Given the huge number of companies, with deep pockets, commissioning programs, the BBC will be paying market prices for such content, so no real opportunity to cut back. The production companies can offer their wares to the market and the highest bidder gets the program.
Don't believe market works like quite that, production companies tend to develop ideas with broadcasters who set the budget, but this isn't based on direct involvement.
Funnily enough buying foreign series is much cheaper than making your own programmes, I remember hearing the Controller of BBC 4 explaining how Mad Men gave them a huge bang (ratings) for their buck. It would cost a lot less to show good American shows like they used to.
Wow, Jezza must have some nice mates?!?
Anyway,,time to congratulate all those folk on doing so well, especially those with such obviously limited talent - encouragement to all if you dare to believe and go for it.
Jezza must have some nice mates
Kinder, gentler mates.
Many or just a few (nice mates)?
I get that Digby, that's left wing nutters for you. I think she is extraordinarily gentle with Corbyn
Fair comment, but it's not just the BBC that needs to relocate.
There's a lot of 'national' institutions...art galleries, libraries and parliament itself that would be better off far outside London.
Will londons infrastructure will ever meet the needs of an expanding population?
The whole debacle over immigration was really just a 'stress-test' to see how the infrastructure would cope with the rise in population.
some well over paid people featured up there, just basicly reading an autocue jackanory style.
I think she is extraordinarily gentle with Corbyn
that's right wing nutters for you
Mmm I was refering to 'Gini' but I also meant 'perceived' wealth gap
Gini is a just a diversion that diverts attention and hatred away from the properly rich .... to focus on the slightly above middle classes...
This is especially good for news media owners ... who can focus the attention on say 100 bankers getting a bonus of say 1M for a year whilst earning more than that themselves on a daily basis
On a smaller scale Graham Norton and Chris Evans must be laughing all the way to Coutts with the BBC only revealing their actual SALARY as opposed to what is paid to them or companies thy own ... whilst numerous sub-companies that provide them with the majority of their income and living expenses on depreciating assets make up most of their income and most of it will be carefully non taxable...
I'm sure Chris can own his non depreciating assets in the garage but he won't need to personally own the helicopter or private jet that he gets exclusive use of that depreciate as his production company can own them and right off depreciation against tax (assuming they are registered somewhere that pays tax)
Surely all that's allowed in the current Tax regime.
[quote=CaptainFlashheart said]Jezza must have some nice mates
Kinder, gentler mates.
A new kind of mates.
I don't mind Adam Boulton on Sky, Johnny Vaughan on Radio X or any ITV person getting 10 million a week as i'm not paying
Yes you are ... just more indirectly. #FollowTheMoney
I understand that indirectly i will be for lots of things, state funded TV from the licence fee is slightly different though don't you think? It would be like finding out MP's or minister for rural affairs were on 800k salary instead of the 70-90ish they are on now. It wouldn't be right for the state to pay that much for an individual. However i personally think MP's and ministers should be on a hell of a lot more than they are on now anyway,
especially compared to BBC staff like John Humphreys. Why is he paid more than ministers who have huge depts to run whether labour or conservative.
Seems the BBC has moved on very quickly from this story, yet if it was ministers on this wage they would be days of people lined up for shows to moan about it...
Seems the BBC has moved on very quickly from this story, yet if it was ministers on this wage they would be days of people lined up for shows to moan about it...
You can watch other channels you know 😉
It's all about context, without knowing what penis Morgan, Matthew Wright or Adam boulton etc earn it's just some big numbers
It's all about context,
No, it isn't. It is about BBC deciding to pay these people that amount of money. Would the One show be any worse (I know) if Alex Jones was replaced with a new presenter who was paid a lower amount.
If people stopped watching the same show just with a different presenter then fine, stop making the show. Alex Jones would move to ITV, Channel 4 or whatever and people could watch her there.
Seems the BBC has moved on very quickly from this story
Well to be fair it's been one of the main topics of discussion on BBC Radio 4's 'Today' program this morning. As has the Gender Pay gap.
I'm all for transparency - as long as it's fair and across the board. Whilst I fear the pay details of individuals in the Private Sector will always be shrouded in secrecy, if we are going to have transparency in the public sector then it should include NHS Consultants (which tops out at just over £100 p.a. not inc o/t) and the highest paid NHS executive which was reported at being £340k p.a. a few years ago in the 'Daily Telegraph'.
What stands out in the BBC list though is the huge jump between the 'middle ground' and the amounts paid to Gary Lineker & Chris Evans.
What would happen if everyone (apart from Mr and Mrs M&S) stopped paying the TV license fee, just stopped..cancelled the DD's.
What would happen if everyone (apart from Mr and Mrs M&S) stopped paying the TV license fee
The same argument could be applied to Council Tax, Income Tax etc ...
I don't use many of the facilities that the council provide so why should I pay for them? I can't stand football, so why should I pay for it?
But as a society surely we have a moral & social responsibility to ensure that all needs, tastes etc are included and provided for.
Apart from Chris Evans obviously ... ! 😉
Surely all that's allowed in the current Tax regime.
I'm not suggesting it's not following tax rules....
I'm pointing out that the BBC published SALARIES not how much INCOME they get from the BBC through shadow companies nor what other legitimate benefits they then derive.
So everyone knows Chris has a huge car collection (which is why I targeting him other than also being the top salary)... which is a non depreciating asset but he can equally have several cars at his disposal for driving to places or a helicopter or private jet and these would not be paid out of his SALARY.... but out of money from various companies to which the BBC pays.
I'm not saying any of this is not perfectly legitimate for Chris Evans Ltd .... but that by publishing his salary only[u] the BBC [/u]have managed to not publish how much they pay Chris Evans
Then rinse and repeat ....
Where does the license fee go ???
Well the BBC have taken great pains to prevent accountability....
If they published they spent 1Bn a year on private jets for example there would be outrage ... but because of the production companies they can spend as much as they like and get a single receipt from the production company... hence the role of the production companies is to obfuscate where the license fee goes.
Semi embarrassing as these salaries may be, they hide the wastage of the license fee by getting us to focus on the salary side and then of course some people argue Chris Evans or Graham Norton are worth their salary... others say not ... and the BBC say's well we can't please everyone ....
Perhaps Chris takes a 50% cut in actual salary but one of his companies gets double that in revenue from the BBC... etc.
I don't think Social Services can be brought into the same conversation and as TV, which is essentially a choice.
I watch about 10% BBC TV these days, and I'm sure if I logged it 90% of that would be BBC4, 10% BBC2, my watching profile would be Sky and a choice of channels they provide...
So by my reckoning of the £147 fee only £14.7 is attributable to my viewing which I'm happy to pay for... the £100 goes to support horsecrap like Eastenders and the BBC's fascination with reality programming and "the sheriffs are coming" steaming poo pile.
So by my reckoning of the £147 fee only £14.7 is attributable to my viewing which I'm happy to pay for... the £100 goes to support horsecrap like Eastenders and the BBC's fascination with reality programming and "the sheriffs are coming" steaming poo pile.
One of the main benefits of the BBC is the excellent news department. This keeps the bar high and means the Murdoch controlled Sky (and others) have to compete on quality. Without the BBC, Sky would just turn into Fox News, a right wing propaganda machine.
We're really lucky to have the BBC, it's an excellent institution and I'm more than happy to pay the license fee even though we watch virtually no TV at all.
I'm sure if I logged it 90% of that would be BBC4, 10% BBC2
Same hear, but I do listen to Radio 4 and BBC 6 Music quite a lot and I rely on BBC news (in all formats) to provide me with a broadly balanced perspective on current affairs etc.
Without the BBC, Sky would just turn into Fox News, a right wing propaganda machine.
Agreed.
On a slightly related note, I notice that Channel 5 has not been made to disclose salaries (although to be fair it just pays for content so probably doesn't have many 'employees') despite being publicly owned. Is this distinction purely because the BBC receives 'public' money whereas C4 is commercially self-funded through advertising and sponsorship?
So by my reckoning of the £147 fee only £14.7 is attributable to my viewing which I'm happy to pay for... the £100 goes to support horsecrap like Eastenders and the BBC's fascination with reality programming and "the sheriffs are coming" steaming poo pile.
Alternatively add up how many hours you watch BBC annually. Then add the number of hours you listen to BBC radio, look at the BBC website and watch BBC iplayer. Then add the same figure for everybody else that lives under the umbrella of the same TV licence. Then divide the licence fee by that figure and calculate what the BBC is costing you per consumed hour. It will be vanishingly small. Yes, I know you don't have to be a licence fee payer to listen to radio, use the website or watch on demand but they still need paying for and it might as well be you. The current finance model is not really functioning in the 21st century as it does not reflect our consuming habits and probably needs changing but as a nation we stump up £4bn a year for it and I suspect we spend money less wisely on a lot of other things.
Overpaid the lot of em. Outrageous.
None of them deserve more than £100K.
I felt they turned the story to gender pay gap, and away from "look at the ridiculous money we pay some staff for reading news" compare to the PM and ministers. Some seem to thing this should just be a gender pay issue and all should get the same but honestly none should be paid what they are. Put them all on 50k and if they want to walk fine, what is Tess Daly going to do? What is John humphreys going to do? drag hundreds of thousands of pople over to LBC? fine don't have a problem with this as the charter is not about chasing ratings.
Its not about context as the private sector can pay what they like but the bbc is not or should not be competing for ratings and chasing stars to host shows, thats not what the state prodcaster is all about. IMO
Plenty of whataboutery, as always.
News, Obvz is an important piece of the BBC. But during the Brexit fallout I turned off R4, turned down R2 when the news reports came on.. so I need a refund for that thanks 😆
I don't watch any of the period dramas, in part because they're tired storylines for the dumbdown generation, no reality tv because frankly I find watching someone having a camera thrust in thier face whilst they go through some personal grief quite abhorrent. "Find me a .. strictly come frills... I must take your first answer" programming is a complete waste of resource and effort, adds no value to anyone's life.
The BBC have lost any way that they claim to have ever held, if you still claim that the News is the only reputable feed then I think you've probably only ever listened to the BBC. So, as claimed, why not just Fund a license fee for the News? Leave all other channels to a pay-per-view basis ?
Just throwing it out there, why not.
Is this distinction purely because the BBC receives 'public' money whereas C4 is commercially self-funded through advertising and sponsorship?
I think the distinction is the Tories want the BBC to be more pro-Tory so are just coming up with ways to try and turn the public against it so they can manipulate it more with any public outrage. Plenty of public sector workers are paid more than the PM.
Your attitude is a bit like the person who walks into the local library and says they only read crime thrillers so don't want to have their council tax used to pay for all the other books they never intend to read. You are not meant to read it all. There is choice of output to suit all tastes so there is something right for you. The fact that they produce stuff to put on BBC4 for weirdos ( 😉 ) should be something you rejoice about. If the BBC output was measured by cost per view I suspect your choice of BBC2 and BBC4 would be being subsidised by the great unwashed strictly nonsense watchers. You need some populist dross on the BBC to keep the unthinking majority satisfied and prepared to pay the fee so that they have the cash to make the good shizzle (which the unthinking majority might accidentally happen upon and get the benefit too).
I think the distinction is the Tories want the BBC to be more pro-Tory so are just coming up with ways to try and turn the public against it so they can manipulate it more with any public outrage. Plenty of public sector workers are paid more than the PM.
what a surprise, its all the Tories fault...
what a surprise, its all the Tories fault...
Its a completely manufactured situation. No one should be at all surprised that the BBC pay their big names big money, everyone else in the industry does (probably slightly more). Whole thing is a none event dressed up as a massive scandal - totally pointless unless you're intention is to try and cause the BBC as much grief as possible.
The same argument could be applied to Council Tax, Income Tax etc ...
I don't use many of the facilities that the council provide so why should I pay for them? I can't stand football, so why should I pay for it?But as a society surely we have a moral & social responsibility to ensure that all needs, tastes etc are included and provided for.
I don't really enjoy football (I haven't seen a match for over 40 years and have no wish to) but I happen to live on a road near the local football ground.
It's a pain with parking and stuff but I honestly don't mind them parking considerately and having their fun. (And to be fair its mostly a family type group and they don't chuck all sorts of rubbish in my garden)
Obviously I'd prefer they didn't block the road but they mostly seem to try and not inconvenience the residents.
On the other hand I do enjoy cycling... even road 😀 but I really don't lie when they close my road for a cycling event. (As its not the EVENT but 06:00 through 16:00 usually) ...and in this time I'm not even allowed to take a bike out off my drive. I usually have to park my car with 2 bikes (worth more than the car) a couple of miles away ...
Not only that but unlike the football supporters they stand on my wall (twice I've had to repair it) and throw rubbish in my garden. The main objection is they take the piss.... races rarely start before 08:00 or 09:00 earliest yet the road is blocked from 06:00 ... after the event finishes they don't reopen until 16:00 - even if the last competitor passed through at 12:00.
Stuff like council tax is the same....
I don't mind paying for services so long as they don't take the piss!
If I visit the council offices I don't expect to have £1000 sofa's in a waiting area or such... I expect that they spend the money they take wisely and resources can perform the functions adeuately but not luxuriously.
Back on the BBC .. I expect the same. (as they are spending other peoples money)
I don't personally watch football .. but all they [u]need[/u] is someone that can [u]adequately[/u] do commentary ... I can't see how 100k/yr (technically half a year) isn't way more than they need to get someone competent (some retired coach or 3rd division player)
If they covered the TdF or an MTB WC then I expect the same. If someone wanted 1M then it doesn't matter how competent or not they are because there are loads of people who would do the job perfectly well for a tiny percentage.
Obviously I can't speak for football exactly but I can say from cycling that my enjoyment of attaching the MTB WC's is no different with any specific commentators ... even some of them obviously have no idea whatsoever but I'm happy if they can get the race numbers and competitors correct....
Half the commentary is irrelevant and just uninformed speculation anyway ... such as why a specific footballer was dropped... or why a specific DH racer decided to go back to 27.5 or an XC races chose a HT/FS for a specific course etc.
Despite his the BBC seem to think that some gold plated football coverage is somehow worth
£1,750,000 – £1,799,999 in salary alone (for one presenter).
If I visit the council offices I don't expect to have £1000 sofa's in a waiting area or such... I expect that they spend the money they take wisely and resources can perform the functions adeuately but not luxuriously.
Would you make that statement if reversed into your salary discussion at work - vis a vis "...please just pay me what I need for a mediocre lifestyle, no need for any more you can keep the payrise..."? Would you heck.
Your attitude is a bit like the person who walks into the local library and says they only read crime thrillers so don't want to have their council tax used to pay for all the other books they never intend to read.
Nope ... I don't personally use the library (having gone electronic) but I think they should have a good selection of books.
However they should also at least have some informative or well written books over comics ... and if the money won't go round then some books should be prioritised.
Mostly however I don't support they have First Edition hardcovers ... and the carpets are not handmade and £100,000 a piece ... etc.
If someone wants a private members only library with 1st edition hardcovers ... and handmade carpets from some obscure tribe in Iran ... etc. that's fine but not out of public money.
Same with stuff like the sports centre that I do use.
Changing rooms, showers etc. are just that... I don't want or need gold plated taps or nautilus gym equipment... There is a David Lloyds gym (entrances are 300m apart) ... where people can pay for private cubicles... the most expensive machines etc.
However they should also at least have some informative or well written books over comics
Is this you saying you don't think there is any quality output from the BBC? If so you need to look harder.
As for the rest, whilst I get your point and looking from the normal person's perspective some of those wages are massive, paying for the whole lot of them is a vanishingly small sum of money in the grand scheme of things. The whole wage bill for the 96 people listed is 0.7% of the national licence fee. My household contribution to Lineker and Evans' combined income is 15p. I'm not going to get too stressed for 15p.
Although, as has been pointed out, many of the listed will be earning much more through deals with their production companies etc.The whole wage bill for the 96 people listed is 0.7% of the national licence fee.
Would you make that statement if reversed into your salary discussion at work - vis a vis "...please just pay me what I need for a mediocre lifestyle, no need for any more you can keep the payrise..."? Would you heck.
What's the relevance ???
My company depends on my skills and expertise to sell to make a profit and will only keep me whilst I make a profit. This is on a quarter by quarter basis.... I have to prove my value every financial quarter and if I fail to do that I lose my job ... at best I might get a stay across 1Q. (if I can show I make a net profit the next quarter or aggregate over YTD.).. if not I lose my job.
There is a direct link between revenue and my salary... and profit vs cost ...
There is no magic money pot .... like the BBC. My costs are project by project and financial quarter by financial quarter. If a client cancels a project (due to change in their circumstances not my work) and I don't make a profit that quarter I lose my job.
If the company doesn't make (enough) profit that quarter I may lose my job regardless.
So if the BBC wish to run at a profit I'm fine so scrap the license fee and sack anyone who can't show a profit each quarter (like a commercial company would).
If the council want to spend on £1000 sofas for the waiting room then this should not come out of Council tax but out of a profit they make independent of council tax.
Everyone else in the industry does (probably slightly more). Whole thing is a none event dressed up as a massive scandal - totally pointless unless you're intention is to try and cause the BBC as much grief as possible.
The point is they are not in the same industry, the charter is in place to provide a service as a state owned broadcaster not compete directly with private sector for ratings on Saturday night or multiple radio stations to squeeze the private stations.
This is the point i feel is glossed over with this information, who cares what sky pays staff, but i very much do care what they pay BBC staff, the same as i care what they pay civil servants or MP's (if i'm paying)
As for the rest, whilst I get your point and looking from the normal person's perspective some of those wages are massive, paying for the whole lot of them is a vanishingly small sum of money in the grand scheme of things. The whole wage bill for the 96 people listed is 0.7% of the national licence fee. My household contribution to Lineker and Evans' combined income is 15p. I'm not going to get too stressed for 15p.
This is just the wage bill ....
It's not even just about the income of these two but it's an indication of how the BBC spends other peoples money.
[quote="Independence Day"]President Thomas Whitmore: I don't understand, where does all this come from? How do you get funding for something like this?
Julius Levinson: You don't actually think they spend $20,000 on a hammer, $30,000 on a toilet seat, do you?
I felt they turned the story to gender pay gap, and away from "look at the ridiculous money we pay some staff for reading news" compare to the PM and ministers.
When it comes to the absolute level of pay rightly or wrongly it's a competitive market for these people so without knowing what ITV/C4/Sky/Newspaper journalists and editors/Netflix etc etc are paid it's pretty academic.
BBC can't just be a "market failure" producing 'unpopular' content that no-one else will make. It only works with scale and support. That means producing popular programmes presented by people that appeal to the public. They have a market value. It's surprising what it is in some cases (Steve Wright and Jeremy Vine? There are no other national radio stations with the scale of R2 - where would they go?)
However, the gender gap is quite something to see. It's undoubtably unfair but it probably reflects the latent sexism in our society. You have to assume the market value for female presenters is lower - again would be itnerested to see the same figures and breakdown for the organisations beating up the BBC on this.
who cares what sky pays staff,
Genuine question - would you care if you subscribed to Sky (assuming you don't)?
When I employ a plumber to do a job, I'm quite intrigued what other people pay a plumber. It kind of helps me to work out if my plumber is good value for money or I'm getting shafted.
Without the BBC, Sky would just turn into Fox News, a right wing propaganda machine.
What rubbish, Sky, like ITV, has to comply with impartiality rules set out by Ofcom. A regime that the BBC now have to comply with to so there is finally a level playing field. Don't watch Sky alot but it is normally the best when a story is breaking as it is very fast on its feet.
However, the gender gap is quite something to see. It's undoubtably unfair but it probably reflects the latent sexism in our society.
It disproportionately reflects that bias but then this is such a small sample that it's meaningless as anything other than a sound byte.
The real gender pay gap is 9% (not 18% as the BBC kept reporting yesterday). We should definitely try to reduce that 9% to within the margin or error though.
If ever there was a nuclear war, annihilation event or that asteroid that's about to hit the moon..
Who would deliver the message?
And would that message have an advert break ??
this is such a small sample that it's meaningless as anything other than a sound byte.
This, too few salaries to compare, plus what hours / contract terms do they have - do they all work the same number of broadcast hours etc?
What rubbish, Sky, like ITV, has to comply with impartiality rules set out by Ofcom.
True, but that hasn't stopped Fox News (also broadcast in the UK) from falling foul of Ofcom's rules.
Granted, Sky has worked hard to become a respected news source, but you can still remain impartial whilst being selective in the News coverage and the stories you run ...
The BBC feel they exist in a competitive environment and want to attract TV stars to enable them to compete with the other main channels - they'll look bad if their share of TV viewers is too low and justifying the amount given to them from the TV license becomes harder.
This idea of talent is a tricky one. Clearly footballers exist in a competitive environment and the best will attract lots of money as they're deemed to be worth so much to certain clubs - image rights, attracting supporters and sponsors, TV money....
TV companies know that the likes of Jeremy Clarkson, Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton attract lots of viewers and build TV shows around them - they heavily influence the size of TV audiences. TV companies will pay lots of money for these people in the same way football clubs do for players. Going down the salary list less people will watch a show just because, say, Nick Knowles, is involved; perhaps they love his property renovation show but do they watch a TV quiz as he's the presenter? Maybe they do or maybe in order to keep Nick working for the BBC they give him more money and get him to do other stuff to justify?
As for women v men salaries - well that's the price of being 'talent'. You're a commodity not a person and benefit greatly from that - just men do better for some reason. Some may not like them but Chris Evans and Jonathan Ross have something pretty rare and I can't name a woman who can compete.
