Are they using foodbanks?

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Match of the Day host Gary Lineker has topped a list of the BBC's best-paid stars for a fifth year in a row, taking £1.35m in the last financial year.

That's slightly down on the £1.36m he earned in the previous year, which came after he took a pay cut from £1.75m.

Radio 2 breakfast show host Zoe Ball is second on the new list, with £980,000. She also previously earned more but took a 28% pay cut at the end of 2020.

 

What is it that makes these people such high wage earners?

Lack of competition? No

Skill of job? No

Long hours? No

We wouldn't enjoy the programme without them? No

I watch the news or listen to the radio, and for many its a 3 day week for about 2-3 hours a day for Monday to Friday and most don't have to get up at 3am. Ken Bruce, who is older than me, jokes about his 38 weeks a year job.

Lineker doesn't have to do anything as he covers recorded highlights and gets Shearer and co to do the talking.

When the world is talking about cutbacks, revision of jobs and working practices, such as the Railways, why is it that so called celebrities do so little for so much? Like politicians who say "we have been working hard". No you haven't.

 

[horsefly 4,310]

I don't particularly have an issue with Lineker, but his wage is patently ridiculous. Frankly I would much rather watch/listen to the affable and well informed Colin Murray. I don't believe for a minute that MOTD's viewing figures would reduce by a single person if Lineker and co were replaced.

[TeemuVanBasten 3,327]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

I don't believe for a minute that MOTD's viewing figures would reduce by a single person if Lineker and co were replaced.

Wrong.

It would reduce by one single person.

Gary Lineker would stop watching.

[horsefly 4,310]

1 minute ago, TeemuVanBasten said:

Wrong.

It would reduce by one single person.

Gary Lineker would stop watching.

Ah! but most of his "mates" would start watching.

[Naturalcynic 660]

5 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I don't particularly have an issue with Lineker, but his wage is patently ridiculous. Frankly I would much rather watch/listen to the affable and well informed Colin Murray. I don't believe for a minute that MOTD's viewing figures would reduce by a single person if Lineker and co were replaced.

I haven’t watched MOTD for years.  All of the same highlights can be seen earlier in the evening on the Sky Sports website without having to endure the tedious waffle from Lineker and the so-called pundits who pretend to have watched the whole match but who in reality have been told what to say by the programme’s researchers and script writers.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

It isn't personal for me. I couldn't care who presents the programmes. But I just find the amount of money for so little work just remarkable. I wonder what the negotiations look like?

"I'll take £100K"

"That is way to low. How about we give you a million" 

"Are you sure, after all its a lot of money"

"You bargain hard. OK have £1.3M"

Its like movie actors who pontificate about life, freedoms, under privileged, give money to charity etc. Complaining people don't go to themovies, pirating blah blah blah. Then want £20M for a movie.

Edited July 12, 2022 by keelansgrandad

[Naturalcynic 660]

54 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

It isn't personal for me. I couldn't care who presents the programmes. But I just find the amount of money for so little work just remarkable. I wonder what the negotiations look like?

"I'll take £100K"

"That is way to low. How about we give you a million" 

"Are you sure, after all its a lot of money"

"You bargain hard. OK have £1.3M"

Its like movie actors who pontificate about life, freedoms, under privileged, give money to charity etc. Complaining people don't go to themovies, pirating blah blah blah. Then want £20M for a movie.

It goes without saying that Lineker’s salary is absolutely obscene, but what on earth does Shearer do to earn his £455k a year wage?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

You could have the show presented by an ordinary sports journalist  for £50-100k a year most likely, but these are people who are outsiders looking in, in contrast to retired pro footballers who are embedded in the industry. 

People like Shearer, Lineker, and other regular pundits are peers of those they're commentating on, They're also all very wealthy people who don't need the money, so if they're to be retained then they will have to be paid well for it; 1.3 million quid would be considered a pretty shoddy wage for an established Premier League footballer these days so I've no doubt that's the sort of money that needs to be paid to get their services as presenters.

Possibly people would be happy with run of the mill sports journalists as presenters. Maybe they should try it,. 

[Naturalcynic 660]

51 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You could have the show presented by an ordinary sports journalist  for £50-100k a year most likely, but these are people who are outsiders looking in, in contrast to retired pro footballers who are embedded in the industry. 

People like Shearer, Lineker, and other regular pundits are peers of those they're commentating on, They're also all very wealthy people who don't need the money, so if they're to be retained then they will have to be paid well for it; 1.3 million quid would be considered a pretty shoddy wage for an established Premier League footballer these days so I've no doubt that's the sort of money that needs to be paid to get their services as presenters.

Possibly people would be happy with run of the mill sports journalists as presenters. Maybe they should try it,. 

Well, Des Lynam did a great job when he hosted it.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

7 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said:

Well, Des Lynam did a great job when he hosted it.

Des Lynam was on £500k a year at the BBC in 1999 (that would be £773k in 2021 accounting for inflation). He left his £500k salary with the BBC for a £5m contract with ITV.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/1999/aug/03/itv.bbc

Edited July 12, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

20 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You could have the show presented by an ordinary sports journalist  for £50-100k a year most likely, but these are people who are outsiders looking in, in contrast to retired pro footballers who are embedded in the industry. 

People like Shearer, Lineker, and other regular pundits are peers of those they're commentating on, They're also all very wealthy people who don't need the money, so if they're to be retained then they will have to be paid well for it; 1.3 million quid would be considered a pretty shoddy wage for an established Premier League footballer these days so I've no doubt that's the sort of money that needs to be paid to get their services as presenters.

Possibly people would be happy with run of the mill sports journalists as presenters. Maybe they should try it,. 

That attitude is why they are paid so much.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

On 13/07/2022 at 16:39, keelansgrandad said:

That attitude is why they are paid so much.

Sure, but in these days where the BBC is under existential threat, I've no doubt there's a lot of careful thought about MOTD. What happens if they do shift to ordinary sports journalists and ratings drop as a result? Will there then be pressure on the BBC to cut costs by not bothering with Premier League football at all? Once the BBC stops that then it's entirely in the hands of the commercial sector and the only access will be through Sky and BT Sports. The football enthusiast who can't afford BT Sport/Sky is then utterly shafted and the BBC's a little bit closer to being axed altogether. 

That's ignoring that the BBC pays £212 million a year for the rights to broadcast Premier League highlights; MOTD presenter salaries pale into insignificance against that. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Sure, but in these days where the BBC is under existential threat, I've no doubt there's a lot of careful thought about MOTD. What happens if they do shift to ordinary sports journalists and ratings drop as a result? Will there then be pressure on the BBC to cut costs by not bothering with Premier League football at all? Once the BBC stops that then it's entirely in the hands of the commercial sector and the only access will be through Sky and BT Sports. The football enthusiast who can't afford BT Sport/Sky is then utterly shafted and the BBC's a little bit closer to being axed altogether. 

I have no objection to Lineker but how can the massive fee be justified when I am positive there are alternatives that wouldn't render the programme unwatchable. Do people watch MOTD because of him? I very much doubt it. Its the highlights they tune in for and I expect many are on catch up or recordings.

The threat to the BBC is political. There seems to be a belief that there is too much left wing, woke programming. I would suggest that it is politics that has made the BBC adopt its current attitude. If politicians did the right thing then the media would not have to make programmes about them. And the editorial content must act as independent as possible in the wake of GB News etc.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

44 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I have no objection to Lineker but how can the massive fee be justified when I am positive there are alternatives that wouldn't render the programme unwatchable. Do people watch MOTD because of him? I very much doubt it. Its the highlights they tune in for and I expect many are on catch up or recordings.

The threat to the BBC is political. There seems to be a belief that there is too much left wing, woke programming. I would suggest that it is politics that has made the BBC adopt its current attitude. If politicians did the right thing then the media would not have to make programmes about them. And the editorial content must act as independent as possible in the wake of GB News etc.

The threat to the BBC is not just political, it's ideologically political. Private sector ideologues want to see the back of state-funded broadcasting; the private news and private media would like to see the back of it because a state presence in broadcasting is the only obstacle to simply going for the cheapest trashiest content possible without any fear of any innovation upsetting the apple cart. 

The BBC needs to compete with the commercial sector on salaries if it's to keep the talent it wants to use. Lineker, Shearer, and others are high profile footballing figures that add prestige to the programme. It's a moot point as to how much value that adds to the programme, but again, in programming cost terms, against the more than 200 million quid the BBC has to shell out to broadcast the Premier League at all, these salaries are trivial. 

Equally, if you start afresh with an unknown at Match of the Day, they will inevitably gain prestige and gain demand simply from being there; if the presenter has any talent, their salary will quickly fly up if the BBC is not to lose their services to the private sector, as was the case with Des Lynam being lost to ITV for 5 million quid a year, and he wasn't doing badly at the BBC on 500k a year either back in 1999. 

Extending that further, you can take the Great British Bake Off as both an example of the value of the BBC, and also an example of the economic challenges the BBC has to face. Bake Off was a format that nobody in the commercial sector wanted to touch, because it was considered too risky, but the BBC has it in its mandate to experiment and it ran with it, only for the show to become a massive hit. 

In the end, Bake Off became such a hit that Channel 4 outbid the BBC, which underlines the fact that the BBC doesn't just throw money at things for the sake of it, and occasionally suffers as a result. Ultimately, if the view is taken on everything that the BBC must only pay peanuts then it will be the BBC paying for training talent, the commercial sector taking the talent that actually has talent, and the BBC will only be left with those it has trained who aren't any good. 

Lineker is the highest paid presenter at the BBC on about £1.3 million. Ant and Dec get 30 million quid a year between them, but that's the private sector, so nobody makes an issue of it. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[Nuff Said 5,175]

I’m with @littleyellowbirdie on this one. If you want to protest about people who are paid too much, Gary Lineker is a one-off whose inflated salary has little practical impact on society. Focus instead on boardrooms where not only do execs earn ridiculous sums, often completely unrelated to whether or not the organisations they lead are actually successful, they are incentivised on short-term results which actively harms the sustainability of their business and our economy.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m with @littleyellowbirdie on this one. If you want to protest about people who are paid too much, Gary Lineker is a one-off whose inflated salary has little practical impact on society. Focus instead on boardrooms where not only do execs earn ridiculous sums, often completely unrelated to whether or not the organisations they lead are actually successful, they are incentivised on short-term results which actively harms the sustainability of their business and our economy.

I think if you read my posts, you would see I am equally concerned with such matters. And I am equally concerned about value for money. 

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The threat to the BBC is not just political, it's ideologically political. Private sector ideologues want to see the back of state-funded broadcasting; the private news and private media would like to see the back of it because a state presence in broadcasting is the only obstacle to simply going for the cheapest trashiest content possible without any fear of any innovation upsetting the apple cart. 

The BBC needs to compete with the commercial sector on salaries if it's to keep the talent it wants to use. Lineker, Shearer, and others are high profile footballing figures that add prestige to the programme. It's a moot point as to how much value that adds to the programme, but again, in programming cost terms, against the more than 200 million quid the BBC has to shell out to broadcast the Premier League at all, these salaries are trivial. 

Equally, if you start afresh with an unknown at Match of the Day, they will inevitably gain prestige and gain demand simply from being there; if the presenter has any talent, their salary will quickly fly up if the BBC is not to lose their services to the private sector, as was the case with Des Lynam being lost to ITV for 5 million quid a year, and he wasn't doing badly at the BBC on 500k a year either back in 1999. 

Extending that further, you can take the Great British Bake Off as both an example of the value of the BBC, and also an example of the economic challenges the BBC has to face. Bake Off was a format that nobody in the commercial sector wanted to touch, because it was considered too risky, but the BBC has it in its mandate to experiment and it ran with it, only for the show to become a massive hit. 

In the end, Bake Off became such a hit that Channel 4 outbid the BBC, which underlines the fact that the BBC doesn't just throw money at things for the sake of it, and occasionally suffers as a result. Ultimately, if the view is taken on everything that the BBC must only pay peanuts then it will be the BBC paying for training talent, the commercial sector taking the talent that actually has talent, and the BBC will only be left with those it has trained who aren't any good. 

Lineker is the highest paid presenter at the BBC on about £1.3 million. Ant and Dec get 30 million quid a year between them, but that's the private sector, so nobody makes an issue of it. 

I'm sorry but I just don't go along with the chasing of talent. Actors and musicians yes but presenters no.

And Bake Off is produced by a company of course. So it was always likely that it would move. I was just surprised it was Channel 4.

Edited July 18, 2022 by keelansgrandad

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

41 minutes ago, keelansgrandad said:

I'm sorry but I just don't go along with the chasing of talent. Actors and musicians yes but presenters no.

And Bake Off is produced by a company of course. So it was always likely that it would move. I was just surprised it was Channel 4.

Being a TV presenter is a skilled job. How appealing your presenters are does impact how popular the show is. ITV is a commercial company, but they think it's worth it to them to pay £30m a year to Ant and Dec to work for them, and apparently the shows they work on still make them money, or I guess they wouldn't do it. 

Maybe ITV will decide to outbid the BBC for highlights one day. Or maybe one of BT sport or Sky decide the money's getting silly and one of them decides to outbid the BBC for the highlights package instead of doing full games and suddenly the punters will have to pay 10 times the license fee to see anything from the Premier League. Who knows? If they do, they'll most likely woo Lineker and co over and pay them far more than they get now; Lineker and co are only with the BBC and willing to take pay cuts to appease public opinion because that's where the football is at the moment. To me, Ant and Dec aren't worth that, but I guess ITV probably have a better idea than me on that score. 

There is an argument to scrap the BBC entirely. Is there value in having a  license fee-funded broadcaster providing things like affordable access to premier league coverage, cultural events like the BBC Proms that no commercial broadcaster would touch, great innovative entertainment that wouldn't see the light of day if it was left to the commercial sector? If so, just scrap it, but if not, then it's just a fact that they need to pay their talent according to what the market dictates.

But really, I don't see the fuss about a presenter getting £1.3m a year for a sport where most players in the Premier League earns far more than that, and all the punters continue to hand their money over to pay for it, in spite of the fact that most of the clubs are still losing money paying the obscene wages they do for kicking a ball around. Fixating on presenters' pay, and only BBC presenters' pay at that, in that climate just seems odd to me. 

These persistent attacks on the BBC about what it spends aren't really about people being paid too much. That's just a front for the real agenda of aiming to diminish the quality of its output so the public value the institution less and eventually it can just be jettisoned, which will be an inestimable loss to the UK given that its one of the most effective tools in the UK's global soft power arsenal. 

Edited July 18, 2022 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

Focusing on the likes of Lineker's pay is basically the TV channel equivalent of whataboutism with the remuneration of union leaders like Mick Lynch or indeed complaining about welfare for the unemployed when it's the tax avoiders who cost far, far more. Exact same copybook.

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

12 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Being a TV presenter is a skilled job. How appealing your presenters are does impact how popular the show is. ITV is a commercial company, but they think it's worth it to them to pay £30m a year to Ant and Dec to work for them, and apparently the shows they work on still make them money, or I guess they wouldn't do it. 

Maybe ITV will decide to outbid the BBC for highlights one day. Or maybe one of BT sport or Sky decide the money's getting silly and one of them decides to outbid the BBC for the highlights package instead of doing full games and suddenly the punters will have to pay 10 times the license fee to see anything from the Premier League. Who knows? If they do, they'll most likely woo Lineker and co over and pay them far more than they get now; Lineker and co are only with the BBC and willing to take pay cuts to appease public opinion because that's where the football is at the moment. To me, Ant and Dec aren't worth that, but I guess ITV probably have a better idea than me on that score. 

There is an argument to scrap the BBC entirely. Is there value in having a  license fee-funded broadcaster providing things like affordable access to premier league coverage, cultural events like the BBC Proms that no commercial broadcaster would touch, great innovative entertainment that wouldn't see the light of day if it was left to the commercial sector? If so, just scrap it, but if not, then it's just a fact that they need to pay their talent according to what the market dictates.

But really, I don't see the fuss about a presenter getting £1.3m a year for a sport where most players in the Premier League earns far more than that, and all the punters continue to hand their money over to pay for it, in spite of the fact that most of the clubs are still losing money paying the obscene wages they do for kicking a ball around. Fixating on presenters' pay, and only BBC presenters' pay at that, in that climate just seems odd to me. 

These persistent attacks on the BBC about what it spends aren't really about people being paid too much. That's just a front for the real agenda of aiming to diminish the quality of its output so the public value the institution less and eventually it can just be jettisoned. 

Yep, the bit in bold has nailed it for me. Made even more apparent by their trying to sell off Channel 4.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

1 minute ago, TheGunnShow said:

Yep, the bit in bold has nailed it for me. Made even more apparent by their trying to sell off Channel 4.

Apologies, I would click 'thanks', but I've run out of reactions for the day, so thanks. 🙂

[Nuff Said 5,175]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

I think if you read my posts, you would see I am equally concerned with such matters. And I am equally concerned about value for money. 

 

3 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

I’m with @littleyellowbirdie on this one. If you want to protest about people who are paid too much, Gary Lineker is a one-off whose inflated salary has little practical impact on society. Focus instead on boardrooms where not only do execs earn ridiculous sums, often completely unrelated to whether or not the organisations they lead are actually successful, they are incentivised on short-term results which actively harms the sustainability of their business and our economy.

I can't help feeling the pearl clutching at Lineker’s salary is driven partly by his vaguely left of centre tweets and partly by the fact he’s paid by the BBC (not aimed at you KG, the “MSM”)

 

Edit: and also to distract from the cases more deserving of attention.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Nuff Said

[Nuff Said 5,175]

Also: Hands off the BBC!

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

3 hours ago, Nuff Said said:

 

I can't help feeling the pearl clutching at Lineker’s salary is driven partly by his vaguely left of centre tweets and partly by the fact he’s paid by the BBC (not aimed at you KG, the “MSM”)

 

Edit: and also to distract from the cases more deserving of attention.

I am well left of centre, a believer in an autonomous BBC and thought Lineker was a top class striker.

But nothing is going to convince me that he is worth that amount of money for presenting a program with a diminishing live audience.

I don'tbelieve that Auntie has anything to worry about though. The public is rapidly being turned off by streaming services it appears, for instance Netflix projected to gain 2 million more accounts this year but in fact lost 200K. The constant demand for drama series has reached saturation point and sport isout of the Beeb's reach. Therefore they have a niche there to take advantage of.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

On 18/07/2022 at 18:06, Nuff Said said:

Also: Hands off the

On 12/07/2022 at 13:39, keelansgrandad said:

Match of the Day host Gary Lineker has topped a list of the BBC's best-paid stars for a fifth year in a row, taking £1.35m in the last financial year.

That's slightly down on the £1.36m he earned in the previous year, which came after he took a pay cut from £1.75m.

Radio 2 breakfast show host Zoe Ball is second on the new list, with £980,000. She also previously earned more but took a 28% pay cut at the end of 2020.

 

What is it that makes these people such high wage earners?

Lack of competition? No

Skill of job? No

Long hours? No

We wouldn't enjoy the programme without them? No

I watch the news or listen to the radio, and for many its a 3 day week for about 2-3 hours a day for Monday to Friday and most don't have to get up at 3am. Ken Bruce, who is older than me, jokes about his 38 weeks a year job.

Lineker doesn't have to do anything as he covers recorded highlights and gets Shearer and co to do the talking.

When the world is talking about cutbacks, revision of jobs and working practices, such as the Railways, why is it that so called celebrities do so little for so much? Like politicians who say "we have been working hard". No you haven't.

 

 

Have any views changed on this since last summer?

Edit: Not sure what happened with the weird quote in a quote there...

Edited March 10, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Nuff Said 5,175]

2 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Have any views changed on this since last summer?

Edit: Not sure what happened with the weird quote in a quote there...

Only in that maybe “hands away from the BBC” would be slightly more accurate. Political meddling in a supposed national broadcaster looks like the start of a slippery slope to state controlled media. I think someone well-known has commented on this recently?

[littleyellowbirdie 2,590]

3 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Only in that maybe “hands away from the BBC” would be slightly more accurate. Political meddling in a supposed national broadcaster looks like the start of a slippery slope to state controlled media. I think someone well-known has commented on this recently?

There have been a few comments, but it all really started with Andrew Gilligan and the Hutton report whitewash.

I'm really disappointed in Lineker that he doesn't seem remotely interested in speaking up for the BBC in this; it's the BBC that's powerless here. He could at least put the spotlight back on the government and what it has done to the BBC.

Edited March 10, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,993]

Think it's making the case more for the licence fee for me along with increased focus on ensuring lack of state interference in national media. Furthermore, I'm speaking as a guy who's not had to pay it as I haven't had a television in my place ever since I moved to this place 13 years ago.

That bit I particularly rated on LYB's post appears more apposite. This looks like the government desperately throwing its weight around under the guise of "impartiality" to force an agenda of scrapping the licence fee. Especially when considering the likes of Sharp and Davie at the BEEB too.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Have any views changed on this since last summer?

Edit: Not sure what happened with the weird quote in a quote there...

No, not at all. The tweet was by a citizen who was concerned about the Government's policy toward any immigrant. My view that Gary Lineker is an overpaid, hypocrite has not changed. I cannot remember the last time I was interested in MOTD.

[Nuff Said 5,175]

1 hour ago, keelansgrandad said:

My view that Gary Lineker is an overpaid, hypocrite has not changed.

13 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

I'm really disappointed in Lineker that he doesn't seem remotely interested in speaking up for the BBC in this; it's the BBC that's powerless here. He could at least put the spotlight back on the government and what it has done to the BBC.

Gary Lineker could I’m sure make more money by defecting from the BBC to a commercial rival. He might be overpaid but he’s not exploiting his “brand” to its maximum. He appears to prefer to work for our national broadcaster (although that may change now). Which has been an endorsement of sorts for many years.