Printable View
His problem. He could go back to a salaried position or move on and give, let’s say, Malcolm Christie a go. This doesn’t just apply to media people. The problem with impacting remuneration of all these ‘jobs’ are they are controlled by those ‘in the club’ , that one that you and I aren’t in and entry is by nods, winks and personal likesQuote:
Originally Posted by MadAmster
Ah but MA, salaries at the BBC are already "capped" with guidelines on maximums allowed (though there are ways round the cap) and all salaries over £178,000 are published hence why so many presenters like Lineker are free lances and not direct employees.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadAmster
In point of fact AF is wrong about the way the salary level for presenters and the like are arrived at, though his comments ring true for executives, who tend to get their boards to benchmark salaries against others in the sector and thus justify an increase. Its self perpetuating really.
In Lineker's case he has actually had a pay cut from his previous payment (not a salary as he is free lance) and undoubtedly could earn between 20 - 40% more if he accepted a similar role at say Sky or another broadcaster.
Please explain (genuine request)Quote:
Originally Posted by swaledale
Watching the news it looks like we have a choice between one pack of racists and another you wouldn’t trust with little Tommy’s pocket money
Explain pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Faber
No problem, presenters as other people of similar ilk are paid according to what the market will pay them, Lineker could get equal or indeed much more if he went to another broadcaster. The market isn't rigged as to an extent it is with Senior executives who all benchmark each others pay and perpetuate the levels of pay which are not justified, demonstrated by the fact that Executive pay is now 344 times that of an "ordinary worker, in 1965 it was 21 times.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy_Faber
One can argue about how such and such a presenter got the gig in the first place, though being a good presenter is not easy so jobs for the "boys or girls" only takes one so far, but the salary is determined by what the broadcast media will pay. The BBC especially struggles against commercial media because it has a limit on payments, indeed many of its stars over the years have "jumped ship" to commercial media becuase of the higher payments they can make.
Regarding BBC ‘celebs’ (I didn’t bring Lineker up) I simply think they are overpaid, BBC should be brave, recontract at the appropriate times at 50% of current salaries and take the rating hit if any - on which subject, BBC News seems to have managed without £500k Huw Edwards just fineQuote:
Originally Posted by swaledale
Regarding executive pay a) it’s obscene b) dedpite saying that I benefit from their corporations through my pension so there are no clean hands and c) my ire in particular is aimed at the public sector because as I said I can choose where I get my milk but not my waterQuote:
Originally Posted by swaledale
Last night’s by-election results in Kingswood and Wellingborough would certainly suggest that change is on the way. Of course Sunak still persists in thinking that it’s just a case of ‘mid term’ by-elections always being ‘difficult’, but then, losing a record number of them, I suppose he would say that.
Change in a way, imo it’ll be ‘same sh*t different bucket’.Quote:
Originally Posted by ramAnag
I was thinking about someone’s comment that we should be voting for future generations not ourselves, which I see the merit in, and I’m genuinely struggling to identify any policy by any major party that will impact me significantly for good or ill