# BBC top earners



## Junior (Jul 19, 2017)

List released today.........not a bad gig if you can get it.  http://news.sky.com/story/bbc-talent-full-list-of-highest-earners-10953675


----------



## patricks148 (Jul 19, 2017)

some i don't object to but Chris Evans and Winkleman  talent would be stretching it IMO


----------



## Junior (Jul 19, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			some i don't object to but Chris Evans and Winkleman  talent would be stretching it IMO
		
Click to expand...

Evans pulls in the R2 listeners.  Winkleman as you say doesn't really strike me as good value for money and neither does Shearer or Lineker for that matter !


----------



## Kellfire (Jul 19, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			some i don't object to but Chris Evans and Winkleman  talent would be stretching it IMO
		
Click to expand...

Evans is superb with a vast range of knowledge and broad listener appeal.


----------



## drewster (Jul 19, 2017)

It's not the salaries i find outrageous, in fact they're less than i was expecting but the difference in pay in relation to gender is awful.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 19, 2017)

Winkleman does a range of shows as do a number of the names on there. I love a bit of Claudia. 

I suspect if they published the same list for ITV, they wont by the way, then the BBC salaries will be dwarfed. People move from the BBC to ITV for cash, not the other way around.

Drewster - people get paid the market rate. If the people want to see you then you will get top dollar. I suspect Susannah Reid is the top paid breakfast tv presenter on either channel. It is up to each individual to make themselves in demand.


----------



## Junior (Jul 19, 2017)

drewster said:



			It's not the salaries i find outrageous, in fact they're less than i was expecting but the difference in pay in relation to gender is awful.
		
Click to expand...

You're right mate.  The reason the salaries have been disclosed (according to the news) is to discuss openly the gender pay gap.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 19, 2017)

Of course this is all going to be very subjective regarding individuals. I never watch Holby City or Casualty but appreciate that many do and so the actors should be paid well. 

Ultimately they are paid as much as the BBC thinks they are worth and generally less that they could get on a commercial broadcaster, or now companies like Apple and social media companies. Kind of getting upset about it is a bit of a right wing press fascination, a lot of it driven by their own commercial interests or political agenda.  Just chill and enjoy what they do, if you can't find anything you like on the BBC TV, Radio or web site then I'd say you are not looking hard enough.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 19, 2017)

drewster said:



			It's not the salaries i find outrageous, in fact they're less than i was expecting but the difference in pay in relation to gender is awful.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough, and the chap at the top has mentioned this and said they need to and will do better.  But you see the outrage and furore when they give a prominent part to a female actor, PC gone mad, she's only got it as she is a female, etc etc then they will not win either way.


----------



## USER1999 (Jul 19, 2017)

Jonathan Ross must be happy he is no longer with the BBC. He would have topped the table by miles. Cilla too.


----------



## drewster (Jul 19, 2017)

Agreed that the transparency has brought this to a head. One thing for sure is that the male salaries won't be coming down in line with the ladies and the cost of equal pay will be passed on somehow.

Whilst i'm not an avid Eastenders fan you can't tell me that Ian Beale (adam woodyatt) is a ten times better actor than Stacey (Lacey Turner). I'm not buying the notion that it is up to each individual to "make themselves in demand" either. Their screen work , radio work etc,etc does that. I'm not even going to ask the question how our learned friends suggest that women should make themselves in more demand to achieve a salary increase !!!  I can only grimace in contemplation at what might be suggested.


----------



## USER1999 (Jul 19, 2017)

Surely some are high up on the list because they do multiple programmes, whilst others do one role, and earn a lot for that. Hence the somewhat unfair comparison between winkelman and willoughby on strictly. Without knowing the breakdown, the list is confusing at best.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 19, 2017)

I wish Holly Willoughby did do Strictly. You mean Tess "The Plank" Daly. Holly would not cross to the BBC, she wouldn't take the pay cut. To a large extent without knowing the salaries of ITV, SKY equivalents these salaries are a bit meaningless. You need to know what the market rate is to know if some of these people are over paid.

As has been mentioned some people do numerous shows. Jeremey Vine does a daily R2 show, Eggheads, Points of View and Election coverage.


----------



## drdel (Jul 19, 2017)

I don't care what anyone earns. However, the BBC is unique in its funding by not having to compete for funding in the way 'commercial' media must. Thus, it is an artificial market in which the BBC does not need to engage.

Consequently I believe they should have a cap - if the so-called talent migrates so what:the breadth and depth of programmes could broaden employing more people.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 19, 2017)

Does it seem a bit peculiar that it'a Sky that 'publicising' these figures?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 19, 2017)

The Daily Mail are equally outraged by them. I look forward to all outraged organisations releasing their pay levels in the next few days so they can be compared :rofl:. Yeah, not going to happen.


----------



## patricks148 (Jul 19, 2017)

Junior said:



			Evans pulls in the R2 listeners.  Winkleman as you say doesn't really strike me as good value for money and neither does Shearer or Lineker for that matter !
		
Click to expand...

a couple of million for Evans i s way too much IMO, every time i listen to R2 he is on holiday  and when he is he's plugging a his other projects.

As for pulling in listeners i doubt it R2 listeners would listen regardless of who hosted. i bet Wogan didn't get 2 Mil


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 19, 2017)

Why stop with the Beeb...

How about a list showing the salaries of all the other top earners in the public sector...


----------



## Piece (Jul 19, 2017)

Â£450k for Shearer as a part-time pundit....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 19, 2017)

Really what BBC has to pay to engage top and/or popular presenters, contributors, actors etc is none of my business really. I guess it is interesting in a way - but only if you take interest in such as The Sunday Times Rich List.  There are a lot of people who earn a lot of money for doing stuff.  

Indeed I haven't a clue who half the actor folks on this list actually are - I'm guessing they are in soaps.  I don't watch any soaps - but a lot of people do and get a lot of enjoyment out of them - and so that's fine with me that they are well paid.  If the licence fee payers stop watching soaps or indeed any other programme it will in time be dropped - and the actors or presenters will have to look elsewhere.  That's the power of the licence fee payer.  Stop watching.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 19, 2017)

drdel said:



			I don't care what anyone earns. However, the BBC is unique in its funding by not having to compete for funding in the way 'commercial' media must. T*hus, it is an artificial market in which the BBC does not need to engage.*

Consequently I believe they should have a cap - if the so-called talent migrates so what:the breadth and depth of programmes could broaden employing more people.
		
Click to expand...

Of course they need to engage in some form of wage competition to get the talent, wages are a significant part of anyone's decision where to work.  And if the talent migrates then you are left with the dregs.  Which I am sure will please the usual suspects as it will add to their cries to shut the BBC down as the programs are all rubbish.  But in a world of fake news, alternative facts and politically controlled media I'd argue we need the BBC to be as strong as we can.  

And as for the breadth of programs not being broad enough, name me one other broadcaster that covers so much on the TV, radio and websites? Trump called them fake news so they must be doing something right....


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 19, 2017)

patricks148 said:



			a couple of million for Evans i s way too much IMO, every time i listen to R2 he is on holiday  and when he is he's plugging a his other projects.

As for pulling in listeners i doubt it R2 listeners would listen regardless of who hosted.* i bet Wogan didn't get 2 Mil*

Click to expand...

He was doing alright.....  http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1711915/How-rich-Terry-Wogan.html


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 19, 2017)

BBC spending Â£700,000 pa more on one fairly average football presenter than their entire coverage of Scottish football.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 19, 2017)

Doon frae Troon said:



			BBC spending Â£700,000 pa more on one fairly average football presenter than their entire coverage of Scottish football.
		
Click to expand...

Prob because more people watch that football presenter than watch the coverage of Scottish football - supply and demand


----------



## Berger (Jul 19, 2017)

Piece said:



			Â£450k for Shearer as a part-time pundit....
		
Click to expand...

Almost a tenth of what Sky pay Thierry Henry.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 19, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Prob because more people watch that football presenter than watch the coverage of Scottish football - supply and demand
		
Click to expand...

I get that, but it is the BBC [not Sky etc] and it is supposed to be 'balanced' in it's funding to the four nations. 
Pro rata Scottish football should receive around Â£5.5m pa of BBC funding instead of the paltry Â£1.3. million. 

Re supply and demand, you could argue as the BBC do not invest in Scottish football at the same level as English it has created a false market.

Looking at it differently.
Do you think it is fair that Scot's BBC subscribers should subsidise English football to the tune of Â£4.2m a year.?


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 19, 2017)

Doon, if you get to that stage then you have to break down every aspect of spending to a regional level. There may be areas that Scotland does well out of, others it does not do. Same for every region. Win some, lose some. If you are happy for Scottish tv to lose money in other areas so that football gets more then beware the Pandora's Box that you are opening. I am sure Welsh and English licence payers will subsidise your programming at some point.

The real problem for Scottish football is not that the BBC does not pay much for it but that no one else does. The real money in football is from the commercial broadcasters, Sky, BT, ITV etc. If Scottish football had greater pulling power it would get more money from one of those.


----------



## Hosel Fade (Jul 19, 2017)

Junior said:



			You're right mate.  The reason the salaries have been disclosed (according to the news) is to discuss openly the gender pay gap.
		
Click to expand...

Pure distraction tactic


----------



## patricks148 (Jul 19, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			He was doing alright.....  http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-1711915/How-rich-Terry-Wogan.html

Click to expand...

yes, no doubt but says "at one point earned Â£800 K for the break fast show, which is still way less than half what  Evens is getting


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 19, 2017)

Via Wings.

Our Government paid the DUP Â£1 billion pounds so I couldn't give a 'something' how much the BBC pay Graham Norton:lol:


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 19, 2017)

Kind of sums it up for me  https://inews.co.uk/opinion/publishing-bbc-top-earners-pay-pointless-embarrassing/


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 19, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Prob because more people watch that football presenter than watch the coverage of Scottish football - supply and demand
		
Click to expand...

Which would be a fair enough argument for a commercial broadcaster like sky. I think the public service broadcaster needs to take a more nuanced view.


----------



## drdel (Jul 19, 2017)

I wonder if, given the BBC uses tax payers cash, those tax payers would still pay a couple of Radio DJs 2mill or use it for nurses, surgeons teachers etc ! In the scheme of things a DJ, with zero responsibility, is overpaid at 500K pa.

I reckon there's plenty of talented presenters who'd work for a salary the same as the PMs.


----------



## Piece (Jul 19, 2017)

Berger said:



			Almost a tenth of what Sky pay Thierry Henry.
		
Click to expand...

At least there's a live game or two on Sky


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 19, 2017)

drdel said:



			I wonder if, given the BBC uses tax payers cash, those tax payers would still pay a couple of Radio DJs 2mill or use it for nurses, surgeons teachers etc ! In the scheme of things a DJ, with zero responsibility, is overpaid at 500K pa.

I reckon there's plenty of talented presenters who'd work for a salary the same as the PMs.
		
Click to expand...

Surely that can be levelled at any job that a tax payer contributes towards - and certainly not just the BBC. I suspect there is a hell of a lot of people who are getting way overpaid in all many of walks.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			Of course they need to engage in some form of wage competition to get the talent, wages are a significant part of anyone's decision where to work.  *And if the talent migrates then you are left with the dregs.  Which I am sure will please the usual suspects *as it will add to their cries to shut the BBC down as the programs are all rubbish.  But in a world of fake news, alternative facts and politically controlled media I'd argue we need the BBC to be as strong as we can.  

And as for the breadth of programs not being broad enough, name me one other broadcaster that covers so much on the TV, radio and websites? Trump called them fake news so they must be doing something right....
		
Click to expand...

But many of the current people are already 'Dregs' how much worse could it get.   Oh! who are the 'Usual Suspects'?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 19, 2017)

drdel said:



			I wonder if, given the BBC uses tax payers cash, those tax payers would still pay a couple of Radio DJs 2mill or use it for nurses, surgeons teachers etc ! In the scheme of things a DJ, with zero responsibility, is overpaid at 500K pa.

I reckon there's plenty of talented presenters who'd work for a salary the same as the PMs.
		
Click to expand...

Yes - but would anyone watch or listen?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Yes - but would anyone watch or listen?
		
Click to expand...

Would it make any difference if different people presented these programs! There must be many very talented people who could do just as good or better for more realistic salaries and that goes for many areas in life not just Television and Radio, Football for example.  When these people have gone someone else will do the job as no one is indispensable.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jul 19, 2017)

I'm not sure that publishing the figures alone is enough and they should also publish the reasoning behind it. For example, Dan Walker is on a higher salary than his BBC Breakfast co-host Louise Minchin but also presents Match of the Day which accounts for the difference. To go back to an earlier example on this thread Adam Woodyat is paid more than Lacey Turner for Eastenders but he has over 30 years on the show compared to her with just over ten. 

Yes in some cases it's wrong if people doing the same job are paid different amounts but comparing apples and oranges doesn't give the full story.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 19, 2017)

If Lineker goes he could be replaced by Garth Crooks. Think on that &#128561;&#128561;

Talent is always subjective but I know from work, where we have radio 2 on in the factory, that when the main presenters are away the stand ins are often painful and we will turn over. You often don't appreciate how good presenters, tv or radio, are until someone covers for them.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 19, 2017)

There will always be a market rate and if employers (in all walks of life) want to pay over and above that they will. It's subjective (and imo Winkleman is not worth what she gets and nor is Lineker) but this is what they can get for the job. Who is wrong. Them for asking or the BBC for paying


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jul 19, 2017)

Dont agree with publishing the figures, it just feeds the monster thats envy. I may not like or know many or all on the list, but I know that many have more than one role with the BBC but that is obviously not shown with the figures as published. 
Sky and Murdoch are probably rolling around on thier plush office carpets at it all.


----------



## palindromicbob (Jul 19, 2017)

meh. Don't really care about the figures. Don't mind myself <Â£3 a week I know I get great value from the beeb. As for the TAX argument.  It's no exactly money that's redirected from other services.  Get rid of public funding via the license fee and that money won't suddenly become available for nurses/firemen/police etc.  It'll probably end up in the accounts of Sky, Netflix and Amazon instead. 

The Gender pay gap thing though. That's a beast that won't be tamed here.  Equal pay for equal work but when it comes to entertainment there is so many aspects that can't be quantified easily.  Then there is BAME just to further add to the complications. 

What I do see coming from this is an increased use of independent production companies to act as middle men and cloud the figures such as the case with Graham Norton.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 19, 2017)

palindromicbob said:



			meh. Don't really care about the figures. Don't mind myself <Â£3 a week I know I get great value from the beeb. As for the TAX argument.  It's no exactly money that's redirected from other services.  Get rid of public funding via the license fee and that money won't suddenly become available for nurses/firemen/police etc.  It'll probably end up in the accounts of Sky, Netflix and Amazon instead. 

The Gender pay gap thing though. That's a beast that won't be tamed here.  Equal pay for equal work but when it comes to entertainment there is so many aspects that can't be quantified easily.  Then there is BAME just to further add to the complications. 

What I do see coming from this is an increased use of independent production companies to act as middle men and cloud the figures such as the case with Graham Norton.
		
Click to expand...

The BAME thing was disappointing, especially in this day and age.


----------



## clubchamp98 (Jul 19, 2017)

Lord Tyrion said:



			If Lineker goes he could be replaced by Garth Crooks. Think on that &#63025;&#63025;

Talent is always subjective but I know from work, where we have radio 2 on in the factory, that when the main presenters are away the stand ins are often painful and we will turn over. You often don't appreciate how good presenters, tv or radio, are until someone covers for them.
		
Click to expand...

Agree with the presenters thing but Shearer that's a waste of money. Phil Nevile is better than him?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 19, 2017)

clubchamp98 said:



			Agree with the presenters thing but Shearer that's a waste of money. *Phil Nevile is better than him?*

Click to expand...

Seriously :rofl: - he has to be the worst pundit since the television was created , Owen comes close but Phil Neville is king of that castle


----------



## clubchamp98 (Jul 19, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Seriously :rofl: - he has to be the worst pundit since the television was created , Owen comes close but Phil Neville is king of that castle
		
Click to expand...

Only joking there all crap. Stating the obvious seems to be a part of the job.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 19, 2017)

clubchamp98 said:



			Agree with the presenters thing but Shearer that's a waste of money. Phil Nevile is better than him?
		
Click to expand...

That's pushing it a bit. Not as bad as Hargreaves or Owen but not far off.


----------



## guest100718 (Jul 19, 2017)

HomerJSimpson said:



			That's pushing it a bit. Not as bad as Hargreaves or Owen but not far off.
		
Click to expand...

Hargreaves is truly awful


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 19, 2017)

There may well be a Gender pay issue here and that does need addressing. What I find difficult to understand is how Winkleman can be the highest paid Woman, she seems to have nothing to commend her for such an accolade, surely Women like Fiona Bruce must be better value.    If any of these top earning people became unavailable for what ever reason the sky would not fall in, someone else would step into the role and in a week of two the previous holder would be forgotten.  I would set a cap on earnings for TV presenters at around Â£150K and most would not be earning above Â£100K.  Let them walk if that's not enough for their questionable talent.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 19, 2017)

Seeing the complete list - I have actually worked with one of the IT folks quite a lot - and this person is exceptionally good.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 20, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			There may well be a Gender pay issue here and that does need addressing. What I find difficult to understand is how Winkleman can be the highest paid Woman, she seems to have nothing to commend her for such an accolade, surely Women like Fiona Bruce must be better value.    If any of these top earning people became unavailable for what ever reason the sky would not fall in, someone else would step into the role and in a week of two the previous holder would be forgotten.  I would set a cap on earnings for TV presenters at around Â£150K and most would not be earning above Â£100K.  Let them walk if that's not enough for their questionable talent.
		
Click to expand...

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/...0-and-38000-say-license-payers-20170719132254


----------



## Sweep (Jul 20, 2017)

Some of these salaries are ridiculous. Let's not forget this is a publically funded organisation primarily for entertainment. These are not nurses, police or other vital services, its entertainment, most of which is of a poor standard compared to the competition. We should also remember that the public have no choice in paying for this service, which is probably why they get away with feeding us such rubbish.
Wasn't Evans sacked by the BBC for unacceptable behaviour some years ago? Can you imagine a private sector employer giving someone their job back on such a huge salary?
Wasn't Linaker found out using dodgy tax schemes? And yet the people he is avoiding paying - the country, that's  you and me, employ him on millions.
And Â£550K for a news reader??? Not even a heavy weight journalist, just a bloke who reads an autocue in a lilting welsh accent. 
Next time you are concerned by the low level of public service wages, remember this.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 20, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Some of these salaries are ridiculous. Let's not forget this is a publically funded organisation primarily for entertainment. These are not nurses, police or other vital services, its entertainment, most of which is of a poor standard compared to the competition. We should also remember that the public have no choice in paying for this service, which is probably why they get away with feeding us such rubbish.
Wasn't Evans sacked by the BBC for unacceptable behaviour some years ago? Can you imagine a private sector employer giving someone their job back on such a huge salary?
Wasn't Linaker found out using dodgy tax schemes? And yet the people he is avoiding paying - the country, that's  you and me, employ him on millions.
And Â£550K for a news reader??? Not even a heavy weight journalist, just a bloke who reads an autocue in a lilting welsh accent. 
Next time you are concerned by the low level of public service wages, remember this.
		
Click to expand...

Well you don;t seem to like the Beeb do you.  Me?  perfectly happy with the service provided on TV, Radio and through free Live events - and for Â£2.80 a week...what a bargain.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 20, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well you don;t seem to like the Beeb do you.  Me?  perfectly happy with the service provided on TV, Radio and through free Live events - and for Â£2.80 a week...what a bargain.
		
Click to expand...

I love the fact people equate the low level of public wages on the fact a minute handful of BBC employees are paid slightly less then they would get at a commercial station. Nothing to do with government policy. 

As someone said earlier, when we have the government suddenly finding a billion that apparently did not exist earlier so they could pay the public sector more, then I'm not 100% sure the fact that Chris Evans is paid well is quite the nub of low public sector pay conundrum. Unless I suppose you are Dacre or Murdoch of course who need to keep their readers enraged about this. For purely altruistic reasons of course :smirk:

In fact the more it annoys Daily Mail and Murdoch the more I will listen to advert free, non advertiser influenced music on 6 Music, great live sport and podcasts from 5 Live and Radio 4 (try out the Seriously podcast or The Infinite Monkey Cage, they really are excellent), watch great music and science documentaries from BBC 4 or crime dramas on BBC 1 and 2.  And all for less than the price of a pint a week. Bargain in my book.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 20, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Wasn't Evans sacked by the BBC for unacceptable behaviour some years ago? Can you imagine a private sector employer giving someone their job back on such a huge salary?
Wasn't Linaker found out using dodgy tax schemes? And yet the people he is avoiding paying - the country, that's  you and me, employ him on millions.
		
Click to expand...

Evans was sacked and then brought back when he had grown up. As for a private sector company having morals they will employ anyone that brings them money in. It wouldn't take long to look at the private media sector roster to find some naughty people. I'll throw Jonathon Ross and Jeremy Clarkson in for starters.

Regarding Lineker, significant numbers of people in the entertainment and sports world are paid in round about ways in order to avoid tax. I'd hammer all of them. The BBC is actually complicit in this as they employ individuals but pay their companies. This avoids NI and paye. If you remove everyone who was named in the tax issue the screen would be very empty. It is an industry wide problem.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 20, 2017)

As the saying goes 'A fool and their money are soon parted'


----------



## Dasit (Jul 20, 2017)

Shameful of BBC when you see the massive gender and racial pay gaps in the organisation.

They are total hypocrites as they happily shame other companies gender and race inequalities.


Why we are still forced to pay a TV license is beyond me. BBC content these days is very much second rate.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 20, 2017)

Dasit said:



			Shameful of BBC when you see the massive gender and racial pay gaps in the organisation.

They are total hypocrites as they happily shame other companies gender and race inequalities.


Why we are still forced to pay a TV license is beyond me. BBC content these days is very much second rate.
		
Click to expand...

Where are the Racial inequalities?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 20, 2017)

People can apply to not pay for the Telly License but obviously then you won't be able to use one single BBC service including website , radio , television channels - not bad for Â£100 a year 

The wages being paid to certain presenters im sure will be based on the program's and the amount they present - Linekar i agree shouldn't be paid as much based on one highlight show but it's popular - Winkleman fronts one of the most popular programs on telly and in confident that millions love her being on telly - for me she is worth the money but that's where it's all subjective when people "judge talent" - reckon there are a couple of million out there disagreeing with "questionable talent" remarks.


----------



## Dasit (Jul 20, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Where are the Racial inequalities?
		
Click to expand...

http://metro.co.uk/2017/07/19/bbc-a...-are-paid-a-fraction-of-white-talent-6790926/



I couldn't care less it is a market place and supply and demand dictates price. Just ironic when you see the BBC pay structure compared to the message they give.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 20, 2017)

Winkleman and Daiy cant dance, cant tell jokes have no acting skills and no other attributes worth a hoot.   Millions of very talented people could do the job at a fraction of their pay and that's the problem with overpaid TV presenters throughout the industry.   The likes of Wogan and Forsyth  were/are way ahead of these less than mediocre people.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jul 20, 2017)

Now this is where is gets subjective. Forsyth had a major negative effect on Strictly for me. It is much improved since Claudia joined up. It would be even better if Tess was kicked off. They are all presenters. Presenting looks easy, watch Ant & Dec, but then you get a bad presenter, Tess and you realise why good ones get the big money. A presenter holds a show together, making it look seamless and smooth.

These people are paid the market rate, actually likely to be less than the market rate, so trying to compare or validate is like asking whether a footballer is worth their salary, a council leader their salary etc. They are paid what the rate is in that industry.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 20, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Winkleman and Daiy cant dance, cant tell jokes have no acting skills and no other attributes worth a hoot.   Millions of very talented people could do the job at a fraction of their pay and that's the problem with overpaid TV presenters throughout the industry.   The likes of Wogan and Forsyth  were/are way ahead of these less than mediocre people.
		
Click to expand...

They are presenters so they don't need to be able to dance , they don't need to act - they just need to be able to present the program and looking at the responses from the public ( apart from old men on a golf forum ) appeared to do very well . I certainly enjoy Strictly with Winkleman presenting and think she is very good , she was very good on it takes two as well along with the other dozen programs she has present over various channels.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 20, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			People can apply to not pay for the Telly License but obviously then you won't be able to use one single BBC service including website , radio , television channels - not bad for Â£100 a year 

The wages being paid to certain presenters im sure will be based on the program's and the amount they present - Linekar i agree shouldn't be paid as much based on one highlight show but it's popular - Winkleman fronts one of the most popular programs on telly and in confident that millions love her being on telly - for me she is worth the money but that's where it's all subjective when people "judge talent" - reckon there are a couple of million out there disagreeing with "questionable talent" remarks.
		
Click to expand...

Don't forget iPlayer...gotta be a licence payer to use that...

And if you don't pay the licence fee should you be able to go to any free live events or be in the audience for any programmes.  If you don't pay then no say...?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 20, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Winkleman and Daiy cant dance, cant tell jokes have no acting skills and no other attributes worth a hoot.   *Millions of very talented people could do the job at a fraction of their pay* and that's the problem with overpaid TV presenters throughout the industry.   The likes of Wogan and Forsyth  were/are way ahead of these less than mediocre people.
		
Click to expand...

So there are millions of people out there who could host the most popular program in the UK that goes out live for well over an hour in prime time and still hold onto that audience.  Course there are......

And I imagine Wogan and Brucie were paid comparatively very well in the good old days of pro celebrity golf when entertainers were proper entertainers...


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 20, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



*So there are millions of people out there who could host the most popular program in the UK that goes out live for well over an hour in prime time and still hold onto that audience.  Course there are...*...

And I imagine Wogan and Brucie were paid comparatively very well in the good old days of pro celebrity golf when entertainers were proper entertainers...
		
Click to expand...

OK 'Millions' might be a slight exaggeration but there are people as or more talented than the likes of Winkleman and Daly in their droves, lets face it, it doesn't take much to be better than those two.   They don't exactly 'Hold the Audience' the show is managed by others and they more or less stand around on the sidelines talking rubbish.  Brucey had so much more personality than the two put together.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 20, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			They are presenters so they don't need to be able to dance , they don't need to act - they just need to be able to present the program and looking at the responses from the public ( apart from old men on a golf forum ) appeared to do very well . I certainly enjoy Strictly with Winkleman presenting and think she is very good , she was very good on it takes two as well along with the other dozen programs she has present over various channels.
		
Click to expand...

I can believe you have that opinion.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 20, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			I can believe you have that opinion.
		
Click to expand...

And by that you mean ? Are you judging someone based on the program and presenter they enjoy watching ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 20, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			So there are millions of people out there who could host the most popular program in the UK that goes out live for well over an hour in prime time and still hold onto that audience.  Course there are......

And I imagine Wogan and Brucie were paid comparatively very well in the good old days of pro celebrity golf when entertainers were proper entertainers...
		
Click to expand...

The good ones are very good and I agree they make it look simple. Ant & Dec are masters of their craft and can make a live show seem very easy. I don't think Winkleman in particular is as adept (my opinion) and doesn't add anything to the presenter role on Strictly. Daly is effiecient but again lacks a certain warmth.

There are probably many other very good presenters of live TV out there but it's finding the right people for the right format and that's what the BBC commissioning staff do well a lot of the time and it is then a case of paying the going rates to secure your preferred presenter


----------



## BristolMike (Jul 20, 2017)

HomerJSimpson said:



			The good ones are very good and I agree they make it look simple. Ant & Dec are masters of their craft and can make a live show seem very easy. I don't think Winkleman in particular is as adept (my opinion) and doesn't add anything to the presenter role on Strictly. Daly is effiecient but again lacks a certain warmth.

There are probably many other very good presenters of live TV out there but it's finding the right people for the right format and that's what the BBC commissioning staff do well a lot of the time and it is then a case of paying the going rates to secure your preferred presenter
		
Click to expand...


Thats the issue. The best people cost a lot of money. The BBC wouldn't be able to afford Ant and Dec now and lots of others would chase the riches elsewhere. the list wasn't that surprising to me really, yes there are a higher percentage of men on that list, but if you look at the highest earners, they have all been around a long time and all working on the most popular shows. 

I'm not a fan, but isn't Strictly one of the BBCs top earning shows? I'm sure I read that they sell the access worldwide, the same as Top Gear. If I was on that show I would expect to be paid more than other shows as it's revenue generating.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 20, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And by that you mean ? Are you judging someone based on the program and presenter they enjoy watching ?
		
Click to expand...

By that I mean I can believe you would take that opinion.  Would you prefer me to say I cant believe you would take that opinion.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 20, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			OK 'Millions' might be a slight exaggeration but there are people as or more talented than the likes of Winkleman and Daly in their droves, lets face it, it doesn't take much to be better than those two.   They don't exactly 'Hold the Audience' the show is managed by others and they more or less stand around on the sidelines talking rubbish.  Brucey had so much more personality than the two put together.
		
Click to expand...

I like Claudia, she brings a warmh and a sense of silliness and humour to what is essentially a silly premise of a program. Brucey was good at the start but at the end he was a bit of an embarrassment and went on for 2 series too long.  And they are not producers of the show or the on set show runners, they are the presenters, it is not their job to manage the show. And for as long as TV has existed the people in front of the camera have been and always will be paid more as they are the ones that often make or break the show in the eyes of the public. I meant hold the audience as in keep the viewing figures high.

But it's all opinions and the only opinions that matter in this case are the people who decide who does these programs and decide how much to pay them.


----------



## drdel (Jul 20, 2017)

The point is that these characters are often 'famous' because of being lucky and being on the Radio or TV which then becomes the reason they are 'worth' the money because of their apparent talent.

Most have never being interviewed or auditioned.

The BBC is uniquely funded and should encourage new talent and ideas but many are the 'old guard' who'll never move on and they block the aspirations of younger and possibly more talented individuals.

If the want to argue they are in the 'market' place then go commercial and then I'd say they can do what they like with the money they earn.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 20, 2017)

drdel said:



			The point is that these characters are often 'famous' because of being lucky and being on the Radio or TV which then becomes the reason they are 'worth' the money because of their apparent talent.

Most have never being interviewed or auditioned.

The BBC is uniquely funded and should encourage new talent and ideas but many are the 'old guard' who'll never move on and they block the aspirations of younger and possibly more talented individuals.

If the want to argue they are in the 'market' place then go commercial and then I'd say they can do what they like with the money they earn.
		
Click to expand...

Aren't a lot of these presenters already the new guard and have taken over from long standing presenters ?


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 20, 2017)

drdel said:



			The point is that these characters are often 'famous' because of being lucky and being on the Radio or TV which then becomes the reason they are 'worth' the money because of their apparent talent.

Most have never being interviewed or auditioned.

The BBC is uniquely funded and should encourage new talent and ideas but many are the 'old guard' who'll never move on and they block the aspirations of younger and possibly more talented individuals.

If the want to argue they are in the 'market' place then go commercial and then I'd say they can do what they like with the money they earn.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think the likes of Winkleman and Daly are new talent and have been around for years. I like the idea of giving new talent it's head and sometimes it works and sometimes (especially live) it doesn't


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 20, 2017)

drdel said:



			The point is that these characters are often 'famous' because of being lucky and being on the Radio or TV which then becomes the reason they are 'worth' the money because of their apparent talent.

*Most have never being interviewed or auditioned.*

*The BBC is uniquely funded and should encourage new talent* and ideas but many are the 'old guard' who'll never move on and they block the aspirations of younger and possibly more talented individuals.

If the want to argue they are in the 'market' place then go commercial and then I'd say they can do what they like with the money they earn.
		
Click to expand...

Well they tried with getting rid of the old guard with Dr Who but that seemed a step too far for some.  I'm sure the BBC hold auditions for these top positions and don't just give them away.

And as for luck then most people in a top well paid position in all walks of life are there down to an element of luck.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 20, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Well you don;t seem to like the Beeb do you.  Me?  perfectly happy with the service provided on TV, Radio and through free Live events - and for Â£2.80 a week...what a bargain.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think we should be forced to pay for the BBC. If I had the choice I wouldn't pay and I wouldn't use it. It's living on past glories when it had vertually no competition and a captive audience. When you see what can be created and offered by the commercial broadcasters it puts the BBC to shame. If you are not into Strictly or Eastenders there really isn't much left. They couldn't even keep hold of Bake Off much to HK's horror. Just look at Sky's Open coverage or what they create on Atlantic. The world has moved on and the BBC is a thing of the past.
Lets face it, if the Beeb was any good, you wouldn't spend your evenings foaming at the mouth and rocking backwards and forwards listening to LBC would you?


----------



## Sweep (Jul 20, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			I love the fact people equate the low level of public wages on the fact a minute handful of BBC employees are paid slightly less then they would get at a commercial station. Nothing to do with government policy. 

As someone said earlier, when we have the government suddenly finding a billion that apparently did not exist earlier so they could pay the public sector more, then I'm not 100% sure the fact that Chris Evans is paid well is quite the nub of low public sector pay conundrum. Unless I suppose you are Dacre or Murdoch of course who need to keep their readers enraged about this. For purely altruistic reasons of course :smirk:

In fact the more it annoys Daily Mail and Murdoch the more I will listen to advert free, non advertiser influenced music on 6 Music, great live sport and podcasts from 5 Live and Radio 4 (try out the Seriously podcast or The Infinite Monkey Cage, they really are excellent), watch great music and science documentaries from BBC 4 or crime dramas on BBC 1 and 2.  And all for less than the price of a pint a week. Bargain in my book.
		
Click to expand...

And I love it when faced with yet more waste of public money the rabid left justify it by pointing at some government policy they don't agree with. The BBC were never going to get another billion (thank God). As you said, it has nothing to do with government policy, so what has finding another billion got to do with it?
This is about the public getting value for money. Â£550k for an autocue reader does not represent value for money.
Are you really saying you cannot see the connection in paying these vast sums of money to entertainers with public money and the amount we pay to the emergency services with public money? Only a couple of weeks ago you were saying how lucky we were to have the NHS. Are we equally lucky to have the BBC? Who is worth more?
I have to say, I don't really think Murdoch or anyone at the Daily Mail gives two hoots if you use the BBC or not. Do you think you may be getting a little obsessed with Mr Murdoch and his evil empire? Do you think they are spying on you? ðŸ˜€


----------



## Sweep (Jul 20, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Don't forget iPlayer...gotta be a licence payer to use that...

And if you don't pay the licence fee should you be able to go to any free live events or be in the audience for any programmes.  If you don't pay then no say...?
		
Click to expand...

Now don't be silly. That would mean that the Question Time audience would be full of lefties.... oh hang on...


----------



## Sweep (Jul 20, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			I like Claudia, she brings a warmh and a sense of silliness and humour to what is essentially a silly premise of a program.
		
Click to expand...

Â£500k got silliness. Excellent use of public money.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 21, 2017)

Sweep said:



			I don't think we should be forced to pay for the BBC. If I had the choice I wouldn't pay and I wouldn't use it. It's living on past glories when it had vertually no competition and a captive audience. When you see what can be created and offered by the commercial broadcasters it puts the BBC to shame. If you are not into Strictly or Eastenders there really isn't much left. They couldn't even keep hold of Bake Off much to HK's horror. Just look at Sky's Open coverage or what they create on Atlantic. The world has moved on and the BBC is a thing of the past.
Lets face it, if the Beeb was any good, you wouldn't spend your evenings foaming at the mouth and rocking backwards and forwards listening to LBC would you?
		
Click to expand...

It's always funny when people slate the BBC for the programs they produce yet they always seem to produce the most popular programs each year 

ITV for example only produce reality shows that get into the top rankings ( beyond soaps ) 

No other channels both commercial and subscription produces anything that can touch the Planet Earth programs as an example. 

There are plenty drama shows produced on the BBC throughout the year the grip the nation - some have viewing figures Sky and commercial companies can only dream off 

But it's not just BBC 1 , their services are across the whole spectrum trying to satisfy every manner of person 

So despite them apparently being a thing of the past they still seem to be the broadcaster with the " highest viewing figures " "highest listening figures " " most visits and hits" - not bad for a corporation that is restricted in its budget


----------



## jusme (Jul 21, 2017)

I have no issues with the salaries. They are a fraction of what others are paid on other commercial channels. Its simply a market where each are trying to get the best product with the resources at hand. Given the Beebs limited resources (compared to their competitors) I think they do an excellent job and offer tremendous value for money. 

I do have an issue with people being forced to pay for a product they may not want or use. Given the choice I would pay for it, but I equally understand the potential issues that would come into play if it became a commercial channel similar to others


----------



## Sweep (Jul 21, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			It's always funny when people slate the BBC for the programs they produce yet they always seem to produce the most popular programs each year 

ITV for example only produce reality shows that get into the top rankings ( beyond soaps ) 

No other channels both commercial and subscription produces anything that can touch the Planet Earth programs as an example. 

There are plenty drama shows produced on the BBC throughout the year the grip the nation - some have viewing figures Sky and commercial companies can only dream off 

But it's not just BBC 1 , their services are across the whole spectrum trying to satisfy every manner of person 

So despite them apparently being a thing of the past they still seem to be the broadcaster with the " highest viewing figures " "highest listening figures " " most visits and hits" - not bad for a corporation that is restricted in its budget
		
Click to expand...

Whilst I agree that Planet Earth is excellent, I think you will find many similar programs on Discovery. You also have to factor in the "free" to air factor when looking at the BBC viewing figures. For an example everyone here would identify with, few would argue Sky have not done a great job with the Open, but the TV audience figures will be well down. That doesn't mean Sky aren't as good as the BBC. Often quite the contrary. But more people watch the BBC because is on everyone's TV and it's never "scrambled".


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 21, 2017)

It is a bit ironic that those who were most vocal about isolating ourselves from the EU so we can reclaim our former glories, who tell us to be proud of the UK and what we can do, have massive issues with one of the greatest and most respected British institutions throughout the world.  Funny old game....


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jul 21, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Whilst I agree that Planet Earth is excellent, I think you will find many similar programs on Discovery. You also have to factor in the "free" to air factor when looking at the BBC viewing figures. For an example everyone here would identify with, few would argue Sky have not done a great job with the Open, but the TV audience figures will be well down. That doesn't mean Sky aren't as good as the BBC. Often quite the contrary. But more people watch the BBC because is on everyone's TV and it's never "scrambled".
		
Click to expand...

No one is forced to watch the programs on BBC - the viewing figures are like that because people chose to watch it - I watch the programs on Discovery channel and whilst they are good they aren't a patch on the Planet programs. 

In Regards Sky and the golf etc - for me I'm not a fan of golf on Sky - for me it's too gimmicky, awful presenting team , commentators plus the adverts - i enjoyed the two hour segment on the BBC by a mile because it's just about the raw sport but that's just an opinion and Sky certainly bring out all the toys when covering sport - some like it some just enjoy the actual sport as the entertainment. The BBC try and cover every single different type of viewer - sport lover , soap lover , documentary lover , drama lover , reality telly lover , cooking lover , daytime telly lover - all on 3 channels and with limited budget compared to the multi millions that other Telly companies have. The BBC will never please everyone - it's impossible but the quality they produce for me is first class. I would love it if they could afford the billions to broadcast all the sport and the big movies but they can't - unless that license goes up considerably.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 21, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Now don't be silly. That would mean that the Question Time audience would be full of lefties.... oh hang on...
		
Click to expand...

Oh hang on.......I always think it is stuffed with rabid right wing plants.
[matching the producer and presenters political views]


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 21, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			It is a bit ironic that those who were most vocal about isolating ourselves from the EU so we can reclaim our former glories, who tell us to be proud of the UK and what we can do, have massive issues with one of the greatest and most respected British institutions throughout the world.  Funny old game....
		
Click to expand...

You are trying to turn the discussion around to the quality of the BBC's programs.  We were discussing  the salaries of some BBC staff after they were publicised and whether some of the people were worth the money.   Now you want to take an opertunity to knock people who voted to leave the EU.    I don't believe anyone has suggested the BBC cant make good programs.   If ITV published the salaries of their staff then there would be the same  views of how some were overpaid for their talents.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 21, 2017)

Sweep said:



			I don't think we should be forced to pay for the BBC. If I had the choice I wouldn't pay and I wouldn't use it. It's living on past glories when it had vertually no competition and a captive audience. When you see what can be created and offered by the commercial broadcasters it puts the BBC to shame. If you are not into Strictly or Eastenders there really isn't much left. They couldn't even keep hold of Bake Off much to HK's horror. Just look at Sky's Open coverage or what they create on Atlantic. The world has moved on and *the BBC is a thing of the past.*
Lets face it, if the Beeb was any good, you wouldn't spend your evenings foaming at the mouth and rocking backwards and forwards listening to LBC would you?
		
Click to expand...

But I keep hearing how everything was GREAT in 'the past' and that we should and can go back to as we were back then.  I watch a lot of BBC - in fact I only listen to LBC during working hours and when I am out and about driving from A to B (which I am most weekday evenings).  I don't really watch ANY ITV - and all I watch on Sky is the golf and an occasional series or Sky Arts programme.  That is my choice.  The BBC is mostly brilliant.  Long may it survive in it's current form.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 21, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Â£500k got silliness. Excellent use of public money.
		
Click to expand...

Well now that the comemrcial channels know how much she is being paid the BBC may have to pay her more to keep her - as the gazillions of SCD viewers would be sooo upset if she went,


----------



## Hobbit (Jul 21, 2017)

What was extremely disappointing to read was the obvious disparity between male and female salaries. 

As for which channel makes the best programmes, surely that's subjective? Would I watch Strictly? Watching celebs doing something they are not good at? That makes a lot of sense. Yet it has a great following, proving it's about personal tastes.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 21, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			It is a bit ironic that those who were most vocal about isolating ourselves from the EU so we can reclaim our former glories, who tell us to be proud of the UK and what we can do, have massive issues with one of the greatest and most respected British institutions throughout the world.  Funny old game....
		
Click to expand...

It's not in the least ironic that those who were moaning most about us freeing ourselves from the EU have the least concerns over the waste of public money paid to over rated "talent". 
I think you may be confusing two very different issues. But then maybe you are still blaming Brexit for everything.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 21, 2017)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



*But I keep hearing how everything was GREAT in 'the past' and that we should and can go back to as we were back then*.  I watch a lot of BBC - in fact I only listen to LBC during working hours and when I am out and about driving from A to B (which I am most weekday evenings).  I don't really watch ANY ITV - and all I watch on Sky is the golf and an occasional series or Sky Arts programme.  That is my choice.  The BBC is mostly brilliant.  Long may it survive in it's current form.
		
Click to expand...

Where exactly has anyone said that on this thread? (Other than you)


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 21, 2017)

Liverpoolphil said:



			No one is forced to watch the programs on BBC - the viewing figures are like that because people chose to watch it - I watch the programs on Discovery channel and whilst they are good they aren't a patch on the Planet programs. 

In Regards Sky and the golf etc - for me I'm not a fan of golf on Sky - for me it's too gimmicky, awful presenting team , commentators plus the adverts - i enjoyed the two hour segment on the BBC by a mile because it's just about the raw sport but that's just an opinion and Sky certainly bring out all the toys when covering sport - some like it some just enjoy the actual sport as the entertainment. The BBC try and cover every single different type of viewer - sport lover , soap lover , documentary lover , drama lover , reality telly lover , cooking lover , daytime telly lover - all on 3 channels and with limited budget compared to the multi millions that other Telly companies have. The BBC will never please everyone - it's impossible but the quality they produce for me is first class. I would love it if they could afford the billions to broadcast all the sport and the big movies but they can't - unless that license goes up considerably.
		
Click to expand...

Jack of all trades, master of none


----------



## clubchamp98 (Jul 22, 2017)

For some people the licence fee is a lot of money.
Its not that long ago you were threatened with jail if you did not pay, I am not sure if anyone was jailed for this "offence".
Market forces seem to dominate everything now except the BBC wether that's good or bad depends on your point of view.
You can't please every one all the time.
But it's quite hard avoiding  BBC transmission so maybe it should be an opt in service.
Some of the salaries are just not justified. Should a MOTD presenter get almost ten times what a Cabinet Minister gets.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 22, 2017)

clubchamp98 said:



			For some people the licence fee is a lot of money.
Its not that long ago you were threatened with jail if you did not pay, I am not sure if anyone was jailed for this "offence".
Market forces seem to dominate everything now except the BBC wether that's good or bad depends on your point of view.
You can't please every one all the time.
But it's quite hard avoiding  BBC transmission so maybe it should be an opt in service.
Some of the salaries are just not justified. Should a MOTD presenter get almost ten times what a Cabinet Minister gets.
		
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more.
Remember the uproar when those adverts were placed on the side of buses warning anyone here illegally would be caught? And yet, every night for decades we were treated to adverts on a supposedly advert free service warning us that the detector vans were coming to get us if we didn't pay our licence. Even now at work we get regular letters warning us that officials will be calling to check none of our staff are watching I-Player on our computers.
I am just grateful Lineker isn't a cabinet minister.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 22, 2017)

clubchamp98 said:



			For some people the licence fee is a lot of money.
Its not that long ago you were threatened with jail if you did not pay, I am not sure if anyone was jailed for this "offence".
Market forces seem to dominate everything now except the BBC wether that's good or bad depends on your point of view.
You can't please every one all the time.
But it's quite hard avoiding  BBC transmission so maybe it should be an opt in service.
Some of the salaries are just not justified. Should a MOTD presenter get almost ten times what a Cabinet Minister gets.
		
Click to expand...

The market defines how people in the entertainment and broadcast industries are paid.

You can always start a petition to increase ministers salaries tenfold, I'm sure it will be very popular &#128521;


----------



## dewsweeper (Jul 22, 2017)

I note in the various discussions I have seen with regard to equal  pay, which I agree  with,no one sees to suggest lowering the highest earners salaries to obtain equality.
I think in the private sector employers should pay what they feel necessary to get top talent however I do think a publicly funded BBC should have reasonable caps .a


----------



## clubchamp98 (Jul 22, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			The market defines how people in the entertainment and broadcast industries are paid.

You can always start a petition to increase ministers salaries tenfold, I'm sure it will be very popular &#62985;
		
Click to expand...

Independent salary boards give them 10% when everyone else gets 1% in the public sector.
The BBC is funded by the people but I bet they don't get 1% pay rises.
I would like to see Boris do MOTD though.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 22, 2017)

clubchamp98 said:



			Should a MOTD presenter get almost ten times what a Cabinet Minister gets.
		
Click to expand...

In fairness, they're doing a better job......


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 22, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			In fairness, they're doing a better job......
		
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with that? Wonder how much dear old Jimmy Hill would have been paid?


----------



## Sweep (Jul 22, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			The market defines how people in the entertainment and broadcast industries are paid.

You can always start a petition to increase ministers salaries tenfold, I'm sure it will be very popular ï˜‰
		
Click to expand...

Would be the typical response from the left. They just don't understand economics or value for money. How many newsreaders are there in Britain today? How many people would like to be newsreaders? How many would snap your hand off for say Â£100k? After all that is great money. So why are we paying one Â£550k? Now consider the same exercise for DJ's, sports presenters etc etc. So the market is not what the BBC is paying. In fact the BBC is probably inflating the market by paying these extortionate rates. 
Just think. If the BBC had been a little more sensible with your money they might have been able to keep your beloved Bake Off.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 22, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			In fairness, they're doing a better job......
		
Click to expand...

"If Leicester win the title I will present MOTD in my underpants"
"You win nothing with kids"
I don't know about you but I think a Cabinet Minister's job in a little more important, unless football really is more important than life and death.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 22, 2017)

SocketRocket said:



			Where exactly has anyone said that on this thread? (Other than you)
		
Click to expand...

I never said *this* thread.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 22, 2017)

Sweep said:



			"If Leicester win the title I will present MOTD in my underpants"
"You win nothing with kids"
I don't know about you but I think a Cabinet Minister's job in a little more important, unless football really is more important than life and death.
		
Click to expand...

<deep sigh>

What a humourless place this is becoming.


----------



## drdel (Jul 23, 2017)

I do object to the BBC paying staff through their 'company' to ensure tax avoidance and reduce transparency. 

I also think it's a bit rich that taxpayers cash is used to pay for the foreign service.

Most of these 'presenting' personalities are overpaid whereas the researchers are on meagre salaries held down by the unpaid interns from weathly parents hoping for a media post. Many of these parents themselves with snouts deeply burden in the BBC pigs trough.

Root and branch overhaul required.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 23, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			<deep sigh>

What a humourless place this is becoming.
		
Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't like your post was hilarious.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 23, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Well, it wasn't like your post was hilarious.
		
Click to expand...

I know and I didn't use a smiley to warn you either. What chance did you have?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 23, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			<deep sigh>

What a humourless place this is becoming.
		
Click to expand...

Come on, you should know by now there's no place for humour or satire in the modern golf forum.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 23, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Would be the typical response from the left. They just don't understand economics or value for money. How many newsreaders are there in Britain today? How many people would like to be newsreaders? How many would snap your hand off for say Â£100k? After all that is great money. So why are we paying one Â£550k? Now consider the same exercise for DJ's, sports presenters etc etc. So the market is not what the BBC is paying. In fact the BBC is probably inflating the market by paying these extortionate rates. 
Just think. If the BBC had been a little more sensible with your money they might have been able to keep your beloved Bake Off.
		
Click to expand...

Great knowledge there about the BBC inflating the market by paying the extortionate rates.  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0a03aba868b4f

And thanks for the twice randomly mentioning me liking Bake Off in this thread, I find it endearing that you remember, if a little creepy to be honest (do you keep a list of forumers likes and dislikes, favourite bands, what car they drive,??).  I had got over it but you have brought it all back now so I'll have to pay for more therapy. Why did it go, why no Mel and Sue, life is so unfair....


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 23, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			Come on, you should know by now there's no place for humour or satire in the modern golf forum. 

Click to expand...

But how will we attract young smartarses into the game?


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 23, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			But how will we attract young smartarses into the game?
		
Click to expand...

No need, old serious people are the future of the game...


----------



## Sweep (Jul 23, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



Great knowledge there about the BBC inflating the market by paying the extortionate rates.  http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entr...b0a03aba868b4f

And thanks for the twice randomly mentioning me liking Bake Off in this thread, I find it endearing that you remember, if a little creepy to be honest (do you keep a list of forumers likes and dislikes, favourite bands, what car they drive,??).  I had got over it but you have brought it all back now so I'll have to pay for more therapy. Why did it go, why no Mel and Sue, life is so unfair....


Click to expand...

To be good at debating you need to have a good memory and at the time you seemed so upset I actually felt sorry for you.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 23, 2017)

FairwayDodger said:



			I know and I didn't use a smiley to warn you either. What chance did you have?
		
Click to expand...

To be fair it would have been the opinion of a lunatic, but that's not unusual on here.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 23, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			No need, old serious people are the future of the game...
		
Click to expand...

Not that I am keeping notes &#128512; But you do seem to have a problem with people who play golf. It does make me wonder why you play.
Maybe you should mention that to your therapist.


----------



## Dasit (Jul 23, 2017)

Sweep said:



			Not that I am keeping notes &#62976; But you do seem to have a problem with people who play golf. It does make me wonder why you play.
Maybe you should mention that to your therapist.
		
Click to expand...

He is just another self hating liberal. seems to be a lot of them around at the moment.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jul 23, 2017)

Dasit said:



			He is just another self hating liberal. seems to be a lot of them around at the moment.
		
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not a golfist, some of my best friends are golfers....


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 23, 2017)

Hacker Khan said:



			Hey, I'm not a golfist, some of my best friends are golfers....
		
Click to expand...

What! Even old ones?   Jeremy wouldn't approve of you hanging around with Golfers, you should be hanging with other middle class Trots down the jazz Club.


----------

