BBC salaries published. Oh dear...

Heartfeltdawn

Evilmags said:

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.

It'd be intriguing to compare private sector salaries. I wonder what Kay Burley gets paid despite a history of abject presenting. 

On point 2, ff the BBC is so stupid for wasting money on big name but irrelevant pundits for sports, why does every private sector sports broadcaster do exactly the same? When Gary Neville came back to Sky after his shit spell as manager in Spain, his salary went up to £1.5 million. Thierry Henry's annual salary is reported to be £4 million per year. 

The revamped Monday Night Football on Sky when they brought Neville and Carragher in gave it a huge shot in the arm and a lot of credibility in the post Grey/Keys era. Sometimes pundits do drag in some punters. 

Fretwired

Babones said:

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.

Dr Who had its budget slashed years ago ... at one point they had episodes without the Doctor.

Sporky

Babones said:

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

I'd like to propose a third way; let's see four Gabby Logans beat the crap out of Gary Lineker.

I don't particularly dislike him, but I think it'd be fun.

Fretwired

Sporky said:

Babones said:

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

I'd like to propose a third way; let's see four Gabby Logans beat the crap out of Gary Lineker.

I don't particularly dislike him, but I think it'd be fun.

I think one Gabby Logan could beat the hell out of Lineker .. her dad was a right hard bastard.

Evilmags

Heartfeltdawn said:

Evilmags said:

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.

It'd be intriguing to compare private sector salaries. I wonder what Kay Burley gets paid despite a history of abject presenting. 

On point 2, ff the BBC is so stupid for wasting money on big name but irrelevant pundits for sports, why does every private sector sports broadcaster do exactly the same? When Gary Neville came back to Sky after his shit spell as manager in Spain, his salary went up to £1.5 million. Thierry Henry's annual salary is reported to be £4 million per year. 

The revamped Monday Night Football on Sky when they brought Neville and Carragher in gave it a huge shot in the arm and a lot of credibility in the post Grey/Keys era. 

You've answerved your own question with Neville and Carragher, and while the product is better how much did viewing figures move. 1.7 million might even buy the Beeb a Couple of interesting matches. Sky Sports is also a Sports channel, existing from subscription, not a public service. 

Put it this way the BBC's previous top paid star (Jeremy Clarkson) was enormously profitable for the corporation. None of the people on this list look like generating much income. 

Ravenous

Babones said:

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

Lineker would be easily distracted by a bag of crisps.

Dopesick

I'd guess that a somewhat significant (ish) portion of Lineker's salary is down to him presenting Sports Personality Of The Year as well.

not_the_dj

Dopesick said:

I'd guess that a somewhat significant (ish) portion of Lineker's salary is down to him presenting Sports Personality Of The Year as well.

Likewise was Chris Evans presenting Top Gear for the period covered here?

FX_Munkee

If you could all keep quiet for a moment, I'm trying to concentrate on being outraged.

chillidoggy

Chris Evans' performance on Top Gear should have left him owing the Beeb.

axisus

I don't mind Gary Lineker getting £1.7M, the bit that galls is that his agent made £30M out of the deal.

victorludorum

dindude said:

What always makes me smile is the mediocre soap actors getting £300K - £400K, that's company CEO territory. No wonder for the likes of Adam Woodthingy it's basically a job for life.

At least he's a great actor... Not quite as good as the guy that played his soap dad (Pete Beale) though.

crunchman

I think others have said it, but Lineker is more than just football.  He has definitely been doing golf.  He was definitely involved in the coverage of the Masters. I think I remember him on the 2016 Olympics as well.

Having said that, £1.7m is too much but he's said that he's turned down more from other broadcasters.  To some extent it is a market rate.

The list is a bit misleading.  If you take Graham Norton for instance, his chatshow is produced by his own company, and the BBC pays the company for the show.  As far as I can see he's getting £850k for his radio show and Eurovision.

not_the_dj

Maybe Lineker got a pants bonus

terada

joeyowen said:

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'm happy to pay for sky as I actually watch it - it is only very rarely that I would ever watch (I never listen to) any Beeb content. And so for me the BBC represents very poor value for money.

I used to like doctor who - but bought them all rather than watching them on tv. Otherwise maybe the odd episode of Question Time if I fancied laughing at flailing politicians.

crunchman

There is some reasonable stuff on the BBC.

I've gone off football (except for international matches) but they do show some other sport that is worth watching.  They show the World Championship snooker, the Masters golf, some six nations matches, and they show the NFL matches in London and the Superbowl.  Unfortunately they also waste vast quantities of money showing Wimbledon.

I regularly watch some of the tea time quiz shows like Pointless and Eggheads.  The other things I watch are Only Connect, Top Gear, the odd nature programme, and some of the Friday night music documentaries.  My daughters used to watch CBeebies a lot when they were younger as well.

The Jewel in the crown for the BBC is TMS.  Aggers should be on that list.

Fretwired

:-)

scrumhalf

There are BBC sports presenters who are worth more than Lineker given how much they do over such a broad range of sports.

Mark Chapman - seems to fill whatever role they ask of him on telly or radio, a superb broadcaster. Ditto Ellie Oldroyd.

Dopesick

Jesus Christ is that guy STILL in Casualty? Has he been there from the start?

professorben

Evilmags said:

1) Gary Lineker and Chris Evans are the best paid presenters. Liniker's salary is ridiculous. People don't watch match of the day for Lineker, but for football. If those two are "top talent" their is a serious problem.

2) Gender pay gap, for such a PC organisation, is utterly ridiculous. 

I get why serious journalists and presenters are well paid. But 1.7 million for Gary Lineker. That's like 4 Gabby Logans and looks like a cost cut I'd happily make. 

You make some good points, but now I'm thinking of 4 Gabby Logan's and my mind is elsewhere.