BBC Presenters Salaries

There has to be a middle ground when it comes to posting? I was told off before, for over simplifying stuff ie the complete obvious, being to "duh" I dont want to make posts which would undermine people.

What I'm trying to say is Graham which I do like; for the three roles he doing with the BBC,

* Radio 2
* Eurovison
* Let it Shine.

It does seem he's overpaid, mainly His chat show is not included in that figure, so it does beg the question why he's getting those sums of money for very little work. To compare to Ant and Dec, will that completely different , the pair does I'm A celeb, Saturday night Take way, BGT and one of doc etc. The pair have to do alot of work to get those shows done, doing Sketches, backgound stuff or auditions for BGT

Graham never had to do auditions for let it shine, etc He radio 2 show compare it to Steve wright or ken bruce, also raise questions for the cost per listeners.

Its been reported he get paid at least 2.2million for all his BBC work which includes the chat show but that brings in alot of money via BBC Worldwide, but that would mean he only get 1.4million for the Chat show,

I can now see why people are saying why is he overpaid? That is why I believe he is. unless that pay does cover some parts of his Chat show? if not it's not cost effective.

His BBC pay will include the golden handcuffs deal which he has with them (or at least I assume he still has) preventing him from working elsewhere and earning a lot more money so he's being paid a reasonable amount in the grand scheme of things when he could be earning a hell of a lot more if he was taking on work from other broadcasters.


He's reduced the amount he's on over the years as well, I remember a few years ago when they were cost cutting he offered to reduce his salary by quite a few thousands if they bought him a nice pair of socks as a daft goodwill gesture (I'm sure there's some hilarious internal story about why he wanted socks). Naturally the Daily Mail were up in arms that licence fee payer money was used to gift him a £90 pair of socks, completely glossing over the fact that those socks had just saved viewers many thousands.

Obviously it's an incomplete picture but I think on these figures Graham is actually quite good value.

He is BBC TV's top entertainer. He's more than a presenter and usually the go to person for new entertainment formats.

There are not many what I would class as entertainers in the list or in fact on TV anymore. So that's his worth to the BBC.

What's the alternative ? Nick Knowles ? What I would class a decent presenter but not an entertainer.

To me presenters are interchangeable, entertainers less so.

Then it's complete utter joke how this pointless exercise has come about, as all it does is throw out a few figure with no proper explanations and people are left wondering what is the actually full picture. Its done nothing but damaged the BBC, no one is actually the wiser and we dont know the true value of each person at the BBC. If it was made very clear what the money was actually was spent on then it would solve half the troubles, how many of us would remember the golden handcuffs deal half these people are on? In some respect Graham seems to be underpaid from the commercial side of the operations.

It's not Worldwide that pays Graham Norton for his chatshow , it's the company that makes it - which odd as it sounds, ITV

The radio fees may seem extortionate but the cost of producing radio is far cheaper than television, which means the overall budget can allow for bigger fees.

Thats the whole point of the exercise - the Tories want to bash the BBC. Because its a public service broadcaster they can claim that its in the public good to release this sort of thing. Perhaps at the same time on the same day they should announce how much MP's earn for their little side jobs - George Osbourne paid £650,000 for working one day a week for an investment company whilst still an MP !
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/mar/08/george-osborne-to-be-paid-650000-for-working-one-day-a-week-blackrock-salary
I agree the BBC need to be more open but not just so Dacre, Murdoch and the gang can try to make capital from it.

Can we not turn yet another topic or derail another thread into a political bashing saga.

You'd think everyone who's on these forums is some staunch radical left-leaning Labour socialist at times.

The only positive outcome of this is that the gender gap has been exposed, although I'm not surprised.

If the politicians from whatever persuasion got on with running the country rather than trying to control the news & broadcasting then the world would be a better place.

Yes, George Alagiah being paid less than Fiona Bruce is not good.

Does Bruce not do additional stuff (other than news), which could account for the higher pay?