Blimey, Capaldi’s cheap.

And Steve Wright? That’s appalling. He was useless 30 years ago.

It seems a bit pointless comparing yearly wages when some might only do 1-2 hours a year and others might do 1-2 hours every week.

What I find more disturbing is all the hidden income (non wages) the BEEB is then paying the same people through their own production companies etc.

I really don’t like the fact we pay so much for sports presenters though…. I just don’t get it.
Nothing against Gary Linneaker or John McEnroe … more about would McEnroe presenting really have a significant effect on who does and who doesn’t watch Wimbledon ???

I never watch football anyway but I can’t see me watching the TdF, DHWC or XCWC being any different regardless of presenter ??? (Though their are a few native English riders who seem to be challenged to speak English – who wouldn’t be the first choice but it doesn’t need to be Greg Minnar or Dan Atherton commenting – not that it can’t be but if they asked for £££££ there are lots of prospective commentators)

I really don’t like the fact we pay so much for sports presenters though…. I just don’t get it.

Since PayTV entered the market place the media money has poured into sport. Everything related to it has gone up massively, sponsorship, player’s fees, presenter’s fees.

Pre-Sky, it was all much more sensible…

could be worse BBC talent seem quite cheap compared to some

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/tv/2017/06/15/never-guess-much-ant-dec-have-earned-reading/

The money is good for the very few actors/presenters that make it to the top of their game but I doubt that the BBC is paying over the odds for anyone.

At first glance the gender pay gap looks a bit embarrassing. I don’t think 1 Lineker is worth 10 Baldings but he is on a lot and maybe Claire Balding didn’t do much for the BBC over the period that this refers to so the base figure isn’t necessarily the whole story.

I’d like to see that turned in to a table calculated to take into account viewing figures – i.e. total pay divided by total audience accumulated for every show/programme they are on.

Some huge disparities – Lineker to Balding for example. The only thing you have to remember is this is what they are paid as a BBC employee – if they work for a production company that produces a show for the BBC that does not count. If Balding mainly works like that it could explain the difference.

Also pleased how much the ‘serious’ presenters/journalists get paid – I was expecting it all to go to the vacuous Tess Daly etc. Eddie Mair, George Alagiah, Nicholas Robinson, Andrew Marr, Huw Edwards, John Humphrys all well paid. Probably better paid than their ratings would dictate if looked at purely financially. Tesse Daly only has to appear on a dozen weeks of Simply for her cash and know the square route of sod all about anything beyond sequins though whilst the R4 today program crew have to pitch up 6 days a week and know a lot of shizzle about a lot of shizzle to make their dough.

What does Chris Evans actually do these days – genuinely no idea. Radio 2 still? The One Show? Don’t think I’ve seen or heard him since that dreadful Top Gear attempt.

This is the Tory government’s way of sticking the boot in the BBC no? in the guise of ‘this is public money, they should know how it is spent’

Thought the same thing myself when I heard the minister this morning bleating on about the need for transparency in how license fee payers money was spent.

It’s basically here are some big numbers for the public to be shocked at – but no context for how they compare to other channels.

Governments play the same trick with every figure: “X costs us eleventy billion pounds” but no context to say “X costs much more in other countries” or that “eleventy billion is actually only 0.0001% of the budget”.

So, Darcy and Craig are on less than Bruno and Len. Somebody’s agent is going to be getting a phone call. Also, Rachel Burden isn’t on the list yet Nicky Campbell is on £400k+. Awkward.

I had to Google Amanda Mealing and Derek Thompson.

I can’t fathom how Inverdale and Winklemann are paid more than minimum wage either.

Charlie of, of Casualty is the highest paid Drama Actor on the BBC? How? Why? He must know something. Connie second? I would have never have guessed Casualty was a bigger payer than Eastenders.

Darcy gets paid less than Bruno? That’s a travesty.

Gary Barlow? I’m surprised he’d show that much income publicly…

Seems Radio 2 pays a lot more than Radio 1, I thought it was just where they pensioned them off.

Does anyone know what time period this covers? I’m not fan of Chris Evans, but if it covered the period when he was doing Top Gear, One Show and the Breakfast show I can sort of understand it.

Ultimately though, it’s hard to give much of a care about it. Being a TV star is well paid work, who’d have thought it – these sorts of things are another round of media supported BBC bashing – Cock and Balls (Ant and Deck) are on £15m a year each, Dermot O’Leary £8m a year etc.

I’m sure some gutter rag will be comparing them to the PMs money, or x number of nurses or teachers we could have for Gary Linaker etc – all the while Murdock, who never forget printers most of our national opinion for us, also owns Sky – he won’t be happy until they can only pay talent in loose change so they all leave, we throw the iPlayer and News Website behind a ‘paywall’ and the license fee becomes ‘optional’. It’s a business move.

I have even tolerated alan green

I am watching to see the match not to admire the incisive bon hommie at half time and at the end

They could have three chimps eating biscuits in this slot for all i care as long as they play the match[es].
I really dont think anyone who is watching is doing so because they like the banter they are watching because they love football – accepted we do not need to slump to the standard of Andy townshend then…..there is a limit to what i can tolerate

Humphrys needs pensioned off. Heard his interview with Konta and thought it was thoroughly embarrassing – the sort of thing I’d expect to hear from alf garnett not a professional presenter. It’s hardly the first time he’s behaved like that either.

A million times this I will pay my licence fee just to get rid of him

Some of those 150-199k News and Current Affairs definitely worth more.

Not sure McEnroe is worth it given he shows up for two weeks a year.

The one injustice in all this – where-the-actual-spotty-bags is Mr Tumble aka Justin. His agent will be getting some ear ache this morning. You sign ‘Milkshake’.

Remember large numbers of these people are paid much more by production companies (Norton and Linekar too I’d bet), what has been disclosed is what the licence fee supports. Many will have substantial additional income.

What we really should see is far more breakdown of hmrc data, anonymously but by total income bands.

No problem with people being paid well but Graham Norton, Chris Evans etc should not be funded by the licence payer at all imho

No problem with people being paid well but Graham Norton, Chris Evans etc should not be funded by the licence payer at all imho

Based on what exactly?

They bring in big audience numbers and are obviously popular (no matter how much you may personally dislike them)?

No problem with people being paid well but Graham Norton, Chris Evans etc should not be funded by the licence payer at all imho

But are they in reality? I don’t know in all honesty. If the BBC is selling the output they help make popular to other broadcasters overseas for most than the cost of its production (inc their wages) surely they are actually contributing to the licence fee not being funded by it.

The BBC article on it was interesting – Matt LeBlanc does not appear on the list meaning he is probably paid out of the BBC worldwide budget instead which is maybe what you are implying for Norton and Evans.

Can’t believe that there’s not more outrage at Jeremy Vine being on what he is reportedly getting

£150,000 – £199,999 Naga Munchetty

Not nearly enough.

The whole thing is just f***ing obscene! Those sort of salaries for the actual jobs they do and their contribution to society is totally unjustifiable

The whole thing is just f***ing obscene! Those sort of salaries for the actual jobs they do and their contribution to society is totally unjustifiable

Well that’s one way of looking at it.

However, if you capped the max the BBC could pay, all that would happen is they would end up developing unknown talent and as soon as the talent developed, ITV or Sky would snap them up for the same big buck salaries and BBC would lose the talent they’d just nurtured and have to start again with an unknown.

And there’s the predictable outrage.

I’d say a lot of those people make more of a “contribution to society” than say professional footballers for example (what’s the average wage in the Premier League these days? Last I heard it was around £1.7 million)

I eagerly await Murdoch publishing his minion’s salaries, so we can make a direct comparison with what Adam Boultons on at Sky, and how much Michael Gove is getting paid for his incoherent ramblings at the Times.

This is just the latest round of BBC-bashing by the Tory’s

Pure and simple

What does Chris Evans actually do these days – genuinely no idea. Radio 2 still? The One Show? Don’t think I’ve seen or heard him since that dreadful Top Gear attempt.

He did a one-evening stint on The One Show for a while, but no longer, it’s the morning show that’s his main job now, and frankly I think he’s really overpriced for that, but then he’s been a high earner for years on the various TVs programmes he’s been involved in, and I don’t think most of those were on the Beeb.
I’m astonished at the amount those two get paid for Casualty, they’re hardly household names after all.

The whole thing is just f***ing obscene! Those sort of salaries for the actual jobs they do and their contribution to society is totally unjustifiable

Really? You ought to get out more, because you’re clearly unaware of the staggering amounts of money people make in the private sector, like banking, and you’ve deliberately ignored what others have pointed out: there’s no context here, no direct comparison with the money earned by presenters and actors in commercial tv and radio.
Until you have that sort of information, and can see exactly what people are being paid for a comparable job, I would respectfully suggest you get down off your high horse and drink your milk.
Looking at the sort of money actors like George Clooney and Hugh Laurie earned might give you a clue, Laurie was one of the highest paid actors in a TVs drama earning $409,000/£250,000 per episode and that was in 2011, and Clooney was being paid around £100,000 per episode in 1998, with Alex Kingston paid £30,000; it was the most expensive American to show at the time, costing £8.2 million per episode.
Maybe you could entertain yourself by working out what those sums would be in today’s terms, allowing for inflation.

Just think what Saville must have had for a salary years ago and many other flash ones
I had to suffer thats life, blue peter, black and white minstrel show whats that all the under 45s are saying

£450,000 – £499,999 Matt Baker – Presenter Claudia Winkleman – Presenter

So many levels of wrong.
I’d actually pay extra license fee if I never had to see Claudia ever again.

Really? You ought to get out more, because you’re clearly unaware of the staggering amounts of money people make in the private sector, like banking, and you’ve deliberately ignored what others have pointed out: there’s no context here, no direct comparison with the money earned by presenters and actors in commercial tv and radio

you have totally failed to get their meaning/point
Those levels of salaries are unjustified is there point.Just because you can find other folk who also get unjustified salaries, and in other industries, does not negate their point.
Footballers dont deserve what thye get either and they make weekly what some of these presenters make annually. this does not make these salaries any less obscene

Yes we all understand the “perfect invisible hand of the market” just like we can all think of better things to spend £2 million on that Chris evans or Gary Lineaker.

Maybe you could entertain yourself by working out what those sums would be in today’s terms, allowing for inflation.

Still obscene?

You need to defend the payments as reasonable and them worth it rather than say look others get even more. That would be like me defending paying someone £ 2 per hour by saying well others get less so its not obscene

Remember Evans took over from Terry Wogan and grew the audience for the show. Guess the BBC musg think he’s worth a couple of million for that.

Nick knowles is a ****.

Those levels of salaries are unjustified is there point.

No they’re not. Like every industry, you have to pay a premium for the very best people, television is no different. From what I understand, the BBC actually gets people for below the market rate as people want to be associated with said organisation.

You are paying a lot for people who are (or perhaps were, you always get some lag before people drop down) at the top of their game. The same is true whatever the industry, the best people get paid the most, and you’ll find that often that number is fairly comparable to that which the BBC pay.

I wonder how much Netflix pay their presenters? Oh, that’s right, they don’t have any. Cheaper than a licence fee as well!

Based on what exactly?

They bring in big audience numbers and are obviously popular (no matter how much you may personally dislike them)?

Why do viewing figures matter ???

Obviously if you SELL advertising then it matters … but why would/should the BBC feel it needs to compete on viewing figures?

No they’re not. Like every industry, you have to pay a premium for the very best people, television is no different. From what I understand, the BBC actually gets people for below the market rate as people want to be associated with said organisation.
You are paying a lot for people who are (or perhaps were, you always get some lag before people drop down) at the top of their game. The same is true whatever the industry, the best people get paid the most, and you’ll find that often that number is fairly comparable to that which the BBC pay.

Ability to kick a football (or ride a bike for that matter) doesn’t really seem relevant to a salary to present….

Just to pick on Gary … (for the point of illustrating) but thousands of pubs throughout the UK are full of people who could present the football for a fraction of the cost … and the actual football itself is unchanged… just the blokes commenting on it ???

Just to pick on Gary … (for the point of illustrating) but thousands of pubs throughout the UK are full of people who could present the football for a fraction of the cost … and the actual football itself is unchanged… just the blokes commenting on it ???

but you only have to listen to Talksport for 30 seconds to realise how gormless the average fan is, and whilst they may be able to critique a game very articulately in their head once it’s turned into words it becomes gibberish.

Agreed re Nick Knowles, I’d pay Keaveney that to not present.

💡 (adds smiley because some people seem to take everything I type seriously) Initially I thought that some were a bit steep, then I thought about it from a hitman’s point of view and how much I’d charge for a hit. The ones the most people would like to disappear are the ones who are paid the most.

Ability to kick a football (or ride a bike for that matter) doesn’t really seem relevant to a salary to present.

No, but the ability to present is well rewarded, as it should be. Linekar is a very good presenter, the “average bloke in the pub” isn’t so isn’t paid a lot to be one.

How the hell has STW missed the utter OUTRAGE that is hogging the headlines on this everywhere else?? The shameful gender[/i] pay gap, where Evans (a blokey bloke man) gets FOUR TIMES more than Winkelman (a female, don’tya know) ! 😐

It’s a ginger compensation thing. If Winky was a ginger she’d get paid it too.

why should it be well rewarded

Is it hard work?
Dangerous?
Critical to the nation?

Like every industry, you have to pay a premium for the very best people, television is no different.

Plenty of industries have set salaries. The best teacher in the UK cannot earn a premium for their work and I wager th ebest cleaner in the world cannot get much either.

From what I understand, the BBC actually gets people for below the market rate as people want to be associated with said organisation.

True but that does not mean the wages are not obscene

You are paying a lot for people who are (or perhaps were, you always get some lag before people drop down) at the top of their game.

It really depends I think many of them are utterly replacable Would MOTD slump without shearer and Gary – I very much doubt it as no one is tuning in JUST to hear what they say

The same is true whatever the industry, the best people get paid the most, and you’ll find that often that number is fairly comparable to that which the BBC pay.

so you think most industries have folk within them paid upwards of £2 million

A lot of shop workers and factory workers are going to disagree with your assessment

I can also explain why it happens but morally its obscene that anyone earns that for doing that.

Absolutely every single name on that list could be replaced by an unknown actor/presenter – and the big name celeb they replaced would be forgotten within 6mths or less.

Just another example of a broken society.

so you think most industries have folk within them paid upwards of £2 million
A lot of shop workers and factory workers are going to disagree with your assessment

Yes, without any doubt.

By “shop workers” I will take it you mean the retail industry, are the top guys at Tesco/Amazon/Sainsbury’s paid extremely well? Yes. Are the runners/administrators (the BBC equivalent of “shop workers”) paid million?s No.

By “factory works” again, let’s pick an industry that has factories, automotive for instance. Do the best people in the automotive industry get 6 or 7 figure salaries? Yes, of course they do.

I can also explain why it happens but morally its obscene that anyone earns that for doing that.

So we get back to the discussion of who can, morally, earn lots? Not TV presenters, clearly, so who?

Just another example of a broken society.

LolZ. Famous people getting big money shocker. The bleedin whole WORLD is busted!

No, but the ability to present is well rewarded, as it should be.

Why ???

Linekar is a very good presenter, the “average bloke in the pub” isn’t so isn’t paid a lot to be one.

£1,750,000 better than the “best guy in the pub from each town/city?

1.6M million better than Justin the CBBC presenter ??? (as he must earn less than 150k)

and what do you mean by good ?
Is he really that much better a presenter than Richard Attenborough for example?

Is Zoe Ball so much better than her father ???

These are obviously subjective… I personally don’t think Lineaker is anywhere close to being as good a presenter as Attenborough or Zoe anywhere near as good as her father …. or is he so much better than say Martyn Ashton or Rachel A or Claudio???

It seems to me that his obscene salary has little to do with presenting and everything to do with the sport he is presenting …. McEnroe isn’t bad at presenting either but I just don’t see how he’s worth THAT much more than Chris Evert … (or even Chris’s ex John Lloyd)

Quite how Chris Evans gets paid that (by the BBC) is beyond obscene…. again it’s not that he’s BAD … it’s a question of is he really THAT much better…

Frankly he was a disaster on Top Gear … but it’s not so much that as again there are thousands who could do as good a job (or close) for a fraction of the salary.

If Sky want to pay people that much to present then that is up to Sky… but they are paying with advertisers and subscribers money. I don’t even watch live TV yet I am paying for people earning millions ..

Its easy to spend money you don’t need to earn … so companies without license fees have to weight up the business case. BBC doesn’t need ANY viewers .. they still get paid…. but if they can sell content to networks then it’s understandable to an extent but it shouldn’t be a case of paying Chris Evans X and not accounting for revenue…. as I’m forced to pay I’d like to see that whatever he’s paid has generated more revenue than he was paid.

BBC doesn’t need ANY viewers .. they still get paid.

Right up until people start to say that no-one watches the BBC so it shouldn’t be funded. It has to have people watching it, so it has to chase ratings to some degree.