BBC Presenters Salaries

http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/insidethebbc/reports/pdf/annex_annual_report_201617.pdf
He is not on this year's list.

I wouldn't have thought that would be a factor. As I say there isn't a commercial equivalent to the Radio 2 breakfast show - no station that has the same potential reach (except Classic FM but he's not gonna be signed by them). Also he has been there and done that and come back to the BBC.

It would be interesting to know how much Wogan got for the same gig

To be fair he's still doing material from about 20 years ago

Broadcasting must be about the only job where somebody can get paid several times as much as their boss - Wright is a case in point.

Hey guess what? We're still having to read this at the end of all your posts.

Sport as well. Football Players are often on more than the boss.

But this is excactly what was mentioned in the previous post, without any kind of context you're just going down the list going "I don't like them so I don't know why they're paying them". I don't know what there's not to understand about Graham Norton - he is an exceptionally popular presenter who people specifically make a point of watching or listening to. What's confusing about that? You talk about his "part time radio show", but it's not like he just turns up at one minute to ten and just does a few distracted links - it's clearly a heavily produced programme containing lots of features and interviews that require a lot of preparation.

And as for "part time", if he was doing a three hour TV programme for forty weeks of the year with features and interviews it would be considered a huge undertaking, why is it any different on the radio? Just because he doesn't need to dress up for it? Yes, he's only doing it once a week, but it is a very different show than the dialy programmes that require different skills. Think back to the glory days of Capital Radio, Kenny Everett was only on once a week but his show was much more memorable than the daily shows and he was equally as important, if not more so, to the station's reputation.

This dicussion gets nowhere if you just go through the list going "I don't personally like these people and think their job looks easy, ergo they are overpaid", especially if you're only saying they're overpaid because without any kind of context it looks like a high number. Why should it be "a lot for doing a breakfast show"? It's the flagship show of the station. If nothing else he has to get up at 5am every day. I know Tarrant used to coin it in on Capital because he was so important to the station.

Anyway, I think the general point about Evans, Lineker and Norton being at the top of the pay scale is that I'd rather see them there than when Des Lynam, Noel Edmonds and Terry Wogan were up there, because those three didn't stop slagging off the BBC in public while they were earning it. At least the current lot are gracious about it.

I'm disappointed that I have to, put in the context into my last two posts, It seems going by the likes most others are not picking up on it either, I dont want to spell it out like in completely obvious way especially since it been stated upteem times in this thread and the media - what I've not mentioned in my posts.

Few points

* I never said I disliked Graham
* Its also been stated his work for this Chat show is not included in this pay package as that is commercial side.

So lets look at this again he Graham gets paid £800'000 for his Part times Radio show, one Eurovison show and Let It Shine. Thats it.
I do not believe for that reason Graham getting paid £800'000 for those three things is good value for money.

Pay rates...

Rupert Murdoch $ 34 million
James Murdoch $ 26 million
Lachlan Murdoch £23 million

Ant & Dec £ 30 million

Total BBC talent £28.7 million

I've finally got round to reading through much of this thread and I regret to say it sums up the problems we currently have in this country. On the one side, you have blind BBC-bashers who appear - for whatever reason - to have aligned themselves to the right of politics. On the other, you have blind BBC-defenders who literally see no wrong whatsoever in 'Aunty' and seem to think that being on the left of the spectrum makes you some kind of wholesome figure.

It's all very WEIRD!

I'd like to think my view on this is quite balanced and probably more in line with the wider public view (Rather than the view of politicians or hysterical newspapers).

For many years, the BBC has had a culture of silence, particularly among management. It simply can't continue in this form if it is to survive digital transformation. Populism has nothing to do with the growing thirst for increased transparency. This is happening in all areas of business. The Tories may well have had their petty reasons for 'exposing' pay issues and high salaries, but the truth is that we should know what the BBC is paying its star presenters. While it currently is in the news, it feels quite vulgar and invasive, but once the dust settles, the stars, the management and the public will get used to the concept that working for the BBC is working for a highly regarded public institution and therefore, making it clear what you are paid as a public servant is no big issue.

Unfortunately, it was the Yentob years that got us to where we are now. 99% of BBC staffers are amazing at what they do. They are talented and incredibly proud to work for a global beast of a media organisation. We should all be proud of it. But, as with all aspects of public life, we need to keep tabs on how effectively something WE ALL OWN is working. The BBC is not the property of Theresa May alone. However, equally, it is not the property of Tony Hall alone. We all have a share in it. Most of us are proud of this and happy to pay our license fee, but as shareholders, we expect and have a legal right to see how it's run. The courts agreed with me when the BBC took legal action to avoid revealing pay and was told firmly that it had a duty to tell its shareholder public.

I view this whole affair as a positive one in the long term. It was designed by some to deal a death blow to the Beeb, but will ultimately save it. Hiding information on your finances gets you nowhere. We need the organisation to be completely transparent and - unfortunately - that means telling all well-paid staffers that, if they sign up to work there, they need to be open about what they're earning.

I'd also like to know how much they spent on those AWFUL idents! Hopefully not quite as much as Graham Norton is costing!

It's not the "total" figure is it though, because half of the salaries are missing. Suggesting that is all that is spent on BBC talent is wildly misleading.

What does Rupert Murdoch's pay have to do with anything? I think everybody can see the argument you are attempting to make, but your use of figures is flawed.

Hardly a fair comparison.

Ant & Dec get £30m for three years, that's £10m a year which means they get £5m each .

£28.7 is an estimated figure for BBC talent that earn more than £150k a year. The overall cost of BBC talent is far higher.

Apologies if I'm not understanding, but I don't know what we're supposed to be missing in posts like this...



You have said "some of these people just seem to be overpaid". I don't know what context we need for that. It's a straightforward statement. It can only mean one thing. If several people are unable to grasp the points you're trying to make, clearly there is an issue here. And I'm saying that it doesn't matter what it "seems" like. I know it's a lot of money, but broadcasting involves huge sums of money at every point.

And again with the "part time radio show", is everything that's not five days a week 52 weeks a year now "part time"? Ant and Dec aren't on the telly at the moment, their pay must be incredible for some "part time TV shows".