BBC Salaries Published (and general rants about the licence fee)

[SystonFox]

I'm glad others are questioning the beliefs of Steve Wright in the afternoon.

 

a guy had it on at work recently and SW was bangin on about this "serious jockin" every two minutes and I'm thinking to myself what the bloody hell is going on here. Like actually what is this. Genuinely it's worse than nick grimshaw.

 

 

 

can anyone tell me what Alice Levine of radio 1 is being paid cos she deserves all the monies.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

No im sorry I disagree... the bbc is no different to (for example) a bank. You HAVE TO have a bank account. You have to pay thier fees etc.
 
If you want to regulate the bbc you have to regulate banks.
 
You cannot support the "free market, trickle down, meritocracy bullshit...and then complain about market leaders pay rates.

Why do you have such a big blind spot with this issue? Firstly, you don't have to have a bank account, although modern life would be bloody difficult if you didn't. And secondly, YOU get to choose who you bank with. You don't, for example, have to pay HSBC for the right to have an account with Barclays, which is essentially what is happening with the license fee.

[ozleicester]

Just now, SouthStandUpperTier said:

Why do you have such a big blind spot with this issue? Firstly, you don't have to have a bank account, although modern life would be bloody difficult if you didn't. And secondly, YOU get to choose who you bank with. You don't, for example, have to pay HSBC for the right to have an account with Barclays, which is essentially what is happening with the license fee.

you dont have to have a bbc licence either  you can give your money to Murdoch. Life would be A LOT  easier to not have tv..  than not have a bank account 

 

My "blind spot" is questioning why people think its fine to have a socialist approach to pay for the bbc but unacceptable to the banks and the rest. 

[SouthStandUpperTier]

you dont have to have a bbc licence either  you can give your money to Murdoch.

But I can't watch Murdoch's channels without paying the BBC license fee. That's my point.

[Rob1742]

Although we are forced to pay the fee, it is very good value versus what we pay for Sky.

 

People having a go about what people earn always happens, whether it be the BBC, footballers or the general workplace.

 

My advice is, if people don't like the fact that people earn that sort of money, go and get experience and then you also can try and compete for jobs in those particular markets where the money is. 

 

[Captain...]

People still don't get that the BBC needs to maintain its status as a premium broadcaster, it needs to keep its reputation as a broadcaster and content provider. Regardless of the license fee it still makes a lot of money selling content to other countries and selling other merchandise, to maximise that it needs talent.

 

Match of the Day is a huge brand when it comes to football, it is seen as the premier league show and recognised internationally. Its trade mark is licensed to magazines and DVDs and probably a ton of other merchandise. To maintain that status you need an internationally recognised front man. Chapman is decent but he doesn't have the status of Lineker or even Shearer to front a show about the most watched league in the world. You want to attract talent and keep them you have to pay for it. Like McEnroe at Wimbledon or Michael Johnson at the Olympics.

 

Anyway, lets just all remember the abomination that was the premiership on ITV and just be thankful we have motd.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

What annoys me with Lineker and the likes is they are happy to take the scandalous pay package from a Public Service Broadcaster then they have the audacity to take to twitter and bleat on about the poor poor, business fat cats, welcoming refugees pedalling their left wing trip. Perhaps they would be better to get their own house in order first by campaigning for higher pay at the BBC for the production teams who I am sure many are on a lot lot less.

 

If you earn that much you are out of the real world and shouldn't comment on it. The day Lineker contributes 80% of his wage to HRMC he can begin to comment again. No one needs that much per year, no one.

[Rincewind]

Let's be glad Murdoch does not own the BBC.

[Webbo]

39 minutes ago, Captain... said:

People still don't get that the BBC needs to maintain its status as a premium broadcaster, it needs to keep its reputation as a broadcaster and content provider. Regardless of the license fee it still makes a lot of money selling content to other countries and selling other merchandise, to maximise that it needs talent.

 

Match of the Day is a huge brand when it comes to football, it is seen as the premier league show and recognised internationally. Its trade mark is licensed to magazines and DVDs and probably a ton of other merchandise. To maintain that status you need an internationally recognised front man. Chapman is decent but he doesn't have the status of Lineker or even Shearer to front a show about the most watched league in the world. You want to attract talent and keep them you have to pay for it. Like McEnroe at Wimbledon or Michael Johnson at the Olympics.

 

Anyway, lets just all remember the abomination that was the premiership on ITV and just be thankful we have motd.

The Premiership was terrible because it had ads and they tried to change things for changes sake. It wasn't the presenter because it was Des Lynam ,who had presented MOTD before. He was also a lot better than Lineker.

 

I don't mind paying Lineker a premium  but there's no way he get anything like £1.75 million anywhere else.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, ozleicester said:

you dont have to have a bbc licence either  you can give your money to Murdoch. Life would be A LOT  easier to not have tv..  than not have a bank account 

 

My "blind spot" is questioning why people think its fine to have a socialist approach to pay for the bbc but unacceptable to the banks and the rest. 

Tbf I know what you mean.  It's quite galling seeing the usual suspects who defend private sector profligacy elsewhere suddenly turning into closet communists the moment the BBC releases its figures.  I'm glad they've had the epiphany that pay should be fair and make some attempt to reflect the person's contribution to the company and I look eagerly forward to seeing them champion legislative changes to give workers more power to stand up to unfair employment practices, mandatory pay transparency would be a great place to start.

[Captain...]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The Premiership was terrible because it had ads and they tried to change things for changes sake. It wasn't the presenter because it was Des Lynam ,who had presented MOTD before. He was also a lot better than Lineker.

 

I don't mind paying Lineker a premium  but there's no way he get anything like £1.75 million anywhere else.

You don't think he is getting at least that on BT sport (what's a few extra million when they paid 1.2bn for champions league rights). Lineker has also confirmed he has received higher offers from rival broadcasters:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/gary-lineker-bbc-salary-twitter-10827656

 

The amount of money involved in football it is no surprise presenters are paid a fortune.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 hours ago, ozleicester said:

you dont have to have a bbc licence either  you can give your money to Murdoch. Life would be A LOT  easier to not have tv..  than not have a bank account 

 

My "blind spot" is questioning why people think its fine to have a socialist approach to pay for the bbc but unacceptable to the banks and the rest. 

You do have to have BBC licence if you have a TV or supposedly now any device that can play iPlayer.

 

The big problem with the BBC is that it is publically funded by essentially a TV tax. Now if the BBC goes off and generates its own money like banks and business then its a little less under the spot light and can spend more so what it likes rightly or wrongly. My theory is that no individual in the public sector should earn more than the top public sector job in the country.......you would think that would be Prime Minister?!! Yet for some reason these and clowns at Staffordshire East Borough council are on more than her.

 

Unfortunately any publically funded organisation has to be carefully with its money and should be efficient, there isn't an unlimited supply.

 

I personally don't agree any individual should earn £1.7 million or more, its obscene and unnecessary.

 

What is so hypocritical is to see Lineker pedalling his left wing nonsense on twitter. Did he go back to the BBC execs and say hang on lads this salary is a bit silly, maybe you could split it amongst all the low paid staff at the BBC? Particularly in Manchester.

[Guest BlueBrett]

I'm sure everyone here provides consistently exceptional value to their employer. I certainly do 

 

 

 

 

Wonder if Gary would get the same money if he was sat frantically refreshing the Kelechi transfer thread during MOTD or  distractedly embroiled in pseudo intellectual bickering in GC throughout the golf coverage 

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

What is so hypocritical is to see Lineker pedalling his left wing nonsense on twitter. Did he go back to the BBC execs and say hang on lads this salary is a bit silly, maybe you could spit it amongst all the low paid staff at the BBC? Particularly in Manchester.

Oh wow you just said something sensible.  I'd call it a clear sign of the end times if it wasn't clearly borne of the same old bitter, childish "I hate lefties" bullshit.

 

On the bright side the clear similarities between this scandal and, say, the numerous banking bonuses/regulation debacles could be the epiphany that you needed to finally start approaching political issues on a more non-partisan, egalitarian basis. 

[Webbo]

30 minutes ago, Captain... said:

You don't think he is getting at least that on BT sport (what's a few extra million when they paid 1.2bn for champions league rights). Lineker has also confirmed he has received higher offers from rival broadcasters:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/gary-lineker-bbc-salary-twitter-10827656

 

The amount of money involved in football it is no surprise presenters are paid a fortune.

He gets that money from BT for the champions league games, what else does BT have that he could present that would warrant an extra £1.75 million? Maybe Sky could offer him the same money but I doubt they would, they seem content with sports journalists and ex Blue Peter presenters to do their coverage. 

 

If the money's not enough for him let him leave. There must be a couple of hundred footballers retiring every year and sports journalists are 10 a penny.

[Kopfkino]

51 minutes ago, Captain... said:

You don't think he is getting at least that on BT sport (what's a few extra million when they paid 1.2bn for champions league rights). Lineker has also confirmed he has received higher offers from rival broadcasters:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/gary-lineker-bbc-salary-twitter-10827656

 

The amount of money involved in football it is no surprise presenters are paid a fortune.

 

No given that it was reported at the time as a six-figure salary

[breadandcheese]

The BBC is excellent value for the licence fee as far as I'm concerned.

 

However, I'm not convinced by the BBC's argument of needing to secure the best talent for news, radio and sports programmes.  It's different for actors, I can appreciate that, but I'm not sure for presenters as in most cases, it's the content is more important, not the presenter.

 

If John Humphrys moved to Talk Radio, I don't think he would get the listening figures to justify his £600k wage.  Listeners wouldn't leave radio 4, as that's what they enjoy listening to.  You can see this with other presenters, such as Chris Moyles.  He hardly hit the highs after leaving radio 1 and his new job at Radio X is hardly making waves with listening figures when you compare it to his days at radio 1.  Even Nick Grimshaw pulls in millions of listening and he's ****ing awful.

 

Gary Lineker's wage is far too high.  If he doesn't want to do the job for a quarter of that, then so be it.  When Keys and Gray left Sky, they weren't missed. It was the football and analysis that were most important, not the host.

 

The fact is, the presenters are not the stars and all this talk about leaving the BBC for the commercial sector.  Ask Adrian Chiles how that goes.

 

They should be slashing the wages of the top presenters and putting the money into production.

 

[Captain...]

30 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

No given that it was reported at the time as a six-figure salary

If true it is 6 figures then it makes sense the champions league isn't every week, and he covers more than just match of the day for the BBC. Put it this way I doubt he gets paid less for an evenings work on BT than BBC. Whilst clearly being overpaid all football presenters are because of the ludicrous amounts of money in football these days.

[SouthStandUpperTier]

The BBC is excellent value for the licence fee as far as I'm concerned.
 
However, I'm not convinced by the BBC's argument of needing to secure the best talent for news, radio and sports programmes.

I've no problem with the BBC paying for talent. But in the case of Gary Lineker, surely his value (as an ex-footballer of some repute) would be as a football analyst, not as a presenter. I don't think he's a particularly good presenter. He's certainly not 7x better than Mark Chapman for instance.

[Captain...]

23 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

The BBC is excellent value for the licence fee as far as I'm concerned.

 

However, I'm not convinced by the BBC's argument of needing to secure the best talent for news, radio and sports programmes.  It's different for actors, I can appreciate that, but I'm not sure for presenters as in most cases, it's the content is more important, not the presenter.

 

If John Humphrys moved to Talk Radio, I don't think he would get the listening figures to justify his £600k wage.  Listeners wouldn't leave radio 4, as that's what they enjoy listening to.  You can see this with other presenters, such as Chris Moyles.  He hardly hit the highs after leaving radio 1 and his new job at Radio X is hardly making waves with listening figures when you compare it to his days at radio 1.  Even Nick Grimshaw pulls in millions of listening and he's ****ing awful.

 

Gary Lineker's wage is far too high.  If he doesn't want to do the job for a quarter of that, then so be it.  When Keys and Gray left Sky, they weren't missed. It was the football and analysis that were most important, not the host.

 

The fact is, the presenters are not the stars and all this talk about leaving the BBC for the commercial sector.  Ask Adrian Chiles how that goes.

 

They should be slashing the wages of the top presenters and putting the money into production.

 

But this is all about brand recognition, the BBC has earned that reputation for quality broadcasting and content and Sky for its football coverage. This is done in part by keeping the talent, of course you can replace presenters but if you were replacing them every year then you would lose the stability and your reputation. Gary wasn't great when he started but he developed into the role and is now an integral part of the BBC. If they can't keep of hold of their talent it says something about the state of the BBC. Unless there is a reason to get rid, like Keys and a Gray, nobody wants to lose talent to the competition, even if it means paying more than you would want to, that is how market forces drive up salaries even for a company funded by the license fee.

 

It will be interesting to see how the backlash is handled by the Beeb, they could use it as an excuse to get rid of high earners without losing face.

[Jon the Hat]

7 hours ago, ozleicester said:

No im sorry I disagree... the bbc is no different to (for example) a bank. You HAVE TO have a bank account. You have to pay thier fees etc.

 

If you want to regulate the bbc you have to regulate banks.

 

You cannot support the "free market, trickle down, meritocracy bullshit...and then complain about market leaders pay rates.

All of our mainstream banks offfer completely free basic accounts.  So who cares what they pay their execs?

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, Captain... said:

People still don't get that the BBC needs to maintain its status as a premium broadcaster, it needs to keep its reputation as a broadcaster and content provider. Regardless of the license fee it still makes a lot of money selling content to other countries and selling other merchandise, to maximise that it needs talent.

 

Match of the Day is a huge brand when it comes to football, it is seen as the premier league show and recognised internationally. Its trade mark is licensed to magazines and DVDs and probably a ton of other merchandise. To maintain that status you need an internationally recognised front man. Chapman is decent but he doesn't have the status of Lineker or even Shearer to front a show about the most watched league in the world. You want to attract talent and keep them you have to pay for it. Like McEnroe at Wimbledon or Michael Johnson at the Olympics.

 

Anyway, lets just all remember the abomination that was the premiership on ITV and just be thankful we have motd.

The BBC only have right for Premier League highlights in the UK, so they cannot sell it to other nations or broadcasters.  So Lineker gets what he gets for what you see, not some hidden revenue stream elsewhere.

[breadandcheese]

14 minutes ago, Captain... said:

But this is all about brand recognition, the BBC has earned that reputation for quality broadcasting and content and Sky for its football coverage. This is done in part by keeping the talent, of course you can replace presenters but if you were replacing them every year then you would lose the stability and your reputation. Gary wasn't great when he started but he developed into the role and is now an integral part of the BBC. If they can't keep of hold of their talent it says something about the state of the BBC. Unless there is a reason to get rid, like Keys and a Gray, nobody wants to lose talent to the competition, even if it means paying more than you would want to, that is how market forces drive up salaries even for a company funded by the license fee.

 

It will be interesting to see how the backlash is handled by the Beeb, they could use it as an excuse to get rid of high earners without losing face.

 I accept that the BBC has a reputation for quality broadcasting built up through decades of quality output.  However I differ as to where the talent lies and whether there are other appropriately skilled people to replace them.

 

Take Alan Shearer earning £450K for his punditry work.  Is there an appropriate substitute? Yes.  There are many ex players who would love that gig and would be happy to do it for a fraction of the fee. If anything, Shearer only stays relevant in football because of his work on MOTD.

 

You can say it's related to brand awareness for the Match of the Day programme, however, it's main focus is a domestic audience, so I'm not sure it is a global brand in the way you describe.  

 

But this is not just about sport.  I think across news, radio and sport the BBC can pay presenters less and maintain the quality by spending the money on production or better investigative journalism / better writers, etc.

[Fox92]

5 hours ago, SystonFox said:

I'm glad others are questioning the beliefs of Steve Wright in the afternoon.

 

a guy had it on at work recently and SW was bangin on about this "serious jockin" every two minutes and I'm thinking to myself what the bloody hell is going on here. Like actually what is this. Genuinely it's worse than nick grimshaw.

 

Probably because he pulls in listeners. 

 

We don't see the viewing figures but I'm guessing his wage probably reflects it. He's got drivetime so it's bound to be big.

[Jon the Hat]

Indeed the brilliance of the BBC is really not in the front men and women, it is in the production values and quality writing / news research and editorial.