So, Clarkson IS going......

[Suff]

If the cuffs are actually off. It was a strange and complicated contract he had. We don't know what they did when that was not renewed.

[cromwell]

On the BBC this morning one of their wheel-on "experts" said that 'lawyers will be watching very closely' if Clarkson or all three TG presenters set up a car programme on another channel.

Why? The BBC chose to get rid of him, what right have they to try and stop him working for someone else?

[Suff]

It depends on how the contract was worded.

As I said the contract was quite restrictive.

[Workingman]

It is unlikely that his contract would stop him from "working" that would border on being illegal. It might prevent him from taking the Top Gear name and format to another broadcaster, but those things could easily be changed.

[saundra]

As long as he hasentt got my cash
Makes my blood boil
Even if suff is right about the liscense fee

[Workingman]

Losing Clarkson has already cost us licence fee payers a minimum of £50m and that does not include £1.7m from Top Gear magazine or the £??m from merchandising royalties.

I sort of expect that some of the money would have been spent on making programmes and paying presenters, some of which I do not like and never watch. OK most of it probably went on back-slapping gala dinners and bonuses, but hey, swings and roundabouts.

If the licence was scrapped and the BBC folded I would not miss it too much.

[Suff]

It is unlikely that his contract would stop him from "working" that would border on being illegal. It might prevent him from taking the Top Gear name and format to another broadcaster, but those things could easily be changed.

Having already lost presenters (and 3 million viewers), to a rival car program on C5, I suspect the BBC has bound all three of them not to be able to set up a rival car show, not just the name.

We shall see as time goes on. However, for me, Top Gear is now dead. Even if they find a decent format I won't watch it because of how this was done. There were many, many options open to the BBC. In the end they chose the one which suited those in the organisation best. I have no doubt there was a "sacking clause" in Clarkson's contract which would have caused them problems. You can imagine what kind of clauses would have been in the new contract after the last 3 years...

I notice nobody, but nobody, is asking why Clarkson was so angry with someone he had worked with for 10 years. Nobody is going to ask either. All they will remember is what has leaked, Clarkson was on a tear about steak and chips. Would anyone have remembered if the actual sentence was "I wasn't asking for a 5 course meal for f'ks sake, even steak and chips would have done". Unlikely.

If Clarkson was the kind of person being intimated here, he would have shouted at Tymon at the time, left him and then told the BBC, the next day, that his continued contract was contingent on Tymon getting the sack. Not, note, being moved to a different department but summarily sacked.

Those are the really evil kind of people and I've worked with far too many of them. I'll take Clarkson any day of the week over that type...