Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Printable Version

+- Pres Café (https://pres.cafe)
+-- Forum: Pres Café TV and Radio Forums (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: News and Sport Presentation (https://pres.cafe/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Thread: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy (/showthread.php?tid=381)

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - lhx1985 - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 06:20 PM)James2001 Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 06:14 PM)lhx1985 Wrote:  Im hoping for a run out of the Potters Wheel.

Bring back the test card!

They can't. Carole and the scary puppet are refusing to fill the airtime in solidarity..

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - scottishtv - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 05:31 PM)TVenthusiasm Wrote:  Looks like BBC Scotland is also affected

Yes, there was a short piece on Reporting Scotland confirming that Scottish Cup football highlights will be shown later but with no presenter or studio discussion tonight.

BBC One Scotland avoided some further issues today as there is no Scottish Premier League football this weekend due to cup football. Therefore Sportscene Results (which we usually get on Saturdays instead of Final Score) was not due to air anyway.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Jon - 11-03-2023

I’m surprised an arrangement couldn’t have been made with Premier League Productions for commentary, I wonder if the individual commentators need to have separate arrangements for UK broadcasters to use their commentary because it can certainly be used by Sky for example.

One thing I think the Premier League will not be happy, and surely it’ll be a breach of contract if they can’t get regular length highlights on air. Which might mean they can end the contract early. Wouldn’t be surprised if say Premier League highlights end up on Channel 4 soon with Lineker hosting those and England games for the channel.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Adsales - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 06:30 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 05:45 PM)Adsales Wrote:  Honest question - have you ever seen an agreement for the provision of services issued by the BBC or any other broadcaster (or business in general)?

Happy to take this to PM to explain to you why you’re wrong. 

You’re conflating so many entirely unrelated things.

Yes I have. Non BBC but several major UK broadcasters.

Without disclosing specifics, all DO include mechanics to bind contractors [and obligate them to pass on to downstream contractors] many things covered in staff handbooks including social media and Non disparagment policies in addition to fairness  and equality policies of the broadcaster where they go futher than basic law; along with editorial codes 

While General 'disrepute' clauses are tricky  to enforce, as they require demonstration of loss, binding contractors into behaviour clauses of defined policy IS done,  widely.  I can think of a major US owned corp who go as far as defining the percentage of the fee at risk for breaches,  along with methodology for determining a breach 

I'm sure you understand I'm being very broad in this discussion,  but am very confident I'm not wrong.

We've a very mixed membership here but you are very welcome to PM

Ok so if you please check the section about the obligations about the “duties and obligations” of the consultant (the provider of the services) then you’ll see that the wording is as follows:

During the Engagement the Consultant shall comply with the Client's policies on [social media] [use of information and communication systems] [anti-harassment and bullying] [no smoking] [dress code] [substance misuse] [OTHER RELEVANT POLICY].

Engagement is defined in common and case law as the periods during which the consultant provides services to the client. In other words, in this case the occasions where Lineker is working for the BBC. Not while he works for other companies or where he does in general not represent the BBC.

The sole legally valid restrictions on a contractor are confidentiality, IP, disparaging actions, poaching (clients and staff) and not to perform services which are deemed similar to a competitor.

This is further underlined by HMRC IR35 assessments and seemingly the BBC has provided evidence that he is outside of IR35 to HMRC.

If he were employed then this would be an entirely different kettle of fish with social media policies for example reaching all the way into entirely personal posts, out of working hours and the BBC would be in full control.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Stooky Bill - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 05:45 PM)Steve in Pudsey Wrote:  Why wouldn't a rights holder have access to the world feed commentary by the way? Cheaper deal without them? 

I assume its because they're two seperate sets of rights.

IMG are a rights holder that has the rights to produce and sell Premier League matches and footage to broadcasters

The BBC are a rights holder that has the rights to broadcast highlights to the UK.

That doesn't mean that the BBC can just show the IMG produced content in the same way that they can't just show Sky Sports or BT Sports content (other than the few minutes in news bulletins - that's called News Access)

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - TIGHazard - 11-03-2023

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/bbc-gary-lineker-sack-contract-b2298816.html 

The BBC fears it cannot sack Gary Lineker or force him to follow social media rules on impartiality because of ambiguities in his contract, The Independent understands.

The corporation would be forced to pay millions if they wanted to oust Lineker and would likely lose any legal claim brought by the Match of the Day presenter, senior figures believe.

Lineker, who was forced off air after comparing the government's asylum policy to Nazi Germany on Twitter, is understood to be on a two-year contract negotiated before current director general Tim Davie was appointed.

Mr Davie has repeatedly emphasised the importance of the BBC’s impartiality and led a crackdown on BBC stars making political comments on social media.

But Lineker’s contract was already in place and has not been updated, handing an important advantage to the presenter as the dispute intensifies.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - oscillon - 11-03-2023

BBC now confirms that MOTD will be 20 minutes long

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/entertainment-arts-64895316?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=640cc6eaf7ce9556ed0742ee%26MotD%20to%20be%2020%20minutes%20long%20with%20no%20commentary%262023-03-11T18%3A26%3A21.544Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:28049104-5740-4286-b13d-3eda587896da&pinned_post_asset_id=640cc6eaf7ce9556ed0742ee&pinned_post_type=share 

Quote:MotD to be 20 minutes long with no commentary

BBC One will broadcast a much-reduced episode of Match of the Day this evening, the BBC's sport editor Dan Roan says.

There will be no commentary on the highlights.

It is currently scheduled to begin at 22:20 GMT.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Division2023 - 11-03-2023

Could the BBC just not reuse the radio commentary from 5 Live and their local stations?

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Stockland Hillman - 11-03-2023

(11-03-2023, 07:15 PM)Adsales Wrote:  

(11-03-2023, 06:30 PM)Stockland Hillman Wrote:  Yes I have. Non BBC but several major UK broadcasters.

Without disclosing specifics, all DO include mechanics to bind contractors [and obligate them to pass on to downstream contractors] many things covered in staff handbooks including social media and Non disparagment policies in addition to fairness  and equality policies of the broadcaster where they go futher than basic law; along with editorial codes 

While General 'disrepute' clauses are tricky  to enforce, as they require demonstration of loss, binding contractors into behaviour clauses of defined policy IS done,  widely.  I can think of a major US owned corp who go as far as defining the percentage of the fee at risk for breaches,  along with methodology for determining a breach 

I'm sure you understand I'm being very broad in this discussion,  but am very confident I'm not wrong.

We've a very mixed membership here but you are very welcome to PM

Ok so if you please check the section about the obligations about the “duties and obligations” of the consultant (the provider of the services) then you’ll see that the wording is as follows:

During the Engagement the Consultant shall comply with the Client's policies on [social media] [use of information and communication systems] [anti-harassment and bullying] [no smoking] [dress code] [substance misuse] [OTHER RELEVANT POLICY].

Engagement is defined in common and case law as the periods during which the consultant provides services to the client. In other words, in this case the occasions where Lineker is working for the BBC. Not while he works for other companies or where he does in general not represent the BBC.

The sole legally valid restrictions on a contractor are confidentiality, IP, disparaging actions, poaching (clients and staff) and not to perform services which are deemed similar to a competitor.

This is further underlined by HMRC IR35 assessments and seemingly the BBC has provided evidence that he is outside of IR35 to HMRC.

If he were employed then this would be an entirely different kettle of fish with social media policies for example reaching all the way into entirely personal posts, out of working hours and the BBC would be in full control.

I generally agree for contractors there are such limits; however performers ARE treated differently,  as their value is in part the 'brand' they bring to the work rather than just work activity.  If they arguably damage their brand they devalue the work or cost the contracting party value in financial or reputational terms. 

Hence different value, and different obligations to those doing an interchangeable task/job/function 

Nobody is hiring Gary Lineker to turn up at a studio and read an autocue, chat with guests, appear in some promotional pictures for £1.3 million. The overall package of reputation,  image, performance ability,  contemporary opinions of the audience that like him is the value he brings in addition to the functional skills [which is us very good at]

I see where we take a different view now  i understand your position - its well founded-but disagree.

---

RE: Gary Lineker/BBC Asylum Controversy - Jon - 11-03-2023

I wonder if there has been refusal within Sport to negotiate something with IMG for its commentary to be on the programme. I’m sure they would have been able to reach a deal for a near nominal amount especially considering presumably they wouldn’t have to pay the pundits for tonight’s programme.

Presumably management of BBC Sport aren’t happy at decisions made higher up the chain.

Of course imagine most games are covered by radio commentary either local and National that could be used. But perhaps they’d have to get the commentators in question to agree. But it does seem a lack of trying to make it work from BBC Sport.

---