RugbyRebels

Say what you like about Evans. He knows how to negotiate a pay packet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40653383

Gender gap very much apparent also.

canta_brian wrote:Say what you like about Evans. He knows how to negotiate a pay packet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-40653383

Gender gap very much apparent also.

It's quite skewed, for instance Mel and Sue and Mary Berry all make about £500K but there salaries are paid by the production company that makes bake off,m there are a lot of programmes which are purchased from production companies so for an accurate reflection you would need all the information for those programmes as well.

You've also got to look at how often they work for the BBC. Evans for example works pretty much full time, with his weekday radio show and other BBC commitments whereas others I. E. The strictly mob, may only do that particular show for 12 weeks or whatever it is. They should have pro-rata'd it for a more balanced comparison.

bruce wrote:You've also got to look at how often they work for the BBC. Evans for example works pretty much full time, with his weekday radio show and other BBC commitments whereas others I. E. The strictly mob, may only do that particular show for 12 weeks or whatever it is. They should have pro-rata'd it for a more balanced comparison.

Aye

Yep, £ per hour (or per day), and inclusive of production company payments should have been included to be even remotely interesting

Anyone in the top 10 people would be remotely fussed about losing?

I used to rate John Humphrys, but something (perhaps age) has seen him get a little muddled at times the last couple of years and if they were to move him out to pastures new that might help Today.

Digby wrote:Anyone in the top 10 people would be remotely fussed about losing?

I used to rate John Humphrys, but something (perhaps age) has seen him get a little muddled at times the last couple of years and if they were to move him out to pastures new that might help Today.

He's a chippy little prick.

Numbers wrote:

Digby wrote:Anyone in the top 10 people would be remotely fussed about losing?

I used to rate John Humphrys, but something (perhaps age) has seen him get a little muddled at times the last couple of years and if they were to move him out to pastures new that might help Today.

He's a chippy little prick.

Humphyrys?

Digby wrote:Anyone in the top 10 people would be remotely fussed about losing?

I used to rate John Humphrys, but something (perhaps age) has seen him get a little muddled at times the last couple of years and if they were to move him out to pastures new that might help Today.

I like Humphries, but think a fresh face would be a good thing. Shows need a refresh after a while.

Completely agree that the figures are perhaps misleading. Pro rata would make more sense.

Digby wrote:Anyone in the top 10 people would be remotely fussed about losing?

Matt Baker can definately go. But I'd say that if he were paid a packet of crisps and the lose change from down the back of the BBC Breakfast sofa.

Which Tyler wrote:Yep, £ per hour (or per day), and inclusive of production company payments should have been included to be even remotely interesting

Wasn't meant to be interesting. Was just ticking the box in the simplest, least revealing way possible.

I also don't read much into the gender gap, but I do read much into overpaying crap. I know they want to "keep hold of their talent", but when you're saying Alan Shearer or John Inverdale are talents... If the BBC lost Shearer to a rival, it would improve their football output by a long way.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:Anyone in the top 10 people would be remotely fussed about losing?

I used to rate John Humphrys, but something (perhaps age) has seen him get a little muddled at times the last couple of years and if they were to move him out to pastures new that might help Today.

I like Humphries, but think a fresh face would be a good thing. Shows need a refresh after a while.

Completely agree that the figures are perhaps misleading. Pro rata would make more sense.

They replaced Edward Stourton it would simply seem to freshen up Today, and he was much more on the ball than Humphrys has been for a while now, though Humphrys I think could still do a presenting job if wanted, maybe just not a live fast thinking presenting job.

Digby wrote:

Numbers wrote:

Digby wrote:Anyone in the top 10 people would be remotely fussed about losing?

I used to rate John Humphrys, but something (perhaps age) has seen him get a little muddled at times the last couple of years and if they were to move him out to pastures new that might help Today.

He's a chippy little prick.

Humphyrys?

Aye

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:Anyone in the top 10 people would be remotely fussed about losing?

Matt Baker can definately go. But I'd say that if he were paid a packet of crisps and the lose change from down the back of the BBC Breakfast sofa.

God he's awful isn't he, I can't watch anything with him in.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Yep, £ per hour (or per day), and inclusive of production company payments should have been included to be even remotely interesting

Wasn't meant to be interesting. Was just ticking the box in the simplest, least revealing way possible.

I also don't read much into the gender gap, but I do read much into overpaying crap. I know they want to "keep hold of their talent", but when you're saying Alan Shearer or John Inverdale are talents... If the BBC lost Shearer to a rival, it would improve their football output by a long way.

It seems that jutting your jaw out, looking smug and trotting out cliches are all you need.

Shearer will make me switch off MOTD.

Chlamydia Winklecunt is fecking awful. I am going to refuse to pay my license fee in protest at the pointless heifer being paid a penny more than the hoof up the blurt her blether deserves.

Wow. I knew TV people were on dumb money, but this is retarded. I genuinely can't remember the last time I watched a show with any of these cunts on it. Do people still actually watch terrestrial TV?

Surely it doesn't make any difference if they keep these guys when there are a billion other identical idiots that can sit and dribble in front of a camera.

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Yep, £ per hour (or per day), and inclusive of production company payments should have been included to be even remotely interesting

Wasn't meant to be interesting. Was just ticking the box in the simplest, least revealing way possible.

I also don't read much into the gender gap, but I do read much into overpaying crap. I know they want to "keep hold of their talent", but when you're saying Alan Shearer or John Inverdale are talents... If the BBC lost Shearer to a rival, it would improve their football output by a long way.

I think that's my biggest issue. I don't object to high salaries to keep talent, or to reward success. Graham Norton has been an international success for the BBC, the fact he gets paid well, very well, as a result is fine by me. Next year he could be on the way down and getting peanuts.

The definition of what is talent is more concerning. I'm not suggesting that just anyone could be a TV presenter, but I don't think its that unique a set of characteristics that the BBC needs to employ the likes of Innverdale on a colossal wage. At least 2 retired sports men have looked like they wanted to lamp him in the last few years, surely that's enough of a hint that he is utterly useless.

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:Yep, £ per hour (or per day), and inclusive of production company payments should have been included to be even remotely interesting

Wasn't meant to be interesting. Was just ticking the box in the simplest, least revealing way possible.

I also don't read much into the gender gap, but I do read much into overpaying crap. I know they want to "keep hold of their talent", but when you're saying Alan Shearer or John Inverdale are talents... If the BBC lost Shearer to a rival, it would improve their football output by a long way.

I think that's my biggest issue. I don't object to high salaries to keep talent, or to reward success. Graham Norton has been an international success for the BBC, the fact he gets paid well, very well, as a result is fine by me. Next year he could be on the way down and getting peanuts.

The definition of what is talent is more concerning. I'm not suggesting that just anyone could be a TV presenter, but I don't think its that unique a set of characteristics that the BBC needs to employ the likes of Innverdale on a colossal wage. At least 2 retired sports men have looked like they wanted to lamp him in the last few years, surely that's enough of a hint that he is utterly useless.

Add in the comments about Heather Watson & Marion Bartoli ('she looks a bit chubby' & 'good job she plays tennis she's never winning a
beauty contest') & he shouldn't even be employed never mind paid what he is

I quite like Inverdale. I don't think hes quite as good as Balding, but along with someone like Irvine he seems a perfectly safe bet to front a number of events. Innerdale's salary seems quite reasonable to me as a consequence, though Balding certainly could use a hike, and Irvine could use some more work and a pay rise if it's wanted.

Lineker's salary is way OTT. If that was cut to £250k and he wanted to leave then fair enough, just employ someone else. And even his salary is slim pickings compared to the biggest sport media roles by salary (which mostly aren't at the BBC)

belgarion wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

Stom wrote:
Wasn't meant to be interesting. Was just ticking the box in the simplest, least revealing way possible.

I also don't read much into the gender gap, but I do read much into overpaying crap. I know they want to "keep hold of their talent", but when you're saying Alan Shearer or John Inverdale are talents... If the BBC lost Shearer to a rival, it would improve their football output by a long way.

I think that's my biggest issue. I don't object to high salaries to keep talent, or to reward success. Graham Norton has been an international success for the BBC, the fact he gets paid well, very well, as a result is fine by me. Next year he could be on the way down and getting peanuts.

The definition of what is talent is more concerning. I'm not suggesting that just anyone could be a TV presenter, but I don't think its that unique a set of characteristics that the BBC needs to employ the likes of Innverdale on a colossal wage. At least 2 retired sports men have looked like they wanted to lamp him in the last few years, surely that's enough of a hint that he is utterly useless.

Add in the comments about Heather Watson & Marion Bartoli ('she looks a bit chubby' & 'good job she plays tennis she's never winning a
beauty contest') & he shouldn't even be employed never mind paid what he is

Really? Not being at all interested in tennis, that had passed me by. I remember Keith Wood getting upset with him a few years ago over a comment Inverdale made during a 6 nations match, and he didn't cover himself in glory at the last Olympics.

Sandydragon wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

I think that's my biggest issue. I don't object to high salaries to keep talent, or to reward success. Graham Norton has been an international success for the BBC, the fact he gets paid well, very well, as a result is fine by me. Next year he could be on the way down and getting peanuts.

The definition of what is talent is more concerning. I'm not suggesting that just anyone could be a TV presenter, but I don't think its that unique a set of characteristics that the BBC needs to employ the likes of Innverdale on a colossal wage. At least 2 retired sports men have looked like they wanted to lamp him in the last few years, surely that's enough of a hint that he is utterly useless.

Add in the comments about Heather Watson & Marion Bartoli ('she looks a bit chubby' & 'good job she plays tennis she's never winning a
beauty contest') & he shouldn't even be employed never mind paid what he is

Really? Not being at all interested in tennis, that had passed me by. I remember Keith Wood getting upset with him a few years ago over a comment Inverdale made during a 6 nations match, and he didn't cover himself in glory at the last Olympics.

Yep. The quotes are proably not word perfect but basically that's what he said. He got a lot of flak in the press & had to appologise both times but like I said he should really have been fired. The Bartoli one was when she won Wimbledon in 2013 so you can probably find it somewhere on the
interweb the Heather Watson one was at Wimbledon too but a couple of years earlier I think

belgarion wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:

belgarion wrote:
Add in the comments about Heather Watson & Marion Bartoli ('she looks a bit chubby' & 'good job she plays tennis she's never winning a
beauty contest') & he shouldn't even be employed never mind paid what he is

Really? Not being at all interested in tennis, that had passed me by. I remember Keith Wood getting upset with him a few years ago over a comment Inverdale made during a 6 nations match, and he didn't cover himself in glory at the last Olympics.

Yep. The quotes are proably not word perfect but basically that's what he said. He got a lot of flak in the press & had to appologise both times but like I said he should really have been fired. The Bartoli one was when she won Wimbledon in 2013 so you can probably find it somewhere on the
interweb the Heather Watson one was at Wimbledon too but a couple of years earlier I think

Whereas as I wouldn't normally condone stamping this didn't bother me at all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... mping.html

Numbers wrote:

belgarion wrote:

Sandydragon wrote:
Really? Not being at all interested in tennis, that had passed me by. I remember Keith Wood getting upset with him a few years ago over a comment Inverdale made during a 6 nations match, and he didn't cover himself in glory at the last Olympics.

Yep. The quotes are proably not word perfect but basically that's what he said. He got a lot of flak in the press & had to appologise both times but like I said he should really have been fired. The Bartoli one was when she won Wimbledon in 2013 so you can probably find it somewhere on the
interweb the Heather Watson one was at Wimbledon too but a couple of years earlier I think

Whereas as I wouldn't normally condone stamping this didn't bother me at all.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... mping.html

He should have been given MotM award for that not cited

For all the quibbling over salary metrics as an index of gender disparity, when viewed in a context that includes grossly inappropriate lads comments like Inverdale's tennis jollies, they do seem to fit an unhealthy character profile for the broadcasting environmental norm. The Clarkson Standard index, if you like.