[lhx1985]

No word from any high profile commentators, as of now. 

But, I suppose this is one area where the BBC is fortunate - if the TV Comms teams refuse to play ball, they could leverage 5live and even BBC local radio coverage, if need be.

[Alf Stewart]

This is all just like some grizzly car crash. You know you shouldn't be looking but you just can't help yourself.

[Newsroom]

This is all just like some grizzly car crash. You know you shouldn't be looking but you just can't help yourself.

Are we sat in the same car watching the same thing? 

Go grab some popcorn

[harshy]

So what are they doing tomorrow showing Premier League Productions highlights programme ?

[XIII]

And Sky News.

This is not going to go away and heads will roll.

I'm starting to think at least one of Sharp and Davie (hopefully both!) will be gone by Monday.

Why would Davie resign? Nobody seems to have given a reason why he should or will resign.

[RhysJR]

No word from any high profile commentators, as of now. 

But, I suppose this is one area where the BBC is fortunate - if the TV Comms teams refuse to play ball, they could leverage 5live and even BBC local radio coverage, if need be.

Steve Wilson has posted this a few hours ago. If there's no commentators (and that's a very big if) it would be most likely the world feed commentary could be used.

twitter.com 

[interestednovice]

So it seems pretty clear that Gary’s contract doesn’t limit social media use or restrict it any way. That means he’s not bound by anything the BBC says about it.

So the standoff is clearly about them wishing to have him sign an addendum to cover social media and he’s refusing to do so and rightly so.

What no doubt complicates matters is that the agreement is likely between the BBC and his limited company which means the BBC has no influence on him full stop. He is simply the “individual” provided by his company to provide services to the BBC.

It’s most likely a bit more complicated than that. At a guess, there will be general legalese in the contract about not impugning the reputation of the BBC and so on, even if the full social media rules were not actually written in. Legally, the BBC HR people will probably be arguing that such language “implies into the contract” the full terms on public statements and social media use and so on. Obviously, conversely, Gary’s side will be arguing that he never thought that when he signed the contract - and despite occasional criticism, the BBC have never seriously rebuked his tweets before so there wasn’t much precedent for this.

It’s actually quite a complex legal debate. If the BBC side win the debate, he can effectively be sacked for breach of contract; if they don’t they have a problem on their hands as they have a “valid contract” that the BBC themselves are now no longer happy with.

I’m sure, at a minimum, the contract will guarantee that it is Lineker himself who appears though - otherwise literally anybody off the street, employed by his company, could appear in his place. That would never have got past the BBC lawyers at drafting stage.

[Steve in Pudsey]

I suspect any court case would be messy and focus on whether it's reasonable that a freelancer's reasonable freedom of speech can be curtailed

[Newsroom]

This is the most fabulous reality show I've ever watched!

Tim Davie is toast!

[interestednovice]

Any freelancer has primary clients, and it is not unreasonable to by bound by employee-style agreements in favour of the interests of that primary client.

I doubt courts would have much issue with the principle, it would be more whether the precise wording in Lineker’s contract (and associated documents plus BBC guidance) actually restricted what he should say, if so how much, and did what he said cross that line. Something we can only speculate on now because we clearly haven’t seen his contract.

Anyway, if things get ugly I doubt we will end up with a court case - Lineker will probably just go to a rival broadcaster who would no-doubt offer him a decent package to sign up with them.