IT
I think jane hill spending half the year in the algave has really damaged here career over here,because once she left they started using louse and when she returnd she seems to be back to beging a bog-standart N24 presenter-she dosent even do the saturday nights anymore.
Have you ever considered the following points:
a) She has other engagements.
b) Her contractual hours have been fulfilled.
c) She's happy doing News 24.
Just because a presenter works at the BBC does not mean they are all available at any given time. It also does not mean that they can appear on any outlet as and when the BBC demands. Staff presenters have contracts which state how many hours they need to present on certain channels.
itsrobert
Founding member
looknorth posted:
southwales posted:
Jane Hill seems to have been side lined at the moment for some odd reason in favour of Louise, who I like very much also.
I think jane hill spending half the year in the algave has really damaged here career over here,because once she left they started using louse and when she returnd she seems to be back to beging a bog-standart N24 presenter-she dosent even do the saturday nights anymore.
Have you ever considered the following points:
a) She has other engagements.
b) Her contractual hours have been fulfilled.
c) She's happy doing News 24.
Just because a presenter works at the BBC does not mean they are all available at any given time. It also does not mean that they can appear on any outlet as and when the BBC demands. Staff presenters have contracts which state how many hours they need to present on certain channels.
NG
b) Her contractual hours have been fulfilled.
But assuming the BBC really do need her (which they don't) to do the bulletins on one or on any other channel then surely she could be lured by a little overtime payment?
Why would the BBC pay one person overtime when they have another person who could do the shift at no extra cost... Particularly in the current "spend nothing and cut every cost" culture...
noggin
Founding member
SN2005 posted:
itsrobert posted:
b) Her contractual hours have been fulfilled.
But assuming the BBC really do need her (which they don't) to do the bulletins on one or on any other channel then surely she could be lured by a little overtime payment?
Why would the BBC pay one person overtime when they have another person who could do the shift at no extra cost... Particularly in the current "spend nothing and cut every cost" culture...
SN
b) Her contractual hours have been fulfilled.
But assuming the BBC really do need her (which they don't) to do the bulletins on one or on any other channel then surely she could be lured by a little overtime payment?
Why would the BBC pay one person overtime when they have another person who could do the shift at no extra cost... Particularly in the current "spend nothing and cut every cost" culture...
'Cos she's good? or does having talent count for nothing at the beeb these days?
EDIT: I totally understand what your saying with the cut every cost thing. I was just asking in a hypothetical situation really and to be fair News24 answered that.
noggin posted:
SN2005 posted:
itsrobert posted:
b) Her contractual hours have been fulfilled.
But assuming the BBC really do need her (which they don't) to do the bulletins on one or on any other channel then surely she could be lured by a little overtime payment?
Why would the BBC pay one person overtime when they have another person who could do the shift at no extra cost... Particularly in the current "spend nothing and cut every cost" culture...
'Cos she's good? or does having talent count for nothing at the beeb these days?
EDIT: I totally understand what your saying with the cut every cost thing. I was just asking in a hypothetical situation really and to be fair News24 answered that.
NG
b) Her contractual hours have been fulfilled.
But assuming the BBC really do need her (which they don't) to do the bulletins on one or on any other channel then surely she could be lured by a little overtime payment?
Why would the BBC pay one person overtime when they have another person who could do the shift at no extra cost... Particularly in the current "spend nothing and cut every cost" culture...
'Cos she's good? or does having talent count for nothing at the beeb these days?
EDIT: I totally understand what your saying with the cut every cost thing. I was just asking in a hypothetical situation really and to be fair News24 answered that.
Think you were slightly missing the point.
It is likely that within a presenter contract for those presenters who do both N24 and BBC One there will be a certain number of contracted shifts on each as part of this contract (a minimum certainly)
We may debate whether one person is better or worse than another - but if they both have contracted shifts on BBC One, then they will both appear.
A manager isn't going to be able to say "Oh, I like A, so I'll give them all of B's BBC One shifts"... Well they could, but they'd have to pay B off, which is less likely than icicles forming in hell at the moment.
Equally, if a presenter wants to forego a shift on BBC One for other reasons, then they may well be able to trade a swap with another BBC One-friendly presenter. (And this swap might be a N24 shift rather than a BBC One one.)
noggin
Founding member
SN2005 posted:
noggin posted:
SN2005 posted:
itsrobert posted:
b) Her contractual hours have been fulfilled.
But assuming the BBC really do need her (which they don't) to do the bulletins on one or on any other channel then surely she could be lured by a little overtime payment?
Why would the BBC pay one person overtime when they have another person who could do the shift at no extra cost... Particularly in the current "spend nothing and cut every cost" culture...
'Cos she's good? or does having talent count for nothing at the beeb these days?
EDIT: I totally understand what your saying with the cut every cost thing. I was just asking in a hypothetical situation really and to be fair News24 answered that.
Think you were slightly missing the point.
It is likely that within a presenter contract for those presenters who do both N24 and BBC One there will be a certain number of contracted shifts on each as part of this contract (a minimum certainly)
We may debate whether one person is better or worse than another - but if they both have contracted shifts on BBC One, then they will both appear.
A manager isn't going to be able to say "Oh, I like A, so I'll give them all of B's BBC One shifts"... Well they could, but they'd have to pay B off, which is less likely than icicles forming in hell at the moment.
Equally, if a presenter wants to forego a shift on BBC One for other reasons, then they may well be able to trade a swap with another BBC One-friendly presenter. (And this swap might be a N24 shift rather than a BBC One one.)
: