Jeremy Clarkson is the latest BBC star to criticise the relocation of key departments to Salford.

Threat: Jeremy Clarkson said he would leave the BBC if forced to relocate to Manchester like many other employees

The 51-year-old presenter warned executives he would rather quit Top Gear than move to the MediaCity UK site.

There are no plans to shift production of Top Gear to the North at present, but the BBC is committed to ensuring at least 50 per cent of its programming is made outside London by 2016.

The BBC has said that the Salford site will cost £877million to build and run – with five departments including BBC Sport, Children’s, Radio Five Live and shows such as BBC Breakfast moving by next year.

Clarkson claimed the move, which will see 2,300 staff transfer to the Salford site, was ‘box-ticking’.

Writing in his Sunday Times column he described the town as a ‘small suburb with little to offer beyond a Starbucks and a canal with ducks on it’.

London, by contrast, was ‘the nation’s Oxbridge’, full of the nation’s brightest and the sharpest brains.

Clarkson, who described himself as a pure-blood northerner, wrote: ‘It [salford] is nowhere near any court that matters and nowhere near a single politician.

Controversial: 1,500 jobs are to move from London to the corporation's new £877 headquarters

‘Furthermore, if we ran the show from Salford, we’d be employing people from Salford.

‘People who were born there and thought “Yes, I like this. I see no reason to go anywhere else”.

‘And in the world of television that could be a genuine handicap. Every year we’d end up making a Christmas special from the Dog and Duck or the nearest Arndale Centre.’

You’d think the move would be a major problem for him however this is what he said during problems with his marriage,

haha gotta love clarkson

the bloke is a twonk

Edited 11 July, 201115 yr by richhasbigtits

£877 million? Really? That's so unnecessary.

£877 million? Really? That's so unnecessary.

Not really. They're selling Television Centre, think how much it costs to run a big place like that right in the middle of London.

The reality is, people can travel and the internet means you don't need to be in any specific location. It's unlikely political programming will move out of London, that makes no sense. But, for a car programme, getting away from the country's most expensive and least car friendly city makes a lot of sense.

Bring it a bit further east!

I work at MediaCity, bring it on Not that there seems to be much going on at the BBC as of yet...

Not really. They're selling Television Centre, think how much it costs to run a big place like that right in the middle of London.

The reality is, people can travel and the internet means you don't need to be in any specific location. It's unlikely political programming will move out of London, that makes no sense. But, for a car programme, getting away from the country's most expensive and least car friendly city makes a lot of sense.

Well think about the test track then; if they move to another track all of the previous times are done, gone. If they don't move the track it's all of a sudden miles away from the HQ.

Yeah, and they don't film it London, they film it in Guildford.

"but the BBC is committed to ensuring at least 50 per cent of its programming is made outside London by 2016."

Can someone explain why?

Edited 11 July, 201115 yr by Polo Will

Can someone explain why?

To "save" money? IMO spending nearly nine-hundred-million will save money.

Well think about the test track then; if they move to another track all of the previous times are done, gone. If they don't move the track it's all of a sudden miles away from the HQ.

Top Gear isn't moving:

There are no plans to shift production of Top Gear to the North at present,

If they shift anything, then they'll more than likely move the post-production department up north. So continue to film at Dunsfold, then ship everything up north to be edited.

Can someone explain why?

To "save" money? IMO spending nearly nine-hundred-million will save money.

And how much do you think it costs to pay 2,300 people to work in London, plus the cost of the facilities there?

Think about the bigger picture. There's an initial investment, yes, but once they've covered that then the rest is running costs. I'm guessing they've sat down and worked out that by moving a large part of the BBC out of London they'll save enough to cover the costs in the next few years and, in the long run, actually reduce their overheads.

It's not going to be a decision they'll have taken lightly. They're not just allowed to blow budget on useless things, because the BBC isn't a privately owned company. It's a public service broadcasting corporation, and they're publicly accountable if they waste our cash.

Controversial: 1,500 jobs are to move from London to the corporation's new £877 headquarters

Guys you have the wrong end of the stick, its not £877,000,000 its £877

TOP GEAR LIVE

What can you expect:

Clarkson, Hammond, May and The Stig…Live!

Top Gear Live’s first ever Indoor Track Configured by Lotus Motorsport (creators of the famous Top Gear Track at Dunsfold!).

Featuring Stig Power Laps, A Star in a Reasonably Priced Car Live, Top Gear Stunt Team, Supercar Parades, Classic Head-to-Heads & Ferrari Vs Lamborghini.

Note: Gold and Platinum ticket holders also get access to The Track Paddock

Live Action Arena – ground breaking stunt entertainment by the Top Gear Stunt team, all under the ever watchful eye of their master The Stig

PLUS - get right under the skin of Top Gear - Put yourself in Clarkson’s seat (literally) in the replica of the Top Gear studio, vote on the interactive Cool Wall, discover the genealogy of the supercar and get up close and personal with a selection of the very best Top Gear Challenge cars.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Silver Ticket full price: £49 per ticket*

Gold Ticket full price: £75 per ticket*

Platinum Ticket full price: £99 per ticket*

That's all i can say on it atm :) So keep eyes and ears open i might try and go to this and get the premium as i get a little discount :p (granted not much) lol

‘Furthermore, if we ran the show from Salford, we’d be employing people from Salford.

He couldn't be more wrong. Are there actually any Mancunians in Manchester anymore?!

They're not just allowed to blow budget on useless things

Please tell me your taking the piss Alex?

As long as it can be logged under some politically correct title they can blow money on what they like. The BBC Asian network is a prime example, but tragically far from the only example of them producing shit that no one watches/listens to.

Also they pay some people more than 3 times the amount they would earn working for other stations, why? Because the money comes free. They don't have to earn it as its a tax, compare what the top earners working for the BBC are on with the top earners on itv and you will see exactly what I'm talking about.

The BBC also isn't allowed to be biased, that doesn't seem to stop them tho does it

Its located in guildford. Which isnt near london!

They're not just allowed to blow budget on useless things

Please tell me your taking the piss Alex?

As long as it can be logged under some politically correct title they can blow money on what they like. The BBC Asian network is a prime example, but tragically far from the only example of them producing shit that no one watches/listens to.

Also they pay some people more than 3 times the amount they would earn working for other stations, why? Because the money comes free. They don't have to earn it as its a tax, compare what the top earners working for the BBC are on with the top earners on itv and you will see exactly what I'm talking about.

The BBC also isn't allowed to be biased, that doesn't seem to stop them tho does it

It's not paid for by tax, it's essentially paid for by a subscription that you have to pay (by law) if you've got a TV. If you don't have a TV, you don't pay for the BBC, so it's not a tax (and there are people who don't!). Because it's publicly funded, the BBC has a charter that sets what it has to do, and what it can and can't do. They're very much accountable for where the budget goes.

The high salaries have been spotted and are being stopped. The board of governers and the government itself can see to that, unlike in a private company where those at the top can set their own salaries.

What I'm saying is they can't blow £877m on moving the operation up north unless it saves cash or has some sort of public benefit. Technically, should the government decide to do so, they can remove the licence fee funding from the BBC and leave it up shit creek without a paddle.

I love the fact that people seem to think the BBC have made a mistake in spending £877M. Do you not think that just maybe, they've done their sums? In fact do you not think that they'll have employed an army of accountants to work out how to save much, much more than £877M over whatever period?

As for JC comments, they should have stopped making top gear a couple of years ago, the last two series have been terrible. If they did move it up north, they'd not have a track surely? Unless they move it to Wigan and use Three Sisters or something?!?

Alex the tv licence is just as much a tax as road tax is, not every one has to pay that but if you own and use a car or what ever on the road you have to pay it. It's a tv tax, even if you have no means of reciving a tv signal but you own a tv you have to pay it. If I have a tv for the sole purpose of playing my saga mega drive on and have no means of even watching tv I still have to pay for a tv licence by law, how is that a subscription?

You say yourself that the high wages are coming to an end, which shows that they have been pissing our money up the wall for years and the only reason they are trying to make it look like they are doing some thing about it now is because they are terrified the torys are going to slash the licence fee. For years the BBC's spending has gone virtually unchanged by labour and if money looked tight they would just raise the licence fee again.

As for them not being allowed to be biased, members and exmembers of BBC staff (including iirc an ex boss?) Have spoken publicly about how fundamentaly left wing the BBC is, you only have to watch there news reports for evidence of Tory bashing and left wing hype.

The concept of the BBC was a good one, a public information network funded by the public, but unfortunately its been allowed to turn into media monster, can you even name half of the tv and radio stations your paying for? Imo the fee should be slash to some thing like 30 quid a year to cover BBC 1 and 2, the world service (if that's even still going?) And radio 1 and 2, every thing else should be funded through advertising and such like all the normal channels have to do.

Edited 12 July, 201115 yr by McLOVIN

Alex the tv licence is just as much a tax as road tax is, not every one has to pay that but if you own and use a car or what ever on the road you have to pay it. It's a tv tax, even if you have no means of reciving a tv signal but you own a tv you have to pay it. If I have a tv for the sole purpose of playing my saga mega drive on and have no means of even watching tv I still have to pay for a tv licence by law, how is that a subscription?

You say yourself that the high wages are coming to an end, which shows that they have been pissing our money up the wall for years and the only reason they are trying to make it look like they are doing some thing about it now is because they are terrified the torys are going to slash the licence fee. For years the BBC's spending has gone virtually unchanged by labour and if money looked tight they would just raise the licence fee again.

As for them not being allowed to be biased, members and exmembers of BBC staff (including iirc an ex boss?) Have spoken publicly about how fundamentaly left wing the BBC is, you only have to watch there news reports for evidence of Tory bashing and left wing hype.

The concept of the BBC was a good one, a public information network funded by the public, but unfortunately its been allowed to turn into media monster, can you even name half of the tv and radio stations your paying for? Imo the fee should be slash to some thing like 30 quid a year to cover BBC 1 and 2, the world service (if that's even still going?) And radio 1 and 2, every thing else should be funded through advertising and such like all the normal channels have to do.

Do you write for the daily mail? "fundametally left wing", "Tory bashing"? It's Richard Littlejohn!

Still, money is pissed away etc. and again Mattloaf your opinion is typically short sighted. As has been said, its not s if the BBC have made a snap decision to move without some calculations. £877m is a fair wedge, but a drop in the ocean for the multi national like the BBC. Although we all pay the licence fee for the priveledge of watching Top Gear re-runs on Dave, the BBC also makes a lot of money exporting programmes around the world (where i believe its commercial too?). Regardless, it has been examined and aproved by the pen pushers for good reason.

Personally I love the BBC, just like I love the NHS and other British institutions, we are fairly unique in many of them. However, due to over staffing of middle management, poor payback to the public (who pay for both BBC and NHS) and political correctness and pandering, they are at risk of privatisation. By trying to please the minority, they are failing the majority

Who's Richard littlejohn?

If I have a tv for the sole purpose of playing my saga mega drive on and have no means of even watching tv

the TV is a means of watching tv!!

if you plugged your mega drive into a monitor with no tv tuner in it then you'd not have to pay a license fee

tv license isn't a tax because it goes to the BBC not the government. It's a charge for using a service.

Road tax is different because it's levied by the government to (supposedly) pay for upkeep of roads etc... it's not a charge for using roads.

back on topic, can you blame clarkson for wanting to quit if top gear was moved to manchester, his travel time would treble. It takes just over an hour to get to london by car from where clarkson lives, be it by car or train. manchester on the other hand is closer to 3 hours.

As for the reason for relocating, the main reason will be money. Land in london is at a premium and therefore is worth lots, land in Salford on the other hand is going to be cheap in comparison.

London is an expensive place to live, head north of brum and everything becomes cheaper, a lot cheaper.

The BBC do waste a lot of money, they refurb their radio stations on a pretty regular basis, not because they need to, but because they have a departmental budget and if they don't spend the budget it gets cut. I used to work for a firm which carried out the refurbs and they used to make a fortune off the BBC.

A few years ago there was talk of top gear relocating the track to enstone aerodrome (which incidentally is about 10 mins from clarksons house) never happened due to the miserable inhabitants of enstone complaining about the noise it would cause.

The concept of the BBC was a good one, a public information network funded by the public, but unfortunately its been allowed to turn into media monster, can you even name half of the tv and radio stations your paying for? Imo the fee should be slash to some thing like 30 quid a year to cover BBC 1 and 2, the world service (if that's even still going?) And radio 1 and 2, every thing else should be funded through advertising and such like all the normal channels have to do.

What and turn them into ITV?! Feck that. The quality of a lot of the BBC output is far better than a lot of the drivel on the rest of the channels. I'm sure Radio 4 listeners for a start would be up in arms about adverts being foisted into their channel for a start. Just because you dont listen to/watch a lot of their output does not mean it isnt relevant to someone which is the whole point of it is it not.

Its beginning to become a typical attitude in this country, 'Ah thats a little bit broken, scrap it all'.

Hayesey unless your tv has a digital reciver you ain't watching any tv, if I have an analog tv and no free view box ect then you have no way of actually picking up a channel but you still have to pay the fee. You are not paying for a service you are paying for owning a tellyvision

On the flip side of that if you don't own a tv and use a monitor with your console but that console happens to be some thing like a ps3 you still have to have a licence because even if you don't use it you have the ability to watch tv on it, same goes for a pc.

If I choose not to watch any BBC channels then I shouldn't have to pay it right? After all I'm not using their service, but alas it doesn't work like that. Because I'm not paying to use their service, I'm paying because I have to by law. With tv now in the digital age there is no reason they couldn't offer an opt out clause for it so if you want to watch it you have to pay and if you don't then you don't, but who's gonna pay £150 a year to watch eastenders and country file

That would be paying for a service because your paying for the right to use it, as it is your paying for the right to own a tv (or even a games console, pc ect).

Your right the money raised doesn't go to the government, but it is enforced by them through law, when a government force you to pay for the right to own some thing isn't this a tax in all but name?

Edited 12 July, 201115 yr by McLOVIN