Clarkson

VTech

ugo.santalucia wrote:

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.

That would only be the case if he were in fact doing the driving round the world which isn't actually the case.
He did less than 20 miles on the recent trip up north in the i8.
Money rules, always has done since Bedder 6.
Contracts expire later this month, is that a coincidence ?

Any TV network would give the same coverage to travel globally in order to get this team as revenue is astonishing, especially when you add up the extras.
Top Gear as itself really isn't a big thing, I am not saying JC is the main thing but kids follow anti establishment and the actions of the past 18 months have only gone in the favour of one side.

bompington

VTech wrote:

Contracts expire later this month, is that a coincidence ?

So your contract expires next month and you want to make more money, what do you do? Ah yes, get yourself sacked for gross misconduct. Makes perfect sense.
Are you in any way related to manc33?

Manc33

No its just you and a lot of other people go too far the other way and actually think there isn't anything funny going on, anywhere in the world, ever - like it is some sort of an impossibility.

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened." - Churchill.

pesky_jones

Manc33 wrote:

No its just you and a lot of other people go too far the other way and actually think there isn't anything funny going on, anywhere in the world, ever - like it is some sort of an impossibility.

What has anyone said that has made you think this?You think that because someone doesn't agree with the most extreme theories, then they don't believe in any "funny goings on"? If you told me that in some places in the modern world there are still major players in the construction industry that accept bribes - I might believe you. If you told me that the heads of these organisations are doing what they do because they are being controlled by a hidden body, I wouldn't believe you. Its not one or the other

VTech

bompington wrote:

VTech wrote:

Contracts expire later this month, is that a coincidence ?

So your contract expires next month and you want to make more money, what do you do? Ah yes, get yourself sacked for gross misconduct. Makes perfect sense.
Are you in any way related to manc33?

I gave you all of the clues in my comments. It amazes me how people are so daft they can't see wood through the trees. I will explain further just for you in order that you may even remotely understand my point.

Now this isn't to do with this case directly but lets say we had a very similar case elsewhere where a guy who owned a business that owned a show that was "rented" to a TV network and this person wanted more money.
What he could in theory do is the following.

Sell his shares in the company, lets call it "meller 5"

He sells his shares for many millions with a clause to enable him to remain on the show at a decent salary but in return he has to agree to a 2 year clause to stay with the show.

Part of his clause is twofold in that a) he can't leave after the two years an "compete with the company/show for a further 24 months after leaving" b) that he can't bring the company/show into disrepute, which if he does automatically terminates his contract.

One of the main points being that if he does bring the show into disrepute he should be sacked but with another clause being that if sacked he must leave the company/show immediately and not being subject to the provisions of the clauses within the original contract which would benefit him if he was "pushed out of the position" by the producers when he didn't want to be pushed out, but on the flip side would benefit him if he really wanted to leave and start a new venture.

Now with the fact that he only has 2 weeks left of his contract, and that he was the one who made the complaint after an argument started from nowhere, no real start to the argument other than a middle aged man walking into a reception and going crazy at not having hot food even though the kitchen staff had agreed to cook anything from the menu with immediate effect (and that almost all of the crew ate hot food within 30 minutes of said argument)

Is it getting through ?

ugo.santalucia

VTech wrote:

It amazes me how people are so daft they can't see wood through the trees.

Another comment like this and I press the button...

VTech

ugo.santalucia wrote:

VTech wrote:

It amazes me how people are so daft they can't see wood through the trees.

Another comment like this and I press the button...

So you threaten to ban me because of that ?
I would suggest that that action would be similar to people who were made to shut up back in the 60's with all of the bad stuff going on in the UK.
It is a fact that people do barmy stuff for money and anyone who thinks differently is daft. You can get angry with me for posting that, you can threaten to ban me but it doesn't change matters. It doesn't make me wrong. It doesn't change the fact that people take actions that benefit them even though they have a loyal following of innocent people who truly think that they have been treated badly when the truth is that they have acted entirely for their own benefit.

If you think that this deserves a ban I can't really argue with that.

bompington

VTech wrote:

...
waffle
...
...
Is it getting through ?

No, thank goodness, it's not.

slowmart

Its all in the contract and restrictions

Given the consideration paid out by the BBC for the rights to the show and format I doubt Clarkson or any solicitor would have agreed to terminate the restriction clauses past the point of employment? Not even the BBC could be that inept. The history of the individual, perceived or actual has still a factual aspect in terms of casual racism or questionable behaviours.

Only the relevant parties will have sight of the contract and no doubt unless confidentiality agreements are signed, (highly likely) we will have to wait for the autobiography to come out.

bompington

Slowmart wrote:

Only the relevant parties will have sight of the contract

No, don't you realise that there is at least one poster on here who has privileged inside info?
Come to think of it, perhaps Vtech is Clarkson? It all starts to make sense... no, hang on, Clarkson is actually known for wit, so scrap that.

VTech

bompington wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Only the relevant parties will have sight of the contract

No, don't you realise that there is at least one poster on here who has privileged inside info?
Come to think of it, perhaps Vtech is Clarkson? It all starts to make sense... no, hang on, Clarkson is actually known for wit, so scrap that.

Have I upset you ?
If I have please accept my apologies, I wouldn't want you crying into your earl grey over me.

I have been threatened for using the word daft so I will change that as I 100% genuinely never meant to cause upset, stress, harm to anyone with that wording. I simply thought it odd how people do not think anything "fishy" is happening.

I have a VERY close friend that was there at the time of the argument and what I wrote was correct, hot food was not the real cause of this argument as it was available. I am not saying an argument didn't happen, I am not saying foul language wasn't used, I am just saying that behaviour following the event was odd and benefits only one party but if JC signs a new 2 year contract with top gear without a huge pay increase I will eat my hat and apologise to anyone who wants it.

if on the other hand he gets a massive rise or moves to something new on a higher salary/shared ownership then I won't wait for a return apology but I may chuckle to myself.

pesky_jones

VTech wrote:

if JC signs a new 2 year contract with top gear without a huge pay increase I will eat my hat and apologise to anyone who wants it.

VTech wrote:

if on the other hand he gets a massive rise or moves to something new on a higher salary/shared ownership then I won't wait for a return apology but I may chuckle to myself.

Omitting coincidence then?

slowmart

Certainly a certain forum member was rather forthright with their views but there's a tipping point past polite conversation to being offensive....



Isn't that right Jezza?



Given it's free to post, enjoy the banter and use the collective knowledge and by return all we have to do is follow the rules. When i got a final warning off my favourite mod i didn't argue as essentially i'm a guest and in the first instance if your repeatedly told your behaviours are dodgy where's the valid argument as a response?

VTech

Slowmart wrote:

Certainly a certain forum member was rather forthright with their views but there's a tipping point past polite conversation to being offensive....



Isn't that right Jezza?



Given it's free to post, enjoy the banter and use the collective knowledge and by return all we have to do is follow the rules. When i got a final warning off my favourite mod i didn't argue as essentially i'm a guest and in the first instance if your repeated told your behaviours are dodgy where's the valid argument as a response?

My comment was one in general, it wasn't aimed at anyone and I honestly believe that someone who really thinks that some people on this planet earth will not act in their best interests financially are in fact daft, or at the very least it is a daft thought.
I take this from the collins example which marks the word daft as foolish.
I then cross referenced the word foolish: silly.

So in fact, my comment was just, unless of course someone wants to argue with me in that they truly believe what I wrote was wrong.

Again, my post wasn't meant to offend, it was a factual statement of belief.

mrushton

Anyway, The Grauniad is telling us that Jez is booked to host Have I got News For You in May :roll:

Manc33

I work off the assumption that "nothing isn't fishy" and just work my way backwards from there, its easier that way.

chris_bass

Manc33 wrote:

I work off the assumption that "nothing isn't fishy" and just work my way backwards from there, its easier that way.

you hide it well

pblakeney

Manc33 wrote:

I work off the assumption that "nothing isn't fishy" and just work my way backwards from there, its easier that way.

My chicken dinner wasn't fishy.

rolf_f

Pesky Jones wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

A load of stuff I wrote

To be fair, this theory is quite manc33esque

Not really. Nothing conspiracy theory about what I'm saying - it's just Clarkson manipulating things to suit his own end. Why wouldn't he do that. It's consistent with the whole way that the show is run. We know that every single bit of 'chance' that happens in the programme is scripted. Why wouldn't Clarkson script his own way out of TG? It's a more convincing explanation of the facts than a sequence of random events.

pblakeney

Vtech, Manc33 and Rolf F in synch. :shock:
Never thought I'd see the day.

slowmart

Yep, something you learn to live with when you find you're the only male in the home.....

harry-s

I'm not that sure that Clarkson is as valuable to the BBC as a lot of people think.

Given that most of the revenue the BBC generate from TG is from sales to overseas, how many of those sales are dubbed into the local language? Having someone else speaking his scripted dialogue means it isn't going to make much difference to the locals whether it's JC or Johnny Vaughan mouthing the words. The JC personality is only going to come across to native English speakers to some extent, and to native English speakers with some common pointers to UK culture. With the US and Australia having their own versions of TG, then his value as a TG presenter shrinks even further.

I recently found myself in a basement in Dagestan, with a few of the locals squatting with their AK47s and watching TG on a screen bolted to the wall. It was difficult not to laugh out loud, even more so when I heard the sound of the voices they'd been dubbed with. These guys won't be worrying about whether it's JC or not doing the presenting, - and I'd say the same applies to a lot of third world countries who buy into TG.

I've got to admit, it's an interesting scenario, and it'll be even more interesting to see how the BBC eventually deal with it.

VTech

Harry-S wrote:

I'm not that sure that Clarkson is as valuable to the BBC as a lot of people think.

Given that most of the revenue the BBC generate from TG is from sales to overseas, how many of those sales are dubbed into the local language? Having someone else speaking his scripted dialogue means it isn't going to make much difference to the locals whether it's JC or Johnny Vaughan mouthing the words. The JC personality is only going to come across to native English speakers to some extent, and to native English speakers with some common pointers to UK culture. With the US and Australia having their own versions of TG, then his value as a TG presenter shrinks even further.

I recently found myself in a basement in Dagestan, with a few of the locals squatting with their AK47s and watching TG on a screen bolted to the wall. It was difficult not to laugh out loud, even more so when I heard the sound of the voices they'd been dubbed with. These guys won't be worrying about whether it's JC or not doing the presenting, - and I'd say the same applies to a lot of third world countries who buy into TG.
I've got to admit, it's an interesting scenario, and it'll be even more interesting to see how the BBC eventually deal with it.

I get your point but the financial side is almost entirely from english speaking languages. :?
There is also the rights to the programme which as you say can be in different languages so JC wouldn't be important, he is the face of a franchise really, like the colonel at KFC etc.

I think top gear will live on without him, I just think that what he does next will be very profitable for him...

rolf_f

PBlakeney wrote:

Vtech, Manc33 and Rolf F in synch. :shock:
Never thought I'd see the day.

To be honest, I never thought I'd last this long before I was unmasked

Manc33

The show has been going down the crapper for years.

The BBC and Clarkson could very well have colluded.

Clarkson wants out, the BBC want him out... but they still both have the problem of the public wanting him to stay, a peculiar situation, but a situation where the BBC can't sack him (everyone would hate the BBC) and he can't leave (everyone would hate Clarkson for "giving in").

Maybe both parties are just doing what both parties are going to do - cover their own arse as much as possible. Colluding would give them the best chance at that. No colluding, someone has to lose out. Clarkson will leave under some "mutual" agreement or whatever, no one will blame the BBC, no one will blame Clarkson, just how they wanted it.

debeli

I don't want to go too far out on a limb here, but it does occur to me that he might just be an arrogant and unpleasant tosser with an inflated sense of his own worth and little regard for others.

He might not, of course, but he does both walk and talk slightly like a duck, so I find myself thinking he might be a duck.

Talent is talent and he does have a certain watchability, but he is just a bloke on the telly and he has form for doing and saying unpleasant things.

I may be wrong. He certainly generates a lot of comment online. Crikey, even I'm writing about him....

Manc33

Debeli wrote:

I don't want to go too far out on a limb here, but it does occur to me that he might just be an arrogant and unpleasant tosser with an inflated sense of his own worth and little regard for others.

I quite like him even though he is like that, because he is like that if anything.

Debeli wrote:

Talent is talent and he does have a certain watchability, but he is just a bloke on the telly and he has form for doing and saying unpleasant things.

No one cared in the 1980s about anything anyone said on TV and now all of a sudden Clarkson is offensive?!

Clarkson hasn't changed... the world has. So then it isn't his fault. We shouldn't be pointing the finger at him for "being offensive" if he got nearly a million people signing a petition. Someone truly offensive wouldn't be able to get a signature.

Can anyone name one other man or woman on the BBC (not in politics) that is as outspoken as Clarkson, because I can't. In fact is there anyone like that on TV in the UK? Maybe on some channel no one watches there is a guy pointing out stuff who knows. For the rest... listen to the music box, look at the swirly lights...

debeli

Manc33 wrote:

No one cared in the 1980s about anything anyone said on TV and now all of a sudden Clarkson is offensive?!

Clarkson hasn't changed... the world has. So then it isn't his fault. We shouldn't be pointing the finger at him for "being offensive" if he got nearly a million people signing a petition. Someone truly offensive wouldn't be able to get a signature.

Can anyone name one other man or woman on the BBC (not in politics) that is as outspoken as Clarkson, because I can't. In fact is there anyone like that on TV in the UK? Maybe on some channel no one watches there is a guy pointing out stuff who knows. For the rest... listen to the music box, look at the swirly lights...

Did you just write that? Did you just suck on the tip of a pencil, get thinking and type that out in the hope that it would come across as credible or profound? I rather fear you did.

If you meant to ask whether anyone else gets paid for being the caricature of a nostalgio-fantasist pub bore on the BBC, there are probably plenty.

He is funny, but he is no Oscar Wild and he is no Christopher Hitchens. He is a car bloke from the telly. Let's not get too emotional about this. He is Chris Goffey, but funnier. Full stop.

VTech

Debeli wrote:

Manc33 wrote:

No one cared in the 1980s about anything anyone said on TV and now all of a sudden Clarkson is offensive?!

Clarkson hasn't changed... the world has. So then it isn't his fault. We shouldn't be pointing the finger at him for "being offensive" if he got nearly a million people signing a petition. Someone truly offensive wouldn't be able to get a signature.

Can anyone name one other man or woman on the BBC (not in politics) that is as outspoken as Clarkson, because I can't. In fact is there anyone like that on TV in the UK? Maybe on some channel no one watches there is a guy pointing out stuff who knows. For the rest... listen to the music box, look at the swirly lights...

Did you just write that? Did you just suck on the tip of a pencil, get thinking and type that out in the hope that it would come across as credible or profound? I rather fear you did.

If you meant to ask whether anyone else gets paid for being the caricature of a nostalgio-fantasist pub bore on the BBC, there are probably plenty.

He is funny, but he is no Oscar Wild and he is no Christopher Hitchens. He is a car bloke from the telly. Let's not get too emotional about this. He is Chris Goffey, but funnier. Full stop.

But he is the person who gets the most support, thats a fact and wether that is justified or not isn't the case, nor is it important within this discussion as the fact remains that he holds a ton of power through whatever support he actually has.
In reality he doesn't know much about how cars work, he isn't a particular good driver (yes, almost all shots are of someone else driving with the view panning to him within the car and not him driving)
He doesn't do many of the "challenges" in fact he takes a very small part in almost all features, often starting and ending only for the sake of the cameras.

Modern times are different, you can be incredibly powerful with little or no real skill, someone on instagram can have millions of followers for very little reason, hell, I have tens of thousands following me and I'm just an overwieght guy from middle england.

Life in general these days is nothing short of incredibly fickle.

Manc33

He probably fakes most of the show, but I am only bothered about the fact that an outspoken guy is being taken off the TV and will probably be replaced with some drone with no opinions of his own. Its not like the next presenter won't be faking just as much of the show as Clarkson did.

People used to know about cars on the show, but the show changed so much that it became that you wouldn't need to know about cars to present on the show anyway. All the proper presenters like Tiff Needell (a racing driver in real life) left and went off doing other shows. What credentials does James May and Richard Hammond have? Aren't they just as inept as Clarkson when it comes to cars?

I know Hammond has got more balls than May and Clarkson put together.

Christopher Hitchens... never impressed me, he is an antagonist from what I can tell. That debate he had about religion with Anne Widdecombe, I think he lost out there, while assuming he won. The religious people pointed out to him that he is fixating only on all the bad stuff religion has done and he is ignoring any of the good stuff, like the priests in WW2 that provided food and shelter for people and so on. The guy seems like an ass, a sort of "extremist" atheist (I'm not even religious myself and can see that).