Is this the biggest fudge ever?

Castiel · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:26

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-03-31/...head-rebranded-clarkson-hammond-and-may-live/

So the Top Gear live shows go ahead, with the original cast..including the not so "sacked" Jeremy Clarkson...the only thing to have happened is a re-branding.

I hope they have Steak.

Mynight · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:28

Why would they even do that :confused:

.

[TW]Fox · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:30

Mynight said:
Why would they even do that .

Because the contracts are totally separate and do not expire until the end of the year, the venues are all booked and the tickets are all sold.

Mynight · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:34

I meant the name change bit. Would have thought they'd keep the name the same.

Unless this is a precursor to 'Clarkson, Hammond and May Show' coming soon to BBC 2

.

Castiel · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:38

It proves one thing at least...Clarkson was not sacked.

[TW]Fox · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:44

Castiel said:
It proves one thing at least...Clarkson was not sacked.

It didn't need 'proving', Clarkson was not an employee of the BBC, he was a third party who held two contracts - one with the BBC for the TV show and one with BBC Worldwide for the live events.

They didn't renew his contract for the former and the contract for the latter has 6 months to run.

You don't sack somebody who isn't your employee.

Thekwango · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:47

Oh Lordy. Another Clarkson thread......

Castiel · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:49

[TW]Fox;27853755 said:
It didn't need 'proving', Clarkson was not an employee of the BBC, he was a third party who held two contracts - one with the BBC for the TV show and one with BBC Worldwide for the live events.

They didn't renew his contract for the former and the contract for the latter has 6 months to run.

You don't sack somebody who isn't your employee.

You don't need to lecture me on things I already know.

It is a fudge by the Beeb though. They say they cannot renew his contract or allow him to finish filming the portions of the remaining episodes (as per his contract) because of his behaviour...yet he can continue the live shows, they simply rebranded them.

dowie · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:49

Mynight said:
Why would they even do that .

I'd guess because they have the same strange irrational way of looking at profit/loss, risk etc.. as lots of other people

if they cancel the live shows they'll have to pay back 10 million or so to the ticket holders etc..

seemingly this loss is something they want to mitigate, yet the remaining TV shows and any future series (which represent hundreds of millions) they can somehow afford to take a hit on... perhaps because the money for the live shows has already been handed over they feel differently about it in some irrational way or other

[TW]Fox;27853755 said:
They didn't renew his contract for the former and the contract for the latter has 6 months to run.

You don't sack somebody who isn't your employee.

the contract for the TV show still had a couple of shows left to run yet they were happy to pull the plug on those

Scania · 31 Mar 2015 at 19:58

dowie said:
the contract for the TV show still had a couple of shows left to run yet they were happy to pull the plug on those

Because by pulling the shows they don't breach any other contracts (such as for venues) for the live shows.

Not to mention Hammond & May wouldn't record without Clarkson so they had no shows to air anyway.

dowie · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:02

Scania said:
Because by pulling the shows they don't breach any other contracts (such as for venues) for the live shows.

yes they did, it is shown overseas too

estebanrey · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:11

Castiel said:
..including the not so "sacked" Jeremy Clarkson...the only thing to have happened is a re-branding.

[TW]Fox;27853755 said:
It didn't need 'proving', Clarkson was not an employee of the BBC, he was a third party who held two contracts - one with the BBC for the TV show and one with BBC Worldwide for the live events.

Castiel said:
You don't need to lecture me on things I already know.

Does best impression of Castiel...

You implied he'd been sacked. He wasn't, you are wrong so stop making a fool of yourself.

Even though 'sacked' is common parlance in the entertainment world for not having your contract renewed and everyone, including me, understood the sentiment of your post, technically he wasn't sacked. You implied he was, so you are wrong.

Did I mention you're technically wrong?

Castiel said:
It is a fudge by the Beeb though. They say they cannot renew his contract or allow him to finish filming the portions of the remaining episodes (as per his contract) because of his behaviour...yet he can continue the live shows, they simply rebranded them.

No, no, no. Let's not worry about the point you were making and how that isn't affected by whether he was sacked or not, let's start a two page debate how you implied he had been sacked when he wasn't.

...annoying isn't it?

Castiel · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:12

Scania said:
Because by pulling the shows they don't breach any other contracts (such as for venues) for the live shows.

Not to mention Hammond & May wouldn't record without Clarkson so they had no shows to air anyway.

Yes they have. There are several hundred rights holders whose contracts have been breached if those shows are not forthcoming.

Wizzfizz · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:15

Looks nothing like fudge

Kenai · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:15

dowie said:
yes they did, it is shown overseas too

Depends if it's sold on before or after series completion, if this series hadn't been sold onwards yet, then no issues.

Castiel · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:18

estebanrey said:
Does best impression of Castiel...

You implied he'd been sacked. He wasn't, you are wrong so stop making a fool of yourself.

I said it proved he had not been sacked based on the media and other debates where the implication was he has been sacked. This simply proves that the contracts are still valid and running until they expire.

estebanrey said:
Even though 'sacked' is common parlance in the entertainment world for not having your contract renewed and everyone, including me, understood the sentiment of your post, technically he wasn't sacked. You implied he was, so you are wrong.

I said it proived he was not sacked...not that there was any implication he was. of course if you wish to read my post in such a way, go ahead.

estebanrey said:
Did I mention you're technically wrong?

Why, was he sacked?

estebanrey said:
No, no, no. Let's not worry about the point you were making and how that isn't affected by whether he was sacked or not, let's start a two page debate how you implied he had been sacked when he wasn't.

If you want to debate whether he was sacked or not, go ahead. I'm sure others might debate it with you or not, as the case may be.

Although if you are attempting to be clever simply because you are butthurt over being wrong in aniother thread, then perhaps you might want to reconsider, as it may well be considered as breaching the rules of the forum..i'm not sure..but if you think you have a valid point on Jeremy being sacked rather than not, make your case...someone might entertain you.

estebanrey said:
...annoying isn't it?

No, actually watching you make a fool of yourself is rather amusing.

estebanrey · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:21

Grow a sense of humour mate

Castiel · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:23

Kenai said:
Depends if it's sold on before or after series completion, if this series hadn't been sold onwards yet, then no issues.

They are, in some countries shown concurrently or as close as can be to the original airing. I think this show had it's premier simultaneously across the globe.

estebanrey said:
Grow a sense of humour mate

I have no need to grow what I already have...like I said you amuse me.

Caseh · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:26

Came in for fudge, left disappoint.

Cosimo · 31 Mar 2015 at 20:27

Wizzfizz said:
Looks nothing like fudge

Doesn't taste like it either, really rather boring.