Got bugger all live sport, but can afford to pay Lineker £1.75 million a year and Shearer over £420k
A bloody scandal.
Printable View
Got bugger all live sport, but can afford to pay Lineker £1.75 million a year and Shearer over £420k
A bloody scandal.
Here, here!
We have the same here. Money is thrown at people like this. State television is just like independent TV, full of advertising yet lose millions each year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
The top broadcaster on radio earns nearly €500k p.a. A job for life!
Shearer, Lineker and Wright's salaries are absolutely disgraceful.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louth
NOBODY watches football for the pundits - in fact if I'm watching on catch up I (I'm guessing like everyone else) fast forward through them.
You would lose ZERO viewers if you got rid of them. And if you replaced them with entertaining people (couple of comedians like the old fantasy football league) you might even gain a few.
Adrian Chiles earnt £4.5m a year at ITV. If you had rubbish pundits on the Beeb, then people would complain about that too. Talent costs money, and most people at the BBC are working at a discount.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
I am completely unsure about relative values And related wage/salariesQuote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
Where else could these people earn that kind of money Is there a competitive market place for their skill?
How are these salary levels set
Is it by the agents or is it by the budget holders who allocate an amount of money based on budget and not on any kind of added value formula
The formats for these programs are unchanged over the years and I believe that 1 no audience numbers would be lost if you got rid of expensive pundits
And 2 a fundamental rethink about how these types of programs are formatted should be undertaken to understand more about the viewers wants and needs
But the licence payer didn’t pay him, and what happened to him? ITV got their fingers burnt with that bit of business.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
Doesn’t take away from the fact that BBC got bugger all coverage of any sport anymore
At halftime I switch over to the news. I don't want to see anyone stating the obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhyllisStant
Luckily I had already left the thread before I read your post.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louth
It's a Gov ploy to publish their salaries so the BBC lose their stars, start producing rubbish TV and then nobody will care when it becomes scaled back and becomes nothing more than a public information channel. They've made no secret of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
In my opinion, the BBC is absolutely value for money and produces more than it's fair share of top TV programmes. Who would have thought that the countries' top entertainers get paid well?
100%. The government re trying to undermine the BBC and its workingQuote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
Agree entirely. The BBC's popularity is fading so I guess the plan is working.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
Stars doesn't equate to good TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by lardy
Good direction, innovation, writing, set design, journalism and research does that. And that doesn't have to cost millions.
The people who front these programs are so much less important that people give them credit for, and in most case are completely expendable and interchangeable.
The BBC shouldn't be about big stars and personalities. It should be different from commercial TV. It should take risks, make programmes and cater for people that other broadcasters don't.
That remind me I've not seen my BBC wage slip this month
Sorry I meant to type BB sexQuote:
Originally Posted by life on mars
The BBC does exactly what your last sentence says. And unfortunately it's not true that presenters are interchangeable. People like seeing familiar faces, that's why familiar faces cost money. If it was true that cheap options would get the same results every channel would be doing that.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhyllisStant
I wouldn't call Lineker, Shearer etc entertainers. Whatever you think the money they get for the licence fee could be spent in better quarters.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
I bet jimmy hill never got paid the equivalent back in the day.
Unbelievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
How much is that gob shite Christopher Evans on ?
Is he paid via the commercial side of the BBC ,like the real big earners ?Quote:
Originally Posted by insider
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
Yes, all are paid too much but the two that really stand out are Shearer and Wright. The only mitigating point, although small for Wright is his length of service. But for part time Shearer there is no mitigation.
Match of the Day must be a very expensive programme and whilst it’s a flagship programme for the BBC it’s a brand that has been in decline for a very long time. If Lineker and Shearer decided to move on of their own violation the programme would have to make changes. I wouldn’t wait!
On balance I remain a fan of the BBC.
They definitely have been for years, they try and put a negative spin on everything the bbc do and so many people get taken in by it.Quote:
Originally Posted by City123
CCMB is actually a good indicator of the rest of the uk because you see so many on here taken in by obvious "propaganda" like this, the power the media has influencing a lot of the population has never been more obvious.
Touch patronising there, Croesy.
Surely the BBC is part of that media to which you refer.
Christ there's some shite posted on here, but that has got to be up there with the best of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Croesy Blue
I dont think the point is whether the BBC is value for money. I think it is, they are world leaders in productions etc. I think its a disgrace they pay the pundits, especially Shearer that kind of money. He says the same crap every programme. How anyone can take him seriously when he managed a team (Newcastle) for about 6 games and coyldnt win any of them 🤔Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedro de la Rosa
And another waste of the licence payers money is the number of "reporters"they have out in Russia. Another bloody disgrace.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watamistakatomaka
Jollies for the boys (and girls)!
I remember contacting the BBC during one of the Olympics (could have been Moscow) about the cost of the coverage and did they need the huge number of people they had there (this was just after the Freedom of Information thingy) I was told that the numbers and cost was thought to be commensurate to the importance of the event.