More envy gripes about excessive salaries.

[crankedup]

Daily Wail shout out about Mr Lineker's annual salary of two million quid and then he claims 15k travel expenses. All above board and legal, but two million a year, just how much is a link man come pundit really worth, not that much I say. Rather see BeeB televise more sport that they say they cannot afford.

[BarnatosGhost]

The bbc salaries are a bit mad. Think of the quality broadcasting they could do with the salaries of their stars.

Wish they'd stop competing for ratings and go back to educational, inspirational quality.

Radios 4 and 5 with pictures, in essence.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Both Linekar and Hansen aren't worth anywhere near their salaries IMO.

Tbh, I actually prefer the guys on Motd2 and the Championship show to Linekar.

Hansen talks rubbish most of the time as well.

Eta: it's not Linekar and Hansen that make MotD so popular. It's pops
Lar because football is the nations sport and it's the only place on terrestrial tv to catch all the highlights of the weekend.

Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Saturday 17th March 16:20

[hyperblue]

BarnatosGhost said:

The bbc salaries are a bit mad. Think of the quality broadcasting they could do with the salaries of their stars.

Wish they'd stop competing for ratings and go back to educational, inspirational quality.

Radios 4 and 5 with pictures, in essence.

I never really understand why the BBC tries to compete against "popular" stuff like XFactor. Leave the commercial sector to provide that stuff and leave the BBC to what it does best.

They pay these big salaries to "talent" and claim that it's the market rate but the BBC is so big that it distorts the market completely.

[anonymous-user]

I rather hoped this thread was going to slag off 'salary envy'. Good luck to him I say.

[GarryA]

So you go for a job at the BBC,

BBC - Congratulations Mr XYZ you will start on 1m per annum,

Mr XYZ - No no, thats far to much, minimum wage will do thanks.

[Spiritual_Beggar]

Jimboka said:

I rather hoped this thread was going to slag off 'salary envy'. Good luck to him I say.

Oh, completely agree.....


This damned 'socialist' agenda you constantly hear in the media these days is a joke!

If people earn that money because they worked hard, got lucky, or whatever.....Good luck to them!


However, with the BBC being one of the more vociferous voices in this Salary Envy agenda, it seems a bit hypocritical that they are willing to pay people like Linekar such large amounts, when they really don't add value to the programme they are on.

[Globs]

2m per year for one pundit..

145.50 per licence fee

So that's 13746 licences per year just for him, or nearly 38 every single day.
And many people don't even watch football, and the majority who does have got Sky anyway.

Bloody rip off.

[anonymous-user]

Jimboka said:

Good luck to him I say.

Which is exactly why the BBC continues to get away with wasting taxpayers money, because most of the population aren't capable of recognising value for money.

I bet you vote on reality TV too, don't you?

[DieselGriff]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

However, with the BBC being one of the more vociferous voices in this Salary Envy agenda, it seems a bit hypocritical that they are willing to pay people like Linekar such large amounts, when they really don't add value to the programme they are on.

Whilst I'm in agreement with sentiment to say Linekar doesn't add value is a bit unfair I think. In something like sport then knowledge and experience can count for a lot, especially in areas that your viewers are knowledgeable it lends credence.

Should a public broadcaster be showing such popular programmes and therefore be paying for that expertise is I think a different argument, and even then can you source such expertise elsewhere at lower cost? Probably.

When they pay huge amounts to celebrities for being well known, and as such perpetuate their worth (I'm thinking the like of Mr Ross and ex newsreaders) then I'm in full agreement.

[Jasey@]

MOTD shouldn't have a presenter - just show the match highlights.

Watching a bunch of knobends arguing the toss over every decision really adds nothing at all !

[Spiritual_Beggar]

DieselGriff said:

Whilst I'm in agreement with sentiment to say Linekar doesn't add value is a bit unfair I think. In something like sport then knowledge and experience can count for a lot, especially in areas that your viewers are knowledgeable it lends credence.

Should a public broadcaster be showing such popular programmes and therefore be paying for that expertise is I think a different argument, and even then can you source such expertise elsewhere at lower cost? Probably.

When they pay huge amounts to celebrities for being well known, and as such perpetuate their worth (I'm thinking the like of Mr Ross and ex newsreaders) then I'm in full agreement.

Value for money.

I agree that since he was a footballer it may add weight to his comments, but as I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not sure having linear present the show is actually adding value.

I actually prefer the other guy on MotD.

Do you think MotD would be less popular if Adrian Chiles was presenting it? I don't, as people watch it for the match highlights, and not the punditry afterwards.

[DieselGriff]

Spiritual_Beggar said:

Value for money.

I agree that since he was a footballer it may add weight to his comments, but as I mentioned in a previous post, I'm not sure having linear present the show is actually adding value.

I actually prefer the other guy on MotD.

Do you think MotD would be less popular if Adrian Chiles was presenting it? I don't, as people watch it for the match highlights, and not the punditry afterwards.

Sorry, I'm not qualified to go into details, I have no real interest in the subject I was trying to make a more general point using your example.

I agree it's about value for money and I think you get more value for money in a specialised subject from someone who has experience and knowledge of the question at hand so I think we are in agreement, I was simply querying the "no value" comment.

When it comes to "celebrities" then there is a lot more choice when it comes to making poor jokes,badly, and sucking up to other people who are famous for being famous. Here Mr Linekars payment from the BBC pails into insignificance.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

I actually think Lineker is a rather good presenter. Plus he's been there and done it, football at the highest level, so that adds gravitas. 2m a year isn't just for MOTD, but also the live coverage he does of various matches. My guess is that being a TV presenter is a damn sight harder than it looks, and live TV is something else again.

All these people saying how easy it is, well why aren't they doing it for 2m a yr instead of pissing their day away on a motoring forum.

Envy...it's a very destructive emotion.

[Globs]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I actually think Lineker is a rather good presenter. Plus he's been there and done it, football at the highest level, so that adds gravitas. 2m a year isn't just for MOTD, but also the live coverage he does of various matches. My guess is that being a TV presenter is a damn sight harder than it looks, and live TV is something else again.

All these people saying how easy it is, well why aren't they doing it for 2m a yr instead of pissing their day away on a motoring forum.

Envy...it's a very destructive emotion.

It's not envy, it's being forced to pay the licence fee (with threat of prison) and then seeing it given to a multi-millionaire to do something he likes doing anyway, in a sport I don't watch.

[TorqueVR]

So if I'm correct the BBC pays Linekar more than Lloyds pays Heston. So if a TV presenter is worth so much why is Heston wasting his time at Lloyds?

[randlemarcus]

TorqueVR said:

So if I'm correct the BBC pays Linekar more than Lloyds pays Heston. So if a TV presenter is worth so much why is Heston wasting his time at Lloyds?

Probably because someone on a Freeview channel tried CDS Arbitrage Mechanism Regulation Live!! and it wasn't much of a crowdpleaser

Can't say it pleases me that the Beeb feel it necessary to compete in the race to the bottom with ITV, but I have no interest in Wendyball, so am not qualified to comment on his added value.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Globs said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I actually think Lineker is a rather good presenter. Plus he's been there and done it, football at the highest level, so that adds gravitas. 2m a year isn't just for MOTD, but also the live coverage he does of various matches. My guess is that being a TV presenter is a damn sight harder than it looks, and live TV is something else again.

All these people saying how easy it is, well why aren't they doing it for 2m a yr instead of pissing their day away on a motoring forum.

Envy...it's a very destructive emotion.

It's not envy, it's being forced to pay the licence fee (with threat of prison) and then seeing it given to a multi-millionaire to do something he likes doing anyway, in a sport I don't watch.

So you object to the fact that he's already rich. Should people who have been successful in former occupation not be allowed on telly, becaue they've got enough money already. Seems a bit mean spirited.

You also object to the fact that he's been paid to do something he likes doing. I guess Jonathan Ross likes interviewing people, Alan Sugar enjoys doing the apprentice, Jeremy Clarkson likes trying out different cars and presenters of most sports enjoy the sport they are presenting on. Maybe they should swap them all around, to make sure no one was getting paid to do something they liked. Not sure it would improve the quality of the programmes though.

But the biggest issue you have is you don't like football. I don't like chat shows, but I have no objection to the best people earning top money. But then again, I'm not the envious type.

[Globs]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

I don't like chat shows

And I don't force you to pay for them or go to prison.
Clearly there is no reasoning with you, perhaps you are a Lib Dem?

[DieselGriff]

I think part, if not a large part, of the problem is that the BBC has moved into the populist arena and is trying to be all things to all men (unless you are a right wing bunny killing baby eater of course). As such it will create arguments between those who feel their likes are not being supported.

I'm guilty of this as as of this weekend for the first time in many years I'm not watching an F1 race because I disagree with the decision to move part of it to sky and as such I will miss out. As such I feel slightly hypocritical when I say that I don't think a Public service broadcaster should reflect the populist vote - there's a market for that.

A public broadcaster should stay small, broadcast non biased news and science and those programs enjoyed by those that don't enjoy the popular stuff that can be catered for elsewhere (at a profit).