JU
As the article points out:
— Henry Mance (@henrymance) July 2, 2019
*amount that would be raised by scrapping free TV licenses = £745m
*extra pay for stars = £11m (1.5% of the above) pic.twitter.com/lXcFavVZw0
TI
Didn't ITV have a go with The Premiership and it was a massive ratings flop?
Would fewer people watch Match of the Day if he wasn’t the presenter? Isn’t it more about the highlights of Premier League games being on free to air telly...
Didn't ITV have a go with The Premiership and it was a massive ratings flop?
BM
BM11
This is too much money given to these people, I’m sorry but these wages are ridiculous, big ears needs to take a pay cut.
This is one of the aims of publishing it - have the big stars leave and then see the BBC ratings fall (Less on tis because it's the content not the star but on BBC radio it is a big impact and will have a big effect on light entertainment)
JA
This is one of the aims of publishing it - have the big stars leave and then see the BBC ratings fall (Less on tis because it's the content not the star but on BBC radio it is a big impact and will have a big effect on light entertainment)
I knew it wouldn't be long before the BBC was being closed down again according to BM11.
This is too much money given to these people, I’m sorry but these wages are ridiculous, big ears needs to take a pay cut.
This is one of the aims of publishing it - have the big stars leave and then see the BBC ratings fall (Less on tis because it's the content not the star but on BBC radio it is a big impact and will have a big effect on light entertainment)
I knew it wouldn't be long before the BBC was being closed down again according to BM11.
NJ
This is one of the aims of publishing it - have the big stars leave and then see the BBC ratings fall (Less on tis because it's the content not the star but on BBC radio it is a big impact and will have a big effect on light entertainment)
Do you read back any of the unsubstantiated crap you come out with before posting?
Neil Jones
Founding member
This is too much money given to these people, I’m sorry but these wages are ridiculous, big ears needs to take a pay cut.
This is one of the aims of publishing it - have the big stars leave and then see the BBC ratings fall (Less on tis because it's the content not the star but on BBC radio it is a big impact and will have a big effect on light entertainment)
Do you read back any of the unsubstantiated crap you come out with before posting?
NG
This is one of the aims of publishing it - have the big stars leave and then see the BBC ratings fall (Less on tis because it's the content not the star but on BBC radio it is a big impact and will have a big effect on light entertainment)
Except that none of the salaries for TV light entertainment duties have been published have they? I think the figures for Claudia Winkelman and Zoe Ball don't include their work for BBC Studios, and are only their core BBC Radio salaries ?
I absolutely agree that BBC radio hit a problem, with the BBC publishing salaries cited as a reason for Eddie Mair leaving.
noggin
Founding member
This is too much money given to these people, I’m sorry but these wages are ridiculous, big ears needs to take a pay cut.
This is one of the aims of publishing it - have the big stars leave and then see the BBC ratings fall (Less on tis because it's the content not the star but on BBC radio it is a big impact and will have a big effect on light entertainment)
Except that none of the salaries for TV light entertainment duties have been published have they? I think the figures for Claudia Winkelman and Zoe Ball don't include their work for BBC Studios, and are only their core BBC Radio salaries ?
I absolutely agree that BBC radio hit a problem, with the BBC publishing salaries cited as a reason for Eddie Mair leaving.
TC
I roll my eyes at these thing because a lot of people clearly have no idea of the market and just make assumptions. ITV pay double if not triple the amount the BBC do. A lot of talent work there way up the ladder at the BBC are we to say to them not you reached this level you should go. No because it’s BBC talent. Also as a licence fee payer I want the BBC to be the best it can be with the best talent like many others. This is going to cost. Graham Norton is one of if not the best chat show host in the UK. So of course he going to be worth a big pay check. His show is sold around the world and I bet the BBC makes money out of that so he’s likely to be worth the money.
Now on to Gary I fell sorry for him as he is getting all the heat. Gary could easily get double if not triple if he works for another broadcaster but he does not do that because he enjoys working for the BBC. Why should we get rid of someone who enjoys working for the BBC who clearly a fan favourite and is paid below the average. Also the pay figures that are had been released are only for direct pay from the BBC they do not include production company pay. So there is a good chance of people like Claudia Winkleman, Graham Norton to name a few could be earning more through production companies rather than being pay direct from the BBC like Gary Lineker who is paid directly from the BBC. That’s why he’s comes across as the biggest earner.
The rise in talent pay is likely to equal pay for women. The BBC have been reducing pay over the last few year it only gone up this year. I know the BBC was trying to save money by cutting men’s pay to equal women’s but after the storm the BBC had no choice but to pay women the higher pay which has pushed the talent pay up. Women should have been paid the same from the start but let’s not open that can of worms here.
So all in all this is nothing. And would not make a huge difference. I understand people are upset about the benefit being cut but you have to be realistic.
Now on to Gary I fell sorry for him as he is getting all the heat. Gary could easily get double if not triple if he works for another broadcaster but he does not do that because he enjoys working for the BBC. Why should we get rid of someone who enjoys working for the BBC who clearly a fan favourite and is paid below the average. Also the pay figures that are had been released are only for direct pay from the BBC they do not include production company pay. So there is a good chance of people like Claudia Winkleman, Graham Norton to name a few could be earning more through production companies rather than being pay direct from the BBC like Gary Lineker who is paid directly from the BBC. That’s why he’s comes across as the biggest earner.
The rise in talent pay is likely to equal pay for women. The BBC have been reducing pay over the last few year it only gone up this year. I know the BBC was trying to save money by cutting men’s pay to equal women’s but after the storm the BBC had no choice but to pay women the higher pay which has pushed the talent pay up. Women should have been paid the same from the start but let’s not open that can of worms here.
So all in all this is nothing. And would not make a huge difference. I understand people are upset about the benefit being cut but you have to be realistic.
BM
BM11
As the article points out:
— Henry Mance (@henrymance) July 2, 2019
*amount that would be raised by scrapping free TV licenses = £745m
*extra pay for stars = £11m (1.5% of the above) pic.twitter.com/lXcFavVZw0
Labour's Hugh Gaffney calls on government to restore free TV licenses for all over-75s
— BBC Politics (@BBCPolitics) July 3, 2019
Theresa May: "BBC need to think again" about raising presenter salaries while "taking the action they have" on licenses https://t.co/nUiXZKMgHR #PMQs pic.twitter.com/m6wsa1XwzJ
LL
Even if cutting the salaries recouped enough money to justify doing it, you then run the risk of the big stars going to other broadcasters. Then we have the whole "why are we paying x for the BBC when they've lost all this talent and all these shows?"