I dont suppose it's
that rare - if JC is able to generate a chunk of his income from other commercial activities, facilitated by the beeb, there'd be an argument that it's saving taxpayers money. I know what you mean though, it's a bit fishy.

And what's with Andy Wilman? He sometimes gets listed as 'talent' for Top Gear. Makes me laugh. 'Clarkson, Hammond, May and Wilman'. Er, no - some little prick is letting his ego get ahead of itself.
(username failed moderation, Tue 3 Jan 2012, 16:31, 1 reply)

Bedder 6 the company Clarkson and Andy Wilman own makes its profits from third party Top Gear products and overseas franchising (American Top Gear and Aussie Top Gear and all the others). Also anything not related to the TV show which includes Top Gear magazine any Top Gear related products jigsaws bendy stigs pens etc. The Company and Top Gear brand is currently being split away from the BBC portfolio altogether because of complaints from other private Magazine publishers. Is bedder 6 reinvesting their yearly profits back into the Top Gear brand to make life cheaper for the tax payer ? If it is where are the savings can we see them ? I believe that bedder 6 takes its profits and the BBC get the other half (their share of the profits) either way the way i see it, it seems a tax payer funded show is being used to generate private profits.
(Cov Boy, Tue 3 Jan 2012, 16:44, closed)

Yes, I get that.
The point is that

a) To some extent, Top Gear / Jeremy Clarkson are the same thing. So, he is being allowed to exploit his own brand. What they're saying is Top gear would not survive without him, and it's probably true.

b) Arguably, the dividend he receives from the spin-off is money the BBC don't need to pay him.

Bottom line is; The BBC earn a good chunk of cash from the venture, which is based pretty much around the popularity of Jeremy Clarkson. They mitigate their liability to pay him fees, so it makes sense.
(username failed moderation, Tue 3 Jan 2012, 17:15, closed)