Flintoff’s £9 million payout

Status
Not open for further replies.
Andy_W said:
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. Instead it's paid out £9m and probably got one of it's most lucrative shows (effectively a public asset) cancelled.
Click to expand...
Surely it's not laid out £9m though, it's paid for an insurance policy which is part of the cost of doing business same as non-tax payer funded ones would have to have the same policies and / or payouts?

Their excesses what they've paid out and probably a larger renewal but that's going to be small beer compared to £9m
 
Andy_W said:
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. Instead it's paid out £9m and probably got one of it's most lucrative shows (effectively a public asset) cancelled.
Click to expand...

Nobody can change how the BBC started, but we should at least understand that most of the things that the BBC have done, its done because successive governments have forced it to do so rather than its because it wanted to do some clever accounting trick with our money.

BBC studios is now a commercial organisation with its own P&L that gets no taxpayers money and competes in the commercial market producing and selling shows to people around the world. On top of that we the tax payer get a benefit to plough back into our public service ... I really, honestly, fail to see the issue here.

Someone(ones) messed up big time, someone had very serious injuries as a result, compensation is right to be paid whether that employer is BBC Studios, ITV, Channel 4, Sky or Netflix/Disney ... would we be so up in arms if, for example, Sky had settled on a £9m payout ?
 
Andy_W said:
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.
Click to expand...
This is a completely different argument altogether.
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
Surely it's not laid out £9m though, it's paid for an insurance policy which is part of the cost of doing business same as non-tax payer funded ones would have to have the same policies and / or payouts?

Their excesses what they've paid out and probably a larger renewal but that's going to be small beer compared to £9m
Click to expand...
They will probably pay out more in insurance fees and excess that they will claim back, that's how any insurance works, and it's why insurance is such a money spinner. The UK makes a fortune from insurance, it's one of the things we're best at robbing people and companies with, all over the world. People insure against being able to pay out a large sum at any one time not of their choosing, not to insure against paying more over a lifetime.

The BBC's insurance is probably £10m a month, and the BBC's main policy probably covers the subsidiary company. I do a similar thing, a subsidiary company of a completely different name has it's insurance paid for by a company which effectively owns it and started it up. Bottom line on the bottom company looks good, but it gets all sorts of handouts which don't shown on accounts.
 
m3t4tr0n said:
Nobody can change how the BBC started, but we should at least understand that most of the things that the BBC have done, its done because successive governments have forced it to do so rather than its because it wanted to do some clever accounting trick with our money.

BBC studios is now a commercial organisation with its own P&L that gets no taxpayers money and competes in the commercial market producing and selling shows to people around the world. On top of that we the tax payer get a benefit to plough back into our public service ... I really, honestly, fail to see the issue here.

Someone(ones) messed up big time, someone had very serious injuries as a result, compensation is right to be paid whether that employer is BBC Studios, ITV, Channel 4, Sky or Netflix/Disney ... would we be so up in arms if, for example, Sky had settled on a £9m payout ?
Click to expand...
It's still massively benefitting from the BBC name, which is branding from ~70m people for 100 years, never mind the other leg ups. The point is I want it to be efficient as possible and to do what is right and fair, which is make even more money so it can pay back more of what the BBC name (owned by the people) has given it.

I disagree that on the balance of probability a crash at 22mph in a road legal car (with no helmet) is "messed up big time", to the tune of £9m. Just because someone can earn 4.5m a year as a one off, should not mean that this is some sort of guarantee where you get the same by not even having to do that job. If I could get my face smashed in and take 1/3rd of my pay forever I would do it every year.

"Messing up big time" to me is more like giving nurses 10 years of pay cuts and then sending them to work on covid wards, never mind doing it with no or crap PPE, or not actually supporting them (banging a pan for 2 minutes a week for 10 weeks doesn't count). Will the nurses get any pay out for having their life expectancy reduced buy a couple of years from working in a covid environment for 2-3 years? I know it doesn't need to be one or the other, but the latter won't happen, they won't even get 10k for losing years off their lives. They won't be allowed to even put a claim in as it's probably deemed "accepted risk". So why is that accepted, yet driving a road legal car (with no helmet required by law) at 22mph wouldn't be? Same applies to doctors, teachers, police, armed forces etc, all shafted.

£9m seems too much for that injury to me, even more so someone who is there through being a sportsman who gets injured probably 10 times a year doing their job. If they had an injury from a cricket ball or a bad tackle then they wouldn't get anywhere near that, they wouldn't even likely put any claim in, as it's just a risk for the job. Had he not been employed by top gear would he now be on that money?

Even if it was any other company, I think £9m is too much, but sky is a fully private company, set up completely on it's own as far as I'm aware. You're not forced to pay for sky, and ITV and Channel 4 are self funding through advertisements.
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
They will probably pay out more in insurance fees and excess that they will claim back, that's how any insurance works, and it's why insurance is such a money spinner. The UK makes a fortune from insurance, it's one of the things we're best at robbing people and companies with, all over the world. People insure against being able to pay out a large sum at any one time not of their choosing, not to insure against paying more over a lifetime.

The BBC's insurance is probably £10m a month, and the BBC's main policy probably covers the subsidiary company. I do a similar thing, a subsidiary company of a completely different name has it's insurance paid for by a company which effectively owns it and started it up. Bottom line on the bottom company looks good, but it gets all sorts of handouts which don't shown on accounts.
Click to expand...
Surely it would be on a production basis as producing songs of praise must carry less risk than doing stunts on top gear, so having a single policy would require a massive amount of work to constantly adjust it

Even if they did, which I doubt, pay £10m a month to cover it, that is the price of doing business with or without this claim, and the tax payer hasn't paid £9m
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
Surely it would be on a production basis as producing songs of praise must carry less risk than doing stunts on top gear, so having a single policy would require a massive amount of work to constantly adjust it

Even if they did, which I doubt, pay £10m a month to cover it, that is the price of doing business with or without this claim, and the tax payer hasn't paid £9m
Click to expand...
Nah, commercial insurance doesn't work like that, not from my experience of it not unless each show was ran as it's own company which it won't be. But even if they were it would likely all still come under "BBC insurance", they would want to ensure they had cover over everything, and so there were no gaps, and they will pay a premium for having that.

You just list out each of the sectors and assign a percentage to where most of the turnover or work goes, and the whole lot gets lumped in together. Then you get separate insurance for Public Liability, Employers Liability, Professional Indemnity etc. You won't have show specific insurance or project specific insurance etc, the same way a company which might do 500 jobs per year all over the UK just has one blanket insurance for all schemes. Some specific schemes may have an additional premium going from £10m to £100m or £1bn cover etc.

Top Gear might have separate insurance for the vehicles, but this would probably be more like an EL claim.

My company has £10m EL, £5m PL, £5m PI and we pay about 40k a year I think it is. Works out about 5% of turnover for us.

BBC pay out about 50m in claims alone each year I think, I would be amazed if their insurance wasn't 5x that to be honest, and even 1% of turnover is 500m.

The licence fee is largely funding that insurance, and excess whatever it is.
 
Chutney said:
Füçk1ng hell, isn't there an empty room somewhere these morons could go and start a row in?

Gobsmacked this is still going on.
Click to expand...
It's a forum, a place where people write their opinions. You don't have to read each thread?
 
Andy_W said:
Nah, commercial insurance doesn't work like that, not from my experience of it not unless each show was ran as it's own company which it won't be.

You just list out each of the sectors and assign a percentage to where most of the turnover or work goes, and the whole lot gets lumped in together. Then you get separate insurance for Public Liability, Employers Liability, Professional Indemnity etc. You won't have show specific insurance or project specific insurance etc, the same way a company which might do 500 jobs per year all over the UK just has one blanket insurance for all schemes. Some specific schemes may have an additional premium going from £10m to £100m or £1bn cover etc. T

Top Gear might have seperate insurance for the vehicles, but this would probably be more like an EL claim.

My company has £10m EL, £5m PL, £5m PI and we pay about 40k a year I think it is. Works out about 5% of turnover for us.

BBC pay out about 50m in claims alone each year I think, I would be amazed if their insurance wasn't 5x that to be honest, and even 1% of turnover is 500m.

The licence fee is largely funding that insurance, and excess whatever it is.
Click to expand...
Unless you can detail evidence of that we're going to have to agree to disagree as I don't think either of us are party to how bbc deals with their insurance, and as fancy as all that sounds it's largely supposition, likewise it being hidden on the BBC's bottom line.
 
ThatFragranceGuy said:
Unless you can detail evidence of that we're going to have to agree to disagree as I don't think either of us are party to how bbc deals with their insurance, and as fancy as all that sounds it's largely supposition, likewise it being hidden on the BBC's bottom line.
Click to expand...
The ~50m in claims is from their annual report, it was ~45m one year then ~55m the next (years 22 and 23 to date).

It's standard for commercial insurance to be done as percentages of turnover or expenditure etc, or that's what my broker tells me every year :LOL: I assume it's the same for other sectors.

Big companies generally largely insure the group, this is what happens in construction at least. Balfour Beatty will ensure their entire group under one insurance, they don't individually insure each site or area etc. I know this as I've been through quite a few claim fights. HS2 have their own insurance as they set up another company etc, but that's one insurance for the £50bn project, plus the main contractors insurance and the sub contractors insurance.

We get charged 0.2% for manual wages 1.15% for manual wages, just for EL. Then for PL it's 0.2% of turnover. Then there's 7% for hired equipment, 2.4% for owned equipment, 0.24% of turnover for contract insurance etc. It soon adds up, and we bill out 5-10% of our costs on insurances.
 
Muttley said:
And then TFG argues about it. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
At least have the decency to quote my post, or provide so counter argument why you believe it is incorrect.

I'm assuming you won't as you can't as you've got no detail.

At least TFG is having a discussion, and he's made some fair points (albeit mostly incorrect from my experience with dealing with insurance/ brokers, and how large companies insure themselves).

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe BBC do things completely differently, hopefully there's an insurance expert on here who can assist us. But at the minute, nobody has provided any evidence they do, or has anything comparable saying otherwise either.
 
Muttley said:
There you go. Supposition and invention.
Click to expand...
Could say the same for you, seeing as you don't give any detail.

I wouldn't say that though, without giving detail, never mind misquote someone intentionally.

Anyway, I'll leave you too it.
 
Andy_W said:
The licence fee is largely funding that insurance, and excess whatever it is.
Click to expand...
The BBC pays production companies to make programmes it shows. BBC Studios is one of those companies. Most programmes are now tendered for, BBC Studios won the competition to produce this show. (They bid for quite a lot and don’t always win).

Production companies sort out and pay for their own insurance. BBC Studios is one of these companies. Nothing comes out of the BBC pot. BBC Studios is simply “a supplier”.

This is genuinely nothing to do with the public broadcast arm of the BBC, other than that they would have shown the programme, along with all of the UKTV channels (which BBC Studios themselves own).
 
Last edited:
atypical_boro said:
The BBC pays production companies to make programmes it shows. BBC Studios is one of those companies. Most programmes are now tendered for, BBC Studios won the competition to produce this show. (They bid for quite a lot and don’t always win).

Production companies sort out and pay for their own insurance. BBC Studios is one of these companies. Nothing comes out of the BBC pot. BBC Studios is simply “a supplier”.

This is genuinely nothing to do with the public broadcast arm of the BBC, other than that they would have shown the programme, along with all of the UKTV channels (which BBC Studios themselves own).
Click to expand...

This has been explained to him over and over in this thread. He's either not bothering to read other people's posts, choosing to assume they're all talking rubbish, he's lacking comprehension skills or he's trolling.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top