Linekers salary

[Curtains]

6 minutes ago, King Kevin said:

If the BBC are daft enough to pay those salaries then good luck to the recipients.However with the choice now available and the not inconsiderable cost of Sky .Virgin etc I would quite happily not have any BBC channels and not be forced to pay a licence fee.

For non payment of the fee  to be a criminal offence and for the BBC to have little accountability is wrong. The fact it struggles in it's ability to be politically neutral in it's privileged position as the national broadcaster is a disgrace. 

Best post ever 

[TibshelfRam]

Some of the posts on here are hilarious. Lineker is paid what he is paid because the demand exists for him to do the job and, as a consequence, market forces dictate that he should be paid that amount of money. All this talk of 'capping' salaries is ridiculous - and I say that as a member of the Labour Party - it is the same in any industry: if you cap pay then you will lose the best professionals, particuarly at a time when BBC salaries are not even comparable to private organisations such as Sky or BT. I am sure that Lineker is paid far more handsomely under his contract at the BBC. But, not to become overly political, the public sector is struggling as a result of salary caps and teachers (such as my Mrs) are looking at moving into business as they know they will get paid a shed load more. I don't agree with capping anyone's salary. I like Lineker and, as far as I'm concerned, he's value for money.

What my problem with this is is the disparity. Personally, one of the better presenters on the BBC is Clare Balding and her and Lineker are the BBC's two flagship sports presenters. Clearly her demand is no less than Lineker's so, why is she paid approximately 10% of his salary? That's the conversation that we should be having.

One final point on value for money. Take Chris Evans who has come in for a load of grief. He's paid approximately £2.5mill a year - there is demand so he is worth it. But, actually, look at it this way: Under him, BBCR2's breakfast show has increased it's listeners and they now have in the region of 2 million people tuning in a day. So, on that basis, he costs each of his listeners about £1 a year: I'd say that was value for money, wouldn't you? And, for the record, I promised my Mum that I would never listen to Radio 2 as I never wanted to admit to getting old. As an avid listener herself, she didn't take it too well.

[Carl Sagan]

I don't think anyone watches MoTD because Lineker presents it. I also think the BBC totally distorts the UK market, with every other broadcasting company having to raise their own funds whereas the beeb gets given vast sums from the taxpayer. So, for instance, they paid Jonathan Ross £6m a year when no one else would have got close to that figure.

I'd suggest no one at the BBC is worth vast sums but you can see the likes of Chris Evans do a lot of work/shows while our Gary just turns up on a Saturday and the occasional other day (though they often get other people to present those). Lineker was incredibly wooden as a presenter when he began. He's learnt and is a little better now, but there's no reason not to cap him at £149k and if he doesn't like that, there are plenty of other people who'd like to do it, wih no impact on the viewing figures.

[Anon]

One group of people are annoyed because the BBC pays too much. Another group are annoyed because the BBC appears to pay men more than women. The obvious solution is for the BBC to employ only women, but continue paying them peanuts and drastically reduce the license fee.

[Highgate]

Someone at the BBC seems to think that they really need Gary Lineker to present MoTD or viewing figures will suffer, hence the huge figure they pay him. I really don't know how they reached that conclusion.

He's no James Richardson. Still I don't blame him in the least for cashing the cheques.

[Wolfie]

45 minutes ago, KentRam said:

One final point on value for money. Take Chris Evans who has come in for a load of grief. He's paid approximately £2.5mill a year - there is demand so he is worth it. But, actually, look at it this way: Under him, BBCR2's breakfast show has increased it's listeners and they now have in the region of 2 million people tuning in a day. So, on that basis, he costs each of his listeners about £1 a year: I'd say that was value for money, wouldn't you?

That's more than the royal family costs them. That might make them feel differently - either about their Maj's or Mr Evans.

[R@M]

3 hours ago, McRamFan said:

Glad the BBC cannot afford him, he's s**t.

Agreed. But I think that is the point. What would end up on MOTD if they cut wages to 300k?

idea for a new thread, 'suggestions for worst MOTD presenter replacements'

[Wolfie]

50 minutes ago, KentRam said:

 

What my problem with this is is the disparity. Personally, one of the better presenters on the BBC is Clare Balding and her and Lineker are the BBC's two flagship sports presenters. Clearly her demand is no less than Lineker's so, why is she paid approximately 10% of his salary? That's the conversation that we should be having.

I'm not a big fan of her but when you think she gets paid half of what Alan Shearer gets. WTF?!

[StringerBell]

Why is there a 'gender pay gap' nonsense story on the front of the Metro over Chris Evans' wage? There is no gender pay gap. There is a gender earnings gap and that is fine.

When will this stupid myth be put to bed? 

[TibshelfRam]

4 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

That's more than the royal family costs them. That might make them feel differently - either about their Maj's or Mr Evans.

Well, yeah, but that's because proportionately Evan's cost is spread over fewer people. I.e. £2.5mill is divided between 2 million people ate a cost of £1 per annum. The Royal Family's cost is spread over circa 65 million people which comes to a cost of about 60p per person.

Personally, they're both good value for money. 

[cheron85]

1 hour ago, Carl Sagan said:

So, for instance, they paid Jonathan Ross £6m a year when no one else would have got close to that figure.

ITV did/do

3 hours ago, King Kevin said:

If the BBC are daft enough to pay those salaries then good luck to the recipients.However with the choice now available and the not inconsiderable cost of Sky .Virgin etc I would quite happily not have any BBC channels and not be forced to pay a licence fee.

Keep the standard of television up - All the commercial channels have to make programming to generate revenues - So we end up with endless tosh like TOWIE, Love Island and Celebrity Big Brother... 

1 hour ago, StringerBell said:

Why is there a 'gender pay gap' nonsense story on the front of the Metro over Chris Evans' wage? There is no gender pay gap. There is a gender earnings gap and that is fine.

When will this stupid myth be put to bed? 

Can we please distance ourselves as a forum from this post please? It's 2017 not 1817...

[StringerBell]

17 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Can we please distance ourselves as a forum from this post please?

'Distance ourselves as a forum' ties very closely with 'there is a gender pay gap'

Both sentiments being collectivist, mildly communistic horseshit. Being a liberal, I prefer individualism myself. Like 'diversity of opinion is a good thing' and 'the fact that men earn more on average has absolutely no bearing on my life, or anyone else's life and the only people it effects are the people receiving the payment and the people giving it.' Men and women are not classes of people.

Men on average earn more. Men also on average work longer hours, and in more specialist and well paid fields. I wonder if those two things could possibly be related? Oh, it turns out they are.

22 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

It's 2017 not 1817...

Is it the current year? Are you sure?

Are you Batman or a meme?

http://amp.knowyourmeme.com/memes/come-on-its-2015-current-year

[cheron85]

1 minute ago, StringerBell said:

Being a liberal

Men on average earn more. Men also on average work longer hours, and in more specialist and well paid fields. I wonder if those two things could possibly be related? Oh, it turns out they are.

You spelled 'Misogynist' wrong

[StringerBell]

12 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

You spelled 'Misogynist' wrong

You spelled cuck wrong. Most women aren't actually very impressed by you behaving in manner that treats them as more than they're worth just because they have a vagina. Women are individuals too believe it or not.

[tomsdubs]

Women in general have lower lifetime earning due to taking breaks to have children. Most my personal experience sees women paid equally, at least in engineering anyway when women actually choose that career path. It also comes down to the fact woman are less likely to choose the well paid career paths that men traditionally opt for. Woman need to be encouraged to take up STEM fields for example at a young age.

[cheron85]

5 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

You spelled cuck wrong

Oh sorry - I didn't realise you were a cuck - That's cool - Not my thing but if you get your kicks having your girlfriend banged by another guy then fair play to you

(If you follow the thread of the discussion so far you'll realise that your statement above suggested that you were calling yourself a cuck - I suggested your statement should have "misogynist" instead of "liberal" and you just corrected me to put "cuck" in there instead - You would have been better off just throwing the insult directly at me )

8 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Most women aren't actually very impressed by you behaving in manner that treats them as more than they're worth just because they have a vagina. Women are individuals too believe it or not.

Actually I'm suggesting we try and aim for some pro-active attempts at equality - Pretty sure that's what feminists are actually after and why people complain about the gender pay gap 

 

[Anon]

5 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Actually I'm suggesting we try and aim for some pro-active attempts at equality - Pretty sure that's what feminists are actually after and why people complain about the gender pay gap 

Having it written into UK law that men and women must be paid the same for equal work isn't pro active enough for you?

[cheron85]

2 minutes ago, Anon said:

Having it written into UK law that men and women must be paid the same for equal work isn't pro active enough for you?

Absolutely not no - There are many factors at play which means that women are restricted in their earning potential by biological and historic societal factors - The simplest of which is obviously having children - We need to be proactive in our approach to ensure that the earning potential of women isn't affected by the fact that for around 2 years (minimum) their work lives will be affected for every child they have

And that's the simplest factor - Once we start getting into the historic societal repercussions it gets even more complex

[ramsbottom]

19 hours ago, curtains said:

Couldn't care less about Lineker and I never watch MOTD  anymore I always watch Sky .

Never watch the Championship on 5 either. 

Then why should you give a f***??

I don't know why anybody would care.  The BBC have the right to pay what they deem appropriate.  Makes me laugh when people say "It's easy, I could do that", it really isn't.  The right are just making a mountain out of a mole hill, like every Lineker story, because they don't like the fact he's against brexit and is pro refugee.  I'm sure they'd all prefer Piers Morgan to present MOTD instead...

[StringerBell]

29 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Oh sorry - I didn't realise you were a cuck - That's cool - Not my thing but if you get your kicks having your girlfriend banged by another guy then fair play to you

(If you follow the thread of the discussion so far you'll realise that your statement above suggested that you were calling yourself a cuck - I suggested your statement should have "misogynist" instead of "liberal" and you just corrected me to put "cuck" in there instead - You would have been better off just throwing the insult directly at me )

 

You spelled 'anal cuck' wrong.

 

30 minutes ago, cheron85 said:

Actually I'm suggesting we try and aim for some pro-active attempts at equality - Pretty sure that's what feminists are actually after and why people complain about the gender pay gap 

 

Yes often feminists do want equality. Equality of outcome. Like some sort of gender communism.

Liberals want equality of opportunity which will more than likely lead to fluctuating demographics in certain industries. Liberals do not view equality of outcome as a goal, but a potential outcome of the goal of equality of opportunity. Saying there is a correct an incorrect amount of men/women in a certain profession is tantamount walking into a room and saying there's too many black people.i mean, it's just weird.

In order to achieve equality of outcome you must discriminate against people based on sex.

And have you ever considered that women work in lower paid professions because they want to? "Want to be a teacher do you Mrs? Got your heart set on it? Well unfortunately the ministry of gender equality requires you to work as a physicist in order to achieve a state of absolute parity." No thanks.