Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

6538

The Bbc And The "talent" It Needs To Pay Big Wages To Keep!

Recommended Posts

Okay, just paid my television tax online and was thinking about the crap the beeb comes out with as an excuse for it. They claim they need to pay people big wages in order to keep their "talent" from going elsewhere.

Now, leaving aside the fact that elsewhere consists solely of the private sector witch is awash with this "talent" anyway, why doesn't the beeb just let them go?

The BBC is supposed to be a public service broadcaster and paying the likes of Jonathan Ross £18m simply to be offensive to people doesn't seem to fit that remit. The Country must be awash with "talent" who would like the chance to work in broadcasting so it would seem that they could radically alter their business model, still get - and keep - their "talent" and save millions into the bargain.

Rather than paying a few individuals millions of pounds the BBC should be encouraging and fostering new talent. Everyone has to start somewhere so, instead of renewing current presenters large contracts, why don't they trawl round the stage schools and the likes and sign up people on sensible contracts, train them to do the job on the understanding that they are never going to make huge fortunes but they'll have a prestigious job at a decent wage and if they think they can make millions elsewhere they can p1ss off and do so. Because they are still in contract though, the tax payer would get a large cut of their wages in the form of a transfer fee?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry Wogan said (last year?) that the BBC could actually pay less than what the rate might be as people want to work for the BBC and would see that as part of the package.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, just paid my television tax online and was thinking about the crap the beeb comes out with as an excuse for it. They claim they need to pay people big wages in order to keep their "talent" from going elsewhere.

Now, leaving aside the fact that elsewhere consists solely of the private sector witch is awash with this "talent" anyway, why doesn't the beeb just let them go?

The BBC is supposed to be a public service broadcaster and paying the likes of Jonathan Ross £18m simply to be offensive to people doesn't seem to fit that remit. The Country must be awash with "talent" who would like the chance to work in broadcasting so it would seem that they could radically alter their business model, still get - and keep - their "talent" and save millions into the bargain.

Rather than paying a few individuals millions of pounds the BBC should be encouraging and fostering new talent. Everyone has to start somewhere so, instead of renewing current presenters large contracts, why don't they trawl round the stage schools and the likes and sign up people on sensible contracts, train them to do the job on the understanding that they are never going to make huge fortunes but they'll have a prestigious job at a decent wage and if they think they can make millions elsewhere they can p1ss off and do so. Because they are still in contract though, the tax payer would get a large cut of their wages in the form of a transfer fee?

Plus where else are they going to go?

ITV??

CH4?

CH5?

The public still get their programs so it isn’t a loss. It just means the bbc isn’t paying them.

The TV licence is far too expensive. It should be about £40pa not £140pa.

They have a budget of £4.5B and yet 90% of their programs are crap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry Wogan said (last year?) that the BBC could actually pay less than what the rate might be as people want to work for the BBC and would see that as part of the package.

Jonathan Ross is past his sell-by date, and ever since the "lewd phonecalls to Andrew Sachs" debacle he has become watered-down and careful. He used to be funny; now he is just irritating. Annoying, really, that a significant proportion of our licensing fee is used to pay this man. I would much prefer to watch any of the three chaps from Top Gear present a Friday-night chat show than Ross, and I bet Hammond and May don't expect half as much cash as Jonathan Ross.

The BBC needs to scour local radio stations and comedy clubs to find new talent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus where else are they going to go?

ITV??

CH4?

CH5?

The public still get their programs so it isn’t a loss. It just means the bbc isn’t paying them.

The TV licence is far too expensive. It should be about £40pa not £140pa.

They have a budget of £4.5B and yet 90% of their programs are crap.

True. Years ago BBC "talent" used to leave for the commercial channels; presumably for increased wages. Now they all go to the BBC for the same reason!

Surely even a BBC muppet manager can work that one out? Or are they too busy working on nuLabour propaganda tactics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True. Years ago BBC "talent" used to leave for the commercial channels; presumably for increased wages. Now they all go to the BBC for the same reason!

Surely even a BBC muppet manager can work that one out? Or are they too busy working on nuLabour propaganda tactics?

Also in the past BBC personalities were only allowed to appear on the BBC. Now you get Richard Hammond doing Morrisons ads, Graham Norton doing ad voiceovers etc etc. I would be happier about the absurd sums they get paid if they weren't already earning double that outside the beeb. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a contract with the BBC used to be exclusive. Jonathan Ross has his own production company, as does Jeremy Clarkson, Graham Norton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had a brief chat with an Aussie friend on messenger re: TV licence. She never knew you needed one. After explaining it her response was;

"that is seriously the most bullsh1t thing ive ever heard"

Sums it up quite nicely I feel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus where else are they going to go?

ITV??

CH4?

CH5?

The public still get their programs so it isn’t a loss. It just means the bbc isn’t paying them.

The TV licence is far too expensive. It should be about £40pa not £140pa.

They have a budget of £4.5B and yet 90% of their programs are crap.

+ 1000.

The BBC is a self fulifiling phrophecy obsessed with the myth of it's own importance. The combination of rank hypocrisy, celebrity obsession and clearly biased politics and social tinkering is frankly nauseating. Combine it with paying the likes of Ross (not funny for several years) millions and their shelf life should be no longer than their partners in crime in the current ZanuLabour administration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
True. Years ago BBC "talent" used to leave for the commercial channels; presumably for increased wages. Now they all go to the BBC for the same reason!

Surely even a BBC muppet manager can work that one out? Or are they too busy working on nuLabour propaganda tactics?

No, they're too busy re-calibrating their own pay levels to keep in line with that of the 'talent' they manage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had a brief chat with an Aussie friend on messenger re: TV licence. She never knew you needed one. After explaining it her response was;

"that is seriously the most bullsh1t thing ive ever heard"

Sums it up quite nicely I feel.

Just think of all the great programmes produced in Australia - and there's no license fee there.

Such cultural giants as... The Paul Hogan Show?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jonathan Ross is past his sell-by date, and ever since the "lewd phonecalls to Andrew Sachs" debacle he has become watered-down and careful. He used to be funny; now he is just irritating. Annoying, really, that a significant proportion of our licensing fee is used to pay this man. I would much prefer to watch any of the three chaps from Top Gear present a Friday-night chat show than Ross, and I bet Hammond and May don't expect half as much cash as Jonathan Ross.

The BBC needs to scour local radio stations and comedy clubs to find new talent.

What do you mean 'since'?

He has always been an irritating tw@t. making snide jokes at the expense of others, innuendo and sarcasam can hardly be identified as entertainment and talent. He is just another one of the pseudo intellectual celeb obsessed self- important aholes shouting rather than talking, that TV seemed to spawn during the 90s / 00s. As for Clarkson and his crew they should be consigned to a caravan and dropped off the nearest cliff, as whatever they are paid is far too much.

True. Years ago BBC "talent" used to leave for the commercial channels; presumably for increased wages. Now they all go to the BBC for the same reason!

Surely even a BBC muppet manager can work that one out? Or are they too busy working on nuLabour propaganda tactics?

Yes, the BBC went the way of the civil service and councils, etc. and got on the 'competitive pay bandwagon. If they had spent the money on securing national sporting events then SKY would not have the stranglehold they do today. Somewhere along the way they forgot that it is public money and they are public servants.Thank goodness for Sopcast!

I also agree that the constant left wing / PC propoganda is the only reason that it has survived this totalitarian government. They have been working with the Nulabour project with CH4 for many years. I hope that they are shaken to their foundations when a more decent government get in.

Also in the past BBC personalities were only allowed to appear on the BBC. Now you get Richard Hammond doing Morrisons ads, Graham Norton doing ad voiceovers etc etc. I would be happier about the absurd sums they get paid if they weren't already earning double that outside the beeb. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a contract with the BBC used to be exclusive. Jonathan Ross has his own production company, as does Jeremy Clarkson, Graham Norton.

+1

Yes Ross did not make a loss on his ban from TV as his contract paid out and so did the payments to his production company that produces his shows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just think of all the great programmes produced in Australia - and there's no license fee there.

Such cultural giants as... The Paul Hogan Show?

And what great programmes does the BBC churn out these days? As a percentage of air-time, precious few. Just had BBC 1 on this evening; the BBC's flagship channel and their 7pm slot was filled with "Emergency Rescue" or whatever it was called. An hour of cheap-ars3d sh1te pieced together from crappy tourist films of ships sinking and "gun camera" film shot from a cop car - again, on the cheap. Utter, utter crap of the highest order.

And this is worth, £142.50 a year, apparently!

Also, why is a B&W license only £40? It's hardly as though it costs the BBC any less if you have a sh1t telly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what great programmes does the BBC churn out these days? As a percentage of air-time, precious few. Just had BBC 1 on this evening; the BBC's flagship channel and their 7pm slot was filled with "Emergency Rescue" or whatever it was called. An hour of cheap-ars3d sh1te pieced together from crappy tourist films of ships sinking and "gun camera" film shot from a cop car - again, on the cheap. Utter, utter crap of the highest order.

And this is worth, £142.50 a year, apparently!

Also, why is a B&W license only £40? It's hardly as though it costs the BBC any less if you have a sh1t telly.

Is that the Michael Jackson licence? It don't matter if its black or white? :P

Why not buy the £40 one and just hope the TV licencing people don't pop round?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Plus where else are they going to go?

ITV??

CH4?

CH5?

The public still get their programs so it isn’t a loss. It just means the bbc isn’t paying them.

The TV licence is far too expensive. It should be about £40pa not £140pa.

They have a budget of £4.5B and yet 90% of their programs are crap.

I must confess I find the radio progs. better than what is dished up on TV, with the exception of the natural history progs. on SKY, that I love watching.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest AuntJess
Sky is £21 a month without sports and movies.

Licence is £12.

I'd pay the licence everytime.

I pay £15 for that. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sky is £21 a month without sports and movies.

Licence is £12.

I'd pay the licence everytime.

I wouldn't, but I don't get a choice.

So fine if it happens to suit you, screw u if it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sky is £21 a month without sports and movies.

Licence is £12.

I'd pay the licence everytime.

You might have an argument if they were both optional. As it is you have to pay the £12 licence fee if you want to watch the £21 sports channel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And there's been hardly any Doctor Who this year :angry:

That's a good thing given the utter rubbish we have had to endure for the last 4 years with a couple of noble exceptions.

There have also been several great classic DVD releases this year, including the seminal Troughton story War Games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what great programmes does the BBC churn out these days? As a percentage of air-time, precious few. Just had BBC 1 on this evening; the BBC's flagship channel and their 7pm slot was filled with "Emergency Rescue" or whatever it was called. An hour of cheap-ars3d sh1te pieced together from crappy tourist films of ships sinking and "gun camera" film shot from a cop car - again, on the cheap. Utter, utter crap of the highest order.

And this is worth, £142.50 a year, apparently!

Also, why is a B&W license only £40? It's hardly as though it costs the BBC any less if you have a sh1t telly.

I've got two kids, so I don't watch much TV at the moment. It's children's programming urinates on the competition by quite some enormous margin.

Then there's Radio4, without which I might have gone mad while helping raise toddlers.

Then there's the much much better comedy programming you get produced, cf Mitchell and Webb, and Stewart Lee for instance. And you get a proper half hour of these programmes, not just 24 minutes and some adverts.

Oh, and there's the BBC website, and iplayer.

If you don't like BBC1 primetime then there's plenty of other things to choose from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've got two kids, so I don't watch much TV at the moment. It's children's programming urinates on the competition by quite some enormous margin.

Then there's Radio4, without which I might have gone mad while helping raise toddlers.

Then there's the much much better comedy programming you get produced, cf Mitchell and Webb, and Stewart Lee for instance. And you get a proper half hour of these programmes, not just 24 minutes and some adverts.

Oh, and there's the BBC website, and iplayer.

If you don't like BBC1 primetime then there's plenty of other things to choose from.

Can't comment on the kids programmes, nor R4 for that matter but, come on, R4 aint that good.

Yes, they do produce some decent comedy but look at all the huge amount of dross they sh1te out. Hours and hours of BBC airtime is just crap. The BBC are running far too many channels. We watch a bit of stuff on BBC3 and 4. These are, respectively, General Entertainment and a touch more Arty and educational. Why the hell do they need these channels when these are supposed to be the remit of the flagship channels BBC1/2? We watch very little on 1 and 2 because it's mostly cheap-arsed rubbish. The cheaply produced ambulance chasing shows should be on BBC3 at 1am (or not at all). In fact, why do the BBC even need these channels? They're paying to run 4 channels when 2 would probably do, 3 at a push.

Look at the toss the BBC spew out during the day. It's just garbage, quite honestly, so why bother spending millions when the only people watching are students (who are probably pissed or high), dole-wallahs (who are probably pissed or high), and the elderly (who are half deaf, half blind and who don't pay for the fvcker anyway)? Just turn it off and save a few quid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just had a brief chat with an Aussie friend on messenger re: TV licence. She never knew you needed one. After explaining it her response was;

"that is seriously the most bullsh1t thing ive ever heard"

Sums it up quite nicely I feel.

Have you ever watched any Australian TV channels? :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can't comment on the kids programmes, nor R4 for that matter but, come on, R4 aint that good.

Yes, they do produce some decent comedy but look at all the huge amount of dross they sh1te out. Hours and hours of BBC airtime is just crap. The BBC are running far too many channels. We watch a bit of stuff on BBC3 and 4. These are, respectively, General Entertainment and a touch more Arty and educational. Why the hell do they need these channels when these are supposed to be the remit of the flagship channels BBC1/2? We watch very little on 1 and 2 because it's mostly cheap-arsed rubbish. The cheaply produced ambulance chasing shows should be on BBC3 at 1am (or not at all). In fact, why do the BBC even need these channels? They're paying to run 4 channels when 2 would probably do, 3 at a push.

Look at the toss the BBC spew out during the day. It's just garbage, quite honestly, so why bother spending millions when the only people watching are students (who are probably pissed or high), dole-wallahs (who are probably pissed or high), and the elderly (who are half deaf, half blind and who don't pay for the fvcker anyway)? Just turn it off and save a few quid.

Name one commercial radio channel that comes close to the quality of Radio 4 in its output.

Radio5Live is the market leader for sport as well.

You're saying that the BBC produces too much. I'm inclined to agree. But they do have a duty to produce "popular" programming for their license fee, since the vast majority is for the common sort. But the fact is their output is so much better than Sky's (for example), and they produce about 80% of the content I need in my day.

Long-term they're screwed though. But they are adapting to the new technologies very well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   291 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.