sherlock
Well-known member
You could have just left it there tbh.
Flintoff’s £9 million payout
- Thread starter sherlock
- Start date
- Status
You could have just left it there tbh.
But its is BBC Studios money. Its not our money.
Commercial organisations don't just agree to payout for fun, there would have been very specific legal advice that meant a settlement was in their best interests.
Way_Out_West
Well-known member
IT'S NOT TAXPAYER MONEY. For the umpteenth time.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Why can he earn 4.5m a year? Because he was a good all rounder for 10 years? There are 100's who had similar cricket records who don't earn a 10th of that. Same applies for pro footballers, they've more chance of going bankrupt than the average guy on the street.
He was at more risk batting than driving at 22mph. Heck, he was at more risk bowling too, he had about 10 pretty bad ricket injuries (at work), no compensation for those, as injuries are part of the game for sportsmen. He probably was "only" earning £1m a year from being a cricketer. Phil Hughes family only got £2m when he got killed by a cricket ball!
You're not applying the same logic, you're bringing up a straw man argument. A bin man who gets injured at work (from neglect) should probably get more, that's one of the points. Pay higher pay-outs for those who need it more, and less for those who need it less, but both need to be reasonable for the expected risk (which they happily take on by accepting the wage each week).
But say if it wasn't neglect, what if he tripped over a curb and smashed his teeth in, and then decided he didn't want to do that job for two years, is that his employers fault?
Neglect would be not giving someone a helmet driving an F1 car or riding a motorbike at 100mph, which is required by law, but I'm not sure how an accident at 22mph in a road legal car (with no helmet) would be neglect? Hard to call it neglect when it's within the law on public roads, never mind it wasn't even a public road. Sure if he had the same accident at 100mph in the same car, and his employer told him no helment, then I can see how that may more be neglect, but that's not what happened.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Of course it is. Taxpayers pay the BBC, for TV licence (no choice whether to pay it or not). It's called a licence but it's really a tax, everyone knows it, whether you want to admit that or not is up to you. Sure, this actual payment may come from insurance (and excess from BBC), but who do you think is paying the insurance bill each year? Who do you think is paying the bill next year (which goes up as a result of this claim).
The commercial entity called BBC studios that isn't funded by the taxpayer Andy. In fact the reverse is true, BBC studios inputs into the BBC, helping keep licence fees down.
ThatFragranceGuy
Well-known member
Surely this would all be covered by an overarching insurance policy anyway?
Andy_W
Well-known member
It's all funded by the licence fee isn't it, or was at least set up that way? It relies heavily on the name of the BBC, which is only there because it's effectively the state broadcaster, which is funded for by licence fees (tax). The insurance and wages of staff are not necessarily covered by BBC studios either.
I’d just stop now, mate
NYboro
Well-known member
No. BBC studios is a commercial entity and subsidises the licence fee.
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah, it will, 100%, but there's always a massive excess, and policies which can pay out this sort of value with seemingly little issue are often costing a fortune.
My company has probably paid out ~£1m in insurance claims over 15 years, and maybe 100k in excess, but it's cost us ~ £3m just to have those insurance policies in place, it's not free money etc. Big claims jack up costs next year too, as you will, be aware.
Andy_W
Well-known member
How did it start, and how does it get to use the BBC name?
How did it get the rights to use the Top Gear show, and sell that, since 2015 when it was formed (not sure how long top gear was under BBC studios).
It's a formed subsidiary, and only got to form as it was given money, shows, a brand, logo, infrastructure, and staff from BBC, which is licence fee funded, and benefits massively from being the state broadcaster. BBC is the overarchign coporation and gets 85% of it's cash from the licence fee.
It's like Trump saying he started off at the bottom, with his small loan of a million dollars, except this was closer to a billion.
Last edited:
BBC Studios is a British content company. It is a commercial subsidiary of the BBC that was formed in April 2018 through the merger of the BBC's commercial production arm and the BBC's commercial international distribution arm, BBC Worldwide. BBC Studios creates, develops, produces, distributes, broadcasts, finances and sells content around the world, returning around £200 million to the BBC annually in dividends and content investment.[2]
BBC Studios - Wikipedia
Andy_W
Well-known member
Yeah, see post above.BBC Studios is a British content company. It is a commercial subsidiary of the BBC that was formed in April 2018 through the merger of the BBC's commercial production arm and the BBC's commercial international distribution arm, BBC Worldwide. BBC Studios creates, develops, produces, distributes, broadcasts, finances and sells content around the world, returning around £200 million to the BBC annually in dividends and content investment.[2]
BBC Studios - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
It's not just some random private company selling things for profit to the BBC, it's a subsidiary which only exits because of the overaching company. There would be no BBC Studios or BBC Worldwide if there was no BBC and they were not the designated state broadcaster.
NYboro
Well-known member
Doesn't alter the fact that it doesn't cost the taxpayer a penny.
This is now boiling down to one of those the BBC is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't arguments.
Its made to spin off commercial activity, it does what it can within the restrictions that are placed upon it. BBC studios receives no public money. IMO the BBC should be allowed to commercially compete, I personally have absolutely no issue with it being able to flex its publicly funded muscles in the commercial market ... but it can't so its spun off to a separate company
Andy_W
Well-known member
It wouldn't exist without taxpayer money (licence fees), the taxpayer paid a long time ago, and the BBC's big name is funded by licence fees each year. I'm not really up for giving taxpayer assets away for free, and thinking that hasn't come at a cost somewhere along the line.
You don't start a company of that size without a massive helping hand, and guess where that helping hand came from?
Andy_W
Well-known member
No, I'm more than happy with what it mostly does and mostly pays etc, and there's no doubt that arm makes money. But it wouldn't exist without having had the taxpayer (licence fee) leg up, and obviously it gets to use the name of the BBC which would benefit any company with that sort of branding/ marketing. It's not like some other small time company started from scratch on the street with no help.
Just because the money has been washed a few times, doesn't get away from the fact of where the source is. Had it not had to pay out £9m it could have put that back into the BBC pot, to remove the need for some licence payers money, or it could have made some more programs and made more money to feed back to BBC. Instead it's paid out £9m and probably got one of it's most lucrative shows (effectively a public asset) cancelled.
- Status