Jeremy Clarkson suspended by BBC...
Discussion
Just announced that the Live shows will go ahead, but without BBC or Top Gear branding
http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2015/03/31/t...
I can just imagine Clarkson getting a dig in..
"Hello and welcome to Not Gear !"
http://transmission.blogs.topgear.com/2015/03/31/t...
I can just imagine Clarkson getting a dig in..
"Hello and welcome to Not Gear !"
Countdown said:
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
BBC Worldwide spends an average of £78k, according to the figures a few posts above.IT and accommodation will take that comfortably over £100k, I'd say.
La Liga said:
he same crude generalisation can be turned around.
Yes, it can be. It doesn't change the observation that there are a number of people who have wanted rid of Clarkson for some time because they find his politics offensive, and would he happy with any size of revenue loss to the BBC so long as the opportunity to shut the guy up is not lost.
Countdown said:
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 £45kSo 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...
I'm still not sure how each employee would attract another £40k in overheads.
We started out by talking about the cost of employing staff, which is very different to salaries.
Rent and rates in my company are roughly 40% of the salary bill. That would put the BBC on £83k per employee. By the time you add in furniture, heating, lighting and other costs, it looks like my estimate of £100k was bloody close.
otolith said:
It doesn't change the observation that there are a number of people who have wanted rid of Clarkson for some time because they find his politics offensive, and would he happy with any size of revenue loss to the BBC so long as the opportunity to shut the guy up is not lost.
But they've not been BBC management, who have continued to employ him, despite the "eeny, meeny etc" saga which would have probably seen him binned by any commercial broadcaster.What people forget is that commercial broadcasters have less room to take risks, because advertisers don't like to be associated with negative messages, which is why ITV and Sky didnt afford people such as Ron Atkinson or Richard Keys/Andy Grey an opportunity to make amends in the way Clarkson did, a few times.
So, it's ironic given the swivel-eyed BBC/Leftie bashing going on here that the BBC is a better home for eccentrics like Clarkson than anywhere else, as a quick look at the schedules will reveal.
don4l said:
This conversation is wandering about.
We started out by talking about the cost of employing staff, which is very different to salaries.
Rent and rates in my company are roughly 40% of the salary bill. That would put the BBC on £83k per employee. By the time you add in furniture, heating, lighting and other costs, it looks like my estimate of £100k was bloody close.
You think the Beeb spends £20k per employee on rent and rates?We started out by talking about the cost of employing staff, which is very different to salaries.
Rent and rates in my company are roughly 40% of the salary bill. That would put the BBC on £83k per employee. By the time you add in furniture, heating, lighting and other costs, it looks like my estimate of £100k was bloody close.
And another £17k on other premises costs?
I'm out.
http://www.accountingservicesforbusiness.co.uk/cal...
Bluebarge said:
But they've not been BBC management, who have continued to employ him, despite the "eeny, meeny etc" saga which would have probably seen him binned by any commercial broadcaster.
Rubbish In a commercial broadcaster, that clip would have stayed in the bin of the cuttingroom.
Countdown said:
don4l said:
This conversation is wandering about.
We started out by talking about the cost of employing staff, which is very different to salaries.
Rent and rates in my company are roughly 40% of the salary bill. That would put the BBC on £83k per employee. By the time you add in furniture, heating, lighting and other costs, it looks like my estimate of £100k was bloody close.
You think the Beeb spends £20k per employee on rent and rates?We started out by talking about the cost of employing staff, which is very different to salaries.
Rent and rates in my company are roughly 40% of the salary bill. That would put the BBC on £83k per employee. By the time you add in furniture, heating, lighting and other costs, it looks like my estimate of £100k was bloody close.
And another £17k on other premises costs?
I'm out.
http://www.accountingservicesforbusiness.co.uk/cal...
I filled in that page, and it says £103,891.00
He didn't even say it anyway! He just mumbled two syllables to keep the tune going. Watched it back, decided it was a bit close for comfort and re-shot it. It's only because people love to hate him that it was made such a big deal of.
I also reckon calling him 'violent' is a bit far fetched. He punched one bloke. In 54 years. Well, two if you count Piers Morgan, but I'm sure nobody minds that.
Probably did deserve the sack, but doesn't deserve being referred to as a violent, bullying thug, along with the usual racist, homophobic, sexist tags that he usually gets.
I also reckon calling him 'violent' is a bit far fetched. He punched one bloke. In 54 years. Well, two if you count Piers Morgan, but I'm sure nobody minds that.
Probably did deserve the sack, but doesn't deserve being referred to as a violent, bullying thug, along with the usual racist, homophobic, sexist tags that he usually gets.
otolith said:
La Liga said:
he same crude generalisation can be turned around.
Yes, it can be. It doesn't change the observation that there are a number of people who have wanted rid of Clarkson for some time because they find his politics offensive, and would he happy with any size of revenue loss to the BBC so long as the opportunity to shut the guy up is not lost.
Bluebarge said:
Scuffers said:
Rubbish
In a commercial broadcaster, that clip would have stayed in the bin of the cuttingroom.
Like the clips of Keys and Gray on Sky you mean?In a commercial broadcaster, that clip would have stayed in the bin of the cuttingroom.
they made stupid remarks on a live broadcast (thinking their mics were not on), that's crass stupidity.
Clarksons rhyme was on tape and (obviously) was edited out, never to see the light of day, till somebody trawled through the raw footage and released it - as in a deliberate smear.
smn159 said:
Indeed, most common reaction on here from those who think that the BBC acted correctly seems to be that they enjoyed Top Gear and found Clarkson funny.
so correctly, that they have had to back track and keep him on to honour BBC worldwides international contracts!absolute farce!
the DG should be sacked for incompetence, along with the management morons that allowed this situation to play out.
Scuffers said:
how is that remotely comparable?
they made stupid remarks on a live broadcast (thinking their mics were not on), that's crass stupidity.
Clarksons rhyme was on tape and (obviously) was edited out, never to see the light of day, till somebody trawled through the raw footage and released it - as in a deliberate smear.
Gary was dismissed for off air remarks.they made stupid remarks on a live broadcast (thinking their mics were not on), that's crass stupidity.
Clarksons rhyme was on tape and (obviously) was edited out, never to see the light of day, till somebody trawled through the raw footage and released it - as in a deliberate smear.
smn159 said:
So they didn't renew his TG contract but he needs to continue to honour his existing WW contract.
Hardly a case of gross incompetence on the BBCs part
LOL!Hardly a case of gross incompetence on the BBCs part
really?
so they first postpone them, then panic when the promoters point out they will sue the crap out of the BBC, then they go ahead without any branding (yea that's really going to work!)
My guess is the DG never even asked BBC Worldwide what the implications were...
can you imagine this happening in the private sector?
the reality is we the public would never have known about the whole incident, wrists would have been slapped, people put in the place, the show would have gone on.
Scuffers said:
so correctly, that they have had to back track and keep him on to honour BBC worldwides international contracts!
absolute farce!
the DG should be sacked for incompetence, along with the management morons that allowed this situation to play out.
They are two separate contracts. As far as I'm aware he wasn't sacked from either.absolute farce!
the DG should be sacked for incompetence, along with the management morons that allowed this situation to play out.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff