Clarkson
Comments
-
ddraver wrote:It ll slightly destroy your theory if it works eh? Or would that be the BBC's cunning way of punishing Clarkson all the more
I think anything he does will get a following but I don't think it will see the same 350m viewers globally as TG does now.
I struggle to see how the show got that many to be honest as the topic has often come up when talking to friends and clients around the world, all of whom are petrolhead due to our similar life and work. Almost all have agreed that it is daft and has gone down the pan but having said that, the americans I know love it for the daftness, I don't really know what that says about top gear or americans but thats another story.
Whatever happens, in the short term I see JC making a shed load of cash and as previously, he will be on a low wage paid by a company he works for with a managerial fee instead of tax at the standard rates for salary.
Anyway, fair play to him, you live once and if your happy to get by by upsetting others then who's to say whats right or wrong ?Living MY dream.0 -
So he is staying on then?
I want him to. :oops:
Get the 8th episode on FFS! :twisted:
Since one has been missed, we should just get a double bill of episodes 8 and 9 this Sunday but, Rome wasn't built in a day. The speed things like this get sorted out, they will probably be tagging the missing three episodes onto the start of the next series. :roll:
I don't know how far advanced people here think the possibility of them conspiring is, but I can see it. Imagine the first 4 or 5 episodes went out... people were already complaining, especially about the ambulance episode since that was the only feature in the whole show apart from the celebrity interview/lap - so the producers (yes the producers, not Clarkson) said this can't go on, we need some free advertising...
It is a desperate thing to have to do but it worked. Nearly a million people said they want Clarkson to stay, Top Gear is being written about all over the world. People will tune into the next episode (if Clarkson is on it this is) just to see what he says about it all, or what the beeb is going to allow him to say but that's just it, its all a ruse where the producers can just say why not set up this thing where Clarkson hits one of us, piece of p1ss lol.
Did Osmin Tymon or whatever he is called even have a bruise?
Make-up department. 
It would make a good headline and add even more controversy...
"Tymon filmed leaving BBC's make-up department on day of Clarkson food fight" then some blurb about how it was the only day he had ever gone in that department, bruise was there exiting the department that wasn't there entering the department and so on and so forth.0 -
It's almost certainly never going to run with clarkson as it stands. He will move on with his own show, maybe with the other 2 in toe. It's down to who will now purchase show rights from Newincco 1189 Limited.Living MY dream.0
-
Those Arabs that bought City.0
-
Latest from Clarkson: The presenter gave an expletive-filled description of BBC bosses, adding Top Gear had been "a great show" but it had been ruined by the corporation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31981751
Not sure what he means by that. Is he alluding to the events of the last couple of weeks (ie a sequence of events that has entirely been instigated by Clarkson at every step) or does he think that the quality of the product itself has degenerated due to the corporation interfering in some way?
But anyway, all this can be summed up as "employee of company assaults another company employee. The company then launch investigation at which point the first employee starts slagging off the company" There's a million petition signers who don't seem to think that that is the action of someone wanting to get fired.........Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:Latest from Clarkson: The presenter gave an expletive-filled description of BBC bosses, adding Top Gear had been "a great show" but it had been ruined by the corporation
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31981751
Not sure what he means by that. Is he alluding to the events of the last couple of weeks (ie a sequence of events that has entirely been instigated by Clarkson at every step) or does he think that the quality of the product itself has degenerated due to the corporation interfering in some way?
But anyway, all this can be summed up as "employee of company assaults another company employee. The company then launch investigation at which point the first employee starts slagging off the company" There's a million petition signers who don't seem to think that that is the action of someone wanting to get fired.........
Everything I read from or about him makes me laugh, He sold his share, he got paid, its not as if he sold his shares and they didn't pay every penny owed :!:
The one thing that gets me is the part of a standard contract where you can't actively damage the credibility of the company you work for, I don't have his contract in my hand but there is no way that on £750,000 an episode that clause is not written into it.
IMO he has done everything in his power to discredit the show which renders him in breach of contract but the issue will be as follows.
How much will the breach cost him.
Is it to his benefit if he pays a charge and moves on freely.
One thing is for certain, he is not acting as he goes, this is a methodical plan.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:The one thing that gets me is the part of a standard contract where you can't actively damage the credibility of the company you work for, I don't have his contract in my hand but there is no way that on £750,000 an episode that clause is not written into it.
Does it cover criminality or is he "allowed" to report that if he sees it?0 -
Would you show them the bit where Dad uses the word w@nk?thegreatdivide wrote:If I had kids I'd make them read this thread to show them what's wrong with the internet. 18 pages of utter w@nk.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
PBlakeney wrote:
Would you show them the bit where Dad uses the word w@nk?thegreatdivide wrote:If I had kids I'd make them read this thread to show them what's wrong with the internet. 18 pages of utter w@nk.
He would - immediately after explaining to them what a terrible a device the internet is for enabling people with common interests to get together and express their opinions.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:PBlakeney wrote:
Would you show them the bit where Dad uses the word w@nk?thegreatdivide wrote:If I had kids I'd make them read this thread to show them what's wrong with the internet. 18 pages of utter w@nk.
He would - immediately after explaining to them what a terrible a device the internet is for enabling people with common interests to get together and express their opinions.
On a serious note, just how much has the net changed the world :shock: would it be classed on a similar level to the likes of penicillin, maybe some would say it is more important ? Not bad for a P2P startup.Living MY dream.0 -
It makes finding out important things a lot easier.0
-
So, in his newspaper column Mr JC has told people that the petition is pointless as people are plankton and the world is run by whales who eat it all up.
Some may say........ That this is in a bid to stop people petitioning because it may not be in HIS best interest of everyone thought he was the one wanting to rave the show having not resigned his contract after 7 months of requests from the BBC.
They may be concerned about the new company he has started or negotiations that new company is in regarding new auto shows and Europe wide venue exhibitions.Living MY dream.0 -
VTech wrote:So, in his newspaper column Mr JC has told people that the petition is pointless as people are plankton and the world is run by whales who eat it all up.
Some may say........ That this is in a bid to stop people petitioning because it may not be in HIS best interest of everyone thought he was the one wanting to rave the show having not resigned his contract after 7 months of requests from the BBC.
They may be concerned about the new company he has started or negotiations that new company is in regarding new auto shows and Europe wide venue exhibitions.
It's looking more like your take on this is correct, Clarkson has had enough of the Bloated Broadcasting Corporation and the current TG format has come to the end of the road(track), run out of ideas, as I said in my earlier post. There's only so many times you can (blow up/set fire to/drop things on/drag through the country side to destruction) a caravan.0 -
This is potentially quite a credible scenario, though like you say we can only speculate without the benefit of knowing what is in his contract.VTech wrote:The one thing that gets me is the part of a standard contract where you can't actively damage the credibility of the company you work for, I don't have his contract in my hand but there is no way that on £750,000 an episode that clause is not written into it.
IMO he has done everything in his power to discredit the show which renders him in breach of contract but the issue will be as follows.
How much will the breach cost him.
Is it to his benefit if he pays a charge and moves on freely.
One thing is for certain, he is not acting as he goes, this is a methodical plan.
The things I am struggling to get my head around are:
1. A contract that lucrative would likely have a non-compete clause in it of some sort. Even if he has to pay out for breach on the 'not damaging the credibility of your employer', the non-compete usually survives other breaches if written properly and would allow the BBC to sue for large amounts related to loss of earnings.
2. If his (and Hammond/Mays) contract are about to expire, why not wait an extra couple of weeks and walk without having to pay for breach on the 'damaging your employers credibility' point?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
When Vtech first said something about Clarkson colluding it was "Oh you're a conspiracy theorist too now are you?" blah blah blah and now... its looking like he was correct after all?
Get the champagne out. This is the first time anything like this has been admitted to since I first joined the forum five years back. I feel like I just found one of the five golden tickets.
0 -
I said it's a credible scenario - not that he was right. There is a slight difference...Manc33 wrote:When Vtech first said something about Clarkson colluding it was "Oh you're a conspiracy theorist too now are you?" blah blah blah and now... its looking like he was correct after all?
Get the champagne out. This is a first.
Remind me where I said VTech was a conspiracy theorist on Clarkson? (PS: If Clarkson hit someone trying to get himself sacked to make a few bob, it's not exactly a conspiracy is it? ) "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It doesn't really matter who is right or wrong.
In answer to Stevo 666, it would give him a huge following into the new show if he was deemed as being mistreated. People love someone who has been done a wrong, its a kind of way of life.Living MY dream.0 -
Maybe he simply didn't fancy a few days in Norway during March?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Could it not just be a case of an big, tired, angry man with an inflated idea of his own importance taking things a bit far and having a little tussle with a colleague? just a thought!
My cousin works on Top Gear and we handily have a family party on Saturday so i'll see what I can find out*
*decision by the BBC is meant to be made this week so there is a good chance you'll all know before me.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Chris Bass wrote:*decision by the BBC is meant to be made this week so there is a good chance you'll all know before me.
have you been influenced by manc33 and choose to not read/listen to the news?0 -
Chris Bass wrote:Could it not just be a case of an big, tired, angry man with an inflated idea of his own self importance taking things a bit far and having a little tussle with a colleague? just a thought.0
-
DJ58 wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Could it not just be a case of an big, tired, angry man with an inflated idea of his own self importance taking things a bit far and having a little tussle with a colleague? just a thought.
is his own importance and his own self importance not the same thing?Pesky Jones wrote:Chris Bass wrote:*decision by the BBC is meant to be made this week so there is a good chance you'll all know before me.
have you been influenced by manc33 and choose to not read/listen to the news?
sorry, I meant you'll hear before I see my cousin and therefore make any information I find out rather redundant (potentially like Mr Clarkson!)www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
DJ58 wrote:Chris Bass wrote:Could it not just be a case of an big, tired, angry man with an inflated idea of his own self importance taking things a bit far and having a little tussle with a colleague? just a thought.
I doubt it, more certainly down to cash.Living MY dream.0 -
It also makes it a lot easier to distribute nonsense masquerading as important stuff.Manc33 wrote:It makes finding out important things a lot easier.
The difficulty in the internet age is not in getting hold of information but rather, determining which information is credible. I suspect we both have similar access to information but I doubt very much we consider the same things important.0 -
Add to that the fact that search engines tend to lead you to sources related to those you've already looked at and you end up with a process that, in effect, tells you what you want to hear and thus reaffirms your existing prejudices. No different from pre-web days when people tended to read the same paper day after day. My old dad wasn't especially 'political' (he supported the Ploath* Party) but one thing he taught me was to read newspapers at random. At least you get to 'appreciate' the full spectrum of bullsh1t.Ai_1 wrote:
It also makes it a lot easier to distribute nonsense masquerading as important stuff.Manc33 wrote:It makes finding out important things a lot easier.
The difficulty in the internet age is not in getting hold of information but rather, determining which information is credible. I suspect we both have similar access to information but I doubt very much we consider the same things important.
* (Plague On All Their Houses)0
