[Newshound47]

I would not make Holly the main presenter. I would have the team splitting the presenting amongst themselves during the week. This will make it more a "family" of presenters and it does distant itself a bit from the Holly/Phil line up.

I hope Ruth is going to do more than a week.

I wonder if during the winter they might have Holly do Tuesday to Thursday and have Monday off as well as Friday after doing Dancing on Ice on Sunday nights.

[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

Whether it’s next month or next year Phils replacement is going to be scrutinised regardless of when it happens. While this timeshare is in place, they're just inviting viewers to look elsewhere.

[Andrew]

Whether it’s next month or next year Phils replacement is going to be scrutinised regardless of when it happens. While this timeshare is in place, they're just inviting viewers to look elsewhere.

If say Craig Doyle carried on reserve presenting and then ended up full time next year, that would get much less scrutiny than if they announced he was Phil’s replacement with immediate effect.

[Brekkie]

It's already been long enough though - makes no sense to drag it out longer than necessary.

Look at Radio 2 - yes, there was an 8 week interim after Ken Bruce quit but they hot the replacement in place and got him on air and frankly three months it's Ken who?

[JAS84]

Whether it’s next month or next year Phils replacement is going to be scrutinised regardless of when it happens. While this timeshare is in place, they're just inviting viewers to look elsewhere.

I think the football will have been more likely to do that. There's been days when TM was truncated or outright cancelled.

[Kim Wexler’s Ponytail]

If say Craig Doyle carried on reserve presenting and then ended up full time next year, that would get much less scrutiny than if they announced he was Phil’s replacement with immediate effect.

Phil presented the show for 20 years. Even if they wait a year there is still going to be a considerable amount of scrutiny given the length, and popularity, of his tenure and the way it went down in flames. Maybe even more so. Doing a yearlong public audition for his successor, leaving everyone wondering who they're going to settle on, comes with the risk of his shadow hanging over the show even heavier than it would have done if they'd bit the bullet and quietly tried to rebuild as quickly as possible. If they're going to have 5 people blatantly auditioning to be the new Philp for a year, they might as well stick an elephant in the studio as well. IMO anyway. Obviously i know nothing, It’ll be interesting to look back on in a years time .

[Keith]

Phil presented the show for 20 years. Even if they wait a year there is still going to be a considerable amount of scrutiny given the length, and popularity, of his tenure and the way it went down in flames. Maybe even more so. Doing a yearlong public audition for his successor, leaving everyone wondering who they're going to settle on, comes with the risk of his shadow hanging over the show even heavier than it would have done if they'd bit the bullet and quietly tried to rebuild as quickly as possible. If they're going to have 5 people blatantly auditioning to be the new Philp for a year, they might as well stick an elephant in the studio as well. IMO anyway. Obviously i know nothing, It’ll be interesting to look back on in a years time .

I think waiting a while before deciding on any new permanent presenting pairs is probably best. I think it's reasonable to assume that in September there's likely to be new titles and along with the potential for a few other tweaks to set and features. If returning in September with 'new titles, new features, changes to the set, and new (permanent) presenting pairs' in my view it would scream of behind the scenes panic that usually marks a programmes final series. It can also means the presenters get unfairly blamed (in the media) if a particular new feature doesn't work out or aspects of the programme/set require tweaking.

I'd like to think that come January presenting pairs might have settled down more. Worth noting the likes of Saturday Kitchen went for guest presenters each week before settling on Matt Tebbutt, and similar on the One Show for Matt Baker's replacement. In the short to medium term it means that if someone/pairing doesn't work out they can quickly move on, whilst if it seems successful they can test it out a few more times before deciding.

[PJamo]

Last time the show had an over-the-summer 'new set, new titles, new main presenting pair, new features' revamp it resulted in the Twiggy and Colleen Nolan era. A drip change approach is more likely to keep the show trundling forwards rather than hastily repositioning itself a few months after the previous reposition (see also GMB's relative 'steadiness' compared to Daybreak's 3 different iterations, none of which lasted any significant length of time).

[Brekkie]

God - pulling at straws if you think Twiggy and Colleen being a disaster 22 years ago is reason enough not to appoint a host. Holly directly replace Fern a few years later with little fuss, and when she's been on maternity they've bought in a replacement rather than gone through guest hosts.

The difference here compared to The One Show and GMB is there is an obvious replacement waiting to go who seems to want the job. If they're not careful he'll walk away if ITV won't commit. Colin Murray had to threaten to do that to be named as the permanent host of Countdown after almost a year still regarded as the "guest host". When you have the right man for the job you shouldn't dither.

Anyway - we're going round in circles on that. Away from who is fronting it I do think a visual refresh is long overdue - certainly the graphics and titles. The studio has actually aged quite well and think the layout generally works, but some cosmetic changes would freshen it up.

[Jon]

I think the point here is it’s better if the successor is slowly phased in, rather than there being a big announcement and the papers reporting the next day the show is in crisis as ratings are down by 10 people.