BBC to Reveal Stars Earnings

[The Surveyor]

Algarve said:

Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?

.........

That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads...

[Mark Benson]

The Surveyor said:

Mark Benson said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Mark Benson said:

Do we know what market rates are?

Yes, that would be what the competition pays. The competition whose talent rarely leave to join the BBC, and the competition the BBC often loses talent to.

HTH.

So no then, you don't, you're just guessing.

We don't know what the BBC pays either, just the range they pay their highest paid 'stars' without any detail regarding how often they worked, or appeared on Radio / TV. Just headline figures. So we are all aghast that certain people earn loads, and that some men earn more than some women despite there being no details on whether they do the same job. In comparison, we have seen headlines that said Susannah Reid left the BBC breakfast couch for the ITV breakfast couch for circa £1m, and that Andy Grey was on circa £1.7m when he was sacked from Sky.

So no, there will be no 'market rates' as everybody has a different 'worth' to different channels.

It was the BBC, in defence of these salaries that brought up market rates so I was wondering if they were known. Lord Hall said "The BBC does not exist in a market on its own where it can set the market rates. If we are to give the public what they want, then we have to pay for those great presenters and stars."
They also claim but don't substantiate that many of it's employees are paid at below market rates. I was wondering how true that is.

I was also wondering to what extent the BBC might set the market rates and whether they should even be competing for 'top talent' if the rates are so high as they're funded by what is, essentially a tax.

I do also wonder if, knowing how much the 'great presenters and stars' are paid, whether the public will still be so keen for the BBC to employ them.

[The Surveyor]

Dazed and Confused said:

Market rates. Why isn't Evans paid the same as Nick Grimshaw? £350k pa.

5 minutes listening to Nick Grimshaw will give you the answer to that.

Also, you quoted 'facts' earlier that Chris Evans £2.25m salary was for his radio show only, and did not include his Top Gear or One-Show earnings as reported. Do you have a source for a breakdown of his earnings?

[SpeckledJim]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Mark Benson said:

Do we know what market rates are?

Yes, that would be what the competition pays. The competition whose talent rarely leave to join the BBC, and the competition the BBC often loses talent to.

HTH.

But if Lineker goes to sky, then he'll displace whichever capable presenter is already there.

If the BBC was to offer that chap £250k to do Lineker's old £2m job, is he going to say no?

Very much doubt it.

Bye, Gary.

[hyphen]

The Surveyor said:

Also, you quoted 'facts' earlier that Chris Evans £2.25m salary was for his radio show only, and did not include his Top Gear or One-Show earnings as reported. Do you have a source for a breakdown of his earnings?

+1 I doubt that it included Top gear.

He quit top gear at the start of the last financial year, and hadn't filmed so would not be payed much if anything- a one off severance pay wouldn't be listed as salary.

He also would have pointed this out on his show/in media interviews in his defence.

The one who has escaped the spotlight here is Graham Norton- he may well be paid more than Evans or Lineker as his 900k earnings did not include the Friday TV show and anything he else he does via his own production company rather than as an employee.

[Algarve]

The Surveyor said:

That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads...

I thought it was a fair comment. Its quite obvious he's not in the same ballpark as the BBC guys/girls earnings wise, in fact not even on the same planet.

Given he thinks their job is so easy / anyone could do it... why doesn't he go and do it and multiple his wage by 20 times or more?

We all know the answer is its because its nowhwere as near as easy as he thinks it is, and relies on a bunch of other factors outwith your control (not having a face like a bag of rusty spanners would rule me out, for example .

[The Surveyor]

Algarve said:

I thought it was a fair comment......

For somebody with a blank profile, without any posting history, on a motoring based website, making a judgment about anybody based on what's in their 'garage' is poor form IMHO.

You're question about whether they would be any good as a presenter is perfectly valid though...

[TwigtheWonderkid]

SpeckledJim said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Mark Benson said:

Do we know what market rates are?

Yes, that would be what the competition pays. The competition whose talent rarely leave to join the BBC, and the competition the BBC often loses talent to.

HTH.

But if Lineker goes to sky, then he'll displace whichever capable presenter is already there.

If the BBC was to offer that chap £250k to do Lineker's old £2m job, is he going to say no?

Very much doubt it.

Bye, Gary.

The person Lineker would replace would be Geoff Stelling I assume, who has already been poached by ITV to do Countdown, as well as still fronting Sky football. So could end up at the BBC, but not for £250K.

What you are failing to grasp is that being the main anchor on a highly rated programme requires something that most people don't have, nerve, charisma, genuine talent. It doesn't come cheap, and never has. TV stars have always been wealthy. What was Parkinson earning in the 70s. Or Des Lynham in the 90s.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

The Surveyor said:

Algarve said:

Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?

.........

That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads...

He makes an otherwise valid point. If TV presenting is so easy and so lucrative, stop arguing the toss on the internet, just fk off and do it.

[SpeckledJim]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The person Lineker would replace would be Geoff Stelling I assume, who has already been poached by ITV to do Countdown, as well as still fronting Sky football. So could end up at the BBC, but not for £250K.

What you are failing to grasp is that being the main anchor on a highly rated programme requires something that most people don't have, nerve, charisma, genuine talent. It doesn't come cheap, and never has. TV stars have always been wealthy. What was Parkinson earning in the 70s. Or Des Lynham in the 90s.

I'm not arguing that it's easy. I'm arguing that the number of people who CAN do it outnumber the opportunities TO do it. Which would make cutting the salary of a public employee paid £2m of our money somewhat feasible.

The rest of the BBC list shows that any number of very capable presenters are available for £500k and a LOT less. So where does Gary's £2m come from? His England caps? The Gazza eyeball gesture? Pooing himself on the pitch?

It doesn't stack up.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

SpeckledJim said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The person Lineker would replace would be Geoff Stelling I assume, who has already been poached by ITV to do Countdown, as well as still fronting Sky football. So could end up at the BBC, but not for £250K.

What you are failing to grasp is that being the main anchor on a highly rated programme requires something that most people don't have, nerve, charisma, genuine talent. It doesn't come cheap, and never has. TV stars have always been wealthy. What was Parkinson earning in the 70s. Or Des Lynham in the 90s.

I'm not arguing that it's easy. I'm arguing that the number of people who CAN do it outnumber the opportunities TO do it. Which would make cutting the salary of a public employee paid £2m of our money somewhat feasible.

The rest of the BBC list shows that any number of very capable presenters are available for £500k and a LOT less. So where does Gary's £2m come from? His England caps? The Gazza eyeball gesture? Pooing himself on the pitch?

It doesn't stack up.

It probably comes form the fact that the producers took a decision that to make the show stand out from the rest, and to keep it as the No1 go to highlights programme for footy fans, they wanted an articulate, good looking, intelligent ex footballer who had played at a high level, in the latter stages of world cups, and for huge teams like Barcelona.

Having made that decision, you have basically a list of 1. Lineker. You may not agree with their thinking, but MOTD remains hugely popular, despite the onslaught in footy coverage from Sky & BT sport. So it has worked, like it or not.

[Mark Benson]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The Surveyor said:

Algarve said:

Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?

.........

That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads...

He makes an otherwise valid point. If TV presenting is so easy and so lucrative, stop arguing the toss on the internet, just fk off and do it.

No he doesn't, that's just a strawman argument.

I assume you couldn't do my job, but it doesn't mean you forfeit the right to tell me I'm overpaid, and you're not taxed to pay my wages.
I've no doubt Lineker is a good presenter, but he's not the only good presenter.

[SpeckledJim]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

Having made that decision, you have basically a list of 1. Lineker. You may not agree with their thinking, but MOTD remains hugely popular, despite the onslaught in footy coverage from Sky & BT sport. So it has worked, like it or not.

We won't know if it has worked or not until they try Manish in the hot-seat at £150k and the programme collapses. Or doesn't.

The 'onslaught' from Sky and BT isn't available to the majority of viewers. Edd the Duck could present MOTD and it would still have the highest figures.

How much was Jake Humphrey on in his early days at the BBC? Relative peanuts I'll bet, and he did just as good a job as GL.

The BBC lost him to commercial TV because they couldn't match the salary he was offered. That's how it should be. Because MY £1 should be more carefully spent than BT's £1.

BBC should be energetically finding the next Jake, not lazily further enriching Gary Lineker.

[Dazed and Confused]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

He makes an otherwise valid point. If TV presenting is so easy and so lucrative, stop arguing the toss on the internet, just fk off and do it.

But Evans's success shows, you just need to know the right people.

[Dazed and Confused]

The Surveyor said:

5 minutes listening to Nick Grimshaw will give you the answer to that.

Also, you quoted 'facts' earlier that Chris Evans £2.25m salary was for his radio show only, and did not include his Top Gear or One-Show earnings as reported. Do you have a source for a breakdown of his earnings?

I've seen it reported in the press previously but really can't be bothered to dig it up now.

Google Chris Evans paid 1 million pounds for Top Gear.

[98elise]

The Surveyor said:

Algarve said:

Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?

.........

That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads...

Agreed. My current car is worth about 3% of my income. It replaced a car that was worth about a 1/10 of that!

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Mark Benson said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The Surveyor said:

Algarve said:

Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?

.........

That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads...

He makes an otherwise valid point. If TV presenting is so easy and so lucrative, stop arguing the toss on the internet, just fk off and do it.

No he doesn't, that's just a strawman argument.

I assume you couldn't do my job, but it doesn't mean you forfeit the right to tell me I'm overpaid,

Indeed, but if I told the world how you were not only overpaid but your job is easy and anyone could do it, as many posters on here have said about news readers and tv presenters, then I think you're entitled to ask "well why don't you stop bhing about it and do it!"

[Not-The-Messiah]

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The Surveyor said:

Algarve said:

Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?

.........

That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads...

He makes an otherwise valid point. If TV presenting is so easy and so lucrative, stop arguing the toss on the internet, just fk off and do it.

Because it's no doubt an incredible hard area to get into. There would be plenty of people with the talent and capabilities to do it. But it's a special hand shake and know the right people or just be in the right place at the right time sort of job.
The BBC have the power and capability of changing this by restricting wages and using new talent. There are only so many TV and radio station to go to. All they need to do is put an influx of new talent in the mix and the market will change.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Tuesday 25th July 22:04

[Durzel]

Come to think of it, that would work at pretty much any company. Troubleshooter comes in, decides all the existing talent is overpaid or cronies, kicks them all out and replaces them with new blood, who may or may not be as effective and certainly not a known quantity or a respected Subject Matter Expert like the outgoing talent was. Brilliant!

Where do you think the new talent comes from? They aren't plucked off the street, they cut their teeth on smaller projects and graduate through the ranks - you know like what happens at pretty much every company.

Whether Evans is worth £2m or whatever is, to my mind, largely academic. He/his agent negotiated that figure, the Beeb would've done their due diligence and decided what he was worth to them, what he could probably command elsewhere, etc, and that's what they decided to pay him. I'm fairly confident they didn't pluck his - or indeed anyone's - salary out of a tombola, or think "this Evans is a nice chap, let's double his salary".

If you truly do believe that the BBC want to pay these people anything more than they think they have to, and that no context or consideration has to be given to them beyond "that seems a bit much when teachers are only on £25k", well there's not really much anyone can really say is there.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

Not-The-Messiah said:

TwigtheWonderkid said:

The Surveyor said:

Algarve said:

Looking at your garage, would it be a reasonable assumption to say you don't earn very much money?

.........

That's a really stupid comment from somebody new to PistonHeads...

He makes an otherwise valid point. If TV presenting is so easy and so lucrative, stop arguing the toss on the internet, just fk off and do it.

Because it's no doubt an incredible hard area to get into. There would be plenty of people with the talent and capabilities to do it. But it's a special hand shake and know the right people or just be in the right place at the right time sort of job.

Edited by Not-The-Messiah on Tuesday 25th July 22:04

Yeah... talent, hard work, perseverance and determination, a good degree, A grade A levels, building a portfolio of work (often voluntary), all these factors play no part.

Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Wednesday 26th July 10:29