TV
Five is the maximum they're allowed.
Was it changed back at some point? I had thought they were meant to pick more consonants than vowels these days.
Well, Carol was getting paid somewhere in the £900k-£1m region. That wasn't sustainable, especially on Countdown's current ~1m viewers (she negotiated that much when the show was later and getting several times that) - I doubt they spent anything like £800k on the new set.
Rachel's apparently getting paid ~£100k a year. Which is still pretty good, even before you consider that they film less than half the year.
Yeah but do more maths.... If Carol was offered a 90% pay cut then that means they only offered her around £90K-£100K per year - bit of an insult considering they're willing to pay an unknown without her 26 years experience the same amount? £100K + whatever they spent on the new set probably would have secured Carol instead?
Reboot posted:
Jenny posted:
Reboot posted:
Contestant just picked five vowels (letters were CRRTAAEEI - cards can't have been shuffled properly). I thought they weren't allowed to do that?
Five is the maximum they're allowed.
Was it changed back at some point? I had thought they were meant to pick more consonants than vowels these days.
TVViewer posted:
If you take the money they spent on the new set....and the money they're paying Rachel then I am sure they could have afforded to pay Carol more than the 90% pay cut and had her stay on? Thank goodness for Suzie Dent still being on to leave at least a bit of familiarity.
Well, Carol was getting paid somewhere in the £900k-£1m region. That wasn't sustainable, especially on Countdown's current ~1m viewers (she negotiated that much when the show was later and getting several times that) - I doubt they spent anything like £800k on the new set.
Rachel's apparently getting paid ~£100k a year. Which is still pretty good, even before you consider that they film less than half the year.
Yeah but do more maths.... If Carol was offered a 90% pay cut then that means they only offered her around £90K-£100K per year - bit of an insult considering they're willing to pay an unknown without her 26 years experience the same amount? £100K + whatever they spent on the new set probably would have secured Carol instead?
TV
You don't seem to have any clue either, I think you'll find 250 x 10 is actually 2500
Well obviously I meant to type "25" x 10.... given they don't have 250 on the numbers board. Point is it's 16 years since I had a maths lesson and I was never any good at it yet I solved it in like 16 seconds?
Johnr posted:
TVViewer posted:
Just watched Thursday's Countdown.....
Why is it 2 former champions and the supposedly brilliant Oxford graduate Rachel cannot answer the first simple maths problem:
75, 25, 7, 10, 8, 2 with a target of 327.
Both contestants are one away and she has no clue! It's dead easy.... 250 x 10 = 250
250 + 75 = 325
325 + 2 = 327
Come back Carol....all is forgiven!
Why is it 2 former champions and the supposedly brilliant Oxford graduate Rachel cannot answer the first simple maths problem:
75, 25, 7, 10, 8, 2 with a target of 327.
Both contestants are one away and she has no clue! It's dead easy.... 250 x 10 = 250
250 + 75 = 325
325 + 2 = 327
Come back Carol....all is forgiven!
You don't seem to have any clue either, I think you'll find 250 x 10 is actually 2500
Well obviously I meant to type "25" x 10.... given they don't have 250 on the numbers board.
Point is it's 16 years since I had a maths lesson and I was never any good at it yet I solved it in like 16 seconds?
BR
They didn't want Carol though - as loyal as she's been, her departure seems to be exactly what the show needed, and though it's very early days, ratings are up at the moment compared to the average for last year - and on forums and across the press I've hardly seen anything but praise for Jeff and Rachel.
TVViewer posted:
Yeah but do more maths.... If Carol was offered a 90% pay cut then that means they only offered her around £90K-£100K per year - bit of an insult considering they're willing to pay an unknown without her 26 years experience the same amount? £100K + whatever they spent on the new set probably would have secured Carol instead?
They didn't want Carol though - as loyal as she's been, her departure seems to be exactly what the show needed, and though it's very early days, ratings are up at the moment compared to the average for last year - and on forums and across the press I've hardly seen anything but praise for Jeff and Rachel.
JE
Unlikely. The set probably didn't cost more than fifty grand, and they'll be looking to get a good few years use out of that. So it comes out at maybe ten grand a year. That wouldn't make a lot of difference to Carol Vorderman.
Jenny
Founding member
TVViewer posted:
If Carol was offered a 90% pay cut then that means they only offered her around £90K-£100K per year - bit of an insult considering they're willing to pay an unknown without her 26 years experience the same amount? £100K + whatever they spent on the new set probably would have secured Carol instead?
Unlikely. The set probably didn't cost more than fifty grand, and they'll be looking to get a good few years use out of that. So it comes out at maybe ten grand a year. That wouldn't make a lot of difference to Carol Vorderman.
RE
Five is the maximum they're allowed.
Was it changed back at some point? I had thought they were meant to pick more consonants than vowels these days.
There must be a minimum of 3 vowels and a minimum of 4 consonants in the selection apparently. I remember once a couple of years back Carol telling one contestant the last letter had to be a vowel, because they had only picked 2 vowels out of the 8 already chosen.
Reboot posted:
Jenny posted:
Reboot posted:
Contestant just picked five vowels (letters were CRRTAAEEI - cards can't have been shuffled properly). I thought they weren't allowed to do that?
Five is the maximum they're allowed.
Was it changed back at some point? I had thought they were meant to pick more consonants than vowels these days.
There must be a minimum of 3 vowels and a minimum of 4 consonants in the selection apparently. I remember once a couple of years back Carol telling one contestant the last letter had to be a vowel, because they had only picked 2 vowels out of the 8 already chosen.
BA
According to askoxford.com ...
Brekkie posted:
I think it's quite recently it's been changed - I'm sure at some point they were allowed just two vowels.
According to askoxford.com ...
askoxford.com posted:
Contestants have to choose 9 letters – a combination of vowels and consonants, which are drawn at random from their respective piles. A minimum of 3 vowels and a minimum of 4 consonants must be chosen. This is to prevent players from selecting an unbalanced mixture of 9 letters. In the past, players keen to protect their lead might choose 8 consonants and only 1 vowel – so the mandatory minimums were brought in to ensure fair play, and to protect the integrity of the show.
JV
James Vertigan
Founding member
Woke up (very) early this morning - don't know why - and caught one of the early showings of Countdown... and a thought crossed my mind...
It's a shame that "UNBELIEVABLE" is 12 letters - if it was 9 and came up during Countdown, I'm sure Mr Stelling would see the funny side!
It's a shame that "UNBELIEVABLE" is 12 letters - if it was 9 and came up during Countdown, I'm sure Mr Stelling would see the funny side!
RO
It's good you opted to not let that thought pass unexpressed.
James Vertigan posted:
Woke up (very) early this morning - don't know why - and caught one of the early showings of Countdown... and a thought crossed my mind...
It's a shame that "UNBELIEVABLE" is 12 letters - if it was 9 and came up during Countdown, I'm sure Mr Stelling would see the funny side!
It's a shame that "UNBELIEVABLE" is 12 letters - if it was 9 and came up during Countdown, I'm sure Mr Stelling would see the funny side!
It's good you opted to not let that thought pass unexpressed.
BR
Not sure who's responsibility shuffling the numbers is (I doubt it's down to Rachel as surely someone else lays them out while she's doing the letters) but they screwed up a bit today which resulted in the same numbers being selected twice in a row, partly because Rachel opted to pick the second set from the same place as the first (an "inverted T").
NJ
Why is it a screwup? It's entirely possible that the pack was shuffled and the numbers happened to end up back in that position. There are two of each number 1 to 10, one each of the big four, you'll never know where all the other numbers were on each round and for all you know everything else was different apart from what was picked.
The odds on the big four ending up back in the same place again round after round is more likely as there's only four of them. Realistically yes it is unlikely (but not totally impossible) that the same number figures, if not the same cards, ended up in the same places again to be picked on the next go.
Neil Jones
Founding member
Brekkie posted:
Not sure who's responsibility shuffling the numbers is (I doubt it's down to Rachel as surely someone else lays them out while she's doing the letters) but they screwed up a bit today which resulted in the same numbers being selected twice in a row, partly because Rachel opted to pick the second set from the same place as the first (an "inverted T").
Why is it a screwup? It's entirely possible that the pack was shuffled and the numbers happened to end up back in that position. There are two of each number 1 to 10, one each of the big four, you'll never know where all the other numbers were on each round and for all you know everything else was different apart from what was picked.
The odds on the big four ending up back in the same place again round after round is more likely as there's only four of them. Realistically yes it is unlikely (but not totally impossible) that the same number figures, if not the same cards, ended up in the same places again to be picked on the next go.