O/T. Gary Lineker.

[Woodman 92]

Shearer''s BBC contract is £500k apparently too! Mind-numbingly dull insight and the personality of a brick.

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,560]

Also worth pointing out that Linekar and Shearer''s salary included their work on coverage of Euro 2016, so not just for their MOTD work.

[SwindonCanary 455]

And remind me how many damn adverts you have to put up with as well!  BBC advertise as well, is all about up and coming programs !

[BroadstairsR 2,179]

"And remind me how many damn adverts you have to put up with as well! BBC advertise as well, is all about up and coming programs!"

And Sky don''t do this as well then.

Some of these fringe channels who''s viewing figures number thousands rather than millions must charge next to nothing for advertising.

Even ''Movies for Men'' which I suppose might be quite popular regularly has advert breaks of as much as five minutes in length, and that''s before that wine sponsor get their mention.

[Woodman 92]

[quote user="Bethnal Yellow and Green"]Also worth pointing out that Linekar and Shearer''s salary included their work on coverage of Euro 2016, so not just for their MOTD work.[/quote]

I tend to work throughout the year as well, not just during the domestic football season...

[lake district canary 4,537]

What an embarrassment the BBC is.  Still chucking huge salaries around.  You''re not telling me that there isn''t someone good enough to take on the role Gary Lineker does who would do it for a lot less money.   I like Gary Lineker, but his salary is obscene.

[Johnny Stump 1]

It''s not really Linekers fault though is it?

As has been said, the BBC needs massive reform in the way it''s funded.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Are the salaries of the top footballers as obscene?

Just as they are at the top of their profession he, arguably, is at the top of his.

But, after saying that, strangely enough I agree his salary is obscene but I also think top professional footballer''s salaries are as obscene or possibly more so.

At least Lineker is ''one of our own'' and not a European or African import as many of the footballers are and, same argument LDC, you''re not going to tell me that there are not English born players, who could be just as good as some of those imports, who do not get the chance because of them are you?

[lake district canary 4,537]

[quote user="Johnny Stump"]It''s not really Linekers fault though is it?

As has been said, the BBC needs massive reform in the way it''s funded.[/quote]No, it''s not his fault. As for the way the BBC is funded, for me it is not that - it is the heirachy that needs to change as those at the top have plainly not got to grips with salary inequalities and wasting money - and however you look at it, paying £1.8 million to somone who does nothing more than presents  tv programes is wasteful and morally indefensible, considering who it is who funds the bbc.....in other words us. The salaries of others like top news presenters and sports presenters like Sue Barker - around 300,000-400,000 - is still a lot, but at least more understandable. Salary caps are what is required and if a particular presenter will get paid more by going elsewhere, let them - the Beeb will still attract better quality people than commercial channels.

[Webbo118 0]

There is one big reason for that. She''s a woman!

[Webbo118 0]

The muppets who pay him? Effectively, that''s us, the licence fee payers. The BBC has always been (and probably always will be) a massive gravy train which is absolutely wonderful for everyone who is able to get on it.

[Hairy Canary 704]

[quote user="Yellow Wal"]Are the salaries of the top footballers as obscene?

Just as they are at the top of their profession he, arguably, is at the top of his.

But, after saying that, strangely enough I agree his salary is obscene but I also think top professional footballer''s salaries are as obscene or possibly more so.

At least Lineker is ''one of our own'' and not a European or African import as many of the footballers are and, same argument LDC, you''re not going to tell me that there are not English born players, who could be just as good as some of those imports, who do not get the chance because of them are you?[/quote]

Surely the point is that footballer''s salaries are paid by private companies. If they decide to spend millions on a player then they have to fund it themselves through loans, sales, income etc. Your taxes are not involved at all.

The BBC is a publicly funded body and these salaries are being paid for by us. As LDC rightly points out we do not need to spend millions of pounds in order to attract someone with the qualities of Chris Evens or Lineker.

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="lake district canary"]So he presents Match of the Day.  Wow.  Is the BBC that insecure about the programme they feel they have to pay out that much for a nice bloke to present it?   Sue Barker is a far more consumate sports presenter and is on the box far more than Mr Lineker and gets a fraction of what he does. 

[/quote]

See above response

[Webbo118 0]

[quote user="Hairy Canary"][quote user="Yellow Wal"]Are the salaries of the top footballers as obscene?

Just as they are at the top of their profession he, arguably, is at the top of his.

But, after saying that, strangely enough I agree his salary is obscene but I also think top professional footballer''s salaries are as obscene or possibly more so.

At least Lineker is ''one of our own'' and not a European or African import as many of the footballers are and, same argument LDC, you''re not going to tell me that there are not English born players, who could be just as good as some of those imports, who do not get the chance because of them are you?[/quote]

Surely the point is that footballer''s salaries are paid by private companies. If they decide to spend millions on a player then they have to fund it themselves through loans, sales, income etc. Your taxes are not involved at all.

The BBC is a publicly funded body and these salaries are being paid for by us. As LDC rightly points out we do not need to spend millions of pounds in order to attract someone with the qualities of Chris Evens or Lineker.[/quote]

Hurray! Someone has finally hit the nail on the head and got the point.

[Yellow Wal 314]

Webbo - Surely the point being made was the obscenity of the salary received, not who paid it?

[Bethnal Yellow and Green 1,560]

Woodman;

The point at Euro 2016 was that Linekar and Shearer will have earned more in 2016/17 than they would in a year that doesn''t have a major summer tournament.

TV presenters earn money per show they present, rather than having a fixed annual salary. Which is why news presenters who will be on TV far more often than hosts of occasional shows feature higher than many would expect.

The money paid to the hosts really isn''t ''obscene'' when you compare to the salaries of TV presenters on commercial channels - Ant and Dec each earn around £30m a year from ITV. Yes, I understand that this is public v private sector money, but the BBC has to compete against these channels to hire talented presenters. You only have to seen a couple of minutes of someone who isn''t talented to realise how much of a skill good presenting is.

Imagine if MOTD used some unknown presenter from regional TV to introduce the highlights - everyone would be ranting about how ''they never played the game, how can they comment on it''.

[Yellow Wal 314]

The BBC is a publicly funded body and these salaries are being paid for by us. As LDC rightly points out we do not need to spend millions of pounds in order to attract someone with the qualities of Chris Evens or Lineker.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Norwich City could pay a fraction of the salaries they do pay for lesser players but if you want the best possible you pay the best possible.

Why is it different for the BBC?

Agreed we pay the money but my subscription helps to pays the wages of the Sky presenters. Should they all take a pay cut so that my subscription could reduce?

[hogesar 9,693]

Not too far off what I thought he''d have been paid, to be fair.

[Woodman 92]

Thanks Bethnal - I tend to agree, Lineker does ok - I can remember his first MOTD when he looked really lost, but when you compare it to some of the Sky presenters who do the Championship games and the England U21 Euro games (Scott Minto I think?), you realise he does ok. Then, there''s the ones on C5''s highlights programme...

The "expert''s role" does seem to be a job for the boys though - David James, Chris Sutton, Michael Owen, Gary and Phil Neville, Jamie Carragher, Jermaine Jenas, Danny Murphy, Danny Mills...

[Hairy Canary 704]

Fair points Bethnal but I don''t see it can be as black and white as you suggest. Are you really suggesting we couldn''t attract a decent presenter for MOTD for say £750,000 p.a?

Des Lynam never played the game but I don''t remember anyone ever mentioning that. He was just a good presenter. We''re not talking about brain surgery here after all.

[Hairy Canary 704]

That really is up to you Yellow Wal. If you feel your Sky subscription is too high you can cancel it tomorrow. That means that when Sky decide how much they pay their people they take into account how it that would effect demand if it causes subscriptions to rise or quality to fall.

Licence payers don''t have that luxury and BBC therefore have to get the best they can from the money available. Are we really suggesting the BBC couldn''t get better value for money than the "talents" of Chris Evens for their £2 million plus?

[Yellow Wal 314]

The problem is that for £147.00 per year we not only get BBC television we get all the other services that the BBC offers, national radio, local radio, world coverage, websites and probably a few more things.

Sky Sports costs possibly around £40.00 per month, or £480.00 per year and every little bit extra we might want we have to pay for.

To have a subscription service for the BBC with such a wide range of services would be extremely difficult.

To get everything we do from the BBC for £2.82 a week is very good value.

I struggle to get a pint for £2.82.

Smile and enjoy it!

[Hairy Canary 704]

Totally agree! :-)

For what we pay and the services it provides the BBC is fantastic value.

[Jim Smith 2,322]

[quote user="Yellow Wal"]Are the salaries of the top footballers as obscene?

Just as they are at the top of their profession he, arguably, is at the top of his.

But, after saying that, strangely enough I agree his salary is obscene but I also think top professional footballer''s salaries are as obscene or possibly more so.

At least Lineker is ''one of our own'' and not a European or African import as many of the footballers are and, same argument LDC, you''re not going to tell me that there are not English born players, who could be just as good as some of those imports, who do not get the chance because of them are you?[/quote]

Is the point not though that whilst I think we would all agree that footballers salaries are obscene they hold the aces because they are effectively irreplaceable due to the football abilities they possess.

Any vaguely competent presenter could present MOTD and I doubt very much that it would make any real difference to the viewing figures long term. They could get someone for £100k a year who could present it just as well, if not better.

[nutty nigel 7,539]

They''re missing a trick trying to remain little old Aunty Beeb. There must be loads of foreign investors just itching to buy it. The model is outdated and Chinese ownership is the way forward.

[Herman 9,780]

[quote user="Jim Smith"][quote user="Yellow Wal"]Are the salaries of the top footballers as obscene?

Just as they are at the top of their profession he, arguably, is at the top of his.

But, after saying that, strangely enough I agree his salary is obscene but I also think top professional footballer''s salaries are as obscene or possibly more so.

At least Lineker is ''one of our own'' and not a European or African import as many of the footballers are and, same argument LDC, you''re not going to tell me that there are not English born players, who could be just as good as some of those imports, who do not get the chance because of them are you?[/quote]

Is the point not though that whilst I think we would all agree that footballers salaries are obscene they hold the aces because they are effectively irreplaceable due to the football abilities they possess.

Any vaguely competent presenter could present MOTD and I doubt very much that it would make any real difference to the viewing figures long term. They could get someone for £100k a year who could present it just as well, if not better.[/quote]If it was that simple woudn''t a very large media organisation have done that already, especially one that is already being hounded? You may not like people personally, but someone like Lineker is popular and does drag in the viewers and the BBC knows this.Personaaly, I am more upset that John Humphries actually gets paid, but that''s a different kettle o'' fish.[:D]

[Yellowbeagle 0]

It''s all relative whether anyone thinks it''s good value, for one individual it might be, but personally i''d like the right to choose whether i contribute even 1p to bloody Eastenders or Z list celebrity dance off.

[danielsroundabout 9]

I haven''t read all the pages of this thread, so apologies if I am repeating a point already made.

The point that has always aggravated me as far as Lineker is concerned is that he does not find it possible, for the money he is paid, to present MoD2 on Sundays. Why not?

[Van wink 2,994]

The message you are replying to: Re: O/T. Gary Lineker.

nutty nigel wrote the following post at 20/07/2017 6:39 PM:

They''re missing a trick trying to remain little old Aunty Beeb. There must be loads of foreign investors just itching to buy it. The model is outdated and Chinese ownership is the way forward.

😀😀 nice one

[Johnny Stump 1]

I''m not a fan of John Humphries either.

It is being implied that Lineker can''t be arsed to present MoTD2 on Sunday.

Is this the case or is this mpfabrication?