It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
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.
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
https://speakerimpedance.co.uk/?act=two_parallel&page=calculator
Feedback
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
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
Remember, it's easier to criticise than create!
It also seems as if the new Dr. Who was an exercise in cost cutting.
http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/57632/
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.