… how much pay would you expect?

4 weeks?
12 weeks?
52 weeks?

What my contract said I was entitled to.

Edit: iPhone double post.

The BBC’s Norman Smith says the Trust has confirmed Mr Entwistle will be given a year’s salary, even though he was legally only entitled to six months pay.

Worth saying twice. I would expect to work and be paid my notice. Any less and there would be trouble.

The BBC’s Norman Smith says the Trust has confirmed Mr Entwistle will be given a year’s salary, even though he was legally only entitled to six months pay.

Isn’t that because he’s not really resigning, he’s being forced to leave – but they probably don’t have any actual legitimate grounds to sack him on? Still seems generous though.

🙁

Ah spotted the hidden link. That’s not normal resignation that is falling on your sword so a bit different. There was a call for him to go and he negotiated his exit.

I’d get precisely zilch.

‘The unique way the BBC is funded ‘

New guy does a rubbish job , takes the easy way out . He is then rewarded for failure by the cretinous society we live by receiving a years salary as a severance deal.

You couldnt make it up.

Bet he was on £500k+ as well, and iirc there is no NIC cont on severance , but i might be wrong and thats redundancy .

Also bear in mind he’s worked for the BBC since 1989, and it’s still not a lot compared to Rebekah Brooks

£450k actually….

Won’t fly.

Guarantee that he’ll end up with 6 months after a public outcry.

Sword?? That’s falling on a fluffy mattress!

SAS the difference between him and Brooks is that Brooks works for a private company and you can choose to use their services or not.

The BBC takes money from every household in the nation backed by threats of prison if you do not comply.

you can choose to use their services or not.

Just as you can with T.V.

The BBC takes money from every household in the nation

No it doesn’t.

Sorry. Every household in the nation with a TV.

It is possible for you not to pay, all you need to do is prove your innocence ( and having seen the threats that TV licensing send out “you may be interviewed under caution” )

The BBC World Service is still funded by the UK Govt. i.e. the taxpayer.

Been in job for a couple of weeks and all this lands on his lap, hardly his fault. He is my landladies brother in law, from all accounts a really nice bloke who has been crushed between a rock and a hard place.

The BBC World Service is still funded by the UK Govt. i.e. the taxpayer.

Good. Thought that was being changed though.

Depends on his contract plus how much the employer wanted rid of him and whether there is a ‘gagging’ clause.

At that level and Patton and Co. needed to protect the Beeb from the ‘enemy’ (right-wing press and Govt); get him out ASAP and he’s got 23 years service, so a year sounds right.

Pretty standard at that level. Our last CEO ran the company into the ground and was fired by the board. Needless to say he got a very generous pay off and doesn’t need to work for a few years…

He’s only been in the job for 54 days, in the real world he’d still be in his 3 or 6 months probationary period and so wouldn’t be entitled to any pay once he’d left! 🙄

Probationary period for a promotion to what is effectively CEO?

3 months as stated in my contract

The Telegraph says £1.32M. That’s obscene.

Don’t get me started

He’s only been in the job for 54 days, in the real world he’d still be in his 3 or 6 months probationary period and so wouldn’t be entitled to any pay once he’d left!

aye the private sector is renowned for the paltry payments they make to failed executives -Barclays for example – plenty of others.

The “real world” is no better [ it worse ]and the payments are excessive for top executives

Been in job for a couple of weeks and all this lands on his lap, hardly his fault.

Really? I think that’s a reasonable attitude to take regarding the Saville stuff which didn’t happen on his watch. But for a complete mess up whilst he was in charge on a programme which he should have been paying very close attention to, particularly given the undertakings he took very recently?

Resign? Nothing.

Fired? Nothing.

Redundant? Statutory minimum.

It’s a different world for the fat cats…
CEO of a company I used to work for:

convicted in 2005 of crimes related to his receipt of $81 million in purportedly unauthorized bonuses, the purchase of art for $14.725 million and the payment by [company] of a $20 million investment banking fee to [named recipient, former employee].

He was on $100million+ a year. He got caught cos he put through an expenses receipt for $2million dollars for his wife’s birthday party!
Before conviction he still got a massive payoff and retained use of company assets (eg. the company Lear jet)

He is currently serving 8.33 to 25 years at the Mid-State Correctional Facility in Marcy, New York. Aww, shame.

What Willard said.

If he has resigned then he is admitting responsibility and should go empty handed. If he has been let go under a compromise deal then he should get whatever he can negotiate.

Chris Patton is claiming that he has done the “decent thing” and resigned, therefore he gets sweet FA.

On the news this morning, it was stated, that in his contract, if he resigned he would get six months pay, but if he was sacked he would get 12 months pay?

So sounds like he was forced to walk the plank!

But for a complete mess up whilst he was in charge on a programme which he should have been paying very close attention to

So he ois the director of Newsnight now and should personally have taken charge of all aspects of the running of the show as well as doing his actual job

Whomever messed up it was someone in newsnight as he said he did not know what the programme was on and he was not involved in editorial decisions

Yes he was the big boss but it is not necessarily his fault when someone fails to do their job properly. This is what happened here.
How much he deserves in a pay out I dont know but I am not sure he deserved the sack

Resign? Nothing.

Fired? Nothing.

Redundant? Statutory minimum.

Aye a constructive dismissal claim would be far better for the BBC at this time and they should just ignore what the contract says.

Seems pragmatic to me.

If he didn’t want to leave it would have cost a hell of a lot more in lawyers fees and other costs to fire him. Much cheaper to just pay him off.

The short term PR s***storm the £450k will generate will be a lot less than long running media coverage of a employment tribunal as well.

So actaully is quite a good use of public money if you accept you are already in the poo poo and need to get out.

Yeah I don’t get that bit they mentioned on the news whereby if he was sacked he’d be entitled to 12 months pay anyway. Eh? Presumably the contract has a bit more detail and there’s only specific sacking criteria that allow for a 12 month pay out otherwise how’s it justifiable it was for say gross misconduct/sexual harassment etc?

How much you get paid upon leaving depends entirely on how much you know. If you’re aware where all the bodies are buried, and could, should you choose too, make a lot of powerful people very very uncomfortable, then you can name your price. All conditional on keeping shtumm of course

See also: Rebecca Brooks, Andy Coulson, Fred Goodwin, etc, etc, etc ….

So he ois the director of Newsnight now and should personally have taken charge of all aspects of the running of the show as well as doing his actual job
Whomever messed up it was someone in newsnight as he said he did not know what the programme was on and he was not involved in editorial decisions

Not all aspects of running the show, no – that would be silly (and is a straw man). However admitting what he did not know is an admission of failure – he should have been keeping a far closer watch at the moment, and demanding that he was kept in the editorial loop. Do you think such an excuse will wash from the next DG if Newsnight makes another cock-up, and if so, what is the difference given things had already gone wrong there and the existing editorial staff had already been shuffled sideways?