Clarkson

pinno

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Just because...instantly.

But in the...C'est la vie.

Think you over-estimate how money orientated those at the BBC are....

They have to be don't they? After all, they are under so much pressure over the license fee.

rick_chasey

pinarello001 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Just because...instantly.

But in the...C'est la vie.

Think you over-estimate how money orientated those at the BBC are....

They have to be don't they? After all, they are under so much pressure over the license fee.

I don't know how you imagine BBC employees, but I imagine it's very 'sandals and copies of the guardian' except for real top brass.

pblakeney

JackPozzi wrote:

Chris Bass wrote:

While I agree, what if they punched them after work? James may has said he was very drunk at the time, should he also be suspended? If that guy in the basement was drunk he would also be fired

I've always understood that an incident outside the actual workplace could lead to a disciplinary, especially if it's been organised by the company for example a punch up at a work xmas do or at a hotel after a work event.

I was informed of a ludicrous employment disciplinary situation recently.

It is a rule that you can only smoke at work during designated times, in designated locations only. Morning break, lunch, and afternoon break.
It is an accepted practice that you can leave the work premises whenever you like to go to a cafe for a coffee/roll/snack.

if you smoke outside the work premises (open public streets) on the way to the cafe outside designated break periods then you can be sacked.

Aren't working practises brilliant. :?

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Just because...instantly.

But in the...C'est la vie.

Think you over-estimate how money orientated those at the BBC are....

They have to be don't they? After all, they are under so much pressure over the license fee.

That's the point I was making. They will be under some pressure on the financial impact. But not as much as a normal commercial organisation.

The point about money talking was more a general fact of life point, which will have some bearing on the decision. Especially as it is pretty obvious to everyone.

Lets see shall we. Good luck Jezza whichever way it goes

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Just because...instantly.

But in the...C'est la vie.

Think you over-estimate how money orientated those at the BBC are....

They have to be don't they? After all, they are under so much pressure over the license fee.

That's the point I was making. They will be under some pressure on the financial impact. But not as much as a normal commercial organisation.

The point about money talking was more a general fact of life point, which will have some bearing on the decision. Especially as it is pretty obvious to everyone.

Lets see shall we. Good luck Jezza whichever way it goes

Next leader of UKIP?

Manc33

Let Peter "Mandy" Mandleson do the Top Gear job since he cannot get fired. He could become good friends with James May. The main thing is he would never tell the truth about anything and certainly wouldn't talk about speed cameras the way Clarkson does, the perfect man for the job.

Stevo_666

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Lets see shall we. Good luck Jezza whichever way it goes

Next leader of UKIP?

Even better, get Farage to present Top Gear. He is pro-motorist after all

Frank the tank

metronome wrote:

To quote Oscar Wilde

The unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible

Manc33

Mark Thatcher went missing in the Algerian desert in 1982... or that's what the papers told us, really he had been kidnapped because Maggie was planning on paying off the national debt, the banksters kidnapped Mark Thatcher in reality. No I don't have proof except that every time any leader has tried that they have been warned and if they carry on they get killed in every case, no exceptions. You don't really need proof then if Maggie was about to pay off the national debt, or was planning to, when you already can see from the past what happens to people that do this, it is pretty easy to then figure out Mark Thatcher was kidnapped, that's the rumour.

Velonutter

Manc33, I'll say this openly, cut the derailing of threads with conspiracy theories, I don't care and am sure others don't either.

Keep it factual about the subject heading and nothing else.

Last chance.

pinno

Velonutter wrote:

Manc33, I'll say this openly, cut the derailing of threads with conspiracy theories, I don't care and am sure others don't either.

Keep it factual about the subject heading and nothing else.

Last chance.

Oh come on VN, he puts a smile on plenty of faces.

RDW

Velonutter wrote:

Keep it factual about the subject heading and nothing else.

That would kill about 90% of the threads on the Cake Shop and Bottom Bracket!

Maybe the solution is, like the 'Big Girls' thread on BB, a single place where all this stuff can quarantined (like Ebola, which definitely wasn't created by the NIH in collusion with the drug companies). I'll create one on BB and see what happens...

Back on topic, Clarkson was reportedly downing the red wine in a pub before the incident, and turned up at the hotel two hours late still expecting a hot dinner, which would make his behaviour even less excusable.

pinno

RDW wrote:

Velonutter wrote:

Keep it factual about the subject heading and nothing else.

That would...

Back on topic, Clarkson was reportedly downing the red wine in a pub before the incident, and turned up at the hotel two hours late still expecting a hot dinner, which would make his behaviour even less excusable.

Hope he didn't drive back to the hotel.

RDW

pinarello001 wrote:

RDW wrote:

Velonutter wrote:

Keep it factual about the subject heading and nothing else.

That would...

Back on topic, Clarkson was reportedly downing the red wine in a pub before the incident, and turned up at the hotel two hours late still expecting a hot dinner, which would make his behaviour even less excusable.

Hope he didn't drive back to the hotel.

Who do you think he is, some sort of peasant? They kept a helicopter waiting to take them back while they were down the pub.

pinno

RDW wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

RDW wrote:

Velonutter wrote:

Keep it factual about the subject heading and nothing else.

That would...

Back on topic, Clarkson was reportedly downing the red wine in a pub before the incident, and turned up at the hotel two hours late still expecting a hot dinner, which would make his behaviour even less excusable.

Hope he didn't drive back to the hotel.

Who do you think he is, some sort of peasant? They kept a helicopter waiting to take them back while they were down the pub.

Peasants drive Jaguars and Ferraris?! I have never seen him in a reasonably priced car.

mrushton

He doesn't own a car, does he? Most of them will be test cars or long-term loaners. He was part of the Jaguar programme for a while and may still be (basically free cars for celebs). He may have bought that GT40 but suspect it was some lease deal from Ford

pesky_jones

Stevo 666 wrote:

If I bit someone at work I'd be straight out but Suarez got away with it 3 times because of how valuable he is. Money talks. C'est la vie.

I agree, If I consistently displayed signs of racism, I wouldn't expect to keep my job. Let alone be team leader

rolf_f

Apologies if this has already been suggested - I've not looked in chat for a couple of days and I can't be bothered to wade through 6 pages of Manc33 paranoia!

Anyway - this is all clearly just another bit of classic TG scripting.

Scenario. JC has been doing Top Gear for years. Like him or not, he is a clever bloke. Chances are he is bored to death with it. He also realises that no matter how repetitive it becomes, there will always be a large number of people (eg all those that signed the petition) that will want more - it will remain popular no matter how many dire episodes they produce (eg the one with the Peugeot piece in it.....). So, what is the obvious thing to do to get rid of it?

1) Sell your part ownership whilst it is at peak value.
2) Stir up lots of controversy. a) it will be fun doing it and b) it will annoy your employers which leads you to....
3) Engineer something to get yourself sacked (not that that has worked - he even had to report the offence himself and seems to be quitting before the Beeb have had a chance to do anything).
4) Make your choice from amongst all the offers and count the piles of money coming in.

If Clarkson still owned part of TG, it would have been harder to extricate himself from it - as it is, he can quit and the Beeb has the problem of what to do with it. If he just quit TG, then TG would have carried on perfectly well without him (after all, all the other global franchises of TG manage without Clarkson). Clarkson is much stronger as a product without him having to compete with TG as it stands.

Given Top Gears past form, I wouldn't be surprised if Oisin Tymon isn't in on it as well :roll:

slowmart

Equally it would be interesting to see the contract Clarkson and Wilman signed when they sold the rights to TG to the BBC.

Even the most cretinous solicitor, even a cretinous in house with a 2:1 solicitor would have inserted a non compete clause for a certain time period if employment ceased with the organisation. Given the outlay to secure the rights it's inconceivable that this wouldn't be the case.

But it is the BBC so i'd question the capability of their execs given the lack of rigour, oversight, compliance and appetite for paying off poor performers , employing pedo's and external contracts for "consultants" where most private companies call consultants employees and therefor the individuals pay the appropriate amount in tax.

the playing mantis

morstar wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

880,000 signatures and rising. Clearly quite a few people like him. He'll be back, just not at the Beeb who have shot themselves in the foot financially in a massive way if this goes as we think it will.

Kevin Pietersen can still score lots of runs but ultimately England decided they're better off without him. Sometimes you have to make bold decisions where disruptive personalities are concerned. I have no knowledge of the fine details here but I don't agree that in principle the Beeb have made a mistake just because Clarkson is a popular money generator.

Either the Beeb haven't managed him well enough or he genuinely has reached the point where he is more trouble than he's worth.

better off without KP....top kek...that went well

frisbee

the playing mantis wrote:

better off without KP....top kek...that went well

We beat Scotland!

the playing mantis

pinarello001 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

Just because...instantly.

But in the...C'est la vie.

Think you over-estimate how money orientated those at the BBC are....

They have to be don't they? After all, they are under so much pressure over the license fee.

That's the point I was making. They will be under some pressure on the financial impact. But not as much as a normal commercial organisation.

The point about money talking was more a general fact of life point, which will have some bearing on the decision. Especially as it is pretty obvious to everyone.

Lets see shall we. Good luck Jezza whichever way it goes

Next leader of UKIP?

dont tease, what a thought, actually him and nige co leaders a la the sdp...

im gettin all excited!

the playing mantis

mrushton wrote:

He doesn't own a car, does he? Most of them will be test cars or long-term loaners. He was part of the Jaguar programme for a while and may still be (basically free cars for celebs). He may have bought that GT40 but suspect it was some lease deal from Ford

he sent it back

the playing mantis

frisbee wrote:

the playing mantis wrote:

better off without KP....top kek...that went well

We beat Scotland!

my village could beat the sweatys

the playing mantis

Rolf F wrote:

Apologies if this has already been suggested - I've not looked in chat for a couple of days and I can't be bothered to wade through 6 pages of Manc33 paranoia!

Anyway - this is all clearly just another bit of classic TG scripting.

Scenario. JC has been doing Top Gear for years. Like him or not, he is a clever bloke. Chances are he is bored to death with it. He also realises that no matter how repetitive it becomes, there will always be a large number of people (eg all those that signed the petition) that will want more - it will remain popular no matter how many dire episodes they produce (eg the one with the Peugeot piece in it.....). So, what is the obvious thing to do to get rid of it?

1) Sell your part ownership whilst it is at peak value.
2) Stir up lots of controversy. a) it will be fun doing it and b) it will annoy your employers which leads you to....
3) Engineer something to get yourself sacked (not that that has worked - he even had to report the offence himself and seems to be quitting before the Beeb have had a chance to do anything).
4) Make your choice from amongst all the offers and count the piles of money coming in.

If Clarkson still owned part of TG, it would have been harder to extricate himself from it - as it is, he can quit and the Beeb has the problem of what to do with it. If he just quit TG, then TG would have carried on perfectly well without him (after all, all the other global franchises of TG manage without Clarkson). Clarkson is much stronger as a product without him having to compete with TG as it stands.

Given Top Gears past form, I wouldn't be surprised if Oisin Tymon isn't in on it as well :roll:

highly plausible, even though there are some stinker episodes now, the piece about Peugeots was spot on.

pesky_jones

Rolf F wrote:

Apologies if this has already been suggested - I've not looked in chat for a couple of days and I can't be bothered to wade through 6 pages of]Manc33 paranoia!

Anyway - this is all clearly just another bit of classic TG scripting.

Scenario. JC has been doing Top Gear for years. Like him or not, he is a clever bloke. Chances are he is bored to death with it. He also realises that no matter how repetitive it becomes, there will always be a large number of people (eg all those that signed the petition) that will want more - it will remain popular no matter how many dire episodes they produce (eg the one with the Peugeot piece in it.....). So, what is the obvious thing to do to get rid of it?

1) Sell your part ownership whilst it is at peak value.
2) Stir up lots of controversy. a) it will be fun doing it and b) it will annoy your employers which leads you to....
3) Engineer something to get yourself sacked (not that that has worked - he even had to report the offence himself and seems to be quitting before the Beeb have had a chance to do anything).
4) Make your choice from amongst all the offers and count the piles of money coming in.

If Clarkson still owned part of TG, it would have been harder to extricate himself from it - as it is, he can quit and the Beeb has the problem of what to do with it. If he just quit TG, then TG would have carried on perfectly well without him (after all, all the other global franchises of TG manage without Clarkson). Clarkson is much stronger as a product without him having to compete with TG as it stands.

Given Top Gears past form, I wouldn't be surprised if Oisin Tymon isn't in on it as well :roll:

To be fair, this theory is quite manc33esque

Manc33

I knew something was up when they aired that overly boring ambulance episode. Apart from the specials, that must have been the only episode in the show's history that was only about one thing. No one except ambulance drivers would be interested. Same thing all the way through the show.

I even said at the time are they trying to reduce the viewing figures?

apreading

I (and many others) thought the ambulance episode was the best one for some time...!

I think the format is generally feeling repetitive though. And they are suffering from the fact that the specials did so well, so they made too many of them - to the extent where they dont feel very special any more.

VTech

My shock is that people seriously think that this is an "incident"
It is nothing more than a very carefuly planned route to enable him to move on freely and make more money.

Think "non compete clause"

ugo.santalucia

VTech wrote:

My shock is that people seriously think that this is an "incident"
It is nothing more than a very carefuly planned route to enable him to move on freely and make more money.

Think "non compete clause"

I am not sure, I bet he genuinely has a lot of fun travelling around the world with his mates pretending to be teenagers... it's not something he'll be able to do in the same way outside TG.