Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...

[turbobloke]

98elise said:

Countdown said:

blueg33 said:

My company is in EC as it happens. I get to see and sign off the accounts (lucky me). Our average staff cost on salary, employers NI, childcare vouchers, healthcare and pensions is just over £100k per employee. If we factor in desk space its more.

Your total salary bill may well be £100k. (I'd be interested in knowing how many people you employ and what line of work it is where £100k is the average)

However the average for a large organisation is nowhere near £100k. The average for the Beeb is nowhere near £100k. The average salary is £26k, add on employer on costs of 35% (let's be generous) and you are still looking in the region of £35k. And it would be a bonkers organisation which had indirect overheads of £65k per employee.

Appreciating that PH salaries are in a different world here's a link which shows average salaries;

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-28...

ps Childcare vouchers are £243 per month max. And the employee pays for them. They actually save the employer money rather than being an extra cost.

Most lower paid jobs will not be BBC employees. Cleaning, security, catering etc will not be on the books. I suspect this will push the average wage up.

Quite possibly so.

http://www.glassdoor.co.uk/Salary/BBC-Salaries-E58...

[BL Fanboy]

First post in this thread and probably a dumb question...



Im struggling to wonder how 50 million in profit relates to X amount of workers when the costs and quantity of said workers is unknown?

I would of thought that existing staff will continue to work on new TG and any others not needed would be redeployed to make other shows.

Will the new TG generate as much going forward - well that's the question.

[fulham911club]

With all the bitterness on this thread for some strange reason I'm reminded of a Taylor Swift song:

"'Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play
And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off
Heart-breakers gonna break, break, break, break, break
And the fakers gonna fake, fake, fake, fake, fake
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off"

I think a lot of you should take heed...

[Bluebarge]

Is this you, fulham911?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XFBUM8dMqw

[TKF]

Scuffers said:

don4l said:

longblackcoat said:

The £50m is, as I've explained, a red herring. Or do you disagree?

As you haven't quoted what you explained, and I cannot be bothered to trawl back through the thread, I have no idea.

I think that you can safely assume that I do disagree.

the £50M is indeed a red herring.

the reality is that TG was worth a lot more than this to the BBC, they sold it to over 180 countries (real time for the last series), just on the current TV shows, you telling us that they get less than £300K a country (average) for the broadcast rights?

that's before you cover repeats, the specials, access to the back catalogue, the live shows, the magazine, the DVD's, etc etc.

I would not be surprised if the majority of BBC worldwides accounts were related to TG, dumping it is going to be somewhat challenging for them.

Don, Scuffers and anyone else quoting "gut feel" figures and "would not be surprised" figures please stop. You're both clinging onto this "Top Gear makes £50m profit" number as if it means something. The conjecture is painful to watch.

BBC accounts are transparent and very easy to find. To save you typing into Google here are the actual numbers http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-r...

[turbobloke]

TKF said:

BBC accounts are transparent and very easy to find.

Nobody said they were difficult to find.

Transparency has taken a hit as per The Guardian's coverage describing the new approach as smoke and mirrors. See link posted earlier, and compare the new accounts with a former presentation.

www.downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/bbc_ar_on...

[don4l]

TKF said:

Scuffers said:

don4l said:

longblackcoat said:

The £50m is, as I've explained, a red herring. Or do you disagree?

As you haven't quoted what you explained, and I cannot be bothered to trawl back through the thread, I have no idea.

I think that you can safely assume that I do disagree.

the £50M is indeed a red herring.

the reality is that TG was worth a lot more than this to the BBC, they sold it to over 180 countries (real time for the last series), just on the current TV shows, you telling us that they get less than £300K a country (average) for the broadcast rights?

that's before you cover repeats, the specials, access to the back catalogue, the live shows, the magazine, the DVD's, etc etc.

I would not be surprised if the majority of BBC worldwides accounts were related to TG, dumping it is going to be somewhat challenging for them.

Don, Scuffers and anyone else quoting "gut feel" figures and "would not be surprised" figures please stop. You're both clinging onto this "Top Gear makes £50m profit" number as if it means something. The conjecture is painful to watch.

BBC accounts are transparent and very easy to find. To save you typing into Google here are the actual numbers http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-r...

Your friends at The Guardian disagree with you. http://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/jul/27/bbc-w...

[otolith]

Countdown said:

otolith said:

But admit it, you'd be willing to accept any size black hole to be rid of Clarkson.

It will be interesting to see what the continuation Top Gear looks like, and if it is dire, it will be amusing to see the usual suspects trying to say they see a shine on a turd.

Not at all. I'm sad to see JC go. But at some point you have to draw a line. JC crossed it.

Would you have kept him AT ANY COST? What, in your opinion, would have been "too much"?

Ah, I must have mistaken you for one of the baying mob which appears every time Clarkson opens his gob. Apologies. The point wasn't really about whether this situation made keeping him untenable, more about the people who have wanted him off air for some time at any cost, for whatever reason proves expedient.

[TKF]

turbobloke said:

TKF said:

BBC accounts are transparent and very easy to find.

Nobody said they were difficult to find.

Transparency has taken a hit as per The Guardian's coverage describing the new approach as smoke and mirrors. See link posted earlier, and compare the new accounts with a former presentation.

www.downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/bbc_ar_on...

That's how it's presented on the BBC website and you/The Guardian can't be bothered to look further. I posted the link simply because it's written in crayon and easier for you to understand however there are other sources available if you, Don, Scuffers etc. could be bothered to drop the anti-BBC rhetoric for a minute.

Like all big companies they're obliged to publish full accounts. In summary, to end Mar 2014, BBC Worldwide Ltd.
Turnover £890m
Pre-tax profit £122m
Wages & salaries £144m
Employees 1824

Again, if you could be bothered, you'd also find the full P&L and balance sheet for all the BBC entities. But made up, gut feel numbers are much better when you want to rant, right?

[turbobloke]

TKF said:

turbobloke said:

TKF said:

BBC accounts are transparent and very easy to find.

Nobody said they were difficult to find.

Transparency has taken a hit as per The Guardian's coverage describing the new approach as smoke and mirrors. See link posted earlier, and compare the new accounts with a former presentation.

www.downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/bbc_ar_on...

That's how it's presented on the BBC website and you/The Guardian can't be bothered to look further.

Oh yes we can

Didn't you claim it was all easy to find? Try here for another example, with the second link located top left on the first webpage.

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-r...

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/media/20048/bbc_worldw...

[smn159]

fulham911club said:

With all the bitterness on this thread for some strange reason I'm reminded of a Taylor Swift song:

"'Cause the players gonna play, play, play, play, play
And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off
Heart-breakers gonna break, break, break, break, break
And the fakers gonna fake, fake, fake, fake, fake
Baby, I'm just gonna shake, shake, shake, shake, shake
I shake it off, I shake it off"

I think a lot of you should take heed...

Interesting.
Swift appears to have developed a strategy when encountering certain characteristics in others whereby she begins to vibrate. I assume that this is self induced, but unfortunately her less than vivid description of the process does not confirm this.
The impact of this oscillation on those exhibiting the characteristics is also unclear, so further study will be required.

Seriously though, if st like that sells records I'm in the wrong job.

[TKF]

turbobloke said:

TKF said:

turbobloke said:

TKF said:

BBC accounts are transparent and very easy to find.

Nobody said they were difficult to find.

Transparency has taken a hit as per The Guardian's coverage describing the new approach as smoke and mirrors. See link posted earlier, and compare the new accounts with a former presentation.

www.downloads.bbc.co.uk/annualreport/pdf/bbc_ar_on...

That's how it's presented on the BBC website and you/The Guardian can't be bothered to look further.

Oh yes we can

Didn't you claim it was all easy to find? Try here for another example, with the second link located top left on the first webpage.

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/annual-review/annual-r...

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/media/20048/bbc_worldw...

Not entirely sure what your point is?

"BBC accounts are transparent and very easy to find". Don't just complain about how it's presented. Look on any number of sources (duedil etc.) to see the same numbers that are presented in the same way as every large UK company. If you can't understand them, fine, but don't claim they're not transparent.

[Ali G]

http://www.bbcworldwide.com/media/100452/annualrev...

page 16

[blueg33]

Countdown said:

blueg33 said:

My company is in EC as it happens. I get to see and sign off the accounts (lucky me). Our average staff cost on salary, employers NI, childcare vouchers, healthcare and pensions is just over £100k per employee. If we factor in desk space its more.

Your total salary bill may well be £100k. (I'd be interested in knowing how many people you employ and what line of work it is where £100k is the average)

However the average for a large organisation is nowhere near £100k. The average for the Beeb is nowhere near £100k. The average salary is £26k, add on employer on costs of 35% (let's be generous) and you are still looking in the region of £35k. And it would be a bonkers organisation which had indirect overheads of £65k per employee.

Appreciating that PH salaries are in a different world here's a link which shows average salaries;

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-28...

ps Childcare vouchers are £243 per month max. And the employee pays for them. They actually save the employer money rather than being an extra cost.

We employ about 150 people directly in this subsidiary, mostly professionals. We are a developer/investor of public sector and care infrastructure. We employ a further 150 or so in joint venture subsidiaries, salary levels are similar. Typically 1 admin person for 10 professionals.

We have a very flat management structure.

[anonymous-user]

otolith said:

Countdown said:

otolith said:

But admit it, you'd be willing to accept any size black hole to be rid of Clarkson.

It will be interesting to see what the continuation Top Gear looks like, and if it is dire, it will be amusing to see the usual suspects trying to say they see a shine on a turd.

Not at all. I'm sad to see JC go. But at some point you have to draw a line. JC crossed it.

Would you have kept him AT ANY COST? What, in your opinion, would have been "too much"?

Ah, I must have mistaken you for one of the baying mob which appears every time Clarkson opens his gob. Apologies. The point wasn't really about whether this situation made keeping him untenable, more about the people who have wanted him off air for some time at any cost, for whatever reason proves expedient.

The (baying) mob on this thread are clearly all the people imagining they are fighting against the BBC and lefties and the ever mysterious "PC Brigade". You're going on about baying mobs but you've just falsely accused someone of being anti Clarkson when they weren't actually at all.

This thread is obviously overwhelmingly pro Clarkson, I'm not sure how you imagine there is any anti Clarkson mob here baying or otherwise.

[otolith]

el stovey said:

The (baying) mob on this thread are clearly all the people imagining they are fighting against the BBC and lefties and the ever mysterious "PC Brigade". You're going on about baying mobs but you've just falsely accused someone of being anti Clarkson when they weren't actually at all.

I thought I recognised the username, I was wrong. There are certain people - oddly all vociferously left of centre, though I'm sure that's nothing to do with it - who have been relishing every overinflated faux pass with their ardour for his sacking.

el stovey said:

This thread is obviously overwhelmingly pro Clarkson, I'm not sure how you imagine there is any anti Clarkson mob here baying or otherwise.

Have you not seen any of the other threads covering previous Clarkson stories?

[AnotherClarkey]

[redacted]

[The Don of Croy]

Countdown said:

...The average salary is £26k, add on employer on costs of 35% (let's be generous) ...

From the BBC accounts it states staff costs at £1224.70 millions, and total staff 20,736.

So their average salary would be >£59k on that basis. More than double the national average.

And Clarkson isn't sacked for another 6.5 hours yet...

[Countdown]

blueg33 said:

We employ about 150 people directly in this subsidiary, mostly professionals. We are a developer/investor of public sector and care infrastructure. We employ a further 150 or so in joint venture subsidiaries, salary levels are similar. Typically 1 admin person for 10 professionals.

We have a very flat management structure.

If you don't mind me asking, professional "what's"? Quantity Surveyors? Bricklayers? Would you say the salaries of these roles are average for London or above average? Apologies for being so inquisitive - I'm genuinely curious as to what kind of organisation (outside of IB and Dotcom startup) pays its staff an average of £100k

[Countdown]

The Don of Croy said:

From the BBC accounts it states staff costs at £1224.70 millions, and total staff 20,736.

So their average salary would be >£59k on that basis. More than double the national average.

And Clarkson isn't sacked for another 6.5 hours yet...

Staff costs will include employers NI, superann, possibly car allowances, healthcare, and any other benefits. If £59k is gross cost then basic salary will be nearer £45k

I'm still not sure how each employee would attract another £40k in overheads.