Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with whatever people earn.
But how can the BBC justify these salaries which are paid for via the TV Licence fee ?
Think I will cancel my DD and have my day in court.
BBC Pay
It's Gary Lineker who gets my goat.
If you read his Twitter account, you'll see his left-wing political views are bordering on being pure self-righteousness.
It's very easy to belittle the views of working class people, when you're earning 1.8M, and then to dismiss them as being thick or Fascists
If you read his Twitter account, you'll see his left-wing political views are bordering on being pure self-righteousness.
It's very easy to belittle the views of working class people, when you're earning 1.8M, and then to dismiss them as being thick or Fascists
-
sionascaig
- Posts: 1068
- Joined: Fri Nov 20, 2015 9:38 am
I noticed on some forum that someone had put a script together to record the footy but strip out all the football punditry as they were sick to the back teeth of it. He certainly isn't delivering value for that particular user )
-
BetScalper
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2017 10:47 pm
Doesn't he also get paid £2.8 Million from BT sport ?LeTiss wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:19 amIt's Gary Lineker who gets my goat.
If you read his Twitter account, you'll see his left-wing political views are bordering on being pure self-righteousness.
It's very easy to belittle the views of working class people, when you're earning 1.8M, and then to dismiss them as being thick or Fascists
Know what, why oh why do we keep seeing the same TV/radio presenters fronting all those different shows? I mean, for instance, Chris Evans (as we now know as being the highest at £2.2 million) hosts his morning radio programme and then he's on the first season of the new Top Gear? I could go on. Claire Balding presents this sport, that sport, why? There has to be a deeper reason.
Call me barmy but are all those people plus the top BBC execs Freemasons? It's just a thought. But there has to be a reason - any suggestions?
Call me barmy but are all those people plus the top BBC execs Freemasons? It's just a thought. But there has to be a reason - any suggestions?
I don't think it should ever be possible to become a millionaire working in any public service position.
The BBC doesn't need to scrap for ratings, it should be promoting new ,hungry, cheap talent.
Better yet, get rid of the licence fee altogether, then the BBC can EARN its money and pay just whatever it likes in wages.
The BBC doesn't need to scrap for ratings, it should be promoting new ,hungry, cheap talent.
Better yet, get rid of the licence fee altogether, then the BBC can EARN its money and pay just whatever it likes in wages.
-
ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
If you work out the cost per viewer, per week for the people who genuinely enjoy the talent, it's peanuts.
There'll always be people who don't like person x, but the BBC isn't only for them, it's for 'the masses' and if that's what it costs for them to get what they want, then fair enough. There's millions of people who have no interest at all in sport or drama, should they be allowed to opt out too if they think it's a waste of their money?
My bugbear isn't the cost of the presenters, it's the huge expense the BBC rack up sending 10 of them and huge film crew on holiday to a specially build studio everytime there's international football on, and why anyone needs to be watching TV at breakfast time is beyond me too.
Cut the waste and they'll save 10's of millions. A few hundered grand on wages seems to be an easy target with little or no effect other than populist virtue signalling.
There'll always be people who don't like person x, but the BBC isn't only for them, it's for 'the masses' and if that's what it costs for them to get what they want, then fair enough. There's millions of people who have no interest at all in sport or drama, should they be allowed to opt out too if they think it's a waste of their money?
My bugbear isn't the cost of the presenters, it's the huge expense the BBC rack up sending 10 of them and huge film crew on holiday to a specially build studio everytime there's international football on, and why anyone needs to be watching TV at breakfast time is beyond me too.
Cut the waste and they'll save 10's of millions. A few hundered grand on wages seems to be an easy target with little or no effect other than populist virtue signalling.
Last edited by ShaunWhite on Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:02 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
bennyboy351
- Posts: 332
- Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 6:01 pm
- Location: West Midlands, England.
'Earn' yes - get for doing next to nothing - no!BetScalper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:16 amDon't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with whatever people earn.
But how can the BBC justify these salaries which are paid for via the TV Licence fee ?
Think I will cancel my DD and have my day in court.
That's a hugely outdated viewpoint.ShaunWhite wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:55 pmand why anyone needs to be watching TV at breakfast time is beyond me too.
The internet, and cable TV has given us 24/7 access to whatever we want - if you're suggesting that some of those salaries are justified, but the BBC shouldn't open broadcasting until 9am, then you're talking crap
-
spreadbetting
- Posts: 3140
- Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2010 8:06 pm
It's simply because they'll be obliged to present a certain number of shows/hours as part of their BBC contract. I doubt the BBC has as many contracted stars as you think and you'd be even more up in arms if they were sitting idle picking up a fat cheque.oliver123 wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 1:39 pmKnow what, why oh why do we keep seeing the same TV/radio presenters fronting all those different shows? I mean, for instance, Chris Evans (as we now know as being the highest at £2.2 million) hosts his morning radio programme and then he's on the first season of the new Top Gear? I could go on. Claire Balding presents this sport, that sport, why? There has to be a deeper reason.
Call me barmy but are all those people plus the top BBC execs Freemasons? It's just a thought. But there has to be a reason - any suggestions?
-
ShaunWhite
- Posts: 9731
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2016 3:42 am
Or expressing an opinion which was slightly more relevant than yours about Linekers personal beliefs.LeTiss wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:11 pmyou're talking crapShaunWhite wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:55 pmand why anyone needs to be watching TV at breakfast time is beyond me too.
Jeez, you didn't take long to get ants in your pants because someone doesn't think exactly like you do. Ffs lighten up, can't people have an intellegent debate without you wading in with your trolling?
not defending the pay scales or otherwise but just want to add a dimension to exactly what the job of presenting entails (I know this having worked for ITV, Sony and Disney).
A typical weekend show will start with an office session on monday morning to work thro news items relevant to the programme remit. Various ideas will be floated that are in context to the show format (don't under estimate how hard it is to maintain a format, whilst keeping it fresh). Phone calls will be made to external parties to ascertain availability of short notice *guests*, longer term fixtures will be confirmed and finer details ironed out.
A script will then be loosely orchestrated to blend together all the components that make up that weeks show. Sub rehearsals will be undertaken for scripted parts of the show. Inevitably, there will be guest cancellations close to the live broadcast, these will all have to be worked around and sections rescripted... bla bla
Etc, etc. Behind all of this, your normally smartly dressed front man is involved across the 100's of live threads that are running to make up this show. In my experience, 100% of the front guys are in the office pretty much 6-8 hours each day. Of course, all we see is the final 1 hour segment that is broadcast.
Are they worth those huge salaries -on face value maybe not, but they certainly (as some imagine), don't just turn up on the saturday night and busk the entire show..
A typical weekend show will start with an office session on monday morning to work thro news items relevant to the programme remit. Various ideas will be floated that are in context to the show format (don't under estimate how hard it is to maintain a format, whilst keeping it fresh). Phone calls will be made to external parties to ascertain availability of short notice *guests*, longer term fixtures will be confirmed and finer details ironed out.
A script will then be loosely orchestrated to blend together all the components that make up that weeks show. Sub rehearsals will be undertaken for scripted parts of the show. Inevitably, there will be guest cancellations close to the live broadcast, these will all have to be worked around and sections rescripted... bla bla
Etc, etc. Behind all of this, your normally smartly dressed front man is involved across the 100's of live threads that are running to make up this show. In my experience, 100% of the front guys are in the office pretty much 6-8 hours each day. Of course, all we see is the final 1 hour segment that is broadcast.
Are they worth those huge salaries -on face value maybe not, but they certainly (as some imagine), don't just turn up on the saturday night and busk the entire show..
Go fuck yourselfShaunWhite wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:32 pmOr expressing an opinion which was slightly more relevant than yours about Linekers personal beliefs.LeTiss wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:11 pmyou're talking crapShaunWhite wrote: ↑Wed Jul 19, 2017 2:55 pmand why anyone needs to be watching TV at breakfast time is beyond me too.
Jeez, you didn't take long to get ants in your pants because someone doesn't think exactly like you do. Ffs lighten up, can't people have an intellegent debate without you wading in with your trolling?
