I have to wonder how enforceable that is. An exclusivity clause while the contract is in force is one thing, but one that applies after the contract has expired (not terminated) I would suggest may not be considered a fair contract if it went to court. If it was a clause that said if you terminate the contract early you can't work for a competitor for the remaining time that might be a different matter, but this seems pretty unreasonable.
If it was on the basis of the BBC paying gardening leave for those two years it might be more reasonable, but I could see the Daily Mail headlines already if they tried that.
I suspect all concerned want to move on, and the BBC agreeing to waive that clause would be to everybody's benefit.
There's more in Private Eye this week regarding the 'War' between Tony Hall & Danny Cohen. Apparently Cohens PR exec has ' co-incidentally decided to quite the BBC (to work for Twitter!) I wonder how long before the DG decides to use the management cuts to get rid of the Top Gear axe man?
Private eye 1396 P. 15 if you want to sneak a look at the newsagents.
Claims that there's a loophole in the Top Gear contract by having a US production company produce the new motoring show that then could be sold to a linear broadcaster in the UK.
To be honest, I don't think that article really tells us anything new. If previous reports are accurate, they could use the States as a loophole to get onto ITV!
I'm really not sure that the BBC would actually enforce any non-compete clauses in his contract. Would they really want the potential expense and negative publicity of legal action? Particularly at this crucial time for the Corporation.
I don't feel comfortable with the BBC having non-compete clauses. Seems a very anti-competitive and commercial way of doing things (unless the contract is somehow with BBC Worldwide, in which case it is specifically to protect commercial interests).
I'm really not sure that the BBC would actually enforce any non-compete clauses in his contract. Would they really want the potential expense and negative publicity of legal action? Particularly at this crucial time for the Corporation.
I don't feel comfortable with the BBC having non-compete clauses. Seems a very anti-competitive and commercial way of doing things (unless the contract is somehow with BBC Worldwide, in which case it is specifically to protect commercial interests).
The BBC's problem is that it needs to be run as a Commercial operation going forward if it is to survive. If its standard for non-compete clauses at other broadcasters then the BBC should follow suit. The lisence paying public are effectively shareholders and their investment needs to be protected.
In these circumstances a significant proportion of licence fee payers want to see new episodes of Clarkson, Hammond and May. Enforcing this clause is not in their interest.
I would have a different view if it were the case that Clarkson had walked away mid contract, but if the BBC chose not to exercise their right to renew his contract that should be the end of their influence over his ability to work for anybody who would employ him.
I'm really not sure that the BBC would actually enforce any non-compete clauses in his contract. Would they really want the potential expense and negative publicity of legal action? Particularly at this crucial time for the Corporation.
I don't feel comfortable with the BBC having non-compete clauses. Seems a very anti-competitive and commercial way of doing things (unless the contract is somehow with BBC Worldwide, in which case it is specifically to protect commercial interests).
The BBC's problem is that it needs to be run as a Commercial operation going forward if it is to survive. If its standard for non-compete clauses at other broadcasters then the BBC should follow suit. The lisence paying public are effectively shareholders and their investment needs to be protected.
I don't buy this 'shareholders' analogy which is often bandied around. The BBC is a publicly funded service. The public pay for it and the public get the service in return. There is no financial return.
I don't think it is in the public's interest to prohibit talent from appearing on a competitor if the BBC doesn't want said talent.
I think people may be misinterpreting the restriction in place regarding Top Gear.
The BBC bought the rights to the format from Clarkson in 2012. Surely he's in breach of that sale if he then goes on the create something similar for the UK market within a 5 year period?