If he had been born 30 years later he'd be earning five times as much per annum . On the plus side , if he was still playing he'd be less inclined to stick his nose into current affairs/politics where it's not wanted
If he had been born 30 years later he'd be earning five times as much per annum . On the plus side , if he was still playing he'd be less inclined to stick his nose into current affairs/politics where it's not wanted
I think the Norton figure is misleading as for his tv show I think he gets paid by the production company not the BBC. Given the world wide profile of his chat show I would be surprised if he doesn't ultimately earn more than the rest combined.
I think the Norton figure is misleading as for his tv show I think he gets paid by the production company not the BBC.Given the world wide profile of his chat show I would be surprised if he doesn't ultimately earn more than the rest combined.
Mainly radio presenters, aren't they? Presenters anyway. Presumably actors are either underpaid or work for production companies so their pay is not reported.
Mainly radio presenters, aren't they? Presenters anyway. Presumably actors are either underpaid or work for production companies so their pay is not reported.
Would anyone not watch MOTD if lineker or Shearer were not there? Of course not as you watch it to watch the games especially the team you support,can understand them having to pay large salaries in some cases but totally unnecessary in this case.
Would anyone not watch MOTD if lineker or Shearer were not there? Of course not as you watch it to watch the games especially the team you support,can understand them having to pay large salaries in some cases but totally unnecessary in this case.
I don`t get some of you guys. Last night on the other thread, you were saying that posters criticising high earners were just jealous, hated seeing people succeed and were leftie scum. Now the same protagonists are openly criticising successful high earners. Make your minds up.
I don`t get some of you guys. Last night on the other thread, you were saying that posters criticising high earners were just jealous, hated seeing people succeed and were leftie scum. Now the same protagonists are openly criticising successful high
Feltz on £360,000. The PM is on less than half of that.
In fact in any "normal" walk of life, could you ever earn that? The countries absolute top surgeons, scientists, engineers etc, extremely intelligent hard working people doing useful things will be on a fraction of that.
But the BBC puts a gun to our head, forces us to pay up or go to prison, then gives the money the extract from us away so that e.g. more than 1/3 of a million a year goes to someone we don't even know work for them.
As I say, great.
In fact if you ignore the top 10, the list of others on shocking amounts is on as long as your arm: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-48839428
I actually don't mind Norton earing a decent whack as he has a big show that is syndicated and shown on the likes of BBC america and I'm sure brings income to the BBC that offsets his salary. Unlike the rest of chancers taking the p1ss in that list. Many of whom none of us have any idea who they are but are on 150k+.
Feltz on £360,000.The PM is on less than half of that.In fact in any "normal" walk of life, could you ever earn that? The countries absolute top surgeons, scientists, engineers etc, extremely intelligent hard working people doing useful things will
Apples and oranges Mac. I don't think wages were mentioned last night. We were talking of people making a success of life. Here we are talking about 'entertainers' being overrated.
Apples and oranges Mac.I don't think wages were mentioned last night.We were talking of people making a success of life.Here we are talking about 'entertainers' being overrated.
Once again Mac needs simple things such as the anger against the BBC explained. And for the umpteenth time this needs layed out: The BBC is not a magazine we can opt in to buy. We are all forced to pay for it. If you watch zero seconds of BBC a year, and watch just romanian news 24 on a satellite dish, you are forced to pay for it or be taken to court for watching "Live TV". They then take the vast amounts of sums they earn, and hand it out in huge bundles to reward themself, while at the same time proclaiming they are wonderful balanced journalists and program makers when they are a propaganda network that would make Pravda blush.
Once again Mac needs simple things such as the anger against the BBC explained. And for the umpteenth time this needs layed out:The BBC is not a magazine we can opt in to buy. We are all forced to pay for it. If you watch zero seconds of BBC a year,
If I felt as strong as you about the BBC license fee, I simply wouldn`t pay it and go to court. I did so with the Poll Tax. It`s called standing up for your principles.
If I felt as strong as you about the BBC license fee, I simply wouldn`t pay it and go to court. I did so with the Poll Tax. It`s called standing up for your principles.
'Lineker, Winkleman, Zoe Ball and Graham Norton, for instance, are presented as enemies of the people, robbing pensioners of their free TV licences and taking the hard-earned cash of ordinary citizens to subsidise their fancy ways.
This is the narrative in common circulation, but there is an alternative one. All the big earners at the corporation could probably command even bigger salaries in the open market, but many of them choose to stay with our national broadcaster out of a sense of mission, a belief in the higher purpose of the BBC'
From The Independant....'Lineker, Winkleman, Zoe Ball and Graham Norton, for instance, are presented as enemies of the people, robbing pensioners of their free TV licences and taking the hard-earned cash of ordinary citizens to subsidise their fancy
Feltz only accepting £360,000 a year to do a bit of radio (something she has a face for), she's like a new Jesus imho, suffering on the cross for the good of our nation...
It really reaches a bit of a low when an opinion piece from someone who has such crap journalistic career they work for a failed newspaper, is apparently presented as "fact". Here's a tip : that journalists opinion is worth, on a good day, as much as anyone on here and just because it's "printed" means absolutely FA.
Feltz only accepting £360,000 a year to do a bit of radio (something she has a face for), she's like a new Jesus imho, suffering on the cross for the good of our nation...It really reaches a bit of a low when an opinion piece from someone who has su
LOL I missed this one, apparently in a recent program discussing "Toy Story 4", the BBC's review descended into attacking it as the toys in it aren't ethnically diverse enough, it didn't push a suitable feminist message or an ecological agenda. Peston not happy! https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1144071/robert-peston-BBC-toy-story-review-twitter-brexit-bias It's sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo BBC though.
LOL I missed this one, apparently in a recent program discussing "Toy Story 4", the BBC's review descended into attacking it as the toys in it aren't ethnically diverse enough, it didn't push a suitable feminist message or an ecological agenda. Pesto
I'm genuinely surprised given the makeup of of the teams I've seen in the Womens World Cup that BBC hasn't had a go at the lack of diversity among the "Western" teams. Maybe it's because it's women, if it was men I'm thinking they would, it's their #1 obsession. And my obsession is hating the BBC, and I'm OK with that
I'm genuinely surprised given the makeup of of the teams I've seen in the Womens World Cup that BBC hasn't had a go at the lack of diversity among the "Western" teams. Maybe it's because it's women, if it was men I'm thinking they would, it's their #
what gets me is these presenters are all replaceable, its not as though they are brilliant surgeons, scientists etc. they are just people who spout **** for a couple of hours. they should remember that and so should bbc, let them go to sky/itv etc.
what gets me is these presenters are all replaceable, its not as though they are brilliant surgeons, scientists etc. they are just people who spout **** for a couple of hours. they should remember that and so should bbc, let them go to sky/itv etc.
"presenters ... replacable?" The thing is it's the tip of the iceberg, there are many who aren't listed due to way the information is released. People paid by e.g. BBC studios aren't listed. So like the two hosts of the one show are on £500k a year, but not on that list.
"presenters ... replacable?" The thing is it's the tip of the iceberg, there are many who aren't listed due to way the information is released. People paid by e.g. BBC studios aren't listed. So like the two hosts of the one show are on £500k a year,