BBC wages..

[GodsGift]

The reasons why these were disclosed was due to a concerted campaign by the Daily Mail, even if for the wrong reasons, I'm very much in favour of it. There should be far more transparency around wages in an economy, I'm more than happy for mine and everyone elses' wages to be available (as is the case in Norway).

Some of what is revealed indicates some very poor choices from the BBC - although the same to be true of all large organisations. Nobody has ever watched MOTD because of Gary Linekar, he has a very easy job and it is one he does relatively badly - albeit far better than the catastrophe he was when he started. Chapman, Chiles, Walker could all do it better than him and for far less money.

Regarding Chris Evans, I have genuinely never seen / listened to anything he has done so don't know if he is good or not.

A contrast would be Andrew Neil, people absolutely watch 'This Week' because he is on it. He makes the show, and derives most of the content. I hope he is getting money through his production company as it's a bit of travesty if he's getting paid less than a tenth of Linekar, given he is a distinguished presenter and Linekar is a fool.

Good time to bring up Linekar thinking Rashford is better than Mbappe though.

That post can literally be summed up as 'English person is bad, Scottish person is good' You're becoming a desperate parody of yourself Hugh.

FYI I also happen to think Andrew Neil is excellent. Lineker is a very good presenter though.

 

[HertsWolf]

I'm sure many other networks would do very well too if the government forced the public to pay them £3bn+ every year.

Actually, none of the commercial networks do as well as the BBC in terms of syndicated sales. Yet many of them have far greater income than the BBC. I know that's not the only metric but it is a good one.

But yes, personally, I'd like to see some commercial funding of programmes to reduce the burden on the licence payer. Although £147 a month isn't a huge burden for most families.

French broadcasting doesn't provide anywhere near the same level of quality of programming. And as well as the 100% owned services, the French government owns 50% of a number of private stations, so the burden on the French taxpayer is higher.
In Germany, the two public channels have a considerably higher market share than the top commercial channels. Germans pay far more for their public broadcasting. About 30% more without doing the detailed maths.

So no...simply giving large sums of money to broadcasters doesn't mean other networks will do very well.

 

[AFCB_Mark]

I'd like to think that these public faces, paid as they are large sums of money derived directly and forcibly from the public if the public wish to own a TV, do contribute back to the society that pays them via a full and transparent UK tax contribution. It would be rather crass for a high profile public face who receives a massive pay packet directly from the public, to then cheat the public coffers by using tax avoidance schemes.

Gary Lineker, I'm looking at you. I'm sure he's far from the only one.

 

[Jockney]

Yes, Andrew Neil is good at the level of aesthetic and that is where it ends. I suppose then yes, even if he is not a very good broadcast journalist he is at least comfortable in front of the camera.

 

[St. Juste]

Each of these statements is simply your opinion. This is the problem with revealing salaries. It descends quickly into "good" or "bad".
No organisation pays the highest possible salary for a given person. It's probably the reverse, in fact. Organisations typically pay the least they can get away with while keeping the employee (or contractor) happy.

Out of interest, have you ever presented a TV programme? Just wondering how you are defining "easy". Personally, I don't watch or listen to either Lineker or Chris Evans: just not to my taste. But I do have some degree of trust in Non Executive Directors, Audit Committees, Remuneration Committees and other governance and oversight mechanisms.

IMHO, the REAL problem in this country is the utterly loathsome and malevolent influence of wanky c*ntmuppets like Paul Dacre and Rupert Murdoch and the absolutely fucking spineless, greasy turd-licking journalists that work for them that have massive, undue and unelected influence over this country's democracy.

BBC salaries? Who gives a fuck? They are paid within a managed system with recognised oversight. But who is howling over the fact that Enola May has refused to confirm or deny whether Murdoch influenced her on bringing Michael "Mr Loyalty" Gove back. A newspaper baron telling an elected prime minister on who to add to her cabinet? For real? And we're fucking worried about what Lineker gets? ffs.

Well, even if we leave Lineker good or bad to one side for a second - how many viewers does he bring into MOTD? It will be one of the most watched shows on BBC, sure, but that's down to the content not the whispy bland presenter. If it was, say, Dan Walker would the number of viewers decline? Gabby Logan? Absolutely not, he's being paid an extortionate amount and not contributing anything further than what your average TV presenter would do.

With regards to your second paragraph, I actually did try it, briefly, as part of a BBC outreach thing. Was quite enjoyable, would actually say my brief experience of TV presenting shows it's far easier than presenting the news (producer always going nuts in your ear) or even the weather which is surprisingly difficult.

With Lineker, he's only actually on MOTD for about 20 minutes? And talking for maybe half that? And he's the second highest paid person in the BBC!

You're correct in saying the larger problem is the insidious influence of the broadcast media.

To touch back on Lineker being good at his job or not - do people really think he is? It was proper car crash when he first started, and whilst he's mellowed into mediocrity what part of presenting is he actually good at? He slinked into the job because he was a ex player, and a better communicator than most ex footballers. It's an extremely low bar.

That post can literally be summed up as 'English person is bad, Scottish person is good' You're becoming a desperate parody of yourself Hugh.

FYI I also happen to think Andrew Neil is excellent. Lineker is a very good presenter though.

You're getting a bit desperate here, Andrew Neil has lived in England for decades, doesn't have a Scottish accent, and has a show focusing on Westminster politics. There are countless other BBC presenters I enjoy - I see Ian Hislop and Paul Merton didn't make the list, presumably because they are paid through a production company. I also thought Dan Walker, Mark Chapman or Gabby Logan would make better MOTD presenters than Lineker - all are English (AFAIK, I'm not going to check). David Dimbleby, meanwhile, adds a great deal whenever he presents.

As for thinking Lineker is a good presenter - relative to whom? Who is he better than?

Hope you'd be willing to attract the above quite, it's wildly out of place here.

Yes, Andrew Neil is good at the level of aesthetic and that is where it ends. I suppose then yes, even if he is not a very good broadcast journalist he is at least comfortable in front of the camera.

As a side note, I disagree with virtually all of Andrew Neils politics and his journalism but he is an excellent television presenter. He was the very best on election coverage this year - is he really being paid less than Nick Robinson? I hope a production company will top that up quite a bit.

Not that he needs the money anyway, he clearly does the job because he enjoys it.

Just picked up that Ian Hislop was born in Wales to Scottish and Channel Islands parents - and there was me thinking he was a posh English guy. Guess I can't like him any more.

 

[Stevencc]

I'd love to see footage of you presenting a MOTD-style show.

"Look at the state of this English c*** trying to score a goal, he's nothing but pure shit, man".

Giving goal of the month to Charlie Adam or Darren Fletcher every week.

 

[St. Juste]

Lineker doesn't commentate, nor award goal of the month.

Your post is incorrect.

 

[Stevencc]

He comments over the "analysis" they do quite often and I reckon in his place you'd rip up the "goal of the month" results and adjust them on-the-fly to your own liking.

 

[HertsWolf]

Well, even if we leave Lineker good or bad to one side for a second -.......

And then lots of stuff just simply your view on whether someone is good or not. Whispy bland, car crash, mellowed into mediocrity, etc. It's hardly qualitative, critical analysis, is it?
You have no idea how much he contributes or doesn't. Just because you or I don't like him, doesn't mean that many others don't also. He has more than 6 million followers on Twitter, a casual but not unhelpful metric. It's difficult to say for certain what pulls any one viewer or person into a TV show or a brand or a service.

So what do you think is a decent salary for a presenter like Lineker? Being concerned by how much he is paid by minutes seems odd. You are generally valued by your knowledge, skills, capabilities and even your network and personal 'brand'. As I said, I couldn't give a toss about Lineker. But just giving ad hominem shite about someone based on your incredibly limited understanding of broadcast television hardly contributes worthwhile debate.

The world of entertainment (and I'd include most sports) is surrounded by oceans of cash. I don't particularly like it, but I don't think it's fair or helpful to single out individuals and demand to know their value to society. Farage, UKIP MEPs, all MPs in fact, the executive leader of my local council, a lot of senior public servants are paid a lot more than I would personally value them. Whining about how much other people earn just seems to be a kind of real losers argument. Don't know why.

But one thing is for sure: the Mail, the Express, Telegraph, the entire cesspit of News International titles, even the Guardian, etc etc etc..are all driving us against each other. These fucking media c**ts are just anti-social parasites, finding new ways to encourage us to hate each other and burn down our society, our country. Because shitstorms sell newspapers and numbers bring in advertising and that makes the newspaper owners richer and richer. Now THAT is money worth whining about.

 

[shane]

To touch back on Lineker being good at his job or not - do people really think he is? It was proper car crash when he first started, and whilst he's mellowed into mediocrity what part of presenting is he actually good at? He slinked into the job because he was a ex player, and a better communicator than most ex footballers. It's an extremely low bar.

I'd actually agree with this.

I don't think Lineker is bad but he isn't great. Hes just... comfortable. Were BBC to offer half his wage, he'd probably leave (as SKY or BT, whom I believe he already does things for, would surely offer him a contract) but I'd bet he'd seriously have to think about it as presenting MOTD is effectively a job for life.

Even if Paul Merson took his job, I'd still watch MOTD because its the content that sells the show, not the presenter.

 

[Martino Quackavelli]

That post can literally be summed up as 'English person is bad, Scottish person is good' You're becoming a desperate parody of yourself Hugh.

FYI I also happen to think Andrew Neil is excellent. Lineker is a very good presenter though.

Haha I forgot about Hugh, what a great poster. Have many a fond memory of him trying to argue Scotland were more of an illustrious football nation than Uruguay ahahahaha

 

[St. Juste]

He comments over the "analysis" they do quite often and I reckon in his place you'd rip up the "goal of the month" results and adjust it on-the-fly to your own liking.

To be fair, Charlie Adam should have won goal of the year with a chip from the halfway line - instead it went to a beige Wilshere effort on the last day of the season.

Even Lineker admitted it was a strange result, and Adam should have won it.

And then lots of stuff just simply your view on whether someone is good or not. Whispy bland, car crash, mellowed into mediocrity, etc. It's hardly qualitative, critical analysis, is it?
You have no idea how much he contributes or doesn't. Just because you or I don't like him, doesn't mean that many others don't also. He has more than 6 million followers on Twitter, a casual but not unhelpful metric. It's difficult to say for certain what pulls any one viewer or person into a TV show or a brand or a service.

So what do you think is a decent salary for a presenter like Lineker? Being concerned by how much he is paid by minutes seems odd. You are generally valued by your knowledge, skills, capabilities and even your network and personal 'brand'. As I said, I couldn't give a toss about Lineker. But just giving ad hominem shite about someone based on your incredibly limited understanding of broadcast television hardly contributes worthwhile debate.

The world of entertainment (and I'd include most sports) is surrounded by oceans of cash. I don't particularly like it, but I don't think it's fair or helpful to single out individuals and demand to know their value to society. Farage, UKIP MEPs, all MPs in fact, the executive leader of my local council, a lot of senior public servants are paid a lot more than I would personally value them. Whining about how much other people earn just seems to be a kind of real losers argument. Don't know why.

But one thing is for sure: the Mail, the Express, Telegraph, the entire cesspit of News International titles, even the Guardian, etc etc etc..are all driving us against each other. These fucking media c**ts are just anti-social parasites, finding new ways to encourage us to hate each other and burn down our society, our country. Because shitstorms sell newspapers and numbers bring in advertising and that makes the newspaper owners richer and richer. Now THAT is money worth whining about.

What do you want me to say? I've seen him present, I've seen others present, he isn't that good. The best presenters are the ones who actually follow it as a career - like Dan Walker - not some ex footballer on a jolly. This is surely obvious.

Linekers "knowledge" includes thinking Rashford is better than Mbappe, and has no discernible skills or capabilities. His personal brand is selling crisps. Which is fine, I have nothing against him really, he's just not that good and he doesn't contribute anything to MOTD. I'd rather a proper presenter did it, and got paid far less. A normal, non celebrity, presenter of MOTD would be on or around the 150k threshold. They don't need to be anything special, just not an idiot.

I'm not so much whining, I think full salary disclosure is an extremely positive thing. All organisations will have bizarre and contradictory pay policies, I was rather it was in the open which could lead to an open discussion and some kind of transparency. I'm not sure I fully agree TV and sports are awash with cash - they are a drop in the ocean compared to traditional industries like Oil and Gas or Finance. Which, if they would fully transparent, would also reveal some startling pay insights.

I'd quite like to see newspaper salaries - but it's a dying medium nonetheless.

I'd actually agree with this.

I don't think Lineker is bad but he isn't great. Hes just... comfortable. Were BBC to offer half his wage, he'd probably leave (as SKY or BT, whom I believe he already does things for, would surely offer him a contract) but I'd bet he'd seriously have to think about it as presenting MOTD is effectively a job for life.

Even if Paul Merson took his job, I'd still watch MOTD because its the content that sells the show, not the presenter.

Correct, Lineker already works for BT - the BBC have really made his career, he'd be nothing without them. If you pay him a tenth of what he is on he would still do MOTD, I'm fairly certain of it, and if he didn't someone else as good or better would.

With Paul Merson - it would actually be quite funny and definitely worth a watch.

 

[JimJams]

Doesn't that last remark contradict your argument on the MOTD presenter being of little relevance?

 

[St. Juste]

Haha I forgot about Hugh, what a great poster. Have many a fond memory of him trying to argue Scotland were more of an illustrious football nation than Uruguay ahahahaha

Depends on your knowledge of footballing history. If you know absolutely nothing about the pre war period then yes, it would be a struggle to understand it.

Doesn't that last remark contradict your argument on the MOTD presenter being of little relevance?

His gaudiness would become tiring after a while but as a one off? It'd be like watching The Room, and would probably get a cult following among non football fans. Idiot makes a fool of himself, and makes numerous racist and factually incorrect statements whilst trying to present a football programme?

Worth a watch.

 

[JimJams]

Idiot makes a fool of himself, and makes numerous racist and factually incorrect statements...

I can see why you'd watch that.

 

[Blitzballer]

I love how he keeps banging on about the NHS funding, and how we should all accommodate thousands of economic migrants when he will never be affected by it. Absolute wanker can't stand him. He has to go down as one of the top 3 hypocrites on twitter imo

 

[HertsWolf]

I love how he keeps banging on about the NHS funding, and how we should all accommodate thousands of economic migrants when he will never be affected by it. Absolute wanker can't stand him. He has to go down as one of the top 3 hypocrites on twitter imo

What's an "economic migrant"?

 

[Super_horns]

I do think Linker is quite sumg and thinks a lot of himself - like most ex/current footballers probably!

Do agree he probably gets paid too much for not doing very much (like the pundits really) but then they'd only go and pay somebody else just to do the same job.

Don't really watch the reality stuff or talk shows to really judge but not sure somebody who just plays a bit part in Casualty should be the highest paid actor.

 

[Abertawe]

What's an "economic migrant"?

One that travels through various peaceful countries to reach a preferred destination.

 

[Abertawe]

I do think Linker is quite sumg and thinks a lot of himself - like most ex/current footballers probably!

Do agree he probably gets paid too much for not doing very much (like the pundits really) but then they'd only go and pay somebody else just to do the same job.

That's what is shit. The BBC is publicly funded it should be obliged to bring though fresh talent and offer opportunities based on merit. They shouldn't be operating like a commercial network signing up celebrities to front their content.

 

[HertsWolf]

One that travels through various peaceful countries to reach a preferred destination.

No it isn't. Nothing to do with what an "economic migrant" is.

 

[Abertawe]

No it isn't. Nothing to do with what an "economic migrant" is.

If we're differentiating a refugee to an economic migrant it quite clearly is.

 

[HertsWolf]

If we're differentiating a refugee to an economic migrant it quite clearly is.

Err, no it isn't. The spread of refugees across an entire continent helps both refugees and receiving countries. Who are you to define "safe"? Asylum seekers have a million reasons why they might want to go to A, B or C as opposed to the massive camp in Jordan, Turkey or Greece, for example.

 

[Abertawe]

Err, no it isn't. The spread of refugees across an entire continent helps both refugees and receiving countries. Who are you to define "safe"? Asylum seekers have a million reasons why they might want to go to A, B or C as opposed to the massive camp in Jordan, Turkey or Greece, for example.

If you have to seek refuge because your country has become a risk to your life the goal is to reach a country that isn't a risk to your life. It's that simple. If you travel through various countries that aren't a risk to your life then you are picking & choosing, ie you are an economic migrant.

I don't even know what point you are attempting to argue. You cite people could have a million reasons to go to A, B or C. That may well be true but 999,999 of those reasons would ultimately rank them as an economic migrant.

I've not mentioned anywhere that inducting asylum seekers is a bad thing so your true frothing at the mouth SJW agenda is clear to see. Yes I'm well aware Merkel is attempting to rejig her ageing population by opening the doors. Germany wanting to remain a big player on the international business scene is obvious. Whether that's good or bad for an existing German citizen is open to interpretation. Don't be confused though, it's business rather than some lovely stepping up to the plate moral gesture.

If the UN had any power this whole settling of refugees would be simple. Refugees would only find asylum from UN funded camps and would be settled in different countries equally according to GDP of member nations. That would be safer for the people affected and would cut out the massive black market in human trafficking.

There are plenty of findings, reports, tables & membership of orgs defining what is and isn't a safe country fwiw. I dunno why your first reaction is to cry when somebody dares disagree with your pov.

 

[HertsWolf]

If you have to seek refuge because your country has become a risk to your life the goal is to reach a country that isn't a risk to your life. It's that simple. If you travel through various countries that aren't a risk to your life then you are picking & choosing, ie you are an economic migrant.

I don't even know what point you are attempting to argue. You cite people could have a million reasons to go to A, B or C. That may well be true but 999,999 of those reasons would ultimately rank them as an economic migrant.

I've not mentioned anywhere that inducting asylum seekers is a bad thing so your true frothing at the mouth SJW agenda is clear to see. Yes I'm well aware Merkel is attempting to rejig her ageing population by opening the doors. Germany wanting to remain a big player on the international business scene is obvious. Whether that's good or bad for an existing German citizen is open to interpretation. Don't be confused though, it's business rather than some lovely stepping up to the plate moral gesture.

If the UN had any power this whole settling of refugees would be simple. Refugees would only find asylum from UN funded camps and would be settled in different countries equally according to GDP of member nations. That would be safer for the people affected and would cut out the massive black market in human trafficking.

There are plenty of findings, reports, tables & membership of orgs defining what is and isn't a safe country fwiw. I dunno why your first reaction is to cry when somebody dares disagree with your pov.

No SJW agenda at all, and I find it amusing that you claim I "cry when someone dares to disagree" with my pov. Quite amusing criticism indeed when it comes from the biggest bully and troll in the political area of the forum. I've often admitted I'm wrong and feel I have learnt a lot from people here. You, on the other hand, are prone to mocking and ridiculing people who disagree with your pov: a pov which is always laughably simplistic and aggressive. Clearly you have never worked with refugees nor any vulnerable people in your life.

 

[JimJams]

You see the kind of shit Gary Lineker starts?

 

[Abertawe]

No SJW agenda at all, and I find it amusing that you claim I "cry when someone dares to disagree" with my pov. Quite amusing criticism indeed when it comes from the biggest bully and troll in the political area of the forum. I've often admitted I'm wrong and feel I have learnt a lot from people here. You, on the other hand, are prone to mocking and ridiculing people who disagree with your pov: a pov which is always laughably simplistic and aggressive. Clearly you have never worked with refugees nor any vulnerable people in your life.

Clearly you've just failed to address the topic we were discussing so I'll take that as a tactical surrender on your part. Don't get pissy because someone dismantles your sjw regurgitation with reason & logic. Your kind do refugees more harm than good in the long run.

Feel free to revert back to the what is or isn't an economic migrant discussion if you can. Extolling how much of a Don I am in reply to the deconstruction of your argument won't save you. You are being humbled but I only serve to educate you.

 

[HertsWolf]

Clearly you've just failed to address the topic we were discussing so I'll take that as a tactical surrender on your part. Don't get pissy because someone dismantles your sjw regurgitation with reason & logic. Your kind do refugees more harm than good in the long run.

Feel free to revert back to the what is or isn't an economic migrant discussion if you can. Extolling how much of a Don I am in reply to the deconstruction of your argument won't save you. You are being humbled but I only serve to educate you.

Yeh, totally. That's a surrender on my part. ffs. Of course you are humbling me. Whatever.

 

[blade1889]

I'd love to see footage of you presenting a MOTD-style show.

"Look at the state of this English c*** trying to score a goal, he's nothing but pure shit, man".

Giving goal of the month to Charlie Adam or Darren Fletcher every week.

They'd have to score for him to do that though, surely!?

You see the kind of shit Gary Lineker starts?

It's only a matter of time before someone references Hitler

 

[Martino Quackavelli]

Depends on your knowledge of footballing history. If you know absolutely nothing about the pre war period then yes, it would be a struggle to understand it.

Uruguay World Cups: 2 (plus a fourth placed finish 7 years ago)
Uruguay South American Championships: 15 (most recent 6 years ago)

Scotland World Cups: ahahahahaha
Scotland European Championships: ahahahahahahahahahahaha

We rest our case, your honour