Bbc To Reveal Salaries - Good Or Bad?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-40633241
I think probably bad, it can only lead to a larger wage bill.

[Ellipsis]

> And where are all these jobs elsewhere ?

Commercial terrestrial and satellite TV channels and radio stations for a start.

> If they exist why don't they go to this elsewhere

Because the BBC pays them well enough.

Here's something that should put Gary Lineker's salary in context. In March this year BT paid £1.2bn for the rights to show Premiership Football:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2017/03/06/bt-sees-sky-12bn-deal-champions-league-football-rights/

On top of that, the fees for their presenters pale into insignificance. As a BT customer, would you choose to go elsewhere because of the way they were spending your money? Sky perhaps ...

[dave50]

When this information was released, all the media could go on about was the scandal of the wage disparity between men and women, as though that's what was everyone was talking about. No it wasn't, everyone I know was disgusted at the obscene salary levels in general and how we are forced to pay for it or go to prison. Time the licence fee was abolished.

[chelle7272]

Chris Evans has over 9 million listeners per week. High though a 2.2 million salary is, divided per listener it's barely anything.

All depends on your perspective I guess.

[-Talbot-]

Perspective


Let's say a person's only interest is premiership football, so that person is best of with a subscription to BT or Sky ... to be able to legally watch Sky or BT that person has to hand over 147 quid to the BBC

In this day and age that just is not right.
Is it?

[vulcan42]

There is something seriously wrong with The BBC accountants if listening figures are the criteria for presenter salaries. Chris Evans 9.83 million listeners receives £2.2 million. Ken Bruce 8.31 million listeners (2nd highest in Europe, Chris Evans first) receives, by comparison, a paltry £250,000.

[Bazile]

//> And where are all these jobs elsewhere ?

Commercial terrestrial and satellite TV channels and radio stations for a start. //

Yep , there are vacancies at commercial terrestrial and satellite TV channels and radio stations just waiting to be filled , aren't there .

//> If they exist why don't they go to this elsewhere

Because the BBC pays them well enough. //

Exactly , they know they are on to a good thing at the beeb

//On top of that, the fees for their presenters pale into insignificance. As a BT customer, would you choose to go elsewhere because of the way they were spending your money? Sky perhaps ...//

Whether or not i chose to go to sky or BT would be my choice .
At the moment i am forced to pay a licence fee to the BBC , in order to make that choice

[-Talbot-]

There is something seriously wrong with The BBC


I'm going to stop there and post this, Vulcan

Nick Grimshaw has overseen record lows for a Radio1 audience
The lowest audience since the RAJAR system started (1/2 million lost last year alone)
Now you would think that is a bad thing?

Nope ... he has been praised for shedding old fogey listeners and attracting a new younger audience ... bonkers!


The report reveals that he takes home between £350,000 and £399,999 a year.

[Dodger666]

If the BBC believes it's OK to spend these vast amounts of licence payer's cash on some grossly overpaid presenters, then I think it's OK if I don't volunteer to pay for my TV licence when I reach 75.

[bainbrig]

As usual, it's all about class.

If you're a train driver, a nurse, a dustman, or up the scale a little a teacher, then your wages are known, often to the penny.

If you're unfortunate enough to be out of work, or disabled, then your weekly income is definitely known, to the penny, and subject to comment by absolutely everyone.

But once you reach the hallowed heights and scramble out of the working classes, you can write your own rules, and make your 'salary' a very private matter.

And it's the poor wot gets the thin end of the wedge (to mix metaphors).

Bainbrig