The offside rule

I've been asked to participate in the PricewaterhouseCoopers review of the economic impact of the BBC. The BBC Trust has commissioned this work in order "to help inform its judgements on future priorities and investment decisions". It's all part of the Trusts drive to be seen to be rigorous and independent, however, they are very conscious of the BBC's 'footprint' and one feels they are sometimes embarrassed by the BBC's success. The terms of reference are available here. There seems to be a dilemma inherent in all this. On the one hand, if the BBC is successful, it will inevitably have a larger impact on the market and therefore, be likely to have its wings clipped for erring into commercial no-fly zones . If, on the other hand, the BBC fails to make a significant impact, critics will use this as evidence that the licence fee cannot be justified and cue further attacks on the BBC. Or, to put it another way: In football there is much discussion over the offside rule and, in particular the rule that says that if a player in advance of the ball is not interfering with play then they cannot be judged to be offside, however, if the player on the football pitch is not interfering with play then they shouldn't be on the pitch in the first place.

Another dilemma highlighted by this project; the more that the Trust conducts its own studies and makes it decisions in isolation from the BBC executive, the more people will ask the question - who actually runs the BBC? Mark Thompson or its Government in exile at Marylebone High Street? Any thoughts on this and the study terms would most welcome.