BBC to Reveal Stars Earnings
Discussion
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Disastrous said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
MOTD doesn't even need a presenter. Just play a reel with edited highlights and a voice over if necessary (or just play the commentary feed). I know most people like to think footy fans are daft, but I'd suggest most who follow the game are perfectly capable of dissecting what went on on the pitch... they don't need some ex-has been to spoon feed some obvious analysis at them.
Same with F1. Don't need all the guff around it; the grid walks, the pit lane interviews. If I want gossip I can find it online. I just tune in for the race and tune out once they've all crossed the finish. These things don't need analysis by "experts". I watched it. I saw what happened. I can figure it out.
Same with F1. Don't need all the guff around it; the grid walks, the pit lane interviews. If I want gossip I can find it online. I just tune in for the race and tune out once they've all crossed the finish. These things don't need analysis by "experts". I watched it. I saw what happened. I can figure it out.
Why even have speaking on TV anyway?? I'd happily tune into nothing but Ceefax.
Exactly. Why do we need moving pictures at all, do people realise how much that costs. And if we are going to have pictures, I don't need colour to tell the difference if Chelsea are playing Arsenal. Completely unnecessary and a waste of taxpayers money.
Maybe put it up in the village hall for everyone to see, to save on toner.
to be honest, the best football show used to be that one where the man reads out the team name and score in his drab, monotone voice. The shipping forecast of sports round ups.
Arsenal 2..... Sunderland Nil
Newcastle United 3.... Middlesbrough 1
Could translate that to the F1 as well. It'd be about as exciting these days.
Lewis Hamilton first, Sebastian Vettel second, Valteri Bottas third.............. Fernando Alonso did not finish; engine fire.
Its all you need!
Edited by Otispunkmeyer on Thursday 20th July 15:33
The Mad Monk said:
AJL308 said:
The Mad Monk said:
wsurfa said:
I love the fact Jiffy (Jonathan Davies) is paid more than a number of the players he occasionally mumbles something incoherent about .
Avg salaries in the english rugby premiership will be c £70-80k/year, even the avg salary for a Welsh dual contract international is probably c £150k. There are only 16 dual contract players in the Welsh national squad.....amazing
Hardly.Avg salaries in the english rugby premiership will be c £70-80k/year, even the avg salary for a Welsh dual contract international is probably c £150k. There are only 16 dual contract players in the Welsh national squad.....amazing
The salary cap for 2016-17 is/was £6.5 million. Divide that by a squad of 35? Two excluded players makes for an average of £190,000 odd.
Disagree?
C70R said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dazed and Confused said:
What exactly has Evans ever done that WAS any good?
Regardless of you liking him or not, do you seriously think various organisations (not just the BBC) have paid him fortunes for 20 odd years because he's rubbish at what he does?Get a grip.
But apart from that, he does nothing.
ETA: Disclaimer to say that I'm not personally his biggest fan, but you'd have to be an utter simpleton to think that's he's not successful at what he does.
If Chris Evans has seriously tricked various different media outlets to pay him vast amounts of money when he actually has no talent, then he deserves every penny, for his ability to con people if nothing else.
I'm guessing he's so successful because he's good at what he does, regardless of whether it's my cup of tea or not.
I'm guessing he's so successful because he's good at what he does, regardless of whether it's my cup of tea or not.
Challo said:
AJL308 said:
Challo said:
AJL308 said:
Challo said:
The issue is that we do not what ITV, Sky, Channel4 are paying their presenters, newsreaders, etc to see if the BBC are a lot cheaper than anyone else.
I don't have an issue with the salaries. I think in most cases we get pretty goood value for money out of the BBC for that licence fee.
You honestly and genuinely have no issue with someone getting paid £700k+ a year at public expense to talk to people on the telephone for a couple of hours a day, five days a week? Really? Seriously?I don't have an issue with the salaries. I think in most cases we get pretty goood value for money out of the BBC for that licence fee.
People demand the BBC provide entertaining programmes but are not willing to pay for that. So you would be happy just to employ presenters directly from university for peanuts?? No doubt your be on here moaning that the actor is wooden, the presenter is wooden, the program is boring.
How on earth can you honestly justify that? I know a DJ chap who's loves the sound of his own voice and could do just as good a job as JV. If he said, "well, I'll do Vine's job for £150k" and he does the job as well as to within 95% as good as JV then how can you sensibly make the argument that JV is worth £550K more? If the BBC were a private employer they can pay what they like to whomever they like. They aren't though and JV is a public servant employed at public expense.
It's obscene, quite frankly.
Edited by AJL308 on Thursday 20th July 11:53
I pay my licence fee, which I must even if I never use any BBC service and only consume privately funded ones, yet I have no control over how my money is spent. If I don't like Sky or Virgin I can cancel them and if I were a share holder I could question those making the decisions or, ultimately, sell my shares.
AJL308 said:
C70R said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Dazed and Confused said:
What exactly has Evans ever done that WAS any good?
Regardless of you liking him or not, do you seriously think various organisations (not just the BBC) have paid him fortunes for 20 odd years because he's rubbish at what he does?Get a grip.
But apart from that, he does nothing.
ETA: Disclaimer to say that I'm not personally his biggest fan, but you'd have to be an utter simpleton to think that's he's not successful at what he does.
Dazed and Confused said:
Can't answer the question then Twig. John Bishop is popular, does that make him a great comedian?
Comedy is of course, subjective, and clearly enough people think John Bishop is a great comedian for him to be popular. Not my cup of tea but I am able to understand that my taste doesn't especially reflect the nation's.AJL308 said:
I genuinely don't know. £6.5 million is a lot though - do they all have that sort of money? I know nowt about Rugby other than it is far behind football in the amount of money it has sloshing around.
Most are losing money. Wasps have potential if they manage the Ricoh well, but are currently losing money. As I commented earlier the cap is total cost including everything from NI to traveling costs and agents fees, so is not a divide by squad size = player salary.
AJL308 said:
I pay my licence fee, which I must even if I never use any BBC service and only consume privately funded ones, yet I have no control over how my money is spent. If I don't like Sky or Virgin I can cancel them and if I were a share holder I could question those making the decisions or, ultimately, sell my shares.
I really agree with this.If i am morally and politically opposed to Murdoch and the like. I can choose to not line his pockets and enjoy live broadcast TV from other providers.
If I am morally and politically opposed to the BBC I must still fund them to access live broadcast TV from other providers. That is my major gripe with the TV license.
Dazed and Confused said:
Can't answer the question then Twig. John Bishop is popular, does that make him a great comedian?
It makes him a comedian that charges X amount for tickets for his shows. If they sell, he's worth it, if they don't, he's over estimated his own worth. When he appears on the BBC, no doubt his agent and the BBC agree a fee. It might be less than Peter Kay, but more than the comedian still playing the Northern club scene. If the agent asks for too much, the BBC will look for someone else. If he asks for too little, Bishop will be in constant demand by the BBC and the agent will ask for more money.
I'm no economist but I think that's how it works.
Otispunkmeyer said:
....to be honest, the best football show used to be that one where the man reads out the team name and score in his drab, monotone voice. The shipping forecast of sports round ups.
Arsenal 2..... Sunderland Nil
Newcastle United 3.... Middlesbrough 1
Wasn't that a fella called Bob Carling? Recall his monotone voice doing either BBC or ITV football results at the weekend sometime in the 90's.Arsenal 2..... Sunderland Nil
Newcastle United 3.... Middlesbrough 1
t Pop era.Challo said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's telling that there's a correlation between thinking someone is a waste of money and not personally liking them.
Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
Agree. The standard response on this thread is don't like him/her = not worth the money. Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
C70R said:
Challo said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
It's telling that there's a correlation between thinking someone is a waste of money and not personally liking them.
Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
Agree. The standard response on this thread is don't like him/her = not worth the money. Is anyone going to be objective, and say "I absolutely love xxxx, the best thing on British TV by a mile, but how much....what a waste of money. Get shot of them and get someone else to do it for 20% of the salary."
Nope, thought not.
I just can't stand the Ginger knob. Less funny than cancer, and think BBC would be better without throwing money at pointless ratings chasing.
Give me strength.
My own take is that Chris Evans does not need to be paid that much.
back in the mists of time, the 60s and 70s, the BBC created famous DJs. they were hitherto unknowns from pirate radio and they made Radio 1 - Tony Blackburn, Johnny Walker, Kid Jensen, Paul Gambacchini, John Peel, Noel Edmonds, Dave Lee Travis and Kenny Everett.
In the 80s they got new talent - Steve Wright, Peter Powell, Simon Bates, the list is almost endless.
Shows like the Breakfast show got huge ratings (granted there was less commercial radio about, then) as did the Afternoon show.
These people were famous because the BBC made them famous and many made the transition to TV quite successfully, because they were famous on the radio.
Radio 2 is really the modern Radio 1. People listen to it because we all hate ads and ads ruin the flow that a BBC DJ can create. Let's face it, it's not the quality of the music they play.
therefore, i don't honestly think they need to pay Chris Evans because there MUST be some unique talent out there. If they paid less, they could get more, so to speak. I think they are afraid of change - even Steve Wright has lost his creativity (I still remember Damien the Social worker before they got PC) ...how much "serious jockin'" can anyone take?
Instead, we have to put up with shocking "DJs" like Zoe ball, Michael Ball and probably the worst, Lisa Tarbuck. Even Chris Tarrant isn't very good.
Never really got why Jeremy Vine got popular but maybe that's just me.
Of course, I could be wrong, Maybe with the loss of the graft of spinning vinyl, smooth transitions from one disc to the next and a generation of iPod shufflers and the increasingly tiny play list, the talent has disappeared.
I do listen to Chris Evans but flick to other stations when he gets tedious or the music is the same old songs. No chore for me as the commercials tend to play the cheap old music that I like.
back in the mists of time, the 60s and 70s, the BBC created famous DJs. they were hitherto unknowns from pirate radio and they made Radio 1 - Tony Blackburn, Johnny Walker, Kid Jensen, Paul Gambacchini, John Peel, Noel Edmonds, Dave Lee Travis and Kenny Everett.
In the 80s they got new talent - Steve Wright, Peter Powell, Simon Bates, the list is almost endless.
Shows like the Breakfast show got huge ratings (granted there was less commercial radio about, then) as did the Afternoon show.
These people were famous because the BBC made them famous and many made the transition to TV quite successfully, because they were famous on the radio.
Radio 2 is really the modern Radio 1. People listen to it because we all hate ads and ads ruin the flow that a BBC DJ can create. Let's face it, it's not the quality of the music they play.
therefore, i don't honestly think they need to pay Chris Evans because there MUST be some unique talent out there. If they paid less, they could get more, so to speak. I think they are afraid of change - even Steve Wright has lost his creativity (I still remember Damien the Social worker before they got PC) ...how much "serious jockin'" can anyone take?
Instead, we have to put up with shocking "DJs" like Zoe ball, Michael Ball and probably the worst, Lisa Tarbuck. Even Chris Tarrant isn't very good.
Never really got why Jeremy Vine got popular but maybe that's just me.
Of course, I could be wrong, Maybe with the loss of the graft of spinning vinyl, smooth transitions from one disc to the next and a generation of iPod shufflers and the increasingly tiny play list, the talent has disappeared.
I do listen to Chris Evans but flick to other stations when he gets tedious or the music is the same old songs. No chore for me as the commercials tend to play the cheap old music that I like.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
There's no such thing as Newsreaders anymore, there's just highly experienced journalists who also read the news. People have no idea what goes into a 15-30 minute news broadcast. Hours of work before hand, involving the reader, contingency planning for stories bubbling away that may change the news mid programme. The reader these days will often interview an outside correspondent who's reporting in. It's damn hard work, very stressful, and you've got to keep going whilst being able to listen to changes and countdowns to VT being announced in your earpiece.
The fact that so many people think it's so easy just proves how good the newsreaders are. They make a very tough gig look effortless. They are victims of their own success. They make it look like anyone can do it, when very few actually can.
Spot on there. The fact that so many people think it's so easy just proves how good the newsreaders are. They make a very tough gig look effortless. They are victims of their own success. They make it look like anyone can do it, when very few actually can.
LuS1fer said:
My own take is that Chris Evans does not need to be paid that much.
back in the mists of time, the 60s and 70s, the BBC created famous DJs. they were hitherto unknowns from pirate radio and they made Radio 1 - Tony Blackburn, Johnny Walker, Kid Jensen, Paul Gambacchini, John Peel, Noel Edmonds, Dave Lee Travis and Kenny Everett.
In the 80s they got new talent - Steve Wright, Peter Powell, Simon Bates, the list is almost endless.
Shows like the Breakfast show got huge ratings (granted there was less commercial radio about, then) as did the Afternoon show.
These people were famous because the BBC made them famous and many made the transition to TV quite successfully, because they were famous on the radio.
Radio 2 is really the modern Radio 1. People listen to it because we all hate ads and ads ruin the flow that a BBC DJ can create. Let's face it, it's not the quality of the music they play.
therefore, i don't honestly think they need to pay Chris Evans because there MUST be some unique talent out there. If they paid less, they could get more, so to speak. I think they are afraid of change - even Steve Wright has lost his creativity (I still remember Damien the Social worker before they got PC) ...how much "serious jockin'" can anyone take?
Instead, we have to put up with shocking "DJs" like Zoe ball, Michael Ball and probably the worst, Lisa Tarbuck. Even Chris Tarrant isn't very good.
Never really got why Jeremy Vine got popular but maybe that's just me.
Of course, I could be wrong, Maybe with the loss of the graft of spinning vinyl, smooth transitions from one disc to the next and a generation of iPod shufflers and the increasingly tiny play list, the talent has disappeared.
I do listen to Chris Evans but flick to other stations when he gets tedious or the music is the same old songs. No chore for me as the commercials tend to play the cheap old music that I like.
You could stick Coco The Clown on the Radio 2 breakfast show and it would still be the most popular radio show.back in the mists of time, the 60s and 70s, the BBC created famous DJs. they were hitherto unknowns from pirate radio and they made Radio 1 - Tony Blackburn, Johnny Walker, Kid Jensen, Paul Gambacchini, John Peel, Noel Edmonds, Dave Lee Travis and Kenny Everett.
In the 80s they got new talent - Steve Wright, Peter Powell, Simon Bates, the list is almost endless.
Shows like the Breakfast show got huge ratings (granted there was less commercial radio about, then) as did the Afternoon show.
These people were famous because the BBC made them famous and many made the transition to TV quite successfully, because they were famous on the radio.
Radio 2 is really the modern Radio 1. People listen to it because we all hate ads and ads ruin the flow that a BBC DJ can create. Let's face it, it's not the quality of the music they play.
therefore, i don't honestly think they need to pay Chris Evans because there MUST be some unique talent out there. If they paid less, they could get more, so to speak. I think they are afraid of change - even Steve Wright has lost his creativity (I still remember Damien the Social worker before they got PC) ...how much "serious jockin'" can anyone take?
Instead, we have to put up with shocking "DJs" like Zoe ball, Michael Ball and probably the worst, Lisa Tarbuck. Even Chris Tarrant isn't very good.
Never really got why Jeremy Vine got popular but maybe that's just me.
Of course, I could be wrong, Maybe with the loss of the graft of spinning vinyl, smooth transitions from one disc to the next and a generation of iPod shufflers and the increasingly tiny play list, the talent has disappeared.
I do listen to Chris Evans but flick to other stations when he gets tedious or the music is the same old songs. No chore for me as the commercials tend to play the cheap old music that I like.
I don't really care how much they earn - but it reminds me that Radio 2 needs a MASSIVE cull. Loads of stale old stalwarts (Ken Bruce, Steve Wright) and other irritants (Vine, Feltz) that have too comfy seats and all need to go! Even Evans is dull too. Same jingles same time every day, usually some voiceover of his kid etc.
Hub said:
I don't really care how much they earn - but it reminds me that Radio 2 needs a MASSIVE cull. Loads of stale old stalwarts (Ken Bruce, Steve Wright) and other irritants (Vine, Feltz) that have too comfy seats and all need to go! Even Evans is dull too. Same jingles same time every day, usually some voiceover of his kid etc.
Ken Bruce is a professional, my radio gets turned on at 9.30 if I'm at work, first on the cull should be Evans followed by Zoe Ball.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff