Election Year or Fear!

[MadAmster]

Just thought of another benefit of salary caps on employees of publicly funded companies.... Gaz Lineker wouldn't be on anything like £1.5M a year or whatever he's on now.

... until that is, TV actors, commentators, pundits etc got smart, as they did over here and started working for independent programme makers and then selling the programme to the NOS (Dutch equivalent of BBC) companies at a price the makers deemed the "product" was worth. The state broadcaster was no longer paying "Lineker" a salary but buying a product from an independent producer who then pay "Lineker" et al the exorbitant salary he/they want. Workarounds and bypasses appear to be merely temporary "fixes".

[Andy_Faber]

Just thought of another benefit of salary caps on employees of publicly funded companies.... Gaz Lineker wouldn't be on anything like £1.5M a year or whatever he's on now.

... until that is, TV actors, commentators, pundits etc got smart, as they did over here and started working for independent programme makers and then selling the programme to the NOS (Dutch equivalent of BBC) companies at a price the makers deemed the "product" was worth. The state broadcaster was no longer paying "Lineker" a salary but buying a product from an independent producer who then pay "Lineker" et al the exorbitant salary he/they want. Workarounds and bypasses appear to be merely temporary "fixes".

Easy answer. Only pay salaried employees. Use the talent pool. If that’s too difficult, work out an equivalence which represents ‘cost to the enterprise’, so that, for instance, a salaried Lineker cost the BBC the same as Lineker PLC

[MadAmster]

Easy answer. Only pay salaried employees. Use the talent pool. If that’s too difficult, work out an equivalence which represents ‘cost to the enterprise’, so that, for instance, a salaried Lineker cost the BBC the same as Lineker PLC

Would that only work if Lineker PLC was selling the product directly to the BBC and not if Lineker sells his "talents" to Fox Toffee Spur Enetrtainment PLC who then sell the programme to the BBC?

[swaledale]

Just thought of another benefit of salary caps on employees of publicly funded companies.... Gaz Lineker wouldn't be on anything like £1.5M a year or whatever he's on now.

... until that is, TV actors, commentators, pundits etc got smart, as they did over here and started working for independent programme makers and then selling the programme to the NOS (Dutch equivalent of BBC) companies at a price the makers deemed the "product" was worth. The state broadcaster was no longer paying "Lineker" a salary but buying a product from an independent producer who then pay "Lineker" et al the exorbitant salary he/they want. Workarounds and bypasses appear to be merely temporary "fixes".

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.

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.

[Andy_Faber]

In point of fact AF is wrong about the way the salary level for presenters and the like are arrived at.

Please explain (genuine request)

[swaledale]

Please explain (genuine request)

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.

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.