Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
BBC Salaries
#1
Interesting to see that  in amongst the £2m salaries for the likes of Gary Lineker and Chris Evans, that the BBC's cricket correspondent is coining something in the region of £150-£200k.

I've commented before that his workload has now been so reduced that he does little else than cover home and away test matches - notwithstanding that the winter before last when England were in the Emirates playing Pakistan he took a well-earned break to Argentina for 2 weeks leaving commentary duties to his less well-paid understudies.

I estimate his workload at about about 55 days for this summer and next winter.

Even taking into account odd bit of novelty commentating on archery and equestrian sport, am I the only one that thinks Jonathan Agnew has hit the jackpot?
Reply
#2
What on earth does Lineker do to earn his fortune? He sits in a studio chatting with his mates who analise the games. He adds very little to the programmes.
LE - aka John
Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Leicester Exile's post:
narsty simon
#3
I am just wondering why Chris Evans is on that much. Not sure about Agnew. Sure its a lot but I think hes very good at his job. Wonder what the sky cricket commentators are on or the criic info journalists. Linekar though is ridiculous. Its a reason to not pay your tv license

Reply
#4
To give context to todays figures, we really need to same information from other media companies.
While Robert may be bad, Robert is not all Mugabe's.
There are GOOD Mugabe's
It is Warwickshire County Cricket Club!
Reply
#5
Yes but compared to say a nurse who's average pay is £23,000 a year its scandelous really. Is their job more important, I don't think so. We'd get by prefectly fine if they had joe blogs presenting MOTD and paid him minimum wage but without nurses where would we be. ITV are no better. Gary Neville returned to sky after his failure as a football manager and signed a lucrative contract worth £1.7 mil a year.

Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
narsty simon
#6
(19-07-2017, 11:07 PM)Paul Wrote: Yes but compared to say a nurse who's average pay is £23,000 a year its scandelous really.  Is their job more important, I don't think so. We'd get by prefectly fine if they had joe blogs presenting MOTD and paid him minimum wage but without nurses where would we be.   ITV are no better. Gary Neville returned to sky after his failure as a football manager and signed a lucrative contract worth £1.7 mil a year.

Not fair to make that comparison. Singers, sportsmen and women, actors all get paid more than nurses. I earned more than a nurse and I would never say my job was more important. I think the trouble is BBC have given many presenters celebrity status and paid them accordingly.
LE - aka John
Reply
#7
I think its very fair LE. Why do they get paid so much more? Its what is messed up about the world. Graham Norton - what an idiot. if you are a great song writer like Thom Yorke then fine he deserves it but just having a good voice but not being able to create anything original nah.

Reply
#8
(20-07-2017, 10:56 AM)Paul Wrote: I think its very fair LE. Why do they get paid so much more? Its what is messed up about the world. Graham Norton - what an idiot. if you are a great song writer like  Thom Yorke then fine he deserves it but just having a good voice but not being able to create anything original nah.

I suppose the world operates on a supply and demand basis. If only a few people aspired to be nurses their pay would increase dramatically. If there was a glut of brain surgeons their salary would reduce. And for every singer or tv presenter that makes it to the top there are a thousand who fall by the wayside.
LE - aka John
Reply
#9
Changing the subject there is an unfairness in how the how the money is distributed in the NHS. You have group practices that are run purely for profit not for the care of the patients. My local pharmacist told me this.

Reply
#10
Tony Hancock in The Blood Donor (1961):
(Speaking to June Whitfield playing a nurse)
"Of course, it's a vocation.  One of the highest callings a woman can aspire to. It's not the money, is it? Strange, the different values we place on society.  I mean, you take modelling.  You get some skinny bird up in the West End, all bones and salt cellars dragging a piece of fur along a platform - £50 quid a week. Then there's you lot, three years' training, humping great trolley loads of mince about all day long."
Apart from the amounts involved (£50 was a lot of money in 1961), not much has changed in the last half a century.
Keep up-to-date with County Cricket at http://deepextracover.com/
Reply
#11
And while 15000 will pay £100 to see their favourite singer (who already has £millions in the bank) perform the songs they already have on CD , people pay big money to see their £100k per week football players, 25000 paying up to £100 a day to see an Ashes test and a similar sum to see a tennis player earn another £1.5 million by winning at Wimbledon I suspect nothing will change.

Let the revolution start here!
LE - aka John
Reply
#12
Yes we are all contributing to the inflated wages in the epl by subscribing to sky. Makes you want to use illegal streams

Reply
#13
We're not close to "from each according to his worth, to each according to his needs" and will not be as long as we stay in a market economy. No, I wouldn't pay Chris Evans a handful of beans but if he can find someone willing to shower him with gold, good luck to him. You are entitled to take the smooth with the rough whether you are Claudia Winkleman, Wayne Rooney or Chris Woakes.
The feigned outrage at BBC pay is missing the greatest abuses anyway - which are in the City. Find any City institution where 10% of top earners are female let alone 30%. Find any middle ranking investment banker who doesn't trouser more than Jeremy Bowen or John Pienaar - vastly experienced journalists who often work in real physical danger. Roll the tumbrils to Canary Wharf!
Reply
#14
There is no feined outrage ... it is real...... the BBC is meant to be a public service broadcaster.... 12000 hard pressed families pay for Gary Lineker to speak for 15 minutes a week on MOD for 37 weeks of the year....

We are virtually forced to pay for the BBC and as such it should be bringing on new tallent rather than paying millions on hasbeen $h1t€. The BBC needs to either go pay per view / subscription or be chopped down to size. It is no longer fit for purpose and the axe needs to come out. It is a biased PC $h1t€ production line..... quality is now seldom seen outside a couple of series a year. Why should we virtually be forced to pay for it?

Evidence suggests that more and more people are legally avoiding paying the BBC license fee and many more dont give a to$$ and dont care to pay it anyway.

If the BBC was a subscription based commercial broadcaster, I would have no problem with salaries..... but the BBC is abusing its position.... from cases like Saville to impartial news reporting to paying Lineker etal millions. It is out of control!
Reply
#15
I don't think I watched MOTD once last season. With so much football saturation on sky and bt who needs MOTD anyway. Its living on reputation. Linekar is one of Englands finest strikers but I hate his smarmy way. Bring back Jimmy Greaves, better player and better on tv

Reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Paul's post:
Leicester Exile


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)