Terry Wogan being paid for Children in Need

[Everhelpful]

How greedy can he be? Only "Celeb" to take money for appearing. He should be ashamed of himself,although the BBC paying him shows that money is no object when it's not your own.

[Scotman84]

Can you post a link to this info as proof? Not that I don't believe you, but I'd like to see it in black and white

[:pagan:]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/64173 29.stm

[arlibop]

Just read the link and am gobsmacked. Maybe he never asked to be paid but surely he could donate his 'fee' for the night to Children in Need. After all he does earn �800,000 a year!
BBC says Children in Need wouldn't be the same without him but personally I find him obnoxious he's always trying to upstage the guests and making jokes that wouldn't have been funny 40 years ago!

[Yorky Lass]

I never liked the man but thought how good he was to front the show evey year for hours on end. Of course I thought he was doing this for free. How greedy can he get. �1,300 per hour not bad for fronting a fund raising show.
Wonder what he'll get this year? Must allow for inflation, wouldn't want him to be under paid.

[stokeace]

would you go to work for free?i bet the answer is no of course i wouldnt.then why should he?

[Yorky Lass]

So Stokeace you'd not do anything for charity then? Good job the other "celebs" are a bit more charitable.

[stokeace]

yorkylass of course i do i walked 50 miles to help a local charity once [never again] lol but im just saying he has to earn a living like all of us im not trying to defend him maybe he could have donated some of his fee he might have for all we know...

[rosieglow]

I see he says he would happily do it for nothing so why dont he donate his dosh to charity? Im gone off im now.

[Yorky Lass]

Stokeace. I know he has to earn a living but unlike us he has more than once sorce of income. He was doing the voice over of Tesco as I wrote the above last night.
Pleased to hear you do your charitable bit, but 50 miles !!!! You must be mad! lol

[Pippa68]

It has been reported that Wogan may not have known he received the fee, as it goes straight to his agent.

As he knows about it now, he may wish to donate his fee this year ;o)

[Johnmof]

I would have some sympathy with those complaining about the fee if it came out of the charity money, but it didn't. It came out of the BBC running costs, and Wogan got his fee for presenting what is, at the end of the day, just another TV Programme. He may be the public face of the show, but there were numerous other people employed behind the scenes, camera crew, lighting, etc. Presumably they were paid the goung rate, so why should Wogan be treated any differently, just because he's got more money than the others? From memory, he's done his fair share of charitable work.

[alijangra]

Great point Jonhmof!

[unruliejulie]

i agree with johnmof

[gavinbecky]

This is actually old news. It was in the nationals a few years ago that Wogan and Lawley were being paid thousands to do Children In Need. Maybe any eagle eyed journo reading this should check their archives.

Disgusting really. No wonder he always has a smile on his face when he presents it. The fact that the BBC pay him is beside the point. They get good ratings and every other performer for free but cough up licence payers money for for a 68 year old has been to ramble on for 6 hours. Get someone more modern on who knows they aren't being paid anything.

[Everhelpful]

I TOTALLY agree with gavinbecky. The point about camera crew,etc. is irrelevant as they get no where near what the greedy,smug Irishman gets. Why did he get a Knighthood,by the way?