Connect with us

Finance

The true cost of being cancelled: Stars face financial ruin after being embroiled in scandal – but who has a buffer of cash and assets to fall back on if they never work again?

Published

on

The true cost of being cancelled: Stars face financial ruin after being embroiled in scandal – but who has a buffer of cash and assets to fall back on if they never work again?

Cancel culture is now so virulent and dangerous that stars are even buying insurance to protect themselves from financial and reputational ruin.

And no wonder, because MailOnline can today reveal how stars such as Phillip Schofield are losing millions each year after being sent into the celebrity wilderness.

One star whose work has dried up amid allegations of sexual impropriety claims to be £10million worse off – with just £320 left in one business, down from £432,583.

Exclusive analysis of publicly-available company accounts reveal how stars’ earnings have fallen off a cliff since leaving the public eye due to various scandals.

Mr Schofield’s long career means that while his gigantic earnings from This Morning, Dancing on Ice and advertising deals have vanished, he still enjoys the cushion of millions of pounds in cash and assets including several properties.

Advertisement

Gino D’Acampo has built up a nest egg of around £6million from his ITV work and book deals over the past five years – but with no new shows on the way his earnings will take a hit of around £1million-a-year if the work runs out.

And for fallen stars like Gregg Wallace and Wynne Evans, their financial future could be bleak unless they can get their own careers back on track, especially without the comfort blanket of a BBC salary.

Noel Clarke, who was cancelled in 2021 and is fighting for his reputation in the High Court in a high-profile libel case with The Guardian newspaper, faces near-complete financial ruin if he loses the case.

Phillip Schofield is losing an estimated £1.4 million-a-year since quitting his job as This Morning presenter in June 2023.

The star, 62, left the show having admitted to having an affair with a junior colleague and then quit ITV altogether, leaving behind a host of well-paid presenting gigs.

Advertisement

He was earning £730,000 for the This Morning presenter role with Holly Willoughby but also picked up a reported £45,000 an episode for Dancing on Ice, which runs for 10 episodes per year.

Presenting other shows like British Soap Awards, BBC game show The Cube, and an ITV series called How To Spend It Well all added to his lucrative annual earnings.

Away from the screen, Schofield has built up a cache of valuable assets, including properties.

Schofield admitted to a relationship with a much younger male colleague (pictured centre) and having lied about it to bosses – as well as his loved ones

Advertisement
Phillip and Stephanie Lowe married in 1993 and raised two daughters, Molly, right, and Ruby, left. His daughters are also huge supporters - Molly is his publicist

Phillip and Stephanie Lowe married in 1993 and raised two daughters, Molly, right, and Ruby, left. His daughters are also huge supporters – Molly is his publicist

He sold a flat he was said to have used to entertain his lover for £1million last year, making a loss of £250,000 on what he paid for it.

He also owns a mansion in Henley-on-Thames outright, which is thought to be worth at least £5million.

In 2020 he picked up £1.2million for a book deal for his autobiography Life’s What You Make It.

Accounts for his two companies show they had assets of £3million in May 2023, soon after he quit This Morning. 

Advertisement

Fistral Productions, for his TV work, held £2.137million in the year he quit This Morning. His wife Stephanie Schofield is listed as a co-director.

He also has a company called Fistral Property, with assets of £900,000. Mrs Schofield is also a co-director.

Potential loss: £1.4 million-a-year 

Gino D’Acampo 

Gino D’Acampo has seen the value of his company rocket by an average of £979,000-a-year for the last five years and is now worth just under £6million.

But it means he could now stand to lose £1 million a year – or potentially more – if his career had continued to blossom at the same rate.

Advertisement

He lives in a £1.25million house in Hertfordshire, with wife Jessica, who is a director of his companies and the mother of his three children.

In February, ITV pulled all Gino D’Acampo’s shows from its upcoming schedules.

The TV chef, 48, has been accused of ‘sexually inappropriate’ behaviour spanning 12 years while filming his hit food and travel programmes. He denies the claims.

Mr D’Acampo has faced accusations including using sexualised and aggressive language on TV sets including ‘Gino’s Italian Express’, ‘Gordon, Gino and Fred’s Road Trip’ ‘Gino’s Italy: Secrets of South’, ‘Like Mamma Used to Make’ and ‘Emission Impossible’. 

ITV then changed its schedules to ensure he will not appear on our screens. But many of his shows remain available on its ITVX streaming service. 

Advertisement

The new series of Family Fortunes, the iconic family gameshow hosted by Gino, was due for broadcast in early 2025 but has also been canned by ITV. 

Gino is the host of Family Fortunes. Episodes have been pulled and the new series canned

Gino is the host of Family Fortunes. Episodes have been pulled and the new series canned

The Italian star (centre), 48, who regularly appeared on ITV's This Morning (pictured) when Schofield was a co-host, has been 'cancelled' following multiple allegations of sexually inappropriate and intimidating behaviour

Gino D’Acampo, pictured with Holly Willoughby and Phillip Schofield, honours his promise to cook naked on This Morning if they won at the 2011 NTA Awards. Gino has become known for stripping off on screen

Gino D'ACampo and wife Jessica

Gino D’ACampo and wife Jessica

Gino ‘said and did whatever he wanted’ while working for ITV – as his alleged victims insisted they were ‘too afraid’ to make complaints at the time. 

Advertisement

Sources told MailOnline that ITV began to ease out Gino in the wake of the scandal that engulfed the BBC over MasterChef’s Gregg Wallace, especially after Phillip Schofield’s bitter exit from This Morning.

But amid questions about why they didn’t raise incidents spanning 12 years, most of the women told ITV News they were ‘too afraid’ to make complaints about D’Acampo because they were self-employed and feared being ostracised in TV.

After a bumper few years, Gino’s company has seen its value increase by between £500,000 and £2.06million each year between 2019 and 2024. 

It currently has £2million in cash in the bank. The company is now worth £4.9million.

MailOnline estimates that his total net worth is £5.7million.

Advertisement

Potential loss: £979,000-a-year

Gregg Wallace 

Gregg Wallace had been earning an estimated £400,000-a-year from his Masterchef role, which, as is suspected, will now be lost if he does not return to TV.

The former MasterChef host, 60, stepped down from hosting the BBC show with Jon Torode in November after multiple complaints of inappropriate behaviour on set.

Before his big break, the star used all his Cockney charms to create an appealing TV persona – ‘the fat, bald bloke off the telly who likes pudding’, as he once styled himself.

But he initially made his living as a greengrocer, although market traders he once worked alongside have claimed they were the ones left counting the cost of his success. 

Advertisement

With his six-figure BBC salary on hold, Gregg has a separate fitness business on the side called Showme.fit which is currently worth £108,663. 

There is also a new health and food business, whose accounts are not yet available.

Ex-MasterChef judge Gregg Wallace was spotted for the first time in February after not being out in public since November 28, 2024

Ex-MasterChef judge Gregg Wallace was spotted for the first time in February after not being out in public since November 28, 2024

Wallace co-hosted Masterchef for 17 years alongside John Torode (left)

Wallace co-hosted Masterchef for 17 years alongside John Torode (left) 

But he stepped back amid an investigation into his conduct over a period of 17 years

But he stepped back amid an investigation into his conduct over a period of 17 years

Advertisement

He also has £32,000 held in his company Lobster Enterprises Ltd, where his TV money is paid into.

George Allan’s Greengrocers, the company Wallace founded in 1989, was built into a business with a £7.5million turnover.

But last year a former manager claimed Gregg left behind £1.5 million in debt – and a host of disgruntled ex-colleagues – when the firm went under in 2000. 

In his 2012 autobiography, Life on a Plate, Wallace acknowledged: ‘We were owed millions and we owed millions to wholesalers in the market’.

He also described how he ‘didn’t have to pick up all the bills personally’ after Gregg Allan’s failed, since it was a limited company, and hit back at the idea that fame had resulted in a loss of focus on his part.

Advertisement

‘Many of the traders had joined forces and said they refused to employ me,’ wrote Wallace. 

‘It wasn’t fair but they blamed me for George Allan’s closure. They thought I’d got too fancy and big for my boots, being on telly now, and I let it all go to pot.

‘Nothing could’ve been further from the truth, though. It’s always the way: the last one out to turn off the lights, gets the blame.’

Gregg founded George Allan’s Greengrocers in 1989 and built the company into a business with a £7.5 million turnover

Gregg founded George Allan’s Greengrocers in 1989 and built the company into a business with a £7.5 million turnover

In 2014 Gregg was forced to close his Wallace and Co restaurant in Putney, South West London and sell its parent company Wallace Cafes.

Advertisement

Since then he has relied on his £400,000-a-year MasterChef salary, which is now hanging in the balance.

Much of the earning pressure is now on his ShowMe.Fit app, which he advertises using his popular Instagram account. But it emerged last year that he borrowed £70,000 to keep it going.

It is currently worth £108,663, according to the accounts.

Lobster Enterprises Ltd, where his TV cash is paid into, paid tax suggesting it made a £400,000 profit. But it is worth £32,000, according to the latest accounts.

The shamed Masterchef star, 60, also set up Gregg Wallace.Health after he himself shed five stone, with the business offering recipes, advice from experts and frozen ready deliveries.

Advertisement

The website reads: ‘Ready to transform your health and feel your best? – no risks, just results. Cancel anytime’.

However in recent weeks fans who signed up have furiously taken to review bible Trustpilot and claimed they are being incorrectly charged and are struggling to get their money back.

One customer fumed: ‘What a scam. I cancelled my membership when they changed apps. However [it] managed to do an auto renewal of my membership and deducted an annual subscription for a non functioning App. Getting no reply on their email for a refund. Customer service terrible and would not recommend them’.

Potential loss: £400,000-a-year 

Noel Clarke 

Noel Clarke said that his work completely dried up the moment The Guardian story about his alleged sexually inappropriate behaviour was published.

Advertisement

In court papers he has detailed more than £10million in lost earnings since the article in April 2021.

One company he still runs called Astonishing Entertainment Limited, had assets of £432,583 in the 12 months up to the end of March 2021, when the allegation was made.

The same company now has just £320 according to the most recent accounts which cover the 12 months to the end of March 2024.

His company Unstoppable Film and Television Limited was bought by powerful TV production company ALL 3 Media, which was behind Fleabag, in 2018, but Clarke and business partner Jason Maza stood down in August 2021 after the Guardian claims were published. 

Noel Clarke arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice this week for his libel case against The Guardian

Noel Clarke arrives at the Royal Courts of Justice this week for his libel case against The Guardian

Advertisement

The company had assets of £3.3million in the months before the bombshell newspaper claims.

In court papers Clarke catalogued the earnings he was losing as a consequence of being cancelled.

They were a Sky TV show Bulletproof, series 4, where he lost his fee for acting in 10 episodes – £585,000, his fee for writing two episodes – £90,000 – his fee for directing two episodes – £90,000 – and anticipated royalties of £250,000.

The Guardian article came out midway through an ITV series Viewpoint which was immediately taken off the air.

But a second series had already been commissioned meaning he lost his fee – £270,000, anticipated royalties of an estimated £200,000.

Advertisement

Advanced plans for a Channel 5 TV show Highwater which would have begun shooting in winter 2021 meant he lost a producer bonus – in the region of £60,000.

A BBC TV show called Crongton was ‘greenlit’ was ditched and meant he would not get a producer bonus – in the region of £60,000.

Clarke is known for his role in Doctor Who as Mickey. He is pictured here alongside Billie Piper who played Rose Tyler

Clarke is known for his role in Doctor Who as Mickey. He is pictured here alongside Billie Piper who played Rose Tyler

Noel Clarke pictured as DC Martin Young in the ITV Series Viewpoint

Noel Clarke pictured as DC Martin Young in the ITV Series Viewpoint

A StudioCanal movie Something in the Water would have earned him a producer bonus in the region of £40,000.

Advertisement

He would also have earned a minimum salary from his ex production company Unstoppable Film and Television of £1.25million over 10 years not including raises or bonuses.

He also said the projected approximate value of shares in Unstoppable Film and Television, which he says has now been ‘wiped out’, would have been £7million.

Potential loss: £10million 

Wynne Evans

Wynne Evans has almost £1million in cash and assets sitting in the bank, his latest accounts reveal.

But he has had to step away from the public eye after making a lewd joke that saw him have to leave the lucrative Strictly Come Dancing tour this year. 

Advertisement

Evans, 53, who made a sick sexual comment about dancer and broadcaster Janette Manrara, has also been replaced in his BBC Radio Wales show. 

Wynne Evans Ltd handles the majority of his media earnings, including his Go Compare commercial work.

GoCompare has repeatedly refused to say whether they are going to sack Wynne from his role, which is believed to worth at least £200,000-a-year. 

Wynne Evans is said to earn £200,000-a-year as the face of Go Compare

Wynne Evans is said to earn £200,000-a-year as the face of Go Compare

The Go Compare star reportedly believes his reputation has been unfairly left 'in tatters' after he apologised for a vile remark aimed at tour host Janette Manrara, when footage emerged of the comment at the tour's press launch

The Go Compare star reportedly believes his reputation has been unfairly left ‘in tatters’ after he apologised for a vile remark aimed at tour host Janette Manrara, when footage emerged of the comment at the tour’s press launch

Advertisement

Accounts for year to end of May 2024, filed in February show he has cash and assets of £734,830 – down from £761,798 the year before. 

He paid £12,186 in tax.

It does not include what he was paid to be on Strictly and its live tour before he was forced to walk away from.

He owns a flat in Croydon bought for £198,000 in 2014. It is now worth an estimated £288,000. 

His ex-wife Tanwen Evans owns a home in Cardiff bought for £465,000 in 2013, now worth £875,000.

Advertisement

He has a management company which manages the flat in Croydon but it is dormant.

But he disbanded another company seven years ago and he is one of many director-board members of a Opera theatre called Grange Park Opera in West Horsley.

When the Go Compare and Strictly star discussed the house he moved into after his divorce he described it as ‘sad and derelict’, backing onto busy a railway track and saying it cost £500,000 to make it fit to live in.

Back in January, the opera singer, 53, stepped down from the Strictly Come Dancing live tour after coming under fire for making a vile remark aimed at host Janette Manrara [pictured with Katya Jones]

Wynne Evans ‘ lawyers have reportedly compiled a 30-page dossier to take to showdown talks with the BBC as he fights to keep his beloved radio job

Wynne previously revealed he hit 'rock bottom' at the end of his marriage to Welsh violinist Tanwen (seen together in 2011)

Wynne previously revealed he hit ‘rock bottom’ at the end of his marriage to Welsh violinist Tanwen (seen together in 2011) 

Advertisement

But pictures unearthed by MailOnline revealed that the stunning Edwardian villa was apparently in immaculate condition, with well presented rooms and gardens, packed with period features and in good condition.

And at more than £700,000 it was more than four times the then average property price for Cardiff.

In a recent interview discussing his 2015 divorce, the opera singer was bemoaning the state of the house in Cardiff which he bought after splitting from Tanwen and moving away from his two children.

He claimed the five-bedroomed house was ‘all he could afford’ and said he had spent £500,000 on improvements.

The house with three bathrooms in the leafy area was described at the time he bought it, in 2016, was certainly dated, and needed some modernising, but according to Evans it had ‘boarded-up windows’ and his then teenage children had to sleep in tents in their bedrooms during early visits. 

Advertisement

Potential loss: At least £200,000-a-year 

Finance

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes

Published

on

Oregon Legislature passes controversial campaign finance changes
play

Legislators passed a bill March 5 to modify forthcoming changes to Oregon’s campaign finance system despite outcry from good government groups who say the bill creates new loopholes.

Those groups were key in creating House Bill 4024, which was created and passed in 2024 in place of warring ballot measures seeking to overhaul the system.

That legislation included new limits on contributions, including capping individual spending on statewide candidates each cycle at $3,300, and other changes. Parts of the bill were set to go into effect in 2027 and 2028.

Advertisement

Under the new proposal, House Bill 4018, the limits would still begin in 2027, but disclosure requirements and penalties would be pushed to 2031. It also gives the Secretary of State money to update the campaign finance system, but far less than the office previously thought it might need.

Representatives voted 39-19 to pass the bill. A few hours later, the Senate passed it 20-9.

Fourteen of the “no” votes in the House were Democrats, including Reps. Tom Andersen, D-Salem, and Lesly Muñoz, D-Woodburn.

Muñoz told the Statesman Journal she voted against the bill after hearing from people upset with the bill’s process.

Advertisement

Six Democratic senators cast a “no” vote on HB 4018.

Oregon campaign finance reform advocates say they were left out of negotiations

After working together in 2024, advocates said Speaker of the House Julie Fahey, D-Eugene, “ghosted” them.

Good government groups said the bill does far more than address necessary technical fixes to HB 4024.

HB 4018 is “a complete betrayal of the deal that was made two years ago,” Norman Turrill of Oregon’s League of Women Voters said.

Advertisement

Should the bill be signed by Gov. Tina Kotek, the groups said they will push their own changes through a 2028 ballot initiative.

Those advocates have outlined at least 11 different changes they believe the bill creates. The bill’s contents were first shared through a Feb. 9 amendment that was posted after 5 p.m., hours before it received a public hearing in an 8 a.m. work session on Feb. 10 and later, Feb. 12.

Secretary of State Tobias Read told legislators in January his office was requesting $25 million as a placeholder to fund a new campaign finance system for the state. Read was not secretary of state when House Bill 2024 was passed and his office is now working to implement the bill’s changes on a fast approaching deadline.

An additional amendment to the bill instead gives the Secretary of State’s Office $1.5 million for staff, some of whom would be tasked with updating the state’s current system.

House members agreed March 4 to send the bill back to committee, presumably to be amended. A 5 p.m. committee meeting was canceled about an hour after initially being announced.

Advertisement

A work session on HB 4018 was moved to the next morning. After an hour of delay, legislators convened and finished the meeting, moving the bill back to the floor without any changes, in less than three minutes.

A new campaign finance bill, Senate Bill 1502, was introduced and scheduled for a public hearing and work session March 4.

The bill is “very simple,” Senate Minority Leader Bruce Starr, R-Dundee, said. It tells the Secretary of State’s Office to draft a bill for the 2027 session with necessary campaign finance improvements from HB 4024 and HB 4018.

Three senators voted against the bill March 5. It now moves to the House. Legislators have a March 8 deadline to end the session.

“SB 1502 would not correct the severe damage to campaign finance reform that will occur, if HB 4018 B is enacted in this session,” Dan Meek of Honest Elections Oregon wrote in submitted testimony.

Advertisement

Lawmakers appear unsatisfied, but supportive, toward Oregon campaign finance bill

House Majority Leader Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, said HB 4018 made positive changes but acknowledged it was “a challenging vote for many of us.”

“We are implementing this whole new system that is new for all of us, and there are a lot of opinions and there are a lot of details to figure out,” House Minority Leader Lucetta Elmer, R-McMinnville, said. Elmer and Bowman carried the bill in the House. “With that being said, we’re moving forward in good faith, knowing that we’ll also be coming back next year to make sure that those details and all those kinks are worked out.”

Rep. Mark Gamba, D-Milwaukie, said he was concerned about the bill and the “non-inclusive process” that led to it.

Gamba pointed to a letter from the Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center that states in part that the bill “would substantially revise critical campaign finance reforms enacted two years ago in Oregon” and weaken the state’s campaign finance law.

The current bill is not the only possibility for moving forward, Sen. Jeff Golden, D-Ashland, told lawmakers. Proposed amendments that would have extended implementation timelines without the additional changes were ignored, he said.

Advertisement

“House Bill 4024 and this bill, 4018, have two things in common. One, they were thrown together in a few days behind closed doors, mostly by organizations who dominate campaign funding in the current system,” Golden said. “And two, very few legislators understand what is actually in these bills.”

He urged lawmakers to abandon the system created in House Bill 4024 as an “uncomfortably expensive learning experience” and develop a new plan based on successful programs in other states.

Sen. Sara Gelser Blouin, D-Corvallis, also spoke against the bill on the Senate floor.

“The concern that I had and that my constituents had was technical changes are one thing, but it should not be increasing the amount of money that candidates can take in or hold or carry over,” Gelser Blouin said. “Unfortunately, as it’s drafted, this bill does all of those things.”

HB 4024 is too complicated and “unimplementable” without the fixes in HB 4018, Starr said.

Advertisement

Sen. Lew Frederick, D-Portland, agreed, saying HB 4018 and SB 1502 give reassurance about a system he has concerns about.

“If there were no cameras and the lights were off, I think most people would agree this is not the bill we want,” Rep. Paul Evans, D-Monmouth, said.

Some lawmakers expressed similar feelings of discontentment with the bill in Ways and Means and one of its subcommittees on March 3, but said they felt it was important to make some progress on the issue. Discussions could happen again in 2027, they said.

Rep. Nancy Nathanson, D-Eugene, who ultimately voted in favor of the bill, said March 3 supporting it “is a very painful choice to make.”

Statesman Journal reporter Dianne Lugo contributed to this report.

Advertisement

Anastasia Mason covers state government for the Statesman Journal. Reach her at acmason@statesmanjournal.com or 971-208-5615.

Continue Reading

Finance

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

Published

on

Paramount ally RedBird says using Middle East money to help buy Warner Bros. could be a good idea

  • Last year, Paramount said it would use $24 billion in funding from Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.
  • Now that Paramount has won that deal, it won’t say whether that’s still the plan.
  • A key Paramount backer suggests that Gulf money would be a good thing for this deal.

We still don’t know if Paramount intends to use billions of dollars from Gulf states like Saudi Arabia to help it buy Warner Bros. Discovery.

But if Paramount does end up doing that, it wouldn’t be a bad thing, says a key Paramount backer.

That update comes via Gerry Cardinale, who heads up RedBird Capital Partners, the private equity company that helped finance Larry and David Ellison’s acquisition of Paramount last year and is doing the same with their WBD deal now.

In a podcast with Puck’s Matt Belloni published Wednesday night, Cardinale wouldn’t comment directly on Paramount’s previously disclosed plans to use $24 billion from sovereign wealth funds controlled by Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, and Qatar to help buy WBD.

Instead, he reiterated Paramount’s current messaging on the deal’s financing: The $47 billion in equity Paramount will use to buy WBD will be “backstopped” by the Ellison family and RedBird — meaning they are ultimately on the hook to pay up. The rest of the $81 billion deal will be financed with debt.

Advertisement

Cardinale also acknowledged what Paramount has disclosed in its current disclosure documents: It intends to sell portions of that $47 billion commitment to other investors: “We haven’t syndicated anything at this time,” he said. “We do expect to syndicate with strategic, domestic, and foreign investors. But at the end of the day, that alchemy shouldn’t matter because it’ll be done in the right way.”

And when asked about concerns about Middle Eastern countries owning part of a media conglomerate that includes assets like CNN, Cardinale suggested that could be a plus.

“I think we want to be a global company,” he said. “You look at what’s going on right now geopolitically. What’s going on right now geopolitically out of the Middle East wouldn’t be, the positives of that would not be happening without some of those sovereigns that you’re referring to.”

He continued:

“The world is changing. We can stick our head in the sand and pretend it’s not, or we can embrace globalization and the derivative benefits both geopolitically and otherwise that come from that. Content generation coming out of Hollywood is one of America’s greatest exports.
I firmly embrace the global nature and orientation that we bring to this from a capital standpoint, from a footprint standpoint, etc. At the end of the day, I do understand some of the concerns that you’ve raised, but that will work itself out between signing and closing because at the end of the day, worst-case scenario, Ellison and RedBird are 100% of this thing.”

All of which suggests to me that Paramount still intends to use money from Gulf-based sovereign wealth funds to buy WBD.

What I don’t understand is why the company won’t say that out loud. Does that mean it’s still negotiating with potential investors? Or that it’s reticent to disclose outside investors, for whatever reason, until it has to? A Paramount rep declined to comment.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Finance

Crypto bill hits new impasse, raising doubts over its future

Published

on

Crypto bill hits new impasse, raising doubts over its future
Talks on landmark crypto legislation have hit a new impasse after banks said they could not back a compromise pushed by the White House, a development that cast doubt on whether the bill will pass this year and sparked criticism from President Donald Trump ​who accused lenders of trying to undermine it.
Continue Reading

Trending