The movement of a director from one production company to another, although news and cause for gossip, has (in this case) been accentuated by the rumors of the involvement of financial inducement. If the rumors and the nature of the sums involved are true, then it is the first time they have so publicly been debated since the failed attempt by (now-defunct) Propaganda to use similar inducements when they first tried to open a London office over 10 years ago.

More importantly, it opens up questions about the nature of the relationship between production companies and directors. As a business model, it implies that the production company business has more in common with the sports business. Who, after all, makes the money there? Manchester United is one of an elite of world football clubs, yet is only valued at £300 million. Major league baseball teams in the US make a collective loss. Broadcasters are hardly making any money - Kirch Media (Formula One) is bankrupt, so is ITV Digital. The only financial winners are the star players and those who exploit an undervalued sport for which they have a limited time in which to make their money. The rewards accrue to the talent, which makes the business unattractive to all but the owners of those skills.

If the relationship between directors and production companies is forced into a new scenario highlighted by this recent move, one in which no London production company can, or would want to compete, it could result in a very different and arguably inflationary business model.

No one can blame directors for wanting to maximize their income, as they, like sport and other media talent, are being given a potentially shorter and shorter working life because of the whims of fashion. The current move to a model where a production company exclusively represents and develops directors, as well as risk manages production, could come to an end. Instead, two different businesses could emerge. Firstly, agents who would represent and negotiate on behalf of directors directly with the advertising agency (think of CAA/ICM/William Morris models). This could result in a handful of powerful agents who could control and near-monopolize choice in the marketplace. Secondly, facilitating companies would emerge out of production companies that would only be responsible for the "nuts and bolts" of production here or in any country indicated by script, weather or cost, but not be responsible for risk management.

This, together with director's deals, will become an agency responsibility to negotiate on behalf of its clients. The 'invisible' benefits of the production company, for example, cash flow and insurance, would have to be taken by the agencies as well as potential loss, which will force the business to become far more legally contractual. And what of a future for new talent? Who is going to invest in scripts where the budgets don't exist to make them properly. Certainly not the agent or the facility company.

This, rather than the issue raised by MJZ, may be the one to be addressed. I doubt it is what production companies or directors want. But if a financial value is to be placed on and paid for a director by those able to do so, and that value is one established in the marketplace by demand without recourse to supply, then this response may be the inevitable conclusion.