of the product they were selling. I wonder if Channel 4 might be considering legal action?

Obviously it would depend exactly what was in the final contract signed but I strongly suspect any such action would fail. C4 signed whatever contract was there and I very much doubt any such contract would include guaranteed participation by any third party (i.e. Paul, Mary, Mel, Sue) because a contract legally cannot guarantee the participation of any individual who is not a signatory to it.

Also, there's a very well known legal principal called 'caveat emptor'. You can't complain about something being missing from a deal unless what's missing was something you could make a reasonable assumption of being present. C4 can't argue they would expect any new GBBO to have the four presenters present due to the above principle of overt participation - they would legally have to assume the four were not going to present unless they were signatories to the contract.

It is possible (if C4's lawyers were smart) they could have included 'break clauses' in the contract whereby C4 could get out of it at reduced cost/get some of their money back if certain targets were not met, and the presence of 'the big four' could be a break clause. However, so far, all the evidence suggests C4's lawyers are not clever.

Plus, at the end of the day, 'New Bake Off' may still prove to be a ratings success, in terms of programmes on channel 4, even if it only gets a fraction of the viewers 'Old Bake Off' did on the BBC. I doubt. It will earn back what C4 paid for it, but it could still show a profit in simple terms.

C4 messed up. All of the above would be considered part of 'due diligence' on their part - it would be up to their lawyers to ensure what they were paying for was worth the money they were paying. I don't think anyone can currently make that argument with a straight face,

Love didn't mess up as far as we know so far. They signed a contract to deliver the show and, as far as we've heard so far, that contract did not include the requirement for the four stars to be available. So they're still working to the contract and, legally speaking, have done nothing wrong. How well they've done 'morally' is a different argument of course...

I've mentioned this to you before, but you really need to learn how to interact here with some civility instead of your default style of snide and sarcasm.

Instead of taking continual potshots at those whose POV differs to yours, try and discuss the subject at hand and if you're going to quote somebody ensure your reply has some relation to what's actually been written rather than ascribing a fiction purely so you can yet again air the derisive attitude you've become known for in these Bake Off threads.

It's perfectly simple, others manage it so why can't you?

Good. The behaviour of 4 does need to be questioned.

Yes mate. A first rate post with which I totally agree.

You've got to wonder what Channel 4 thought the public reaction would be.

Did they expect praise for out bidding the BBC? Did they expect to open their newspapers on the morning after the announcement to read about how clever they had been?

What sort of a bubble do Channel 4 executives live in that this was ever seriously consisted!

http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/great-b...investigation/

"We will have the BBC and Channel 4 in front of the committee and Bake Off is definitely something that we will ask about when they next appear," explained Damian Collins, acting chairman of the culture, media and sport select committee.

Love ProductionIt's said that Channel 4 paid a whopping £25 million a year to win the rights to Bake Off from the BBC. Critics of the move believe it didn't meet Channel 4's remit to demonstrate "innovation, experiment and creativity".
"They have essentially poached a show which is very successful from another public service broadcaster, and at some considerable cost," outlined former culture secretary John Whittingdale.

"The irony is, if Channel 4 had commissioned Great British Bake Off at the very beginning, rather than the BBC, it would have been applauded."

However, Channel 4's chief creative officer Jay Hunt argued that the broadcaster need commercially successful shows to provide the money to pay for public service programming and "more risk-taking drama".

Quite what Bake Off will look like on Channel 4 is anyone's guess though as Mary Berry broke the internet last week by revealing she won't be following the showacross the channels, even though Paul will be.

It leaves him as the only remaining current Bake Off star that will appear on the new version, but the makers insist it will have the "same recipe". The move could also see the show extended to accommodate those pesky adverts.

All the papers (and DS) now running with the news of the Select Committee probe. I wonder if Jay Hunt ever imagined, when she was planning her petulant piece of payback at the BBC, if she'd end up in front of a panel of MPs having to justify her decision to steal from another PSB? I'm guessing not!

C4 are in for an awful lot of criticism on this, Jay Hunts position is untenable or untentable, This will bring Privatisation a lot quicker for 4 now.

The BBC are masters/experts at succession planning, managing change/transition. Think News and Current Affairs content...and Strictly as you mention. Viewers can't take to much/frequent change because it is unsettling. Slow and gradual change is fine so long as it is well managed and infrequent.

I still miss Brucie on Strictly as I am a big fan of his, but his 'managed retirement' meant that 'the change' to Claud was much less jarring than it could have been allowing the viewers to adjust slowly. They now have the challenge of managing change again with Len's retirement. As you imply, the BBC has a pool of credible people they can choose from who are already familiar with the audience. Personally, I would go with Karen Hardy.

Another example I would highlight is The Apprentice. Alan has obviously remained as 'the main man', but Margaret's 'leaving' was managed brilliantly. Bring in 'a judge' who appears towards the end of the process as her replacement. Viewers are already familiar. Nick's leaving (a few years after Margaret's) was also managed well. Again, not to much change to quickly, with a familiar face (Claud, not Strictly's Claud, another one) to replace him.

The Beeb could easily 'manage' Mary's retirement as they have past form. Gradually reduce her role whilst gradually introducing a competent replacement.

BGT and TXF are examples where change has been managed badly. Strictly and The Apprectice are examples where change has been managed brilliantly.

I'm sure she didn't, because the notion of her having to answer to MP's for acquiring a baking show that couldn't agree terms with its original broadcaster so moved to Channel 4 instead is ridiculous in the extreme.

I'm betting she wishes she hadn't bothered, and let the show go elsewhere. It was pretty obvious after exhausting a year of unsuccessful negotiations with the BBC that Love Productions weren't going to remain with them, so Bake Off was going whichever. Perhaps she should have let it go to one of the non-terrestrial channels, or let it finish for good?

As it is, you will all be able to watch, for free, a new version of the show on Channel 4.

Bake Off ends on BBC One this year.

Love should have agreed a deal with the BBC. They are the problem here not the Beeb.

I don't know why you are continuing to attempt to argue a non-argument.

Channel 4 should not have poached a show from the BBC when it was doing brilliantly on the Beeb.

Channel 4 should not have paid what they did. Ridiculous.

Channel 4's behaviour goes against it's remit. Create your own shows and talent Channel 4, don't poach from the Beeb.

Love couldn't agree a renewed fee for rights with the BBC, even though they had been in talks for a year. The show wasn't likely to have continued with the BBC anyway.

Love shouldn't do anything they don't feel is in their interests, that is just silly.

Even if they destroy their own format, and p off three of the four of their main talent, then get in front of a MP select committee, and basically loose any more commissions from the BBC.

Sounds a bit like cutting off nose to spite face........

£25 million now, and kill the product....and upset 15 million viewers, and Parliament.

Love could agree at 15 million a far increased offer, but wanted £25 million way above its worth.

Strictly costs £18 million for example, more days, more hours, spin off three hours a week, and 13 million viewers.

It will be fine. You wait and see.

Also Strictly almost certainly costs a lot more than Bake Off to make, it requires far more people and has a much larger more expensive location.

Agree.

The celebrity costs is from £25 k if they last till end October up to £90k in the final, and then the hire of Pinewood studios, make up, costume, glitter, band, music copyright, projection units, transport, pro dancers £35k each etc etc.

But is on
Saturdays 2 hours.
Sundays 45 minutes.
ITT three hours a week.
September to December, with Christmas show and Children in need special.