BBC Salaries

Just because they're a public broadcaster it doesn't mean they aren't impacted by the market forces of the industry they're in. Who get's paid what is an arbitrary concept; i doubt any of us feel it's right that a radio presenter gets paid a salary ten times that of a nurse. But for better or worse, that's how the markets work. The BBC 'top brass' want to be seen as a relevant player and to do that they need to hire 'talent'. To hire big names, you have to compete, otherwise we'd be left with a national broadcaster that's hiring untried 'kids' or second rate nobodies. That would cheapen the product and ultimately see that kudos and responsibility disappear over time.
I am suggesting hiring good competent people on more than decent salaries not just shoving a load of kids before the camera.😁
I honestly do not think the BBC will lose its WORLDWIDE status or go to pot if Lineker or blinkin Zoe Ball feel 500k is beneath them😜 .
 
Last edited:
Rupert
" For example, accept advertising, reduce salaries in particular those in higher management and Linakers,"

Lest you forget Lineker has taken a 23% cut in salary. I like Norton very much and to be fair I don't see why he shouldn't earn as much as Lineker but that's for the Beeb to decide as they see fit. They clearly think that MOTD is one of their showcase programmes and believe in paying a high rate to get the presenter they want to do that. That is currently Lineker.
 
Gary Lineker, “Well that was an exciting game“ waving his arms around extravagantly, “what do you think Alan?” A trained monkey could do his job for nothing!
 
I agree with a lot of what Rupert says above but dont want the beeb to accept advertising.
I would hate them to be inundated with tacky betting adverts trying to get yet more money out of people like Sky etc.

Standards dear boy.
 
We should start a new game. Note the time it takes for the “Boycott Breaker” togo to reply to any thread where he has previously posted, so that he can have the last word!
 
We should start a new game. Note the time it takes for the “Boycott Breaker” togo to reply to any thread where he has previously posted, so that he can have the last word!
J wasn't a boycott breaker, every bit as much a NAPM as anyone else.

And if you yourself want to have the last word just add that into your post and I'll think about it. Can't say fairer than that.
 
The boycott was not just about starving the Oyscums of cash, but equally to show the world an almost empty stadium, to shame them into submission. Going to games was almost like legitimising their regime. If no one had actually attended, we would have seen the back of them much sooner than we did!
 
The boycott was not just about starving the Oyscums of cash, but equally to show the world an almost empty stadium, to shame them into submission. Going to games was almost like legitimising their regime. If no one had actually attended, we would have seen the back of them much sooner than we did!
I went to three games in two seasons on some-one elses ticket. I said that before I even went to those games too. As for getting rid of them sooner, I don't agree. The court ruling got rid of the Oystons and if that had gone in their favour they'd still be here. The thought that no-one would ever attend is simply a nonsense. More chance of the moon being made of cheese.

But this thread is about BBC salaries so stop being a muppet and get back on topic.
 
Back
Top