Forum menu
This is going to be entertaining.
Comparing how much people we like get paid compared to people we dont, or people we've never heard of because we're not down wid da yoof.. Bring it! 😀
TV NON SCRIPTED (FACTUAL AND ENTERTAINMENT)£150,000 – £199,999 Darcey Bussell – Contributor Mel Giedroyc – Presenter Craig Horwood – Contributor Paul Martin – Presenter Simon Schama – Presenter
£200,000 – £249,999 Gary Barlow – Contributor Len Goodman – Contributor Danii Minogue – Contributor Bruno Tonioli – Contributor Alan Yentob – Presenter
£300,000 – £349,999 Nick Knowles – Presenter
£350,000 – £399,999 Tess Daly – Presenter
£400,000 – £449,999 Alex Jones Presenter
NEWS AND CURRENT AFFAIRS
£150,000 – £199,999 Kamal Ahmed – Correspondent Jeremy Bowen – Correspondent Ben Brown – Presenter Mark Easton – Correspondent Gavin Esler – Presenter James Naughtie – Correspondent John Pienaar – Correspondent Sophie Raworth – Presenter John Simpson – Correspondent Kirsty Wark – Presenter Justin Webb – Presenter
£200,000 – £249,999 Victoria Derbyshire – Presenter Mishal Husain – Presenter Martha Kearney – Presenter Laura Kuenssberg – Correspondent Andrew Neil – Presenter Jonathan Sopel – Correspondent
£250,000 – £299,999 George Alagiah – Presenter Nicholas Robinson – Presenter
£300,000 – £349,999 Eddie Mair – Presenter
TV SCRIPTED (DRAMA AND COMEDY)
£150,000 – £199,999 Laurie Brett – Actor Letitia Dean – Actor Tameka Empson – Actor Guy Henry – Actor Linda Henry – Actor Scott Maslen – Actor Diane Parish – Actor Hugh Quarshie – Actor Jemma Redgrave – Actor Tim Roth – Actor Catherine Shipton – Actor Gillian Taylforth – Actor Lacey Turner – Actor
£200,000 – £249,999 Peter Capaldi – Actor Danny Dyer – Actor Emilia Fox – Actor David Jason – Actor Rosie Marcel – Actor Adam Woodyatt – Actor
£250,000 – £299,999 Amanda Mealing – Actor
£350,000 – £399,999 Derek Thompson – Actor
SPORT
£150,000 – £199,999 Jonathan Agnew – Presenter and commentator Clare Balding – Presenter Jonathan Davies – Presenter John McEnroe – Presenter and commentator
£200,000 – £249,999 John Inverdale – Presenter Gabby Logan – Presenter
£250,000 -£299,999 Jason Mohammad – Presenter
£300,000 – £349,999 Sue Barker – Presenter
£400,000 – £449,999 Alan Shearer – Presenter
£1,750,000 – £1,799,999 Gary Lineker – Presenter
MULTI GENRE
£150,000 – £199,999 Naga Munchetty – Presenter and Contributor
£200,000 – £249,999 Mark Chapman – Presenter Jools Holland – Presenter Dan Walker – Presenter
£250,000 – £299,999 Zoe Ball – Presenter Brian Cox – Presenter Evan Davis – Presenter
£350,000 – £399,999 Fiona Bruce – Presenter
£400,000 – £449,000 Andrew Marr – Presenter Stephen Nolan – Presenter
£450,000 – £499,999 Matt Baker – Presenter Claudia Winkleman – Presenter
£550,000 – £599,999 Huw Edwards
£600,000 – £649,000 John Humphrys – Presenter
£700,000 – £749,999 Jeremy Vine – Presenter
£850,000 – £899,999 Graham Norton – Presenter
£2,200,000 – £2,249,999 Chris Evans – Presenter
RADIO
£150,000 – £199,999 Adrian Chiles – Presenter Greg James – Presenter Shaun Keaveny – Presenter Moira Stuart – Presenter Jo Whiley – Presenter
£200,000 – £249,999 Mark Radcliffe – Presenter
£250,000 – £299,999 Ken Bruce – Presenter Scott Mills – Presenter Trevor Nelson – Presenter
£300,000 – £349,999 Lauren Laverne – Presenter
£350,000 – £399,999 Vanessa Feltz – Presenter Nicholas Grimshaw – Presenter Simon Mayo – Presenter
£400,000 – £449,999 Nicky Campbell – Presenter
£500,000 – £549,999 Steve Wright – Presenter
Gary Lineker is on a good wage, all seems quite reasonable to me though TBH
😯£300,000 – £349,999 Nick Knowles – Presenter
Not seen much of his output but i am not seeing much exceptional talent there tbh
😯 😯£400,000 – £449,999 Alan Shearer – Presenter£1,750,000 – £1,799,999 Gary Lineker – Presenter
I think fans would watch the football no matter who did the insights into the match but **** me that is a lot of money for what they do
Not sure what i think if it and IMHO it was politically motivated
I wonder what the private sector pays in the "market" as i suspect many folk are taking "pay cuts" for working for Auntie
I should declare i dont have a licence so I am not aware of much any of them have done in the last 3 years or so.
Pretty unfazed by those except Chris Evans, seems a bit steep but then I find him quite annoying.
I also would have thought though theres an opportunity to refresh presenters periodically giving new people a chance and reducing wage costs.
If Radcliffe is in there at £250k, where's Maconie?
Will there be barely concealed tension in this afternoon's show?
Does Nick Knowles only present DIY SOS (the one where people give their time for free) or does he do other stuff for that wage? 😈
Actually the list doesn't seem as bad as I was expecting, that said do the BBC really need these high wages? Surely they can attract talent without the big bucks and would the shows really be less watchable without the big names?
Is that published, available to all ?
LOL @ that list.
Vanessa Feltz is not worth 350k p.a., that's ridiculous.
😯 @ Chris Evans pay, get rid of him! Bet Nick Grimshaw is spitting over that.
& 550k for reading the news isn't bad is it?!
All seems fairly logical from the perspective of being market driven in a capitalist society. I'm really struggling to work up any indignation at all.
(sorry, am I just commenting in order to say that I don't care there?)
There are a few odd ones.
Balding (Clare not Shearer) seems comparably low for the exposure she gets. Tess Daly & Vanessa Feltz, you are ****ing kidding me that they get paid that much.
The problem is that we have no context. What do the equivalent get at ITV/Sky/Channel 4? Yes, the immediate thought is "that's a lot" but then I have no idea what the market rates are and if that's more or less than the going rate.
Half a million quid a year for Steve Wright?
That alone is worth stopping paying my license fee for.
Clare Baldings hourly rate must be shite considering the amount of time she spends on screen! 😀
There's a fair few I wouldn't pay 25k a year, nevermind £150k +
Lauren Laverne gets double what Shaun Keaveney's on, for roughly the same amount of airtime?
who's her agent??
These figures only cover money paid to the 'talent' directly by the BBC. If the 'talent' are paid by a production company which in turn are paid by the BBC then it won't be covered. E.g. Graham Norton gets paid £850-£900K for his radio and presenting jobs, but the money he gets for his talkshow won't be included as that is made by a production company. A lot of others will be in the same boat.
its outrageous !!
but without this info
. What do the equivalent get at ITV/Sky/Channel 4
[img] 
[/img]
tho chris evans is a big slice of wtf? I suppose!
I love the oddness of direct comparisons:
David Jason / Peter Capaldi / Danny Dyer 😀
Guessing Ms Balding got a lot of OT for the Olympics then.
Why no Danny Baker?
The problem is that we have no context. What do the equivalent get at ITV/Sky/Channel 4?
Precisely. The only one that upsets me is John Humphrys, but that's just because I can't stand the guy and is probably not a good reflection on his market value TBF.
There are quite a few I've never heard of 😀
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.
Having said that it's not the money that is the point there. He just shouldn't be in the job.
£600k for reading the news JEEZ!
tbf sticking danny dyer next to anyone is quite amusing
he was great in (ITVs) Plebs tho
(NSFW warning)
One can assume that Murdoch will be releasing the wages paid by Sky in the coming hours, yes? As this is absolutely not an attack on the BBC, oh no...
Are some of these not actually payments to a company and then you get a team of staff rather than just a single person?Pretty unfazed by those except Chris Evans, seems a bit steep but then I find him quite annoying.
All seems fairly logical from the perspective of being market driven in a capitalist society. I'm really struggling to work up any indignation at all.
This.
Plus they were forced for political reasons to reveal the list, just to try and get the public up in arms about the BBC so the Tories can weaken their resolve for independence.
Still think the license fee is excellent VFM.
I think fans would watch the football no matter who did the insights into the match but **** me that is a lot of money for what they do
You've watched the footy coverage on BT Sport with Michael Owen and Steve Mcmanaman, right?
Is it safe to assume that Adrian Chiles is on ten Benson, a packet of Frazzles, and his bus fare home?
That would still make him overpaid
Gives an interesting slant to political reporting when the journalist wrinkles their nose about the latest tax plans from the current opposition. That journalist loses their impartiality due to us hoi polloi knowing that they will be badly affected by it.
They will need to up their game and it may have the opposite effect to Murdoch's desire.
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'
The boss was on the Radio this morning and he wasn't happy about releasing these figures.
meh, it's all tomorrow's chip paper.
Really, it's kind of interesting but so what? These are people selling a unique product (themselves) in an open marketplace. There is no 'going rate' because the market is so small. Good luck to them.
There's not many people I can't stand more than Evans & Wright. But like that dark brown spread you put on toast, I guess if my feelings for them are so strong one way, then others must feel strong the other way.
There's a lot of really talentless people in there that you'd think no-one would actually care if they disappeared off the telly, so why do [i]they[/i] get paid so much.. like Alex Jones, Simon Mayo, Adrian Chiles...
Nice to see Jiffy getting a good whack. Only cos he was a great player though 🙂
This is the Tory government's way of sticking the boot in the BBC no?
Yes, very much this. Cynical and politically motivated.
Are some of these not actually payments to a company and then you get a team of staff rather than just a single person?
No. These are direct 'salary' payments. Payments to production companies (who may then pay staff/stars) are not included.
[i]Is it safe to assume that Adrian Chiles is on ten Benson, a packet of Frazzles, and his bus fare home?[/i]
Nope - he's in the £150K-£200K bracket. Quite a few packets of Frazzles for that.
On the face of it, I'm surprised at how little some are earning, but I guess these aren't FTE salaries
£600,000 – £649,000 John Humphrys – Presenter
Whaaaaaaat? This is the author of the Jo Konta car-crash we're talking about?
David Jason should be top,guy's a legend;)
Steve Wright, Chris Evans, Nicky Campbell, Simon Mayo etc are dinosaurs, get rid.
Off to Ego FM with Simon Bates.
Ken Bruce will have to scrap the music and have 2 straight hours of Pop Master if thinks he's getting out the door with that.
Chris Evans?
Never again.
And once again, Nicky Campbell.
Just have a think about that.
🙂
Mel Giedroyc – Presenter
Anyone seen her new gameshow, Letterbox? Jeez, she'll be signing on soon if that's anything to go by 😆
Gives an interesting slant to political reporting when the journalist wrinkles their nose about the latest tax plans from the current opposition. That journalist loses their impartiality due to us hoi polloi knowing that they will be badly affected by it.
why now? surely no-one thought they were all on minimum wage yesterday?
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.
[quote=binners ]
You've watched the footy coverage on BT Sport with Michael Owen and Steve Mcmanaman, right?
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'.
[img] 
[/img]
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
So many levels of wrong.£450,000 – £499,999 Matt Baker – Presenter [u][b]Claudia Winkleman – Presenter[/b][/u]
I'd actually pay extra license fee if I never had to see Claudia ever again.
you have totally failed to get their meaning/pointReally? 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
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.
Still obscene?Maybe you could entertain yourself by working out what those sums would be in today's terms, allowing for inflation.
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 [i]shameful[/i] [b][i]gender[/b][/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.
True but that does not mean the wages are not obsceneFrom 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.
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
so you think most industries have folk within them paid upwards of £2 millionThe 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.
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?
[i]Just another example of a broken society.[/i]
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 [u]that much better[/u] 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 [u]so much better[/u] 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.