Salopian Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Absolutely staggered to see we the taxpayer are paying Gary Lineker £1.75Million ? What does he actually contribute to mankind , entertainment and my children's education? A total disgrace when Nurses etc., are refused pay increases . Surely common sense should prevail and the BBC should have a standard pay scale based upon hours broadcast ? How can a Professor, Doctor , Scientist , Lawyer contributing to a debate on television receive considerably less money as a fee than a crisp salesman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Walker570 Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 That is one reason I do not and have not had a TV in my home for 30yrs. Refuse to contribute to the rip off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krugerandsmith Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Absolutely staggered to see we the taxpayer are paying Gary Lineker £1.75Million ? What does he actually contribute to mankind , entertainment and my children's education? A total disgrace when Nurses etc., are refused pay increases . Surely common sense should prevail and the BBC should have a standard pay scale based upon hours broadcast ? How can a Professor, Doctor , Scientist , Lawyer contributing to a debate on television receive considerably less money as a fee than a crisp salesman? I think that they ( The BBC ) should double their pay. .......... Having said that I am of an age were I don't have to buy a license.... Joking aside the money they pay these people is absolutely crazy. There is no one who cannot be replaced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymo Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Facts straight. It's not we 'The tax payer', it's we the 'TV Licence' payer But if you wish to bring the Government into in then be thankful that the fee is set by Parliament or the Beeb might just be upping it to pay for its 'Stars' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norfolk dumpling Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Only £34k per week. Rooney was on £300k (+sponsorship deals) and the fans and tv watchers were paying that. Let's not get too hung up on wage envy - it's been that way for eternity. The only difference today is we know about it. It does however make the PM' s wage look rediculously low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaymo Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 ND Spot on In all walks of life, people earn differing amounts- that's life. Whether or not you agree that someone should be paid more or less for any job has been the topic of conversation since the dawn of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpringDon Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 An American on the radio recently said that the difference between us was that, in America, if you live next door to someone with a rolls Royce then you hope one day to be like your neighbour. In Britain, you hope that your neighbour crashes and dies in a huge fireball. So what if Gary lineker gets 1.7 million? I'd do it for a bit less but nobody has asked me. It's not collective bargaining, its individual negotiation. How can "talent" be catogorised? Is Claudia winkleman, who rose without a trace as far as I can tell, worth a million? Every program she's been in is utter rubbish in my view but obviously opinions are divided on the matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mice! Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) Me and the mises were talking about this and what annoyed us was the moaning about how much more the fellas are earning than the lasses, and that the ethnic minorities aren't earning top money. We with a TV licence pay a fee fair or not, I couldn't really care less what these people get paid, but now its out in the open I'll bet there's going to be some proper back stabbing and gripping from the under paid stars only on hundreds of thousands 😅😅😅 Edited July 20, 2017 by Mice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 What job does he actually do I wonder? When I lived in halls last year I lived with a girl who did Ofsted inspections of schools down in London for 1-2 weeks twice a year. She got the job because her dad was in charge of the team. She used to tell me that 1 week of work paid her accommodation fees for the term. Plus they would be put up in nice hotels with their meals etc all paid for whilst there. I saw an Ofsted report about a school yesterday, most of it absolute nonsense. Just justifying their existence imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 The reason these 'stars' - be it in broadcast, sport, entertainment etc. - get very highly paid is that those running the businesses believe that they bring a benefit to the business by selling more tickets/getting more viewers etc. I'm not a big sport watcher, so I'm possibly not best placed to comment on the sports 'star' aspects, but whilst I am a supporter of (for an example I do listen to) John Humphrys (Radio 4 Today programme, salary several hundred thousand a year) - I do not believe he is worth that much ........ and according to his own comments, nor does he ........ but it is what he is offered, and I suppose he would be a fool to turn it down. The fact is that the 'managements' (BBC, team managers/boards, film producers etc.) believe that we (the general viewing public) are prepared to pay these salaries through licenses, ticket sales etc. - and the facts appear to show that overall they are right. Its not a view I agree with, but is one that the majority happen to at worst 'live with' and still watch TV/buy CDs and DVDs, buy match/film/concert tickets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 The money is not really the issue! for me the real issue is how did these people get into a position to get these powerful and/or high paid jobs in the first place? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) The BBC uses licence payers' money to fund these morons. Out of the top earners, I would be genuinely hard pressed to name one with any discernible talent. Gary Lineker - decent footballer - wooden presenter, with some views which he should keep to himself. Chris Evans - sorry - never ever rated him. Spoiled child, who has convinced some that he is entertaining. Edited July 20, 2017 by Gordon R Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldypigeonpopper Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) hello, have seen the sky news paper review and they showed the middle page of the sun listing the BBC top earners, words fail me Edited July 20, 2017 by oldypigeonpopper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Absolutely staggered to see we the taxpayer are paying Gary Lineker £1.75Million ? What does he actually contribute to mankind , entertainment and my children's education? A total disgrace when Nurses etc., are refused pay increases . Surely common sense should prevail and the BBC should have a standard pay scale based upon hours broadcast ? How can a Professor, Doctor , Scientist , Lawyer contributing to a debate on television receive considerably less money as a fee than a crisp salesman? You could say the same for any pop star, actor, entertainer , or anyone else that doesn't have a have a "real" job. Are Damien Hurst and Tracey Emin's offering worth the absurd sums paid for them ? The list is almost endless. Its best to smile and nod and move on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nobbyathome Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 does it really matter what they get paid from the bbc personally I don't like chris evans I have had dealings with him and he is a pretentious **** and not worth a hundred quid a week in my book but there we are if the bbc doesn't pay them the going rate they will go to sky or itv or amazon etc as with all things in life people are only paid what they can get off of there employer I work in an office with 10 of us doing the same job and we are all on different pay I don't know what they earn and they don't know mine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yod dropper Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 The big earners have have always been in the sports, arts and media. Bear in mind they've also recently taken a big cut in their pay at the BBC. Back in '96(?) when Angus Deayton was sacked as presenter of HIGNFY he was on £50k per show so that would have been about half a million for a series and that was 20 years back. Meanwhile Corbyn et al and their rhetoric are only really interested in greedy bankers and fat cat bosses of companies that actually produce wealth. Very recently these big earners in S,A&M were found out in a tax scam and have to pay back £700M in taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fern01 Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 I believe the BBC should instigate equal pay imediately by reducing Lineker and Evans etc. to the same level as the female presenters - only fair! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Have to admit, even though I think none are worth their salaries, it is the discrepancy between male and female salaries which I find the more distasteful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Have to admit, even though I think none are worth their salaries, it is the discrepancy between male and female salaries which I find the more distasteful. It is difficult to do a like for like comparison due to 1) difference in hours worked 2) the fact that people work on different shows and 3) the banding can distort the actual difference (one might be in the 250-299 bracket and one in the 300-349 bracket with the impression that there is a difference of up to £99K when they could actually be only £1 difference - one on ££299,999 and the other on £300,000). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Simples if any of the females or other people are not happy with what they get leave. As for gender I don't think it's got anything to do with it. I didn't like the way they tagged race and being gay onto the end gender argument. Listened to Jeremy vine show on the issue. The only thing that should count is are they the best at what they do, are they the most popular with the public who watch and pay the fees. Gender race sexual orientation should never figure in anything for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 The cynical amongst us may conclude the information has been disclosed grudgingly, by the BBC in the way it has, in order to make it more difficult for anyone to identify (and therefore compare to others!) precisely how much work the recipient concerned has done to "earn" the disclosed amount! For example if one person did 400 hrs and was paid £400K.......and someone else did the same job for 200 hrs and was paid £200K....or 100hrs and was paid £100K......obviously, there would be no difference in actual pay level!.... The amount of pay an individual receives as disclosed by the BBC means nowt really, its the pay for the hrs worked that would reveal the truth! The above leaves aside the amount an individual receives from the BBC via their own independent production companies and/or via payment wholly or partly through BBC Worldwide...both of which are not included in the disclosed BBC earnings figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnfromUK Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) The above leaves aside the amount an individual receives from the BBC via their own independent production companies and/or via payment wholly or partly through BBC Worldwide...both of which are not included in the disclosed BBC earnings figures. I rather suspect this is the elephant in (or maybe not in?) the room Edited July 20, 2017 by JohnfromUK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 I thought salary would be based on what the person of either sex has in the way of drawing an audience to watch or listen to whatever they are presenting? Would ratings figures drop for the radio 2 breakfast show if Evans wasn't the presenter? Did ratings rise when he took over from Wogan? What was his starting salary based on? He was dropped as the main presenter of Top Gear; did his salary drop accordingly? Was he the reason for poor viewing figures or was that down to the fact the 3 original presenters had gone? Have viewing figures risen since Evans was sacked? Strictly is one of the beebs biggest programmes; ( bigger than the Graham Norton Show?) if so why aren't they paid the same as GN? Do Tess and what's her face getvthe same as Brucie boy was getting? If their salaries aren't based on their ability to atttact an audience then what are they based on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Strictly would not fold if Tess Daly or Claudia Winkelman left the show, that's the difference, they would just be replaced The likes of Graham Norton, Johnathon Ross, even Paul O'Grady are in a different league, they are the show Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted July 20, 2017 Report Share Posted July 20, 2017 Strictly would not fold if Tess Daly or Claudia Winkelman left the show, that's the difference, they would just be replaced The likes of Graham Norton, Johnathon Ross, even Paul O'Grady are in a different league, they are the show I understand what you're saying but if thats the case why aren't Daly and Winkleman paid 500 quid a week, or even a grand? Couldn't the same be said of the radio 2 breakfast show? Is Evans the show? He certainly wasn't on TG so did his salary reflect this? Is Jeremy Vine in a different league? Wouldn't he simply be replaced? How come he is worth so much more than Tess or Claudia? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.