Jeremy Clarkson suspended from BBC

Glaucus · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:00

Oops, now BBC are facing millions in fines, for contracts they've sold overseas to supply top gear.

This seems to have been handled terribly by the BBC, regardless of the final outcome.
Still don't understand why they couldn't carry on with just may and Hammond, or got someone else in temporarily.

ubersonic · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:06

Glaucus said:
Still don't understand why they couldn't carry on with just may and Hammond, or got someone else in temporarily.

Clarkson is the host of TG, it just doesn't work without him, May/Hammond are cool guys but they're co presenters not hosts, as evidenced when May was first brought in to replace Dawe.

Glaucus · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:09

ubersonic said:
Clarkson is the host of TG, it just doesn't work without him, May/Hammond are cool guys but they're co presenters not hosts, as evidenced when May was first brought in to replace Dawe.

It's all filmed other than the 10min studio bit. telling me they couldn't get through that for three shows.

ubersonic · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:24

Glaucus said:
It's all filmed other than the 10min studio bit. telling me they couldn't get through that for three shows.

My guess is that with him suspended they can't use the segments with him in because he would profit from it and they have policies to go by and internal politics/etc.

Also there's the issue that May/Hammond may refuse to go ahead without him.

ElliorR · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:29

I've just read somewhere, and I'm not linking as I'd be embarrassed to say I read it there

, that the producer hasn't made a complaint but someone else did. Now if that is true I am wondering if that's why he has a lawyer speaking for him.

Saying that given the source, I'm sure you lot will guess, I don't know if it's just speculation or crap "journalism".

Glaucus · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:30

ubersonic said:
My guess is that with him suspended they can't use the segments with him in because he would profit from it and they have policies to go by and internal politics/etc.

Also there's the issue that May/Hammond may refuse to go ahead without him.

They're contracted, it's filmed they are entitled to pay him already.
If they refused they would be in breach if their contracts.
BBC owns 100% of the rights and all 3 of them are contracted to the BBC,

ElliorR · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:35

ubersonic said:
My guess is that with him suspended they can't use the segments with him in because he would profit from it and they have policies to go by and internal politics/etc.

But the BBC were still happy to show a repeat of Top Gear on BBC 3 last night.

MooMoo444 · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:41

ElliorR said:
But the BBC were still happy to show a repeat of Top Gear on BBC 3 last night.

Castiel · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:44

Glaucus said:
They're contracted, it's filmed they are entitled to pay him already.
If they refused they would be in breach if their contracts.
BBC owns 100% of the rights and all 3 of them are contracted to the BBC,

They have to pay him anyway...the contract that gave the BBC control over Top Gear in 2012 means that JC gets significant dividends if any future profits, whether he is involved or not. He wins either way.

ubersonic · 12 Mar 2015 at 10:58

Glaucus said:
They're contracted, it's filmed they are entitled to pay him already.
If they refused they would be in breach if their contracts.
BBC owns 100% of the rights and all 3 of them are contracted to the BBC,

It's not that simple, the BBC own 100% of the rights because they bought him out, and like any contract the are clauses, not only does he benefit from everything the TG brand does (even if not involved) but he gets money for every episode broadcast, so by not showing the Sunday episode they are avoiding giving a lump of money to a person they just suspended for violence, which would obviously be against some BBC policy.

ElliorR · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:04

I would bet my life on JC's contract giving him a royalty for Top Gear repeats of which BBC 3 showed one last night.

Uther · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:19

What a ridiculous contract they must have signed with him.They could sack him for gross misconduct and still have to pay him a fortune every time they show TG!

Kronos · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:22

Replacement presenters perhaps? http://www.windsorexpress.co.uk/New...-in-fracas-free-race-at-Legoland-11032015.htm

Castiel · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:26

Uther said:
What a ridiculous contract they must have signed with him.They could sack him for gross misconduct and still have to pay him a fortune every time they show TG!

Which is better than before when if he left the Top Gear Brand went with him.

dunker · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:39

yeah that was odd last night, bbc3 showing TopGear repeat yet cancelling next sundays episode, so JC prolly not getting paid for repeats?

PooKer · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:41

As its all allegations and investigations I don't see why BBC couldn't of just finished the series then announced the investigation once its honoured its contracts. Innocent until proven guilty etc. Now if he comes back and does the last of the series its almost like its purely a publicity stunt.
Another issue could be they hadn't done the required prep work and this buys a few weeks and headlines. I remember them saying in the interview before the series they're behind in the recording of some segments.

Castiel · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:50

The contract Clarkson has with the BBC (separate to his contract for the rights of Top Gear brand) expires at the end of the month....it is thought one senior exec at the BBC wants him out, while the DG doesn't. It also is believed that behind the scenes a bidding war has been going on for Clarkson (and the other two whose contracts are also up) between other broadcasters, including ITV and the Murdoch Empire. It is also rumoured that Clarkson wants to leave the BBC anyway and that this was a ploy to force the issue.

There is more to this than first appears.

ElliorR · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:51

dunker said:
yeah that was odd last night, bbc3 showing TopGear repeat yet cancelling next sundays episode, so JC prolly not getting paid for repeats?

I can't imagine he doesn't get paid for repeats, he would be someone with enough clout to get that in his contract.

Rroff · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:52

ubersonic said:
It's not that simple, the BBC own 100% of the rights because they bought him out, and like any contract the are clauses, not only does he benefit from everything the TG brand does (even if not involved) but he gets money for every episode broadcast, so by not showing the Sunday episode they are avoiding giving a lump of money to a person they just suspended for violence, which would obviously be against some BBC policy.

AFAIK they can't duck out of it by not showing the episode and they can't even duck out of it from that perspective by claiming breach of contract on his part.

Due to how they went world wide with the licensing for this series they are gonna get royally hammered in reimbursement and penalty fees if they don't deliver.

Castiel said:
The contract Clarkson has with the BBC (separate to his contract for the rights of Top Gear brand) expires at the end of the month....it is thought one senior exec at the BBC wants him out, while the DG doesn't. It also is believed that behind the scenes a bidding war has been going on for Clarkson (and the other two whose contracts are also up) between other broadcasters, including ITV and the Murdoch Empire. It is also rumoured that Clarkson wants to leave the BBC anyway and that this was a ploy to force the issue.

There is more to this than first appears.

Definitely more to it than first appears but unlike clarkson the other 2 have contracts also for other shows with the bbc, someone would have to be prepared to pay a lot of money to get them.

Amp34 · 12 Mar 2015 at 11:58

ubersonic said:
My guess is that with him suspended they can't use the segments with him in because he would profit from it and they have policies to go by and internal politics/etc.

Also there's the issue that May/Hammond may refuse to go ahead without him.

Especially if they believe their mate was innocent/is being unduly punished.*

I know in that situation I would and I'm guessing many others would too.

*not suggesting anything of my own opinion here, that will wait until we get more information.