Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

BBC salaries

HardyAddickHardyAddick
in Not Sports Related
Just read that Zoe Ball has had a large salary increase to about £1.4M and Gary Lineker has had a salary cut to about the same amount. 

I know they are good presenters but why so much? They are not brain surgeons undertaking life saving operations every day for nowhere near that salary. Even at £200K, you would have a long list of good presenters willing to do the job. Good luck to them negotiating nice salaries but why pay so much!!!
«1345

Comments

  • se9addickse9addick
    Market conditions, successful musicians and movie stars aren’t “brain surgeons” either but they get paid nice salaries because they are at the top of an industry which has huge market appeal and wealth. 
  • ForeverAddicktedForeverAddickted
    cafctom said:
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    I'm not even that bothered about Lineker, he's a top presenter on popular shows.

    It's the "more than 100 senior executives are paid over £150,000 a year - in many cases considerably more than that" - that people should be bothered about.
    I know I’m probably going against the grain here....

    Senior executives probably should be getting paid more than £150k, if they are influential enough on the business.

    The problem are those who pick up that sort of money just for having a title without actually doing anything of note. However, I’m sure there will be many who do rightfully earn that money. 

    Gary Lineker getting paid what he gets paid to do Match of The Day one day a week is fucking ridiculous.

    That show can be equally as good with any run of the mill presenter. People are not tuning in to see Gary Lineker or any of his pundit mates.

    In fact, the show is quite hard to watch because of their very presence. Spending 10-15 mins watching highlights of a game between Palace and Southampton, and then immediately after having to sit through them talking about everything that we’ve just seen with the same tired, obvious cliches. It’s painful.

    No highlights show should take an hour and a half to cover about 5 games on a Saturday night. 
    Probably factors in him doing the Euros | World Cup | SPOTY as well though

    Doesnt he do some of their golf coverage now too?
  • guinnessaddickguinnessaddick
    Zoe Ball salary:  Just think of a number.
  • BangkokaddickBangkokaddick
    Its no surprise that Zoe Ball's increase comes a relatively short time after the complaints of unequal salaries at the BBC.
  • HardyAddickHardyAddick
    Rothko said:
    Because that's the market
    But it’s not a large market. What other radio stations can pay £1.4Mpa? For a football presenter you only have SKY.
  • Sponsored links:


  • RothkoRothko
    HardyAddick said:
    Rothko said:
    Because that's the market
    But it’s not a large market. What other radio stations can pay £1.4Mpa? For a football presenter you only have SKY.
    and BT. 

    Radio wise, suspect Global pay Chris Moyles close to that for fewer listeners on RadioX, likewise Wireless pay Chris Evans a reported £2m a year again with fewer listeners on Virgin. 

     
  • bigstemarrabigstemarra
    Luvvie extortion racket.
  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    bigstemarra said:
    Luvvie extortion racket.
    What makes it worse is what pompous twats some of the presenters are...
  • siblerssiblers
    Didn't expect Zoe Ball to earn so much, is her radio show massively popular?

    Does Lineker do much on BBC outside of MOTD? Does he do any radio work? 
  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    siblers said:
    Didn't expect Zoe Ball to earn so much, is her radio show massively popular?

    Does Lineker do much on BBC outside of MOTD? Does he do any radio work? 
    She's lost about a million listeners on her Radio 2 show since replacing Chris Evans so earns an extra pound for every listener she loses - at least she's getting paid by results.
  • rananegrarananegra
    Do the BBC pay more than Sky/ITV/other broadcasters? It's ridiculous that generally we pay people in reverse proportion to their worth to society, but I don't really see a drain of talent from ITV/Sky/Murdoch to the BBC; it's the other way round, which suggests the BBC are at the lower end of the market rates. Times Radio just took loads of the BBC's radio presenters by upping their salaries. They're more like Spurs than Man City/Chelsea. There's an element of "they can't win" here.

    And do the other broadcasters publish how much more they pay men over women? 

    I'd also question the idea of "well anyone can do it, so why are they paid so much?" There are barriers to getting in to presenting, though with the growth of YouTube and podcasts and unofficial shows (like Charlton Live) there are more ways of doing it, but it's really not the same as talking to your mates about the game in the pub. Anyone know how much Jim White gets paid? ;)
  • PopIconPopIcon
    Rothko said:
    HardyAddick said:
    Rothko said:
    Because that's the market
    But it’s not a large market. What other radio stations can pay £1.4Mpa? For a football presenter you only have SKY.
    and BT. 

    Radio wise, suspect Global pay Chris Moyles close to that for fewer listeners on RadioX, likewise Wireless pay Chris Evans a reported £2m a year again with fewer listeners on Virgin. 

     
    @Rothko is right. There are loads of TV and Radio presenters of top dollar. Amanda Holden also gets silly money from Global.
  • AFKABartramAFKABartram
    The unecessary money paid out is obscene. Similar to the same paid for nonsense like judges on BGT, XFactor etc. All those people would do it for the exposure and half the money.

    Just so unecessary and actually makes me angry at how hard most people have to actually work to get by in life when others literally get millions thrown at them for virtually f all and don’t bring in additional viewers / listeners 
  • Sponsored links:


  • RothkoRothko
    ITV make a fortune from those programmes, who should make the money, the show stars or the shareholders of ITV?
  • colthe3rdcolthe3rd
    Rothko said:
    Because that's the market
    Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.

    This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
  • AllHailTheHenAllHailTheHen
    I'd be more likely to watch MOTD if Lineker wasn't presenting it. He was probably happy to take a pay cut as he is likely raking it in from BT plus the BBC show a number of shows produced by Goalhanger Films (Lineker's company) which they no doubt pay a pretty penny for.
  • SaladSalad
    Some of the R2 salaries are eyebrow raising but I feel they probably get the balance more right than wrong. The BBC output includes high quality TV and radio shows, with some top quality presenters, who I suspect are often paid less than they could earn elsewhere, as said above they often get poached by other broadcasters with more money to offer, but rarely bring in top presenters from outside. It is hard to be too critical when we don't know the market they are competing in since all the other broadcasters keep this information secret. It would be good if they all had to publish the salaries above a level.

    Indeed, I'd like to see a move towards general pay transparency. You could start by publishing the tax returns of of the very wealthy and big earners - and elected politicians -  and gradually bring the threshold down as we get accustomed to it.

    https://www.ft.com/content/2a9274be-72aa-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9
  • i_b_b_o_r_gi_b_b_o_r_g
    Chunes said:
    Because people don't get paid according to their moral value to society

    It really is as simple as that
    I'd be living next door to Billy Gates if that were the case
  • Woolwich21Woolwich21
    colthe3rd said:
    Rothko said:
    Because that's the market
    Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.

    This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
    No.
    The only reason this comes up every year is because they continue to make a rod for their own back, you concede as much later on in your very own post.

    So long as they receive such considerable funding from the public they will be open to heavy criticism,  and rightly so.

  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    colthe3rd said:
    Rothko said:
    Because that's the market
    Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.

    This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
    'Best staff' ? - how much of a loss would it be if a lot of these presenters left. The vast majority have generic personalities and could easily be replaced.

    What criteria are they judged on? The BBC is awash with mediocre presenters - it's not one of the more skilled jobs in our society.

    How many people are going to miss the output and insight of Gary Lineker?
  • StigThundercockStigThundercock
    HardyAddick said:
    Just read that Zoe Ball has had a large salary increase to about £1.4M and Gary Lineker has had a salary cut to about the same amount. 

    I know they are good presenters but why so much? They are not brain surgeons undertaking life saving operations every day for nowhere near that salary. Even at £200K, you would have a long list of good presenters willing to do the job. Good luck to them negotiating nice salaries but why pay so much!!!
    But you didn't read it all did you?
    Her reported income in the latest report includes a full year of her breakfast show salary, which the fuckwit trouble making bone idle spongers on the tabloids are lazily/deliberately drawing a false comparison to the previous year when she only had that job for part of the time.
    Duh: more months = more salary
    The BBC isn't the biggest payer in popular media, it's just the only one that has reporting obligations for parts of its operations.  Neither Sky nor the despicable m"rd0(h media operation are obliged to reveal their top earners' packages.  Thus we have nothing with which to compare BBC's numbers, nor any realistic barometer of the wholly subjective notion of "value", if any such emotional judgement were relevant.
  • hoof_it_up_to_bentyhoof_it_up_to_benty
    StigThundercock said:
    HardyAddick said:
    Just read that Zoe Ball has had a large salary increase to about £1.4M and Gary Lineker has had a salary cut to about the same amount. 

    I know they are good presenters but why so much? They are not brain surgeons undertaking life saving operations every day for nowhere near that salary. Even at £200K, you would have a long list of good presenters willing to do the job. Good luck to them negotiating nice salaries but why pay so much!!!
    But you didn't read it all did you?
    Her reported income in the latest report includes a full year of her breakfast show salary, which the fuckwit trouble making bone idle spongers on the tabloids are lazily/deliberately drawing a false comparison to the previous year when she only had that job for part of the time.
    Duh: more months = more salary
    The BBC isn't the biggest payer in popular media, it's just the only one that has reporting obligations for parts of its operations.  Neither Sky nor the despicable m"rd0(h media operation are obliged to reveal their top earners' packages.  Thus we have nothing with which to compare BBC's numbers, nor any realistic barometer of the wholly subjective notion of "value", if any such emotional judgement were relevant.
    Is that you Zoe? You seem upset.
  • colthe3rdcolthe3rd
    hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
    colthe3rd said:
    Rothko said:
    Because that's the market
    Absolutely this. There's a wider debate about whether TV and radio personalities should be paid as much as they do but the BBC are simply paying the rate in order to retain their best staff. The only reason this comes up each year is that they have to publicly announce the salaries compared to their competitors.

    This is not to say that the BBC should be immune from criticism though. The Mrs, although doesn't work directly for them her company does a lot of work for the BBC and some of the stories really are shocking. It's such a massive lumbering organisation where failure is not punished and you're basically in a job for life regardless of your talent level. These are the things that should be sorted out and in the long run will cost more than what they pay their TV stars.
    'Best staff' ? - how much of a loss would it be if a lot of these presenters left. The vast majority have generic personalities and could easily be replaced.

    What criteria are they judged on? The BBC is awash with mediocre presenters - it's not one of the more skilled jobs in our society.

    How many people are going to miss the output and insight of Gary Lineker?
    He clearly is very good at what he does though or are there other reasons you dislike him?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!