BBC to Reveal Stars Earnings

[Eddie Strohacker]

hyphen said:

It is not a free market, when one participant does not operate under the same rules of needing to make a profit as the rest do.

"Make your peace with it dude" yourself

One last try then

Chris Evans holds two pieces of paper in his hands. One says Job offer from Capital Radio - Breakfast show Mon - Fri 6-9am £1,000,000.

The other says Job offer from Radio 2 - Breakfast show Mon - Fri 6-9am £1,000,000.

What part of that is not a market operating freely?

[hyphen]

Halmyre said:

BBC newsreaders used to point out, rather snippily, that they didn't just read the news items, they wrote them as well, and referred to themselves as 'newscasters' instead of 'newsreaders'. I don't know if this is still the case.

Regarding Evans' timekeeping woes, would that all employers were as understanding of the vagaries of travel to work.

"Sorry I'm late, badger chewed through a signal cable at Effingham Junction"
"Late again? You're fired."

Chris Evan's £3k electric bicycle was nicked outside BBC HQ and was tracked via its built in GPS to Lithuania.

His employers are still in denial that any eastern european immigrant has committed a crime and so letting him come in late

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Dazed and Confused said:

227bhp said:

Dazed and Confused said:

Bye bye Chris Evans.

How does that work? Do you think the BBC didn't know how much he was getting before the list was published?

No, I was thinking more the publics reaction.

You're living in complete dream world. We live in an age of instant news, instant fury, almost instant boredom and quickly on to the next public outrage story.

Is was IS and London and Manchester bombings, something must be done. That's forgotten with Grenfell. Dangerous tower blocks, something must be done. Now it's balls to Grenfell, I give you BBC pay. How much do they earn...something must be done.

Something else will come along in a few days and you'll be so full of righteous indignation, won't even think about Chris Evans.

[anonymous-user]

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.

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?

The 'salary' cap is not just salary, it includes employers NI, agents fees, bonus, pensions, benefits, transfer fees, redundancy/termination costs, image rights payments, 3rd party sponsorship.

When you remove all of that and include the lower paying clubs, the avg player is not going to be paid a base of much more than £80k - a Manu Tuilangi £300k distorts the perception (i'd guess he'd be an exception player so wont affect the actual, but will the perception).

Although out of date and crowdsourced - https://www.emolument.com/career_advice/how_much_r...

[Bluedot]

Eddie Strohacker said:

hyphen said:

It is not a free market, when one participant does not operate under the same rules of needing to make a profit as the rest do.

"Make your peace with it dude" yourself

One last try then

Chris Evans holds two pieces of paper in his hands. One says Job offer from Capital Radio - Breakfast show Mon - Fri 6-9am £1,000,000.

The other says Job offer from Radio 2 - Breakfast show Mon - Fri 6-9am £1,000,000.

What part of that is not a market operating freely?

Surely that is just one side of it though ? Chris Evans is indeed a free agent and can work for whoever he wants.

The other side of it though is:
BBC Radio 2 - government funded. No pressure to make money just to provide a value for money service.
Capital Radio - Privately funded and out to make a profit by balancing the books between expenditure (salaries etc) and income (advertising etc).

That's the why I see it anyway.

[Eddie Strohacker]

Bluedot said:

Surely that is just one side of it though ? Chris Evans is indeed a free agent and can work for whoever he wants.

The other side of it though is:
BBC Radio 2 - government funded. No pressure to make money just to provide a value for money service.
Capital Radio - Privately funded and out to make a profit by balancing the books between expenditure (salaries etc) and income (advertising etc).

That's the why I see it anyway.

There are pages of this cross pollinating two different things. Hyphen is just one of the more insistent

1) Public bodies are obligated to spend money as efficiently as possible for the benefit of the taxpayer who funds them. We all understand that.

2) Any service, goods or labour a public body purchases is not somehow magically discounted simply because it's a public body doing the buying. That notion is ridiculous, patently so.

3) If Chris Evans (f'rinstance) is deemed by Sky (F'rinstance) worth hiring at £1m/year, taking into account everything they normally would (recouping his salary from advertising, merch, subscriptions, syndication whatever) it doesn't change the fact that that is his market value as determined by those who make the market & if the BBC want him, they have to match or better it.

[anonymous-user]

hyphen said:

Those are two different points.

The BBC is taking the easy route in its hiring:

"Linekar's agents is demanding this much or he is moving to Sky"
"Well If I get his replacement wrong, I could get the sack, just give it to him"

Whereas in a private company it would be:

"Linekar's agents is demanding this much or he is moving to Sky"
"Well we pay x amount for tv rights, Y amount made in advertising, feedback suggests x amount of viewers could be lost in the short term..."

Take for example Jonathan Ross, he was paid a shed loads, and his gravy train only ended when the voicemail stuff happened. Before that the BBC would never have let him go, would have kept agreeing to paying him a ton.

When they were forced to do so, what happened? nothing Norton took over as the Guests tend to make the show. When Norton stated demanding a million a few years ago, they had plenty of options to replace him too- Corden for example.

There is no 'amazingly talented irreplaceable tv presenter' in my mind, and it is the jobs of the execs to know all the up and coming talent/be developing staff in house.

I'd disagree about Norton - have a look at who he regularly gets and how relaxed/interactive/entertaining the whole guest groups are. A lot of these are known as being difficult in most chatshows, but seem not to be with him. I'd guess this adds to his local and global ratings, hence his value.

[hyphen]

Eddie Strohacker said:

One last try then

Chris Evans holds two pieces of paper in his hands. One says Job offer from Capital Radio - Breakfast show Mon - Fri 6-9am £1,000,000.

The other says Job offer from Radio 2 - Breakfast show Mon - Fri 6-9am £1,000,000.

What part of that is not a market operating freely?

Has Chris Evans had a job offer from capital radio or £1 million. Or has Chris Evans said I want £1 million and got it.

p.s. can BBC licence payers vote out BBC management, like Capita Radio Shareholders can.

Meanwhile down at Walford Market, the Beale family is doing a roaring trade.

Edited by hyphen on Thursday 20th July 13:02

Edited by hyphen on Thursday 20th July 13:02

[Eddie Strohacker]

hyphen said:

Has Chris Evans had a job offer from capital radio or £1 million. Or has Chris Evans said I want £1 million and got it.

You can't be this thick, surely?

[suffolk009]

This salary furore is the tip of the iceberg. The BBC is in crisis. It desperately needs to re-invent itself.

It cannot continue as it is. License fee payers will refuse to pay the fees if vast obscene salaries are paid to people who host shows they have absolutely no interest in watching. The license fee only works if the vast mojority of people see it as value for money.

Beyond the immediate salary issue, the BBC has to consider what it wants to be in the future. It cannot (and should not) compete with commercial organisations for ratings and popular shows. It will always come second to Independent TV, or new online services. My children don't watch regular TV. In a few years they will hopefully leave home, and I'd be suprised if they will even own a TV.

The BBC says it is unique - time to bloody well prove it.

[hyphen]

Eddie Strohacker said:

hyphen said:

Has Chris Evans had a job offer from capital radio or £1 million. Or has Chris Evans said I want £1 million and got it.

You can't be this thick, surely?

Evan's wife left him so he thought he would go back to work. He rang the Beeb who rolled out the red carpet and showered him with gold.

Is that not what happened?

[Eddie Strohacker]

hyphen said:

Evan's wife left him so he thought he would go back to work. He rang the Beeb who rolled out the red carpet and showered him with gold.

Is that not what happened?

Aaaand with that, I'll leave you to it.

[Challo]

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 do agree that potentially some of them might not be true value for money, but we do not know the in's and out of there contract and what they are contracted to do for the BBC. This is a very subjective topic as well because people will hate the presenter/host and think they are rubbish, but others will love them and think they are great for the show. Its a balancing at to make sure the majority are entertained.

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.

Its SEVEN HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS man! It matters not whether you like the person or precisely how many hours they put in. A PUBLIC employee is earning seven hundred thousand pounds every year for essentially taking phone calls from people and commenting thereon.

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

But thats for a BBC Executive to decide. I need to decide on whether I think the Licence fee is good value for money and I think it is. How they spend that money to provide that service is up to them but for me its good value.

[hyphen]

Eddie Strohacker said:

Aaaand with that, I'll leave you to it.

Thanks. Glad I won

Chris Evans comeback trail

2003 - ITV Boys and Girls = Failure.
2005 OFI Friday = Failure
2011 Channel 4 Famous and Fearless = Failure

The BBC placed him back on some solid ground.

Now get back to your market stall!

[Disastrous]

People are comparing the BBC to commercial stations whilst arguing they are delivering poor value for money. Yet commercial stations pay much more than the BBC.

I would have though that a broadcaster being run as a business, having to make money and appease shareholders would be much more value focussed than the BBC. And they seem to think their talent is worth investing in. Are they all wrong?

[cuprabob]

I bet the BBC are glad they got rid of Jonathan Ross as I fear his salary might have been even higher than Evans.

[hyphen]

Disastrous said:

People are comparing the BBC to commercial stations whilst arguing they are delivering poor value for money. Yet commercial stations pay much more than the BBC.

I would have though that a broadcaster being run as a business, having to make money and appease shareholders would be much more value focussed than the BBC. And they seem to think their talent is worth investing in. Are they all wrong?

Commercial broadcasters in the UK pay more as they have to compete against the BBC. And they probably don't pay more in general- its is more isolated cases like stealing big names from the BBC.

If the BBC did not exist/was privatised and lost its privileges (listed 1st in tv listings for example) then they would not need to have this massive imbalanced competitor skewing the landscape.

[Disastrous]

hyphen said:

Disastrous said:

People are comparing the BBC to commercial stations whilst arguing they are delivering poor value for money. Yet commercial stations pay much more than the BBC.

I would have though that a broadcaster being run as a business, having to make money and appease shareholders would be much more value focussed than the BBC. And they seem to think their talent is worth investing in. Are they all wrong?

Commercial broadcasters in the UK pay more as they have to compete against the BBC.

If the BBC did not exist/was privatised and lost its privileges (listed 1st in v listings by law) then they would not have this massive imbalanced competition.

You're saying they have to pay more to get the good talent?

[hyphen]

Disastrous said:

hyphen said:

Disastrous said:

People are comparing the BBC to commercial stations whilst arguing they are delivering poor value for money. Yet commercial stations pay much more than the BBC.

I would have though that a broadcaster being run as a business, having to make money and appease shareholders would be much more value focussed than the BBC. And they seem to think their talent is worth investing in. Are they all wrong?

Commercial broadcasters in the UK pay more as they have to compete against the BBC.

If the BBC did not exist/was privatised and lost its privileges (listed 1st in v listings by law) then they would not have this massive imbalanced competition.

You're saying they have to pay more to get the good talent?

Sky needs to get maximum viewers in-order to get advertisers/subscribers.

They need to get these viewers from amongst other, but mainly, the BBC when it comes to some areas such as MOTD viewers to sign up for live. So they have no choice but to offer a contract to any agent who knocks on their door saying it is negotiation time for a BBC Star, as his profile will help them reach their financial objectives faster so its a sound business decision.

Agent then plays this offer off against the BBC and so Linekar gets what he gets.

[aka_kerrly]

48k said:

I'm just guessing, but you might be outside of the Radio 1 target demographic.

Oh yes the joys of BBC radio, radio 1 supposedly catering for 14-24 or something along those lines and Radio 2-4 catering for the more mature 50+ who enjoy tunes mostly from two decades before I was born.

That's another example of how the bbc don't really know their demographic.