Of course it was. The BBC had no plans to axe it. Why would they?

What you meant to say is that Love had no intention of keeping it at the Beeb. They were more interested in staging a bidding process to maximise profits. Not very public service of them is it.

Channel 4 and Love have behaved dreadfully throughout.

I'm not saying anything about what the BBC should have paid or what it's worth. Just that, as the channel's owners, the government have the right to question whether Channel 4 should have paid £25million for something which was outside their remit and whether they should have gone outside their remit in the first place.

Their remit also includes provision of commercial TV. It pays for the other stuff.

According to the Express, a spokesman for Mary Berry has said that she has not said that she only intended to do one more year.

Nice try. Your spin doesn't wash I'm afraid.

Given that Bake Off officially ends December 2016, I would say millions have already been whipped off it's value.

Their remit is to be innovative and distinctive. That doesn't mean poaching content that was doing perfectly well on the Beeb. Channel 4 should make their own content, not rely on others.

Boo to Channel 4 and Boo to Love.

It's the only thing of any great truth in this whole debacle. You especially wouldn't have batted an eyelid had the BBC spent £15m a year to renew.

Their remit is not exclusively that though and provision of commercial TV intersperses their other output.

The BBC offered a reasonable increase. That's fine. Love should have accepted. £25 a year is totally unacceptable. 4 and Love have been completely wrong on all fronts throughout.

They should create their own content which is innovative but carries commercial qualities too. It is lazy on the part of 4 to poach an already established popular show from another broadcaster, especially the BBC.

The BBC did not think £6 million this time, that was before and they gave Love a grant so they could even set the show up . This time round BBC valued it at a maximum of £15m, ITV would have offered more but would only do so if Love had the whole team tied in , and Channel 4 was prepared to pay the £25m per year, a decision they may come to regret not just because they do not have the team but they have played in to the hands of those who want them privatised.

What if I was to say that I think £15m for a baking show is outrageous? What are you basing your "reasonable increase" valuation on?

It wasn't going to stay on the BBC though, regardless. Surely you understand that? They couldn't meet the fee.

Just read their remit.

Under Social Enterprise Model
"Commercially funded by advertising
Not-for-profit - all surplus goes back into content
Profit making genres such as factual (to) subsidise loss-making ones like news."

Under Statutory Public Service Remit
"Be innovative and distinctive
Stimulate public debate on contemporary issues
Reflect Cultural diversity of UK
Champion alternative points of view
Inspire change in people's lives"

Publisher Broadcaster
"All UK programmes commissioned from UK production companies mainly SMEs, across Britain (no in-house production unlike BBC, ITV and Sky)"

State Owned Public Broadcaster
"Established as a statutory corporation
Portfolio of channels and digital services
Regulated by Ofcom
Subject to content quotas and other requirements
Nurture new and existing talent."

None of that covers outbidding other broadcasters for existing successful programmes.

You realise you are on the losing side here don't you. You fail to see why it is wrong for a private operator to accept public money one minute and not the next...never-mind the years of investment that public money has provided.

Furthermore, Love are so out of touch. Public mood is very much against the private sector due to the poor behaviour of high profile well-knowns. This Love business just reinforces peoples' negative perceptions of business...that they are essentially in it for themselves only. Not a good look.

I've been trying to think of a bigger b***s up in the history of British TV than C4 effectively buying a very expensive tent. The only comparison I can think of is ITV's Snatch of the Day in 1978 when Michael Grade at LWT thought he had bought exclusive rights to all football league games until the Office of Fair Trading ruled some matches had to be available to the BBC.

It was had Love agreed to the BBC deal. This isn't difficult. However, Love were more interested in the money they could fleece out of whoever than doing the right thing.

Why should they have agreed to it though? Think about your prize possession at home, do you think you should sell it to me at half of what you think it is worth? No, of course you don't.

Translation: I have no idea how I would value the show or how much it is actually worth.

Actually, I'm on the winning side because there will be a show to watch on C4, and the BBC have just saved £45m to spend on something else.

In recognition of the broadcaster who gave them the funds and the break in the first place when no-one else (including Channel 4) was interested!

I doubt I would try to sell it to you at a 400% increase - I don't think LP have even tried to justify this increase have they ? The cost of producing the programme can't possibly have increased by that amount and we all know it which explains why people are talking about greed.More fool for C4 to agree to their terms without even bothering to consult the judges and presenters.

You might do if it was really, really desirable and I really, really wanted it.

You never answer questions put to you do you?

Would you sell me something of yours at half the value you put on it?

The new BBC programme should be called "Going with the Dough" (I assume someone else has suggested that but I'm not reading back over 50 pages of argumentative nonsense)