BBC salaries published. Oh dear...

Budgie

They get paid a shit load less than most Premier League footballers. Most of them get paid a lot less than Championship players too. How much should they earn?

Fretwired

Strat_a_tat_tat said:

Fretwired said:

Chalky said:

Fretwired said: 

BigBearKris said:

There's no reason for salaries that high - but it is showbiz after all. Top dogs will get paid, same goes for movies, pop music and other branches. 
I don't think that revealing those will do anyone any good, as the money earned by them is unlikely to change  (unless it'll be even more) and people will just get upset. 

Lineker and Shearer aren't entertainers. They are just sports pundits .. sacking them would save over £3 million which may get better writers for Doctor Who.

And God knows why Hugh Edwards gets over £500K for reading an autocue.

Oh dear. Because you suddenly know how much they are paid, you think that equally suddenly you are an expert on  how much they're worth...

I think the BBC is a complete waste of money. But how many more people are we going to hear suddenly mouthing off as if they are experts on how to run a TV service?

I know that the guy who left the One Show to front ITV's football got paid a lot less. I'm sorry but £1.8 million for Lineker is just bad value for money for a highlights show. All he does is introduce the games and ask a few questions of the pundits. You justify to me why he's worth that amount of money.

I get why Chris Evans is worth it .. he added millions of viewers to the radio.

OOOOOOOH.... you were so close to a Wis.... then you said that stuff about Chris Evans!

:-)

But Evans hosts a lively radio show and whether you like him or not he added millions of new listeners - I can see the value of a guy like Evans to BBC Radio.

Jason Mohammad, Mark Chapman and Gabby Logan could do Lineker's job for a lot less money and all three are better IMHO.

fretmeister

http://newsthump.com/2017/07/19/multi-millionaire-daily-mail-editor-directs-public-anger-towards-bbc-stars-who-earn-fraction-of-his-salary/

capo4th

As long as they all pay their taxes

Jalapeno

Lineker isn't just MotD - he's a generic sports presenter - but it is still a humungous price tag

Fretwired

Budgie said:

They get paid a shit load less than most Premier League footballers. Most of them get paid a lot less than Championship players too. How much should they earn?

It's not public money .. I wouldn't mind but the BBC has been slashing budgets and sacking staff to save money ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31816721

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/mar/08/bbc-increases-saving-target-to-800m-a-year-to-pay-for-drama-and-sport

Funkfingers

The salaries of some BBC staff reflect what their agents can get for them in a bidding war. If Lineker had ever been offered, say, one and a half million Pounds to work for ITV, the BBC would have been under pressure to top that figure.

Television viewers are creatures of habit. They like to see familiar faces in familiar places. (e.g. When Christine Bleakley left The One Show, her replacement was obliged to adopt the same haircut.) The fear must be that, where there is unexpected change, the viewing figures will fall.

Since public funding of the BBC is, in part, governed by viewing figures, the organisation is happy to spend tax-payers' money to ensure that they qualify for at least the say amount of tax-payers' money in the following financial year.

One obvious reason why the BBC has been secretive about staff salaries is because they knew there would be a backlash.

scrumhalf

Funkfingers said:

. (e.g. When Christine Bleakley left The One Show, her replacement was obliged to adopt the same haircut.)

Aaah, so that's why Matt Lucas didn't get the job.

mellowsun

Like anywhere else, you get paid what you can negotiate. Hats off to them for having agents that can get them these deals.

I don't have a problem with the absolute numbers, but the level gender disparity is surprising. Clare Balding gets 1/10 what Gary Lineker gets. She needs a better agent!

Emily Maitlis seems underpaid also.

RandallFlagg

Chalky said:

 
I think the BBC is a complete waste of money

When you say a waste of money, do you resent paying a licence fee and prefer they were funded privately (through advertising) or would you rather the BBC output (including all of the Radio) was different and so represent better value? or is it the way the BBC is managed and the back office costs that you feel is wasteful?

Snap

I think the bottom line is, generally "the great british public" don't like to see anyone getting more money than them.

If you dopn't like it go watch ITV, and listen to commercial radio. After umpteen jingles about Tradepoint, and ads for Iceland or compare the piggin market, you'll soon be fed up.

CabbageCat

Lineker is the best TV (or radio) football person by a distance but even he is a long, long way behind the likes of Jonathan Agnew or Ed Smith (or Tuffers or Blowers or Vaughny or even Geoffrey in a way) in terms of likeability. I suspect MotD gets more viewers than TMS so I guess it's all relative.

Drew_TNBD

Snap said:

I think the bottom line is, generally "the great british public" don't like to see anyone getting more money than them.

If you dopn't like it go watch ITV, and listen to commercial radio. After umpteen jingles about Tradepoint, and ads for Iceland or compare the piggin market, you'll soon be fed up.

I don't actually watch TV. I find when I go home or go round someone's house and they have the TV on, it really makes me anxious and angry.

Evilmags

I think it is funny as it shines a light on incompetence at so many levels.

1) The consequences of publishing salaries will be some very pissed off presenters. Balding, Logan and Sue Barker all do pretty much the same thing as Lineker. Likewise the female newsreaders who have direct male equivalents. On an organisational level that is a massive management headache and seriously destabilising. 

2) Big name presenters, a Paxman for example, know that people watch the show because of them. People don't watch football because of pundits and presenters. 

3) The BBC makes money on syndicating shows. These guys should be paid market rate as their is a market to gauge their talents. 

4) Agents are going to be floating a lot of CVS around. 

The episode shines a light on bad management. The reason an England Germany match gets so many viewers is the two teams playing. Yet the top paid guy in the whole organisation is paid 1.7mn out of the public purse. Sky make money from presenting football, likewise BT sport ect. The BBC makes very little. (And it is the feed that is syndicated abroad, and any commentary on the live match, not the studio bits. Spanish TV let's you switch to original audio track so I know this). People would watch the footie if Gazza and Rooney were the studio act ffs.

Evilmags

Snap said:

I think the bottom line is, generally "the great british public" don't like to see anyone getting more money than them.

If you dopn't like it go watch ITV, and listen to commercial radio. After umpteen jingles about Tradepoint, and ads for Iceland or compare the piggin market, you'll soon be fed up.

I think it is the incompetence amd grotesque hipocracy that will prove most damaging. Not watched the BBC for four years. Can't say I miss it. 

joeyowen

Honestly, this is just another reason for people to whinge, it was never going to be released for people to be satisfied.

I actually thought some of the salaries were lower than expected, Peter Capaldi in particular. 

I know it is different because this is public funded, but these figures compared to the likes of sky are probably tiny (*granted i've done no research).  And so many people are happy to pay for sky, but will complain at the BBC.

I know that Lineker will raise questions, but the man is paid for his fame and knowledge.  He probably gets paid more than the female equivalent because of the fame.  I wonder what the difference in pay is at a lower level, admin etc...

Fretwired

CabbageCat said:

Lineker is the best TV (or radio) football person by a distance but even he is a long, long way behind the likes of Jonathan Agnew or Ed Smith (or Tuffers or Blowers or Vaughny or even Geoffrey in a way) in terms of likeability. I suspect MotD gets more viewers than TMS so I guess it's all relative.

I wouldn't be so sure as TMS is also broadcast via the internet so people are listening around the world - places like Pakistan and India are full of cricket mad fanatics. Football has seen a decline in ratings on TV - I read that Sky is down 20% on their 2010 Premier League viewing figures.

Babones

This raises a valid question: Would you rather fight one Gary Lineker, or four Gabby Logans?

It also seems as if the new Dr. Who was an exercise in cost cutting.

RocknRollDave

Fretwired said:

CabbageCat said:

Lineker is the best TV (or radio) football person by a distance but even he is a long, long way behind the likes of Jonathan Agnew or Ed Smith (or Tuffers or Blowers or Vaughny or even Geoffrey in a way) in terms of likeability. I suspect MotD gets more viewers than TMS so I guess it's all relative.

I wouldn't be so sure as TMS is also broadcast via the internet so people are listening around the world - places like Pakistan and India are full of cricket mad fanatics. Football has seen a decline in ratings on TV - I read that Sky is down 20% on their 2010 Premier League viewing figures.

Sky are suffering heavily from the fact that most of their football content can be illegally watched online much more easily than before.
Their official, paying customer viewing figures may be down, but that does not mean that their actual viewer numbers have dwindled. That doesn't help them to pay for in-demand talent to present their footage, of course, but it does mean you can't read anything into their official viewing figures in terms of how popular the presenters are, for example.

horse

I get that I'm no expert on this etc etc, but I do think the salaries seem pretty OTT, and publishing this information is likely to change public opinion of many of them. I bet they've been shitting today coming round, and I wonder if given the choice some may have preferred to accept reduced salaries prior to publication in order to protect their popularity