• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
BBC Loses Great British Bakeoff
<<
<
62 of 89
>>
>
niceguy1966
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“It's filmed after the airing of the main programme. Otherwise there'd have to be a whole load of people, not only those who sit at the tables with the bakes they've made based on that week's programme, but the audience that sits behind the barrier behind them as well.

All the contestants sign a confidentiality clause that they will not release information on who went out when and who won. They're not even supposed to tell their fami;y. Remember Nadyia said she hid her trophy from her family other than her husband under the bed.”

It is filmed BEFORE the airing of the main program. The studio audience watches a sneak preview of the episode before they record the "Extra Slice". This is a couple of days before the live broadcast. The audience knows the theme of show before going to the recording because it is mentioned at the end of the previous week's show (no industry secret!).

How do I know? I went to the recording of Extra Slice episode 3 (bread week) this series. Sadly my Focaccia with Sue Perkin's face on it was not considered good enough for the front section and I had to wave it from the back (yes I did spot it in the final edit).
eggchen
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“If the working relationship between the Beeb and LP had irretrievably broken down to the extent C4 and LP claim it has, then presumably this would affect ALL the shows they have with the BBC so it's funny that it only seems to have thus far impacted GBBO as opposed to Throwdown and Sewing Bee. If in future those stay/continue with the Beeb then we can safely dismiss that story as a smokescreen put out by LP to justify the sale to C4.”

Unless it simply means that the relationship was so bad that negotiations for Bake Off reached an impasse. I think Love were very likely frustrated at the commercial restrictions of the BBC, and how it effectively curtailed exploitment of their very popular show. They went in then with a figure that would cover their otherwise perceived losses against what it could make commercially and jumped when the BBC declined, as they had another broadcaster interested.
skp20040
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“Think of it this way, "bruv" - the BBC got a great deal through having GBBO at far less than the market price for so long. And now that the anomaly has been corrected, it frees up BBC funding to spend on even more high quality programmes for you to enjoy.”

I wouldn't say they had it below market value, the actual value to start was zero as not one other channel wanted it, the BBC even had to give Love a grant so they could start to make it as they didn't have the cash . Other channels did not want it until it became popular and even then the BBC offered a 200% increase and Loves costs have not increased to the level of 200% , Love have asked for a 400% uplift and C4 have paid it , that does not mean it is valued at or worth that just that C4 paid it.
Baz_James
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“ as they had another broadcaster interested.”

Not according to C4 they didn't! They're telling us that they stepped in only when the show became available at the end of the BBC negotiation. Not poachers us. Nothing to see here. Of course nobody believes a word of it but that's the official position
mossy2103
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Baz_James:
“Not according to C4 they didn't! They're telling us that they stepped in only when the show became available at the end of the BBC negotiation. Not poachers us. Nothing to see here. Of course nobody believes a word of it but that's the official position”

Yes, they stepped in so quickly that LP had a taxi ready to take the LP execs over to C4's offices and within an hour or so C4 had signed a legally-binding contract costing them a mere £75 million. All done & dusted.

And no, we don't believe you Channel 4.
skp20040
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Yes, they stepped in so quickly that LP had a taxi ready to take the LP execs over to C4's offices and within an hour or so C4 had signed a legally-binding contract costing them a mere £75 million. All done & dusted.

And no, we don't believe you Channel 4.”

Back in April it was being said about ITV, Sky and Channel 4 all expressing an interest so 4 didn't step in at the last minute and have talks that quickly they just couldn't agree an offer until BBC and Love had parted ways ( its a bit like the UK and Brexit, we cannot agree trade deals with other non EU countries until the day we leave the EU that doesn't prevent talks and everything being ready to sign the day we do leave ) . ITV offered more but they wanted the team guaranteed which Love couldn't do.

As you say , no we don't believe you C4
eggchen
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Yes, they stepped in so quickly that LP had a taxi ready to take the LP execs over to C4's offices and within an hour or so C4 had signed a legally-binding contract costing them a mere £75 million. All done & dusted.

And no, we don't believe you Channel 4.”

To be fair, the show wasn't available whilst it was being touted, it was just open to an alternative offer. It only became available when Love notified them that the BBC declined to renew.
Aftershow
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Ash_M1:
“I think it is right to question the morality of a private provider who deems it acceptable to profit from public investment...so yes, this is a big deal. Of course I'd expect someone like you to attempt to play it down!!”

I find it disappointing that the show is leaving the BBC, and C4 (and perhaps Love, in the longer term) have made a mistake with it, but you really do need to get a grip.
mossy2103
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“To be fair, the show wasn't available whilst it was being touted, it was just open to an alternative offer. It only became available when Love notified them that the BBC declined to renew.”

Whether it was available or not is beside the point - the alternative offers were likely to have been "on the table" regardless, ready to be picked up as and when necessary.

The crucial point (which has been made a few times previously) is that the talks with Channel 4 must have been at an advanced stage prior to the "relations have broken down" message from LP. No company will open talks, and waive through a massive multi-million pound deal in days, never mind an hour or two. At the very least contracts would have to have been scrutinised by the legal teams, not to mention some sort of clearance agreed before signing away £75 million.
eggchen
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Whether it was available or not is beside the point - the alternative offers were likely to have been "on the table" regardless, ready to be picked up as and when necessary.

The crucial point (which has been made a few times previously) is that the talks with Channel 4 must have been at an advanced stage prior to the "relations have broken down" message from LP. No company will open talks, and waive through a massive multi-million pound deal in days, never mind an hour or two. At the very least contracts would have to have been scrutinised by the legal teams, not to mention some sort of clearance agreed before signing away £75 million.”

It's all academic now anyway.
Ash_M1
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by eggchen:
“To be fair, the show wasn't available whilst it was being touted, it was just open to an alternative offer. It only became available when Love notified them that the BBC declined to renew.”

What you meant to say was that Love rejected the BBC's generous offer...on purpose.
Ash_M1
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Aftershow:
“I find it disappointing that the show is leaving the BBC, and C4 (and perhaps Love, in the longer term) have made a mistake with it, but you really do need to get a grip.”

Thanks for your advice. I feel very strongly that the behaviour of Love is anti-public service, anti viewer...and thanks to their greed, they have destroyed a show enjoyed by millions.
Antbox
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Janet43:
“But they do need to make sure the independent companies are tied to them for the life of a programme.”

That's certainly possible, but, like the 'Golden Handcuffs' deals that are sometimes negotiated with particularly high-profile talent, limiting them to only one broadcaster, such an arrangement carries with it a significant cost in order to fully compensate the talent (or the producer) for the significant loss of opportunity of being able to work elsewhere.

For an indie to sign a life of series deal gives enormous control (and scope for abuse) to the broadcaster. No one in their right mind would sign such a deal without an enormous amount of money being on offer to make it worth the risk.

On the subject of Golden Handcuffs, given that the BBC has previously signed such agreements with low wattage presenters like Nick Knowles, comedians like David Walliams and Matt Lucas, and middling talent like Michael McIntyre, and offered such deals when trying to poach talent like Davina McCall from C4, (because remember it's OK when the BBC do it, but not when anyone else does), how much do you want to bet that Mel and Sue don't already have such an agreement preventing them from 'going with the dough' even if they wanted to?
Antbox
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Straker:
“If the working relationship between the Beeb and LP had irretrievably broken down to the extent C4 and LP claim it has, then presumably this would affect ALL the shows they have with the BBC so it's funny that it only seems to have thus far impacted GBBO as opposed to Throwdown and Sewing Bee. If in future those stay/continue with the Beeb then we can safely dismiss that story as a smokescreen put out by LP to justify the sale to C4.”

GBBO is just the first programme whose contract had come to an end. Throwdown and Sewing Bee will be covered by different contracts which have presumably not yet expired.

No smokescreen - just basic logic.
Antbox
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“No company will open talks, and waive through a massive multi-million pound deal in days, never mind an hour or two. At the very least contracts would have to have been scrutinised by the legal teams, not to mention some sort of clearance agreed before signing away £75 million.”

Channel 4 (and ITV and the rest of the industry) knew that offers were likely to be invited for GBBO but no formal offers were made until after LP had notified the BBC that they did not wish to continue negotiations with them.

It has been reported that C4 secured board approval in advance (aware of the possibility of the need to make a bid at short notice) and made an offer within a couple of hours of the BBC being told that negotiations were over, but I'd be very surprised if the actual contract has even been signed yet. Making a formal agreement and actually finishing detailed contract negotiations and signing on the dotted line are often things which can be months apart.
ftv
03-10-2016
Delia Smith's husband is reported as saying she is not interested in any offer from C4 for GBBO - looks like they are running out of options.
Straker
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“GBBO is just the first programme whose contract had come to an end. Throwdown and Sewing Bee will be covered by different contracts which have presumably not yet expired.”

Which is why I qualified the observation with "If in future....". I guess you missed that.

Quote:
“No smokescreen - just basic logic.”

It is a smokescreen if those shows continue on the BBC (past any existing contracts) because it would show the working relationship with the Beeb is just fine and dandy for shows that other broadcasters aren't particularly interested in but not fine for their cash-cow, GBBO. That would then expose the LP/C4 reason given as BS otherwise they'd withdraw all their shows from the BBC.
Steve9214
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by mossy2103:
“Whether it was available or not is beside the point - the alternative offers were likely to have been "on the table" regardless, ready to be picked up as and when necessary.

The crucial point (which has been made a few times previously) is that the talks with Channel 4 must have been at an advanced stage prior to the "relations have broken down" message from LP. No company will open talks, and waive through a massive multi-million pound deal in days, never mind an hour or two. At the very least contracts would have to have been scrutinised by the legal teams, not to mention some sort of clearance agreed before signing away £75 million.”

Posters on here have said that the most Senior C4 Execs were in Rio for the Paralympics at the time - so it MUST have all been done and dusted well before that. One person could not sign that kind of deal without the say-so of the C4 Board - or whatever they have.
carl.waring
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by Night Crawler:
“Surely that would be very risky, what if the programme takes a massive dip in the ratings or the cost becomes less viable, take Ripper Street and The Voice for example, the BBC would have been be throwing good public money away. As much as the BBC wants to hold on to popular programming, it doesn't want to be tied into life contracts either, especially for untried formats and failing content.”

If I remember correctly, this show was cancelled by the BBC. Therefore it had come to the "end of [its] life" therefore the contract would have been terminated and the IP holders were free do whatever they liked with the show.

Originally Posted by Antbox:
“On the subject of Golden Handcuffs, given that the BBC has previously signed such agreements with low wattage presenters like Nick Knowles, comedians like David Walliams and Matt Lucas, and middling talent like Michael McIntyre, and offered such deals when trying to poach talent like Davina McCall from C4, (because remember it's OK when the BBC do it, but not when anyone else does), how much do you want to bet that Mel and Sue don't already have such an agreement preventing them from 'going with the dough' even if they wanted to?”

How about because there's no reason not to believe M&S?
Antbox
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by carl.waring:
“How about because there's no reason not to believe M&S?”

Nobody is saying that M&S have said anything untruthful. It's perfectly possible that they could have a golden handcuffs deal with the BBC and actually be unable to go to C4 even if they wanted to, while remaining consistent with their public statements that they will not be going to C4.

Obviously it's hard to prove a negative, especially if a confidentality agreement is in place, but it's not a completely implausible suggestion.
skp20040
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by ftv:
“Delia Smith's husband is reported as saying she is not interested in any offer from C4 for GBBO - looks like they are running out of options.”

it will be Alan Carr at this rate
Night Crawler
03-10-2016
Originally Posted by carl.waring:
“If I remember correctly, this show was cancelled by the BBC. Therefore it had come to the "end of [its] life" therefore the contract would have been terminated and the IP holders were free do whatever they liked with the show.
”

It was cancelled early by the BBC because of poor ratings, but if the BBC were in contract for the life of the programme they would not have been able to cancel, which was the point being made.
Steve9214
04-10-2016
Originally Posted by Night Crawler:
“It was cancelled early by the BBC because of poor ratings, but if the BBC were in contract for the life of the programme they would not have been able to cancel, which was the point being made.”

Channel 5 have a "lifetime" deal for Home & Away, signed by one of the previous owners of the Channel.
JazzyJaney
04-10-2016
Originally Posted by Antbox:
“That's certainly possible, but, like the 'Golden Handcuffs' deals that are sometimes negotiated with particularly high-profile talent, limiting them to only one broadcaster, such an arrangement carries with it a significant cost in order to fully compensate the talent (or the producer) for the significant loss of opportunity of being able to work elsewhere.

For an indie to sign a life of series deal gives enormous control (and scope for abuse) to the broadcaster. No one in their right mind would sign such a deal without an enormous amount of money being on offer to make it worth the risk.

On the subject of Golden Handcuffs, given that the BBC has previously signed such agreements with low wattage presenters like Nick Knowles, comedians like David Walliams and Matt Lucas, and middling talent like Michael McIntyre, and offered such deals when trying to poach talent like Davina McCall from C4, (because remember it's OK when the BBC do it, but not when anyone else does), how much do you want to bet that Mel and Sue don't already have such an agreement preventing them from 'going with the dough' even if they wanted to?
”



Totally agree with this. Sue Perkins is currently filming a new series of her BBC2 panel show. Nothing against them but I think the whole 'going with the dough' thing may not be quite so clear cut as it's been made out to be. Regardless I have nothing against celebrities looking around for a better deal on another channel if they could get it. Why on earth wouldn't you? The BBC are hardly any more of a cosy organisation than C4 is, it's just business. Where did this whole betraying the BBC thing even come from?
Charnham
04-10-2016
I am finding this idea of "X's husband says X isnt doing it", do we get some no name WAG being asked about who her husband is playing for next season?
<<
<
62 of 89
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map