Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
riverside

Bbc Move To Salford

Recommended Posts

About 2,500 BBC jobs from five departments are moving to Salford Quays in 2011 from their current London home. They are even flying in someone from America to manage the relocation. Whilst this has got to be good for the local economy what will it do to house prices:

Could it be that:

The jobs may move but the people might not so they become vacancies as not all of the jobs will be highly paid.and some will be on contract

The rental market and the hotel market will benefit initially rather than the housing market

Relocation packages will be available and they should be able to sell in London (if they wish) but some may chose to buy a small place in Manchester and commute weekly by car, train or plane

Which areas are they likely to find attractive do you think it will push prices up? does anyone have any information ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look in the North West board, there are a few posts there about this.

- From vague recollection, there is a generous relocation package but only 50% or so of people are taking it.

- Then people start looking around for houses in nice parts of South Manchester and realise that it's not actually that much cheaper than the outskirts of London.

- Local asking prices already seem to pricing the 'BBC effect' so I wouldn't expect much change from the current status quo. Besides, they will be looking in the same areas that thousands of other well-paid professionals already live so they won't be swamping the market with new demand.

- Hopefully more jobs for locals but overall not much change, because the locals would have moved to London to work for the BBC/media anyway.

- Expect to see more arts programs about how Lowry is under-valued. And hey, did you know there is a great music scene up north as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an property suck-tion advertorial in the week's Sale and Altrincham Advertiser saying the hype was largely ******** as the numbers are closer to 200 than 2000

Edited by daiking

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is an property suck-tion advertorial in the week's Sale and Altrincham Advertiser saying the hype was largely ******** as the numbers are closer to 200 than 2000

...And yet I had to take so much flak from some folks on here for years over saying what a pile of ******* all this move was and it's effect on NW house prices. :)

Edited by Nomadd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And yet I had to take so much flak from some folks on here for years over saying what a pile of ******* all this move was and it's effect on NW house prices. :)

:lol: you've put your dick away.

Some of us are competing with the BBC salary structure and whether 2 or 2 million people move, the hype beforehand will do the damage. I bought a flat in Hulme in 2005 and even before the Salford Quays move had been rubber-stamped the media was awash with "BBC move to push up prices" fluff pieces. The damage has been done whatever the reality turns out to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: you've put your dick away.

Some of us are competing with the BBC salary structure and whether 2 or 2 million people move, the hype beforehand will do the damage. I bought a flat in Hulme in 2005 and even before the Salford Quays move had been rubber-stamped the media was awash with "BBC move to push up prices" fluff pieces. The damage has been done whatever the reality turns out to be.

:lol: But it seems your dick is still hanging out. If your only response to a comparison of London v NW salaries is something so crude, no wonder you can't "compete with the BBC salary structure."

EDIT: And what "damage is done" if you just show some patience and wait whilst the bubble unwinds? Those "fluff pieces" don't convince a bank to give you a mortgage these days, hence why prices are sinking and will continue to do so. Unless, of course, you think the current "broke" generation of 18-25 year old's with an ever growing mountain of student debt are by some miracle going to be able to support current prices? Me, I think not. You, of course, are free to differ.

Edited by Nomadd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which areas are they likely to find attractive do you think it will push prices up? does anyone have any information ?

Yes, I have loads of information.

I work in TV and I live in Manchester.

1. The BBC full complement of staff will be about 2000 people, about half of these will be 'relocators', the rest will be - over a number of years - local jobs.

2. The BBC pay on civil service lines; pay is 'good' but not brilliant; people join the BBC for experience and prestige, not money.

3. For every channel manager on 100k there are 1000 technicians, HR, admin, floormen etc.. on 25k.

The idea that 10000 millionaires are moving to Manchester is total, utter, complete bo77ox.

4. Of the 'wealthy' types (I'd estimate ~50 and most of them earn <100k.) amny of them are staying in the south and relocating their jobs to Manchester.

What I'm hearing is that some are asking for 4-day-weeks as part of their 'package' so they can go home to the wife and kids at the weekend.

They are not moving to Manchester, they are working in Manchester.

One I spoke to is looking forward to moving in with a group of fellow managers for 4 nights a week in a rented place in salford quays.

He calls it 'the young ones' scenario.

The estate agents are w4nking themselves into a froth about this but the fact is there is no substantial money moving here.

Edited by needle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:lol: But it seems your dick is still hanging out. If your only response to a comparison of London v NW salaries is something so crude, no wonder you can't "compete with the BBC salary structure."

EDIT: And what "damage is done" if you just show some patience and wait whilst the bubble unwinds? Those "fluff pieces" don't convince a bank to give you a mortgage these days, hence why prices are sinking and will continue to do so. Unless, of course, you think the current "broke" generation of 18-25 year old's with an ever growing mountain of student debt are by some miracle going to be able to support current prices? Me, I think not. You, of course, are free to differ.

I read your unedited post bragging about the 6-figure sum of extra income you enjoy by working in the "public sector" rather than locally whilst I compare myself to those poorly paid BBC middle managers. I didn't think I had even joined the pissing contest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read your unedited post bragging about the 6-figure sum of extra income you enjoy by working in the "public sector" rather than locally whilst I compare myself to those poorly paid BBC middle managers. I didn't think I had even joined the pissing contest.

There's only a "one man" pissing contest going on: the one you are having with yourself. :)

Maybe you could try brushing up on your reading skills? My post clearly stated: "not bragging" and "admittedly this is banking". Like the rest of your post, the "public sector" bit is pure fantasy on your part. The comparison was BBC wages (as beautifully explained by needle in a subsequent post) and London wages - and why those working in London wouldn't be giving up such wages up in order to move to BBC North. And again, the "I compare myself to those poorly paid BBC middle managers", is your own invention: I never stated anything of the sort. I actually edited my post as I knew you always get yourself worked up by anyone with a different opinion to yours in the NW forum. Seems I wasn't quick enough, and you managed to read it in time before instigating your normal crying-baby routine.

Still, it's a pity you missed the earlier unedited version where I spoke my mind: "Who held a gun to your head to force you to buy a tenth rate dump of a flat in a tenth rate location in 2005?" What was it in your last post on the matter?: "A 25% hit I'll be lucky to get away with..." And what about "Your expensive wife who only wants to rent in a nice part of Hale/Alty", etc., etc. You know, all the normal stuff we get in your posts... If you had actually stopped your one man pissing contest 5 years ago when you joined this site - and taken my advice about improving your skills and maybe doing a short permie/contract stint in London (or elsewhere, you can go home to the wife at weekends) - then you'd have paid for the "3 bed semi in Hale" you keep banging on about easily by now.

Hope the unedited version is more to your liking? You can carry on pissing and wasting your time now for another 5 years. :)

EDIT: Cleaned up to prevent more crying. :)

Edited by Nomadd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have loads of information.

I work in TV and I live in Manchester.

1. The BBC full complement of staff will be about 2000 people, about half of these will be 'relocators', the rest will be - over a number of years - local jobs.

2. The BBC pay on civil service lines; pay is 'good' but not brilliant; people join the BBC for experience and prestige, not money.

3. For every channel manager on 100k there are 1000 technicians, HR, admin, floormen etc.. on 25k.

The idea that 10000 millionaires are moving to Manchester is total, utter, complete bo77ox.

4. Of the 'wealthy' types (I'd estimate ~50 and most of them earn <100k.) amny of them are staying in the south and relocating their jobs to Manchester.

What I'm hearing is that some are asking for 4-day-weeks as part of their 'package' so they can go home to the wife and kids at the weekend.

They are not moving to Manchester, they are working in Manchester.

One I spoke to is looking forward to moving in with a group of fellow managers for 4 nights a week in a rented place in salford quays.

He calls it 'the young ones' scenario.

The estate agents are w4nking themselves into a froth about this but the fact is there is no substantial money moving here.

I hope they mean a pro-rate reduction in salary and pension to 4days/week too.

Many private sector employees have commutes like that either by train or car or flights into Europe and do so in their own time.

I wonder why BBC employees might think they're entitled to do otherwise? Let 'em get up at 4am to catch a flight, get back at 9pm like everyone else has to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope they mean a pro-rate reduction in salary and pension to 4days/week too.

Many private sector employees have commutes like that either by train or car or flights into Europe and do so in their own time.

I wonder why BBC employees might think they're entitled to do otherwise? Let 'em get up at 4am to catch a flight, get back at 9pm like everyone else has to.

I'll assume there was at least some irony in your post?

And "everyone else"? Who would that be?

The BBC employment contract will normally state a fixed, minimum number of working hours per week: 37.5 to 40 is normal. If these hours can be done in 4 days rather than 5, then who cares? I'd much rather see people pulling "4 long ones" and spending more time with their families than dragging out the same hours out over 5 days needlessly.

Most clients I've worked for over the last 15 years have offered flexible working practices like this: Banking, Media, Retail, etc. I spent 8 years working a 4 day (40 hour) week for 2 clients back-to-back. And today, I'm working from home (client is an Investment Bank), as I always do once a week. Modern technology means it's more cost effective to have people outside of an office rather than in it (although I will admit it does seem the BBC complex in SQ is fairly barren and has already been paid for by the taxpayer, so the cost savings may be minimal.)

Whether someone delivers is what matters to a company, not how many days they are prepared to hang around in the office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll assume there was at least some irony in your post?

And "everyone else"? Who would that be?

The BBC employment contract will normally state a fixed, minimum number of working hours per week: 37.5 to 40 is normal. If these hours can be done in 4 days rather than 5, then who cares? I'd much rather see people pulling "4 long ones" and spending more time with their families than dragging out the same hours out over 5 days needlessly.

Most clients I've worked for over the last 15 years have offered flexible working practices like this: Banking, Media, Retail, etc. I spent 8 years working a 4 day (40 hour) week for 2 clients back-to-back. And today, I'm working from home (client is an Investment Bank), as I always do once a week. Modern technology means it's more cost effective to have people outside of an office rather than in it (although I will admit it does seem the BBC complex in SQ is fairly barren and has already been paid for by the taxpayer, so the cost savings may be minimal.)

Whether someone delivers is what matters to a company, not how many days they are prepared to hang around in the office.

You're talking about hourly contract staff.

I was talking about most senior jobs in the private sector where it's normal to work like that irrespective of what nominal 'hours' may be in the contract. Inside or outside an office. Perhaps you've not worked outside the UK very much.

If the poor little dears leave Salford at 4pm on a Friday they'll be back home 7-8pm down south. Hardly requires them to have a day off to recover paid for by the taxpayer. If they're only being paid for 4 days then of course, who cares. That's not the impression given though.

Edited by Red Karma

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're talking about hourly contract staff.

Nope, the employment contract I mentioned is for an Employee. I work contract, as you know, but that is a completely different kind of contract, for Services, not Employment.

The most flexible working practices in my experience are always given to the permies. Have a look at HSBC's @Home work initiative, for instance.

Barclays Bank and Reuters have been offering flexible working practices, offering Fridays off, for at least the last 20 years (I should know, I've worked for them both.)

I was talking about most senior jobs in the private sector where it's normal to work like that irrespective of what nominal 'hours' may be in the contract. Inside or outside an office. Perhaps you've not worked outside the UK very much.

No, I haven't. But then I wasn't aware Salford was outside the UK... :)

If the poor little dears leave Salford at 4pm on a Friday they'll be back home 7-8pm down south. Hardly requires them to have a day off to recover paid for by the taxpayer. If they're only being paid for 4 days then of course, who cares. That's not the impression given though.

Well, as I say, if they are "pulling their hours" then they aren't doing anything "at the taxpayers expense", are they? And don't forget, many of them will cut a deal where they can work remotely from home on Friday, which is pretty easy given today's technology, as I stated.

If the skills these people possess can't be sourced in the NW - and they can't - then the BBC doesn't have much option besides offering flexible working practices. Me, personally, I don't have a problem with that.

Now, if I was going to take exception over something in all of this Beeb SQ move it's the £8k on furniture and up to two years of house rental in the NW being subsidised at my expense that I'd be talking about. That kind of "unworked for" and undeserved subsidy really makes me angry... :angry:

And besides, what about looking at things from the "other" direction? I could never afford to live where I want to live in the NW if it wasn't for Southern wages and jobs "Darn Sarf". That's true for most of my fellow NW business associates. How would it look if Southerners were suddenly to start taking exception to Northerners working on "their turf" and then heading back home for a long weekend? You see, it works both ways. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I have loads of information.

[snip]

2. The BBC pay on civil service lines; pay is 'good' but not brilliant; people join the BBC for experience and prestige, not money.

3. For every channel manager on 100k there are 1000 technicians, HR, admin, floormen etc.. on 25k.

The idea that 10000 millionaires are moving to Manchester is total, utter, complete bo77ox.

The estate agents are w4nking themselves into a froth about this but the fact is there is no substantial money moving here.

BBC Role. I was contacted about this one last week. They are looking to pay around £27.5k: http://www.jobserve.com/2-x-Java-Software-Developer-Manchester-Salford-Quays-Manchester-Lancashire-Permanent-W65A4EE109372CBED.jsjob

Skills required: Java, Flex, Scrum

Same skillset in London? 2,323 matching jobs. And 133 of those jobs offering £100K+, many inc. bonus topping £150-200k+

As you say, the idea that Londoner's are going to up-sticks to go to Salford for £25k and then have to deal with current NW house prices is simply fantasy. Still, the EA "froth" over the BBC has been a good laugh while the lie lasted. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this from the Stockport Times in May 2011 might be of some interest.

I only read it for the first time today whilst going through a stack of local newspapers I'd been meaning to read.

bbcmove_StockportTimes.jpg

post-12306-0-54298800-1311176126_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this from the Stockport Times in May 2011 might be of some interest.

I only read it for the first time today whilst going through a stack of local newspapers I'd been meaning to read.

Couple of hundred spread over couple of years.

Hale/Altrincham (for schools), Chorlton/Didsbury for the cheese shops.

Predictable (and predicted!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this from the Stockport Times in May 2011 might be of some interest.

I only read it for the first time today whilst going through a stack of local newspapers I'd been meaning to read.

Cheers, this is the same story i read at the time. Personally i think the numbers are still enough to affect the market for non descript houses. Whether its actual sales or wishful thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought this from the Stockport Times in May 2011 might be of some interest.

I only read it for the first time today whilst going through a stack of local newspapers I'd been meaning to read.

BBC move not sending NW house prices into the stratosphere? Shocking. How can people believe such rubbish? :)

Nomadd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 284 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.