c4countdown

Interview with Carol Vorderman in, surprise surprise, the Daily Mail.

So apparently she's banned from the studio. That must be why she's never in DC...

More quality independent journalism from our friend (and Carol's), Rebecca Hardy.

That's an amazing hat she's wearing.

I love the Countdown game, and the 'on air' talent (I mean Rachel Riley, Jeff Stelling and Susie Dent) are superb at their jobs, as were Carol Vorderman, Des Lynam, Des O'Connor and of course, most of all, the greatly missed late Richard Whiteley.

Possible newspaper exaggeration aside, though, Carol does appear to have been despicably treated by the management at Channel 4/Countdown/ITV studios. IMHO those responsible ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Julie T wrote:Carol does appear to have been despicably treated by the management at Channel 4/Countdown/ITV studios.

In what way?

True, but then again none of them are. They moved to Manchester...

I have to be very careful here.

'Countdown' banned me from the studio...........

Let's see. How does the title of a TV programme ban somebody? It's like saying you've been assaulted by Songs of Praise.
I get it, using the title of the show as opposed to the actual name of the person who's allegedly banned you, makes it more sensational and less litigous. Give a name and that person can counter the comments, use the name of the show and it washes with all the people who buy that particular toilet roll.

Ah, its Rebecca Hardy, now it all makes sense. Terrific ratings, Rachel on fire and taking part in the Dispatches programme, lots of publicity with Clarke Carlisle appearing in every paper countrywide and our soon to be 5000th. The timing was obvious.

People can make their own minds up. Carol was never banned by anybody. I've been told that despite fathering 4 sons, i actually have the genitalia of a woman who, having had multiple hysterectomies, continues to scratch her bollocks with her third hand.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Julie T wrote:Carol does appear to have been despicably treated by the management at Channel 4/Countdown/ITV studios.

In what way?

The circumstances of Carol's leaving has been gone over a few times on here. Can you really say that she was treated well?

Lesley Hines wrote:True, but then again none of them are. They moved to Manchester...

Pedantic, Lesley, but funny!

D Eadie wrote: People can make their own minds up.

Very generous of you Damian.
And being the producer of Countdown, and at the time of Carol's departure, I expect you'd admit that your interpretation is hardly unbiased either.

Julie T wrote:

D Eadie wrote: People can make their own minds up.

Very generous of you Damian.
And being the producer of Countdown, and at the time of Carol's departure, I expect you'd admit that your interpretation is hardly unbiased either.

Believe what you read in the papers. The smart man says what he knows, the wise man says nothing.

I don't know the figures, but suppose Rachel gets £100k and Jeff gets more and Countdown gets two million viewers and makes a profit and everyone's happy. If Countdown then goes up to four million viewers it doubles its income, but it still costs the same to produce, so profits rise enormously. But Jeff and Rachel are in a strong position for a massive rise. The show will still make a profit, but if they walked away the audience would fall. Of course, if the audience fell anyway, they'd go back to their old salaries. And that's what happened to Carol.

At the time I thought it was perfectly reasonable, but I don't seem to remember anyone much around here voicing that opinion. To say anything against Carol saw you banished to the outer reaches.

I'm sure she feels resentful, but you have to keep it to yourself. If she'd just shown her disappointment, walked away and never said a word against anyone, she'd still have had everyone's sympathy. But all of that just evaporates with the first snide remark. It just makes people forget what they thought at the time, and "confirms" they were right to get rid of her.

Well put, David.

That paper is a dirth of integrity. If you take at face value anything it says then you have to have something wrong with you.

I never really liked Carol Vorderman, just didn't seem genuine somehow. Bearing that in mind:

That article was the best laugh I've had for a while.

I cannot do the piece-of-talking-meat thing, the "Here's your money, wear a pretty dress and take the cheque." I'm not made that way. I have to be as good as I can be at whatever I do

I mean if she'd said she didn't like doing that then fair enough that would be hard to dispute. But Carol or her spinmeister must really think we've got the memory of a goldfish. Also it's pretty obvious Rachel has done a ton of work practising and learning formulae etc. I don't remember Carol ever using techniques for 4 large, say - which is one of the first things I looked up when I went on Countdown.

I agree with the sentiment others have put forward.

Julie T wrote:The circumstances of Carol's leaving has been gone over a few times on here. Can you really say that she was treated well?

I think she was treated like anyone else whose contract expired. She was offered a wage to continue her job, and she turned it down. Maybe I missed something in the whole debacle, in which case please remind me, or explain why you think that offering someone less money than they wanted is "despicable".

"I have to be as good as I can be at whatever I do"

3rd in Engineering? If that really is as good as she can be, she ought to have quit showbusiness a long time ago.

I was always impartial towards Carol, she was nice enough to me but was clearly imposing herself in the DesO era far too much. In the 13 years I watched the show while she was on, she improved not one iota at the numbers. Within a year, RR went from being quite decent to virtually unbeatable.

I love how she complains of being banned from the studio, as if she would ever return anyway.

Charlie Reams wrote:

Julie T wrote:The circumstances of Carol's leaving has been gone over a few times on here. Can you really say that she was treated well?

I think she was treated like anyone else whose contract expired. She was offered a wage to continue her job, and she turned it down. Maybe I missed something in the whole debacle, in which case please remind me, or explain why you think that offering someone less money than they wanted is "despicable".

I think her "treatment" would be interpreted by the pro-Carol camp as something like this:

"We recognise that you've been instrumental in the programme's success over the years, and it would certainly not be here now without your contribution. However, to protect our futures we're asking you to leave."

I don't think that's my view of events, but it's hard to be completely unbiased. I certainly disliked what Carol had become (on screen anyway) and was pleased to see her go.

Funny how so many people never really liked Carol anyway. Funny, that is, that they never mentioned it at the time. I can't say I was ever a fan, in the sense that seeing a new programme advertised as "presented by CV" would have me searching for another channel, but I thought she was tremendous for Countdown and I doubted that it could survive without her. I may have lost some respect for her since, but that doesn't change what she did on the show.

I also can't see what's wrong with what the Daily Mail is doing. There may be some people who feel the need only for Hansard and the FT, but that's a pretty small minority. Papers more upmarket than the Mail still have stuff like this. The Mail has a willing source in CV so they exploit it. People here may not like it, but I don't suppose they get hot under the collar when they read far worse about, say, Heather Mills or Victoria Beckham.

OK, David, I've re-read my "pleased to see her go" comment and realise that I'm using the assurance of hindsight in knowing that the show will go on.

As for what we may say or not say at a given time, there can't be many people, whether contestants, presenters, guests or whatever, who've appeared on the show who haven't irritated me in some way (including myself). But I'd pick my moment very carefully before criticising any of the current team. Unless I was as sure as I could be that overall I was being constructive, almost certainly I wouldn't do it at all.

I think David has talked a lot of sense here. For what it's worth my wife never liked CV although I remained neutral. However towards the end I got the impression Countdown had become the Carol Vorderman Show, she thought she was bigger than Countdown. The salary she got bordered on the obscene for doing what in effect is so little. It took a while to get used to Jeff and Rachel but in my view (and I've been in the audience a few times now as well as a regular viewer) they fit it like a glove. Although no one has mentioned it I think Susie has also fitted into the new regime well. I gather audience numbers are increasing and rightly so.

So we're all agreed that Carol was not "treated despicably". Excellent.

I hadn't seriously tried to decide what I think until today. Based on the evidence I have seen, I have to say that on balance I agree with Julie.

As she says, the cirumstances have been debated here often enough and I doubt whether there's any enthusiasm to do so again.

Clive Brooker wrote:I hadn't seriously tried to decide what I think until today. Based on the evidence I have seen, I have to say that on balance I agree with Julie.

So since she's no longer responding, can you explain what's despicable?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:I hadn't seriously tried to decide what I think until today. Based on the evidence I have seen, I have to say that on balance I agree with Julie.

So since she's no longer responding, can you explain what's despicable?

I wouldn't care to apply that or any other adjective to the affair without knowing very much more than I do, but speaking as an ordinary oblivious viewer it did come as an enormous shock to me. And - unless there had previously been writing on the wall or other portents - it must have been even more of a shock and an even more unpleasant shock to Carol. Psychologically and financially not unlike being dumped after 20-odd years of marriage.

So it's hardly surprising that she is still bitter, and not that surprising that people take sides.

Personally, I'm in the camp that considers Rachel to be a vast improvement. At least until she takes up touting for loan sharks.

It isn't correct to count CV's sacking as the same as the sacking of Mr. Average in an average job. If Mr. Average has worked for 20+ years for the same firm on an average sort of wage and suddenly gets told he's no longer wanted, that could be argued as despicable. On the other hand, CV was on a very well-paid fixed term contract, which came to an end, and the two parties did not agree a further contract.

The higher your pay, the higher your risk. Carol seems to have the idea that Countdown owes her a living - she's wrong, she's already been paid in full. Yes, she made a big contribution to the show, but she's been paid in fame and fortune.

Her only claim would be if the alleged penny-pinching had resulted in the programme going downhill without her, and that her replacement wasn't as good. That's demonstrably not true. I think what upsets her is that she isn't missed. She spent a long time on the job, and I dare say did put a lot of herself into it, and at the end of it the hole was filled as if she'd never been there.

(Incidentally, how does she know it was just yesterday her son became taller than her. Does she measure him every day?

D Eadie wrote:It's like saying you've been assaulted by Songs of Praise.

And have you? Any legal action pending?

Charlie Reams wrote:

Clive Brooker wrote:I hadn't seriously tried to decide what I think until today. Based on the evidence I have seen, I have to say that on balance I agree with Julie.

So since she's no longer responding, can you explain what's despicable?

As I've already indicated, I'm firmly in the "Rachel is a vast improvement" camp. Also, "despicable" wasn't my word - I'm not defending that over unfair, unkind or any other possibilities.

What has always bothered me is that the bust-up seemed too bad to be true. I can't see that Carol had anything to gain - I'm sure her reputation was always going to be damaged. But if she'd departed amicably from what was generally seen as an ailing show, most commentators would surely have said she was just doing what she should have done three years earlier - bye bye Countdown.

So on balance I'm inclined to think that she was deliberately provoked, and that the programme knew that over time it would gain significantly from its new-found notoriety.

Clive Brooker wrote: What has always bothered me is that the bust-up seemed too bad to be true. I can't see that Carol had anything to gain - I'm sure her reputation was always going to be damaged. But if she'd departed amicably from what was generally seen as an ailing show, most commentators would surely have said she was just doing what she should have done three years earlier - bye bye Countdown.

So on balance I'm inclined to think that she was deliberately provoked, and that the programme knew that over time it would gain significantly from its new-found notoriety.

Wow. Bizarre.

I spent most of yesterday in bed with a migraine (hence coming to this debate late) so it's quite possible I've gone mad.

Clive Brooker wrote:What has always bothered me is that the bust-up seemed too bad to be true. I can't see that Carol had anything to gain - I'm sure her reputation was always going to be damaged. But if she'd departed amicably from what was generally seen as an ailing show, most commentators would surely have said she was just doing what she should have done three years earlier - bye bye Countdown.

So on balance I'm inclined to think that she was deliberately provoked, and that the programme knew that over time it would gain significantly from its new-found notoriety.

Carol had everything to gain from painting a scenario that there was a bust-up and Channel 4 were really mean to her. Because logically the other option is she refused to take a pay cut, on a show where she'd always preached about 'Countdown family' and so on and had clearly gained a hell of a lot from financially and in terms of her fame and career. This would have damaged her image which makes it harder for her to sell home owner loans and so on... oh wait she cannot do those.

Channel 4 on the other hand had nothing to gain from a bust-up. It damages their reputation and they'd sooner her take the pay cut than have to find someone else.

Where do you think the consistent stink in the media is emanating from?

Craig Beevers wrote:Channel 4...had nothing to gain from a bust-up. It damages their reputation and they'd sooner her take the pay cut than have to find someone else.

I don't have the sense that Channel 4 was damaged. If anything, I thought they gained respect for having the guts to follow sound financial principles and not continuing to pander to their supposedly overpaid stars.

As well as the need to cut costs, I had the impression that there was a perceived need to re-invigorate the show. First and foremost that meant the retirement of DesO. Bringing in someone else with Carol in situ was surely impossible with Carol having become so dominant. Moving Carol to the presenter's chair might have worked but apart from anything else it would have then been harder to argue for a pay cut. So my conclusion is that Carol had to go.

An acrimonious split surely gave the situation far more edge and ensured there was keen media interest in how it would unfold. Most of them of course were anticipating failure, and I'm as glad as anyone here that that didn't happen.

Craig Beevers wrote:Where do you think the consistent stink in the media is emanating from?

From Carol, naturally. I'm not arguing that she's behaved well. But I think it's entirely possible that the boot was put into her first.

Clive Brooker wrote:

Craig Beevers wrote:Channel 4...had nothing to gain from a bust-up. It damages their reputation and they'd sooner her take the pay cut than have to find someone else.

I don't have the sense that Channel 4 was damaged. If anything, I thought they gained respect for having the guts to follow sound financial principles and not continuing to pander to their supposedly overpaid stars.

As well as the need to cut costs, I had the impression that there was a perceived need to re-invigorate the show. First and foremost that meant the retirement of DesO. Bringing in someone else with Carol in situ was surely impossible with Carol having become so dominant. Moving Carol to the presenter's chair might have worked but apart from anything else it would have then been harder to argue for a pay cut. So my conclusion is that Carol had to go.

An acrimonious split surely gave the situation far more edge and ensured there was keen media interest in how it would unfold. Most of them of course were anticipating failure, and I'm as glad as anyone here that that didn't happen.

Craig Beevers wrote:Where do you think the consistent stink in the media is emanating from?

From Carol, naturally. I'm not arguing that she's behaved well. But I think it's entirely possible that the boot was put into her first.

If you were talking about a reality TV show or something else with a short shelf-life then what you're saying would be relevant. But Countdown is an institution. Gimmicks, controversy and the like are not going to go down well with the existing audience. It may go down well with another type of audience, but how many of them would watch Countdown anyway?

She's a 'maths advisor' for the Conservatives, which means she's a cretin in several different ways.

So I see the thread title, and I eagerly click, wondering just which former contestant is "never welcome in the studio again" and why. During a particularly tense crucial conundrum, did they shout "GANDISEEG!" from their seat in the audience? Did they spoil a Paul Zenon magic trick by loudly pointing out the nylon thread attached to the playing card?

But, no, it's just Carol. Meh.

D Eadie wrote:I have to be very careful here.

'Countdown' banned me from the studio...........

Let's see. How does the title of a TV programme ban somebody? It's like saying you've been assaulted by Songs of Praise.
I get it, using the title of the show as opposed to the actual name of the person who's allegedly banned you, makes it more sensational and less litigous. Give a name and that person can counter the comments, use the name of the show and it washes with all the people who buy that particular toilet roll.

Ah, its Rebecca Hardy, now it all makes sense. Terrific ratings, Rachel on fire and taking part in the Dispatches programme, lots of publicity with Clarke Carlisle appearing in every paper countrywide and our soon to be 5000th. The timing was obvious.

People can make their own minds up. Carol was never banned by anybody. I've been told that despite fathering 4 sons, i actually have the genitalia of a woman who, having had multiple hysterectomies, continues to scratch her bollocks with her third hand.

So am I to assume that Carol won't be invited to the 5000th show later this year.
That is a shame since she has probably appeared in more episodes than anyone else.

Julie T wrote:

Charlie Reams wrote:

Julie T wrote:Carol does appear to have been despicably treated by the management at Channel 4/Countdown/ITV studios.

In what way?

The circumstances of Carol's leaving has been gone over a few times on here. Can you really say that she was treated well?

I agree. My employer recently offered me a 6-figure salary for doing a few sums now and then and I was appalled and disgusted.

Not trying to sell/promote a future book by any chance, is old Carol? I suppose like Andre Kirk Agassi etc, you have to add a little "spicing up" etc to get sales/publicity.

As a long time viewer of Countdown, I can honestly say IMO it's as good as it ever was, if not better.

My eldest's 25th birthday yesterday, so just caught up with the thread.

Thanks, Clive, and some others, for partly agreeing with me. And the negative stuff didn't seem to get too nasty either!

I suppose that those of us oldies who have had Carol Vorderman in our TV lives for much longer than most of the youngsters on here, feel more of a loss at her going. Rachel is undoubtedly very good at her job, so that made the transition easier for those who weren't particularly bothered about, or even disliked, Carol.

I'm not saying that her behaviour was exemplary, to be that acrimonious there was probably some fault on both sides.

Julie T wrote:My eldest's 25th birthday yesterday, so just caught up with the thread.

Thanks, Clive, and some others, for partly agreeing with me. And the negative stuff didn't seem to get too nasty either!

I suppose that those of us oldies who have had Carol Vorderman in our TV lives for much longer than most of the youngsters on here, feel more of a loss at her going. Rachel is undoubtedly very good at her job, so that made the transition easier for those who weren't particularly bothered about, or even disliked, Carol.

I'm not saying that her behaviour was exemplary, to be that acrimonious there was probably some fault on both sides.

Fair enough. Personally I so much prefer the new team that I wouldn't care if Carol had been sacked outright; being replaced by someone better is part of the cut-and-thrust of employment, especially in an overstocked job market like TV presenting. But since it was really just a contract dispute between two parties who already had plenty of money, I don't feel sorry for her at all, and I've seen no evidence that the endless stream of Daily Mail stories on the subject is any more than Carol just making shit up. But thanks for clarifying your opinion, I kinda thought we'd scared you off which wasn't my intention.

Am I the only one who isn't disappointed to learn that Jacob Sutton isn't banned from the Countdown studios?

Matthew Green wrote:Am I the only one who isn't disappointed to learn that Jacob Sutton isn't banned from the Countdown studios?

I was wondering myself (before I read the thread) what he could have possibly have done to get banned from the studio, bit disappointed to see it was just about Carol.

Jacob Sutton?

Why??

Ian Dent wrote:Jacob Sutton?

Why??

Ian you're such a dumpling sometimes. Look at the list of threads in the General forum.

FFS

Sorry.

Ian Dent wrote:FFS

Sorry.

*hug*

Charlie Reams wrote:Fair enough. Personally I so much prefer the new team that I wouldn't care if Carol had been sacked outright; being replaced by someone better is part of the cut-and-thrust of employment, especially in an overstocked job market like TV presenting. But since it was really just a contract dispute between two parties who already had plenty of money, I don't feel sorry for her at all, and I've seen no evidence that the endless stream of Daily Mail stories on the subject is any more than Carol just making shit up. But thanks for clarifying your opinion, I kinda thought we'd scared you off which wasn't my intention.

Aren't most people on here (including you) just believing what they want to be the case based on very little evidence? No evidence that it isn't Carol making shit up, but what is the evidence that she is making shit up?

Anyway, this Carol-bashing is too much for me. I will have to start a new forum.[/Holden]

I agree. I will have to follow.[/Others on here]

Gavin Chipper wrote:Aren't most people on here (including you) just believing what they want to be the case based on very little evidence? No evidence that it isn't Carol making shit up, but what is the evidence that she is making shit up?

*** Spoiler space ***
*** Spoiler space ***
*** Spoiler space ***
*** Spoiler space ***
*** Spoiler space ***

I know things you don't.

Gavin Chipper wrote:Aren't most people on here (including you) just believing what they want to be the case based on very little evidence? No evidence that it isn't Carol making shit up, but what is the evidence that she is making shit up?

Anyway, this Carol-bashing is too much for me. I will have to start a new forum.[/Holden]

I agree. I will have to follow.[/Others on here]

Even if saintliness is 100% Carol and blame is 100% everyone else, and even if it was all 100% provable, she still would gain nothing, and just look bitter and small-minded, by going public.

Zef and I agree with your second point.

Bump.
Only to comment on how good she looked on Loose Women on Monday compared to the schoolmarm look on BBC Breakfast earlier the same day.
See here http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/201 ... -22080285/

Marc Meakin wrote:Bump.
Only to comment on how good she looked on Loose Women on Monday compared to the schoolmarm look on BBC Breakfast earlier the same day.
See here http://www.mirror.co.uk/celebs/news/201 ... -22080285/

I would agree that CV is an attractive lady, but she looks like she's trying too hard in that right hand piccy.

Regarding the topic here, i think only the people involved will ever REALLY know, but for sure from what the media portrayed it didn't look good.

However i too must agree that as much as i did like Carol, it was very obvious that she thought she was the star towards the end of her time, something to do with her weight loss vids & maybe her perceived high profile?

Rachel has stepped in admirably in my opinion, she is every bit as capable and seems to be improving as she goes along, she is very easy on the eyes, seems to be a genuinely nice person even if her outfits seems to be either very nice or outright strange (which i know is a subjective thing, but that's my thoughts).