Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

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

reddog

BBC pay list

Recommended Posts

So this BBC pay list has been produced:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07/19/bbcs-highest-paid-stars-revealed-chris-evans-gary-lineker-lead/

 

My first thought is that a lot of these people are over payed because no one is clamoring to watch these people.  2 examples being Gary Lineker and Mark Chapman, surely the fact that people are willing to watch a football match streamed in a foreign language, suggestions they are not interested in commentators or announcers with their one dimensional views?

 

Also news and current affairs presenters, surely they are just highlighting the content, they are not the actual content.

 

If most of this lot had YouTube channels, basically not many people would be interested, to me that is the really test!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way to justify having a state broadcaster is for it to provide something the market can't or won't. It is not meant to compete with commercial broadcasters to justify the enormous budget! When Jonathan Ross left the BBC a few years ago he went straight to ITV and made the exact same show proving the BBC should never have been spending licence payers' money.

Huw Edwards seems pleasant enough but not sure how £550k/year can be justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first thoughts were where are Attenborough and Dimbleby.

Then is was how much the dismal Kussenburg earns.

I can understand why someone like Graham Norton might learn a lot. But Lineker ? Don't get me wrong, I think he does a good job, but I would have thought it would be relatively easy to find someone who does similar for much less money.

Finally, for that cash I thought lineker should really have a better pair of pants. Maybe trimmed with gold braid or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, reddog said:

surely the fact that people are willing to watch a football match streamed in a foreign language

You can easily find a English commentary on all Premiership matches. You'd have to work hard now for a Foreign language stream now. And get some matches in 4K as well. 

So i am told

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Beeb is rock and a hard place with this one. Things that the market won't or can't provide pretty much translates into stuff no-one wants to watch. They'd be struggling for their existence then as well. 

They really do need to offload success though as it's not what it exists for. Working for the beeb is a dream for many as it is a prestigious institution. If someone believes they deserve heavy renumeration for being there, it's time to leave

Attenborough and Dimbleby, well where's their competition? Politics and nature not really thriving interests. They are however good examples of 2 people who appreciate what the beeb lets them do. I'm sure they'd work for near free

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All we hear is "xxxxx must pay competitive wages or talent will depart."

But the problem is the beeb's insistence on manufacturing the very personalities it then worries will leave.

 Thus we have the "Victoria Derbyshire show". Why build her up by putting her name in the title?  I'D NEVER HEARD OF VICTORIA DERBYSHIRE until they did that! Now, subconsciously, I wonder how the show could go on without her DESPITE THE FACT THAT SHE HAS STAND IN'S MORE THAN HALF THE TIME!

Same withe the Jeremy Vine show. Serious question: is there a SINGLE person in the country who turns off when Paddy what's-his-face stands in for him? I think not!

And so to the Graham Norton show. Just how unique are humorous, camp, mannerisms? Somehow the beeb has never had a problem recruiting this supposedly rare genre: Danny La Rue, Frankie Howard, Larry Grayson, Julian Clary, Paul O'Grady. More recently we have Alan Carr and Joe Lycett. There is no shortage. And it ain't a difficult mannerism to adopt either. Moreover, it seems to work so effortlessly. Add a camp accent to a put down and it just sounds smarter and funnier. Throw in a few bum-jokes. Everyone (small-minded?) is laughing. Must be worth a motser?

But somehow the beeb keep failing to acknowledge that they are making these people, not the other way round: THEY SHOULD BE PAYING THE BEEB!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 2 million quid for a bloke who presents a kids breakfast show on the radio everyday (and didn't present top gear for more than a weeks)?

That to me is an obsene amount of cash.

Someone on another forum was saying he is worth it because he gets up early and does 3 hours a day...

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well at least on their own news they managed to get in how the women are not paid as much as the men.  Anyway I think it is time to privatise the BBC. You have to pay for the back catalogue today anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lord D'arcy Pew said:

If I was as rich as Chris Evans, I'd be richer than Chris Evans.

I'd do a little window cleaning on the side.

I don't care how rich CE is, I don't care how rich anyone is.....I just don't want to pay for those that are already rich, very rich, expect others to make them richer......I would rather pay towards new talent, to help them become rich, then pay for more to become richer......far too many same old same old boring presenters, heard it all before .....give others, others with as much talent a chance to make a name for themselves.....no longer listen to radio 2, feel exploited.....nothing against CE......just he is not worth that much, if he gets most of it, others get less.....share it about a bit.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ash4781 said:

Well at least on their own news they managed to get in how the women are not paid as much as the men.  Anyway I think it is time to privatise the BBC. You have to pay for the back catalogue today anyway!

No don't agree......the BBC works well except they think certain people are worth more than what they really are......massive of talent out there... would be more than happy to get a fraction of what some think they are worth, when they are not....new blood required.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's be honest here there are people with there own chanells on you tube that are equal, more likeable and many times better than this lot. After listening to radio 2 at work for probably 20 years it was the appearence of CE that got us to  finally switch off.Whilst at home,Mrs dirkles detests CE and his constanting boasting about what car,house,boat he is buying this week. Jeremy vine has the most moronic pieces that have ever been heard on a supposed news type program and steve wright should have been shipped out after radio 1 in the 80's. The only decentpart of the whole day is ken bruce but because his program is bridged by morons it's no longer listened too either. As someone posted above why not give some other people a chance? WHy do we have to stick with the same faces year after year and the only way to get booted out is if you are linked to a child abuse case.Even if you are proven innocent in the case of Tony Blackburn though he has been let back on but lost his saturday afternoon slot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Keep hearing about BBC cuts, not being able to do this that and the other. This is a severe case of having completely the wrong priorities.

I feel that the BBC has abandoned my demographic, I watch on average about 4 programmes a week on the BBC. I don't like cookery programmes, talent shows, soaps, inaudible wobbly-camera poorly written dramas and no longer watch their version of the news.They don't have much in the way of sport (F1, Rallying, Motorbikes and golf is on it's way out), but they do have lots of tennis and Gary Linneker. They don't show films anymore, or comedy that is funny, or science programming that is for anyone with an IQ greater than that of a woodworm and BBC4 is 90% repeats these days.

Condsidering that you are forced by law to pay for this, because I might want to watch another channel, I feel a bit ripped off.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A tad ironic on the day the news discusses retirement ages the BBC disclose that they're paying 73 year old John Humphrys £650k p.a. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Telegraph has a article entitled 'Who else is going to pay Eddie Mair £300k'

 

That is a perfect summary.  The 'talent' has been pushing at an open door.  There must be 1000s of people who could do just as good a job, and would happily substantially undercut Mair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeeze I thought Andrew Neil was the big political beast, but at 250k he's not even in the ball park. Meanwhile Humphreys with his remedial maths skills( quite important in politics) and showing his age is near the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Match of the day doesn't need a star presenter (s). Someone from local radio would do fine. Been watching for 50 years and the format has changed many times but its still 22 players kicking a ball about between some white lines .

On bbc radio 2 tony blackburn now introduces sounds of the sixties live from the studio.  Previously it was pre recorded and had a laid back style. He has ruined it by trying to include tweets , emails etc to justify his existence.  The presenter/actor must never be bigger than the show eg Dr Who

Comedians are the exception.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, chicker said:

The presenter/actor must never be bigger than the show eg Dr Who

Comedians are the exception.

This is a good principle. A good way of filtering what is not worth watching/listening to is to ignore everything that has the name of the presenter in the title. It guarantees that the whole programme will be about their ego, their personal journey, their emotional response to what they are presenting etc etc. Who cares if the audience is having a good time? This is all about me me me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, winkie said:

I don't care how rich CE is, I don't care how rich anyone is.....I just don't want to pay for those that are already rich, very rich, expect others to make them richer......I would rather pay towards new talent, to help them become rich, then pay for more to become richer......far too many same old same old boring presenters, heard it all before .....give others, others with as much talent a chance to make a name for themselves.....no longer listen to radio 2, feel exploited.....nothing against CE......just he is not worth that much, if he gets most of it, others get less.....share it about a bit.;)

Too true, there are a lot a people behind the scenes working their nuts off to support Mr Evans, they just don't get £2.2 Million. The BBC talk left wing but act right wing with the remunerations. The social convictions they force down our throats should be upheld in their own place of work. Tax payer funded hippocrates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ash4781 said:

Well at least on their own news they managed to get in how the women are not paid as much as the men.  Anyway I think it is time to privatise the BBC. You have to pay for the back catalogue today anyway!

Classic distraction technique. Get the SJWs babbling about 'gender pay gaps' instead of asking why, on pain of prosecution, we are made to pay these overinflated salaries even if we only watch commercial television. 

Enough was enough for me in 2015 when it became clear the BBC was distorting what was happening in the migrant crisis. I got rid of my TV and now only watch non-BBC catch-up TV, DVDs or Youtube. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So after the initial disgust, we need to ask why the gov wanted this list published.

They gave some tosh excuses.

But let's cast our minds back to when GP salaries were increased. Had they asked for the pay rise? No.

But MPs could then be regularly heard citing GP salaries when asked about their own pay / expenses.

More recently MPs received a 10% pay rise. However, many felt they could not accept it because it looked bad.

They could hike GP salaries again, but austerity says no.

Then they had a lightbulb moment: if only the public could be made aware how reasonable MPs wages were by comparison with some other kind of 'public sector' worker.

The rest is history ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Austin Allegro said:

Classic distraction technique. Get the SJWs babbling about 'gender pay gaps' instead of asking why, on pain of prosecution, we are made to pay these overinflated salaries even if we only watch commercial television. 

Enough was enough for me in 2015 when it became clear the BBC was distorting what was happening in the migrant crisis. I got rid of my TV and now only watch non-BBC catch-up TV, DVDs or Youtube. 

The Metro newspaper had the full list published.Ok so they would do that as a commercial.  I think from memory it's 105 names and that is just the on-screen 'talent' !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

So after the initial disgust, we need to ask why the gov wanted this list published.

They gave some tosh excuses.

But let's cast our minds back to when GP salaries were increased. Had they asked for the pay rise? No.

But MPs could then be regularly heard citing GP salaries when asked about their own pay / expenses.

More recently MPs received a 10% pay rise. However, many felt they could not accept it because it looked bad.

They could hike GP salaries again, but austerity says no.

Then they had a lightbulb moment: if only the public could be made aware how reasonable MPs wages were by comparison with some other kind of 'public sector' worker.

The rest is history ...

Didn't the culture secretary used to work for Murdoch? If so, this would be a classic way to have a pop at the BBC, whilst potentially freeing up some 'stars' and even have the added bonus of driving down wages.

Job's a good 'un!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So after the initial disgust, we need to ask why the gov wanted this list published.

Could it be that they want the mens salaries to be reduced to match the womens salaries......we are after all in competition with the rest of the world?

 

The people cant afford to pay the prices.....they may go elsewhere for their better value services?;)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Next General Election   94 members have voted

    1. 1. When do you predict the next general election will be held?


      • 2019
      • 2020
      • 2021
      • 2022

    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.