So the BBC couldn't afford their most popular show on tv. The most popular show on any channel in the UK. Just WTF does that say about the attitude of the BBC?

Or of a government that lays down its ground rules.

Perhaps it says that the BBC could not justify paying the large sums that Love Productions seemed to be wanting.

I recall a press report from a few weeks ago that said that the BBC had increased (doubled?) its offer (I can't recall whether it was £7m doubled to £14m), but IF the reports are correct and that C4 have paid upwards of £20m per year then how could the BBC justify that sort of spend (especially when it came in for so much criticism only a few years ago for spending £22m on The Voice).

Or do you think that the BBC should simply have caved in to Love Production's inflated demands, and to hell with the fact that LF money is limited?

It shows that the BBC wont be held to ransom by production companies after TV shows other broadcasters originally turned down go on to become a hit. As quite a bit of BBC content is made by third party production companies should the BBC bow down every-time at any price?

Personally, I feel the production company wouldn't have stayed with the BBC even if they had stumped up the cash. The 'extras' that were not available because the show was on the BBC (advertising, on-line sites, clear product placement, spin offs and so on) seem far more important than the customer.

Is this not a direct consequence of the BBC outsourcing programming to independent producers, rather than developing and producing in-house?

If the BBC had themselves developed the idea, and produced it themselves, rather than Love Productions being involved they could have firstly held on to the rights, and secondly made a king's ransom selling the programme concept overseas.

Surely yet another example of competition not necessarily being good for the consumer.

Incidentally, the irony of the programme being snatched away from one "state broadcaster" by another "state broadcaster" - albeit one that is financed at least in part by advertising. BBC charter notwithstanding, isn't this a good reason why the BBC must become more commercial to survive?

People complained when they bought The Voice for £35m for the duration of its run and people went nuts as it was so much of licence payer's money. Love wanted £25m a year to keep GBBO on the BBC.

The BBC really can't seem to win with some people

Black Mirror is comparable to a talent show? Just because the BBC shows it, this talent show is suddenly supposed to be an example of ambitious risktaking. Channel 4 is much more the home for cookery than the BBC since they have Heston, Jamie Oliver and Hugh Fearnly Whittingstall.

The BBC paid how much for another crappy 'reality' (yeah right) talent (?????) show. One of many, too many.

BUT they will not stump up the cash to keep a confirmed successful and immensely popular show.

THAT is the problem.

They're both talent shows; Paul Hollywood with his faux Simon Cowell persona, 'everyone has to be better this series'; next you'll be saying that show with the shouty bald grocer is not a crappy reality talent show?

Oh no, I don't know how I'll get through life.

The BBC needs to do away with buying in shows from production companies. They should employ some new creative talent and concentrate on trying to develop interesting shows that people will want to watch.

The hand-wringing on this and other forums seems a bit ridiculous. They haven't said they are going to stop making the programme, they haven't said it's going to Sky, they haven't said they are going to change the format or the presenters. It's just going to another, FTA channel. "I'm not watching it ever again!" Please.

This is the type of thing I mean when I point some of the advantages the BBC enjoys in the current UK TV industry set-up. Fair play to them for putting the GBBO on television, but beyond that I'm not sure how much credit they deserve for the programme's success. The reality is one could put almost anything on BBC1 and the literally millions of people who have that as their default channel will at least give it a shot to see if they like it. You could put the exact same show on e.g. Channel 5, and the viewing figures would be less than half. Which will probably happen the second it goes to C4. Which is absurd, of course. But hey ho.

They can't. As part of the charter they have to outsource a certain percentage of programming.

Bake Off is still another crappy "reality" talent show when all said and done. Contestants just have to bake cakes instead of sing a song, that's all. Immensely popular doesn't negate that fact.

Looking forward to Bake Off's first lesbian kiss.
And the icing tattoo challenge.

I'd imagine any agent would advise Mary, Paul, Mel and Sue to go for the highest money they can possibly get... but only to take it if they are happy to lose their other BBC work-and future employment with them

I can't think of anything any of them do on other channels-although they no doubt do. They seem to have the same BBC feel as the rest of the show.

I'd still watch on Channel 4 if they lost Mary, but got Rosemary Schrager involved. She has that posh cook thing going.... but is totally bonkers with it too.

And from the Bake Off Tent.........
Davina McCall.

if I was advising the on screen talent for Bake Off, I would say that they should be asking C4 for the kind of money they can retire on, or at least so much they will never need a big pay day again.

The BBC (as with any other broadcaster) will have worked closely with the production company to develop the programme. A broadcaster just does not buy in the finished product all filmed and wrapped up ready to air. They work with the production company to make the format suit their channel and this will involve many changes to the original idea presented. For example, if ITV had commissioned the show would it have been the same format with the same gentle 'BBC-esque' tone to it? Would it have had a phone in elimination and shot on the hoof in order to allow this? Would the contestant line up been more provocative for the sake of generating publicity? In the age of nasty reality TV judges would the approach of judges in Bake Off been different?

If credit is being dished out the the BBC (in this instance) deserve a lot more than the perceived notion that a broadcaster just buys in the finished product.

It seems to me from what I have read that the Production company were really holding the BBC to ransom, asking 5 times the usual fee.

Having had to make all those cuts, to its sports coverage in particular, the Beed could hardly then be seen to authorize such a steep increase could it, however popular the show is ?

It was a no win situation for the BBC as far as I am concerned and therefore feel they are not the bad guys in all this.

That was five years ago and many (including myself) felt that it was a mis-step for the BBC to aggressively bid for an entertainment format (against ITV amongst others). I don't mind in the slightest that the format has gone to ITV, especially given the fact that the show never really took off on the Beeb. I always felt that if one of the casualties was The Voice then that wasn't an issue with me.

But Bake Off is different - the Beeb didn't bid for an already-popular global format against commercial stations to secure it. They commissioned it from an indie and then nurtured it over six years and it became one of the most popular shows in the country. And now the indie has decided to hawk it to the highest bidder. Congratulations to the BBC for calling their bluff. It's a disgraceful move and it could really affect the industry now if other indies attempt to treat their formats like this.

Trying to look at a positive side.

Would a judge panel of Rosemary Strager and Simon Rimmer, work as judges.

And Tim Lovejoy, and another host, dare I say t maybe Davina.

All four are Channel 4 people

How can Sky protect the show when it will deprive so many from being able to watch it simply because they cannot afford to. Just look at the average viewing audiences for SKY, the bigger picture is that the GBBO generates so much interest and is a huge bonus for the baking industry, much of that would disappear if shown on SKY.

The commercial sector had 4 years to take up the format but didn't. The BBC invested a huge amount in the programme and no other broadcaster would have made it so big,

You may be so very happy but you would not have enjoyed it without the BBC but never mind lets see what the price of watching SKY will be if it ends up there.

The show will lose at least half it's audience airing on Ch4.

Love also produce "Junior Bake off" for CBBC - cannot imagine Channel 4 will be showing that - they stopped targetting children decades ago.

Can also imagine - as previous posters have said - that "Sewing Bee" and the Pottery thing will get shunted around the schedules by the BBC, then quietly binned ASAP.

So Love Productions have got an extra £10 million per year for Bake off, but they will lose the revenue of the Junior Bake Off / Sewing Bee/ Pottery throwdown plus the "Extra Slice" show
It is not inconceivable if they want to keep the "Talent" for Bake-off they will have to have really deep pockets.

BBC Worldwide was also the International distributor, so if that relationship terminates they will have to find another partner to market and manage the format overseas.

It was rumoured that Channel bid 4X what the BBC offered for "old" episodes of the Simpsons some years ago.