blonde poker forum

Community Forums => The Lounge => Topic started by: nirvana on July 02, 2019, 12:36:04 PM



Title: BBC pay
Post by: nirvana on July 02, 2019, 12:36:04 PM
BBC News - BBC pay: Claudia Winkleman, Zoe Ball and Vanessa Feltz among top earners
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48826586

Alan shearer.. Incred


Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: aaron1867 on July 03, 2019, 02:35:58 AM
This BBC thing is getting up my nose - We really do not need to know what people get paid. It sets a dangerous precedent for public servants and so on to release their pay.

Alan Shearer is definitely incred though & o is Feltz, not really sure what either of them do to get paid that much


Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: Pokerpops on July 03, 2019, 06:01:58 AM
This BBC thing is getting up my nose - We really do not need to know what people get paid. It sets a dangerous precedent for public servants and so on to release their pay.

Alan Shearer is definitely incred though & o is Feltz, not really sure what either of them do to get paid that much

Why shouldn’t we be aware of pay levels within public bodies? We already know the pay scales for the civil service, teaching, police etc.



Shearer has a good agent. £440,000 divided by number of MOTD appearances means maybe £20k a go?



Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: RickBFA on July 03, 2019, 07:46:05 AM
Lineker is vastly over paid, £1.75m is a joke. They should offer him half that or ditch him at first opportunity.

Jermaine Jenas at £210,000 ? Shaking my head in disbelief.




Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: BigAdz on July 03, 2019, 08:33:15 AM
Lineker is vastly over paid, £1.75m is a joke. They should offer him half that or ditch him at first opportunity.

Jermaine Jenas at £210,000 ? Shaking my head in disbelief.





This, but defo get rid of.


Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: tikay on July 03, 2019, 08:50:03 AM

What is the market-rate for Lineker's job though? What would he get paid for a similar role at, say, Sky?


Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: Jon MW on July 03, 2019, 09:22:15 AM

What is the market-rate for Lineker's job though? What would he get paid for a similar role at, say, Sky?

But ... does it matter?

If it were Sky, for example, and it was a show that actively attracted extra subscribers then it might makes sense - the argument being that without him they would lose more money than it cost to pay him.

But the BBC aren't a commercial network.

They don't have to worry about losing or gaining subscribers and they don't have to worry about appealing to advertisers.

If Lineker didn't accept a million less for his job and left for Sky the BBC could just replace him. If they lost x thousand viewers - would it matter?

And would they lose viewers? Are their any significant number of people really watching BBC sports just for the bits that Lineker does?


Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: aaron1867 on July 03, 2019, 09:44:20 AM
I don’t see the big problem with Gary Lineker getting that much. He presents the biggest show on BBC.

MOTD, PL show, FA Cup coverage, Euro/WC coverage (he’s away for 5 weeks).

Look over to ITV, Piers Morgan gets £1.5m just for GMB. Hundreds of thousands for stars on X-Factor/BGT. It looks the £1.75m for Lineker a bargain.


Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: tikay on July 03, 2019, 09:56:28 AM

What is the market-rate for Lineker's job though? What would he get paid for a similar role at, say, Sky?

But ... does it matter?

If it were Sky, for example, and it was a show that actively attracted extra subscribers then it might makes sense - the argument being that without him they would lose more money than it cost to pay him.

But the BBC aren't a commercial network.

They don't have to worry about losing or gaining subscribers and they don't have to worry about appealing to advertisers.

If Lineker didn't accept a million less for his job and left for Sky the BBC could just replace him. If they lost x thousand viewers - would it matter?

And would they lose viewers? Are their any significant number of people really watching BBC sports just for the bits that Lineker does?

Well it does to him Jon. He's perfectly entitled to seek the market rate for the job. And I'm not sure why the BBC should not compete, they aim to produce high class  TV, & for the most part, they do. Compare the BBC Channels with, say, Channel 5,perhaps the worst mainstream TV channel ever & you'll get the drift.

A BBC employing second-rate staff is not going to cut it.


Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: Skippy on July 03, 2019, 11:43:56 AM
They don't have to worry about losing or gaining subscribers and they don't have to worry about appealing to advertisers.

They definitely have to worry about appealing to public opinion, otherwise the license feed could be cut or scrapped altogether.

The license fee is not long for this world in my opinion.


Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: Jon MW on July 03, 2019, 01:09:16 PM

What is the market-rate for Lineker's job though? What would he get paid for a similar role at, say, Sky?

But ... does it matter?

If it were Sky, for example, and it was a show that actively attracted extra subscribers then it might makes sense - the argument being that without him they would lose more money than it cost to pay him.

But the BBC aren't a commercial network.

They don't have to worry about losing or gaining subscribers and they don't have to worry about appealing to advertisers.

If Lineker didn't accept a million less for his job and left for Sky the BBC could just replace him. If they lost x thousand viewers - would it matter?

And would they lose viewers? Are their any significant number of people really watching BBC sports just for the bits that Lineker does?

Well it does to him Jon. He's perfectly entitled to seek the market rate for the job. And I'm not sure why the BBC should not compete, they aim to produce high class  TV, & for the most part, they do. Compare the BBC Channels with, say, Channel 5,perhaps the worst mainstream TV channel ever & you'll get the drift.

A BBC employing second-rate staff is not going to cut it.

One element is economic - the BBC doesn't lose any money if they don't employ Lineker.

The other is qualitative though. Lineker does a great job and is very experienced now - but is he uniquely qualified for the job?

Is he really absolutely essential?

I don't really think that what he does makes so much of a difference to the BBC that with him they have a quality show and without him they have a poor one.


They don't have to worry about losing or gaining subscribers and they don't have to worry about appealing to advertisers.

They definitely have to worry about appealing to public opinion, otherwise the license feed could be cut or scrapped altogether.

The license fee is not long for this world in my opinion.

That would be my preferred option - they're acting like a commercial network now, so they might as well be a commercial network.


Title: Re: BBC pay
Post by: aaron1867 on July 05, 2019, 12:27:33 PM
Having watched the coverage from the womens World Cup, I can see why Lineker is paid so much. The coverage, commentary and calibre of pundit/guests has been absolutely woeful.