BBC Wage Bill.....

[Dan_1981]

I know this one is done to death fairly often, and will no doubt descend into a should we pay a TV license or not debate but here goes...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/8505392.s...

£230m paid out to its performers / stars / anyone else on TV.

Which when they signed over 300,000 contracts doesn't seem that bad to me.

£70 million of it used to pay stars who earned over £100,000

And its only 6 and a bit percent of the total amount from license fees.

However the report does say that this is what was paid out upto March 09 - so not sure abou the rest of the year???

[AndrewW-G]

Is tractor production up?

Without a breakdown of the 300,000 contracts, it would be impossible to tell how much is paid to people performing a specific task i.e. how much would they play a pianist against how much is overpaid on people like Ross etc

[Dan_1981]

AndrewW-G said:

Is tractor production up?

Without a breakdown of the 300,000 contracts, it would be impossible to tell how much is paid to people performing a specific task i.e. how much would they play a pianist against how much is overpaid on people like Ross etc

Comercially Confidentail that though isn't it.......

[Mclovin]

AndrewW-G said:

Is tractor production up?

Without a breakdown of the 300,000 contracts, it would be impossible to tell how much is paid to people performing a specific task i.e. how much would they play a pianist against how much is overpaid on people like Ross etc

exactly, this is purely a massage exercise of the figures for the publics benefit trying to get their masters back in power by giving the illusion of accountability and disclosure....

[chr15b]

it's only because of the unique way the bbc is funded that it even becomes a topic..

[AndrewW-G]

Dan_1981 said:

AndrewW-G said:

Is tractor production up?

Without a breakdown of the 300,000 contracts, it would be impossible to tell how much is paid to people performing a specific task i.e. how much would they play a pianist against how much is overpaid on people like Ross etc

Comercially Confidentail that though isn't it.......

Then why publish only partial details, why not a sanitised version with a table listing how many people were paid at various levels. The simple reason as others have said, is that it’s just a simple exercise in disinformation, aimed at persuading people who have simply skimmed the article, to think that the BBC represents value for money on all levels........................I’d happily pay a licence fee if it went on creating quality programmes, wouldn’t disagree with paying 300,000 contracts for presenters, artists, musicians etc, if they were paid fairly

Even with fully disclosed figures, it would all be debatable, Clarkson for example is on 7 figures, yet the BBC make more out of TG than it costs, making any salary demand within reason from JC justifiable.

Did the BBC really make enough from the likes of Ross or that interminable racist Graham Norton to justify paying them over £1,000,000 a year?

Given the BBC's staggering political bias, expect more and more articles like this one, at least until BBC's management are sure they will keep their jobs under a non labour government