Talk Quesada forum

marcliff wrote:

donaduo wrote:I doubt, if the independent broadcasters published their pay rates, there'd be much of a difference, so I cannot understand why the Beeb was forced to publish theirs.

Because it's a company paid for by public subscription (well, a tax really as you have to have a licence whether you watch it or not).
Natasha Kaplinskly was paid £159,000 a year at the Beeb. She moved to CH5 and was paid £1 million a year. She now works part time at ITV and only gets £300,000 a year.
Nice work if you can get it.

Agree with Marcliff, the issue is that BBC is a public service broadcaster, funded through a tax ( the Office for National Statistics have now classified the licence fee as a tax largely because it is compulsory, with criminal penalties for non payment). Independent broadcasters are competing in a market and don't get public subsidy. It is a commercial decision as to what they pay their presenters and good luck to them. I disagree with other posters in terms of skills required etc for being a presenter, they are skilled jobs, not everyone could do them...BUT there is no need to pay a premium for a 'star'. There will be plenty of people skilled enough at 150k per year or less who would be happy to do the job.. If they go on to become famous and get attracted to the independent companies to get paid more, well again, good luck to them.Then the BBC can give a 'break' to someone new. But the BBC shouldn't be using tax money to skew the market for presenters, which it currently is.
If the BBC should be competing anywhere (there is an argument against that altogether) but, if it should, in my view it should be focussing on saving its pennies for securing TV rights to 'iconic'national events like eg the British Open ( which is now only on SKy). Otherwise just stick to quality public service programming . The big debate then would be what that should be... (IMO nothing Chris Evans has ever presented meets that description...)

Claudia Winkleman 450,000 gbp am I missing something?

Instead of focussing on the Gender gap, the press should question why £150k is considered a pittance. I assume the private functions they are paid for isn't included.
Also
I hope the press is fully compliant with equal pay for it's reporters.

Lineker - BBC - £1.7M
Henry - Sky - £6M

The BBC have to compete.

And Shiva, sorry but nobody wants to see a nobody.

2.2m for a guy who puts a few records on, and ran an out of date car show that very few people watched according to the press. The BBC taking the proverbial.

People forget Chris Evans was a principle character in getting radio one to be the nations largest station...what's happened since?
I think also some of these guys seem to cover more airtime than others so surely that must be included in any comparisons.
When it comes to gender differences I would like to know the proportion of each employed ..I reckon at lower levels it would prove 8nteresting...

If the BBC were to agree that its top earners would be paid no more than £200K per year, then we may have a starting point.
That way the other channels who want to poach will do so and the beeb will lose a lot of its current talent, though there will come a stage were the market would be flooded with talent and at this stage the beeb will retain its talent.

P.S Tonly Blair was only paid £120K per year as PM, though is somehow worth more than £30M these days - politicians ehh?

[quAnd your point is ? ote="donaduo"]Quite a few occupations pay more than the PM gets.[/quote]


Yes I know and your point is ? My point is that the person leading the country is paid a fraction of that of a DJ wide boy or an over rated football player ( and others). Tell me how this can this be right !!

maisiesdad wrote:[quAnd your point is ? ote="donaduo"]Quite a few occupations pay more than the PM gets.

Yes I know and your point is ? My point is that the person leading the country is paid a fraction of that of a DJ wide boy or an over rated football player ( and others). Tell me how this can this be right !![/quote]


Commercial forces.

Why don't fourth division clubs win the FA cup? They don't employ the best players.

The BBC, forced to pay peanuts to it's people, would become a fourth rate broadcaster.

Its the same argument employed to give bankers ludicrous bonuses and its beginning to wear a bit thin. As far as I'm concerned the BBC is paying £2.2M to a fourth rate broadcaster.