Midred Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 I think we all knew about Gary Lineker's alleged wages but I was gob smacked to hear that Alan Shearer is on at least £400k. Hospitality, flights and hotels presumably aren't included in that. I know that he doesn't entertain or educate me so it must be the other one in the BBC mantra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiverRed Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 That's a fortnights wages for some currently-active players. He'll need to apply for Family Credit at this rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 9 minutes ago, Midred said: I think we all knew about Gary Lineker's alleged wages but I was gob smacked to hear that Alan Shearer is on at least £400k. Hospitality, flights and hotels presumably aren't included in that. I know that he doesn't entertain or educate me so it must be the other one in the BBC mantra? Know what you mean but when there are poor Premiership footballers earning £50k a week upwards and even our own disruptive departed earning £20k ish I'm not sure the figures seem ourptrageous (Purely in comparison terms) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RUSSEL85 Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Not to mention Chris Evans is on in excess of £2 a year! Cant stand the guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 I disagree with it being published to be honest, you wouldn't want your wage in the public domain, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, Monkeh said: I disagree with it being published to be honest, you wouldn't want your wage in the public domain, It's public money. When it's over 150k all public sector employees have it published. If they don't like it don't work in the public sector. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
funky monkey Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 personally thought that on the whole the wages were considerably less than I would of guessed. some of the stars on tv were earning less than 150k per year. I know plumbers who earn that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobBobSuperBob Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 12 minutes ago, RUSSEL85 said: Not to mention Chris Evans is on in excess of £2 a year! Cant stand the guy! That's scandalous Not even close to the hourly minimum wage People in third world countries earn more than that in a morning Must he cos he's a ginge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 1 minute ago, BobBobSuperBob said: That's scandalous Not even close to the hourly minimum wage People in third world countries earn more than that in a morning Must he cos he's a ginge Definitely cos he's ginge. I wouldn't get out of bed for 2 quid a year! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 All this is going to do is drive up the cost of salaries. The BBC will be hard pressed to argue with any agent who says, 'my client needs more money, if Winkleman is getting that, then my client can prove they are equally talentless But in general though, surprised at how much lower a lot of the salaries were against what I was expecting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 7 minutes ago, TRL said: It's public money. When it's over 150k all public sector employees have it published. If they don't like it don't work in the public sector. an i don't agree with that ether, What an employee earns and and employer pays is private, if the employee chooses to disclose that then fine, the pay some of the public body recieve isn't the problem, its the 10% 20% 30% pay raise those at the top of the public sector receive while the grunts are capped at 1% thats the problem, Like MPS blocking a 1% pay rise for the public sector because they can't afford it while those very same mps get a 10% pay rise, if they capped there's at 5% or even 3% which is still above inflation the our doctors, teachers, police officers, nurses, fire men could get the pay rise their hard work deserves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Just now, Monkeh said: an i don't agree with that ether, What an employee earns and and employer pays is private, if the employee chooses to disclose that then fine, the pay some of the public body recieve isn't the problem, its the 10% 20% 30% pay raise those at the top of the public sector receive while the grunts are capped at 1% thats the problem, Like MPS blocking a 1% pay rise for the public sector because they can't afford it while those very same mps get a 10% pay rise, if they capped there's at 5% or even 3% which is still above inflation the our doctors, teachers, police officers, nurses, fire men could get the pay rise there hard work deserves I quite agree with all of it. But the point still stands. If you don't like it work in the private sector. I have had 1% pay rises since 2012. I am a good 15k a year down on what someone in the private sector gets.. But I know I get a good pension flexible working and decent holidays. So I don't moan about the shite salary. You make your choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Just now, TRL said: I quite agree with all of it. But the point still stands. If you don't like it work in the private sector. I have had 1% pay rises since 2012. I am a good 15k a year down on what someone in the private sector gets.. But I know I get a good pension flexible working and decent holidays. So I don't moan about the shite salary. You make your choices. I've worked for both sectors both are as bad as one another both are unequal and both senior management are greedy shafting the little guy, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 I read a lot about NHS pay and how hard done by they are, but having seen that list now, any sympathy I had has evaporated. Take that nurse Charlie who works in the A&E department in Holby. Yes, he always seems to be working on a Saturday night, but he is coining in over 300k. Not exactly the poverty pay the newspapers would have you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 6 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said: I read a lot about NHS pay and how hard done by they are, but having seen that list now, any sympathy I had has evaporated. Take that nurse Charlie who works in the A&E department in Holby. Yes, he always seems to be working on a Saturday night, but he is coining in over 300k. Not exactly the poverty pay the newspapers would have you believe. But he only works Saturday nights though. May do an occasional Sunday, but that's once in a blue moon. Cushy number if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 I thought that someone like Lineker and the others who appear on other channels as well as the Beeb would be freelance, and be their own company so that the company charge the Beeb and the company pay the talent? Wouldn't that stop this ridiculous witch hunt. By the way, if anyone is feeling swayed by the rants that will appear in the Murdoch owned press and the likes of the Daily Mail, have a look at Private Eye and get an idea of just how much the hacks that write those stories are on themselves!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abraham Romanovich Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 "The truth is we absolutely should be angry about the gross economic inequality in our country. Basic moral reasoning tells us it’s perverse that billionaire investors buy up homes and leave them empty, while other people sleep in the streets. That the wealth of the 1% continues to accumulate, while minimum wage employees work gruelling hours on insecure contracts and still struggle to make rent. That the UK’s per capita GDP is among the highest in the world, but children are going to school hungry and with holes in their shoes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 27 minutes ago, Monkeh said: I disagree with it being published to be honest, you wouldn't want your wage in the public domain, I don't think it will be published next year as the BBC created another commercial arm to deal with talent's salaries so as to avoid disclosure in the future. It's also meaningless as a lot of these people earn more than we see as the BBC pays a production company a lump sum for a programme and the production company pays the talent - so Norton for example is on 3x more than his disclosed BBC wage, all paid for by the BBC. 12 minutes ago, Monkeh said: an i don't agree with that ether, What an employee earns and and employer pays is private, if the employee chooses to disclose that then fine, the pay some of the public body recieve isn't the problem, its the 10% 20% 30% pay raise those at the top of the public sector receive while the grunts are capped at 1% thats the problem, Like MPS blocking a 1% pay rise for the public sector because they can't afford it while those very same mps get a 10% pay rise, if they capped there's at 5% or even 3% which is still above inflation the our doctors, teachers, police officers, nurses, fire men could get the pay rise their hard work deserves Most public sector service workers get bigger pay rises though beyond that 1% because the Unions made sure that progressing through your band is not shown/included or disclosed as payrises. So every year they receive a payrise beyond the 1%. Maybe the conversation should be how we can all have more transparent pay details so people don;t get mislead by " 1% caps " etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fiale Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 3 minutes ago, Abraham Romanovich said: "The truth is we absolutely should be angry about the gross economic inequality in our country. Basic moral reasoning tells us it’s perverse that billionaire investors buy up homes and leave them empty, while other people sleep in the streets. That the wealth of the 1% continues to accumulate, while minimum wage employees work gruelling hours on insecure contracts and still struggle to make rent. That the UK’s per capita GDP is among the highest in the world, but children are going to school hungry and with holes in their shoes." If you buy property for investment you don't leave it empty, you rent it out to maximise your return so you get the highest RoI - rent and property value increase. People need to stop believing in the myth that people are letting losses of millions in potential rent accumulate in large numbers of empty properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TV Tom Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 9 minutes ago, Fiale said: I don't think it will be published next year as the BBC created another commercial arm to deal with talent's salaries so as to avoid disclosure in the future. It's also meaningless as a lot of these people earn more than we see as the BBC pays a production company a lump sum for a programme and the production company pays the talent - so Norton for example is on 3x more than his disclosed BBC wage, all paid for by the BBC. Most public sector service workers get bigger pay rises though beyond that 1% because the Unions made sure that progressing through your band is not shown/included or disclosed as payrises. So every year they receive a payrise beyond the 1%. Maybe the conversation should be how we can all have more transparent pay details so people don;t get mislead by " 1% caps " etc If you are talking about the NHS most of the people I work with, including myself are at the top of their increment band so are only getting (since 2009) the 1 per cent rise, I wish the unions would do more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SARJ Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Insane amount of money for simply presenting on TV. I also imagine their expenses (hotels, flights etc.) aren't included in these wages, so realistically they're on a LOT more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Port Said Red Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Just now, SARJ said: Insane amount of money for simply presenting on TV. I also imagine their expenses (hotels, flights etc.) aren't included in these wages, so realistically they're on a LOT more. You are right, but what is the answer when there are commercial organisations willing to pay more, it's gone beyond TV as we know it now as well, with the likes of Amazon getting involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoystonFoote'snephew Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 16 minutes ago, Fiale said: I don't think it will be published next year as the BBC created another commercial arm to deal with talent's salaries so as to avoid disclosure in the future. It's also meaningless as a lot of these people earn more than we see as the BBC pays a production company a lump sum for a programme and the production company pays the talent - so Norton for example is on 3x more than his disclosed BBC wage, all paid for by the BBC. Most public sector service workers get bigger pay rises though beyond that 1% because the Unions made sure that progressing through your band is not shown/included or disclosed as payrises. So every year they receive a payrise beyond the 1%. Maybe the conversation should be how we can all have more transparent pay details so people don;t get mislead by " 1% caps " etc I don't know what part of the public sector you work in, but as a recently retired Civil Servant I can tell you that I received no pay rise above 1% for each of the last 5 years, and no pay rise at all for the 2 years before that as the Tories froze my salary The overwhelming majority of those in the Civil Service earning above £150k a year have been brought in direct from the Private Sector, the argument being that to attract top people top salaries are required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midred Posted July 19, 2017 Author Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 I can imagine some hard hitting interviews on the BBC news tonight, perhaps even a Panorama special! (Just like when their journalists go on strike?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LC_ Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Fairly sure Gary Lineker took a pay cut from the BBC to break the golden handcuffs deal they had, allowing him to go and work for BT Sport. He also runs a production company which provides 1 or 2 shows to the BBC, so he'll be getting money there too. Personally I don't agree with the salaries being made public, if anything it's going to cause more problems - people will want parity and the BBC will either have to lose talent, cut programme budgets, or seek an increase in the license fee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 38 minutes ago, Fiale said: I don't think it will be published next year as the BBC created another commercial arm to deal with talent's salaries so as to avoid disclosure in the future. It's also meaningless as a lot of these people earn more than we see as the BBC pays a production company a lump sum for a programme and the production company pays the talent - so Norton for example is on 3x more than his disclosed BBC wage, all paid for by the BBC. Most public sector service workers get bigger pay rises though beyond that 1% because the Unions made sure that progressing through your band is not shown/included or disclosed as payrises. So every year they receive a payrise beyond the 1%. Maybe the conversation should be how we can all have more transparent pay details so people don;t get mislead by " 1% caps " etc I can tell you for a fact that they don't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pongo88 Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 35 minutes ago, Port Said Red said: I thought that someone like Lineker and the others who appear on other channels as well as the Beeb would be freelance, and be their own company so that the company charge the Beeb and the company pay the talent? Wouldn't that stop this ridiculous witch hunt. By the way, if anyone is feeling swayed by the rants that will appear in the Murdoch owned press and the likes of the Daily Mail, have a look at Private Eye and get an idea of just how much the hacks that write those stories are on themselves!! Some people are entirely paid through a third party company so earn a lot but don't appear on the list at all. Others are paid directly by the Beeb for some work and through a third party for other work, which means they earn more than the published figure. I'm not really interested in what this lot are paid, but would love to know what Roger Malone earned. Anything over £5 per show and I would be outraged. As for the, no longer with us, Subs Bench Nigel Turner and Richard Latham should have paid us to watch it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Obviously this isn't 'football chat' so it might be an idea to move it before someone gets upset. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted July 19, 2017 Report Share Posted July 19, 2017 Just now, Bristol Rob said: Obviously this isn't 'football chat' so it might be an idea to move it before someone gets upset. lineker and shearer are football pundits who work for the bbc and listed therefore its football chat FACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.