Linekers salary

[Van der MoodHoover]

18 hours ago, PodgeyRam said:

Let's say Huw Edwards gets  paid £600,000 a year, as has been published in the papers. He presents the BBC News at 10 for five days a week, 52 weeks a year. By my estimate that would mean he earns £2307 a day or £288 an hour (for an eight hour day). However, this does not take into account the fact that he also hosted (until very recently) the Wales Report on BBC Wales. He also did a a series of programs for the BBC covering the Aberfan disaster.

The reason he got paid more than nearly everyone else is because he's the flagship presenter for the BBC's flagship news program five days a week and that he does other programs. 

This is before you even get into how much work actually goes into making those programs. He doesn't simply read off the autocue, he helps to write the script. He deals with any breaking news/late changes to the script that happen while he's on air and he does it while giving nothing away to the audience. He actually hosts two hour long programs on the day - one at 5pm on the News Channel and the usual 10pm one on BBC One. 

Reeta Chakrabarti was doing it the other evening, so I think Huw does get some time off (apart from weekends)

To Chris Evans' credit - he did say that disclosure was right and proper in the BBC's case. It does, if nothing else, prompt the debate about what "value" actually is in the context of a public broadcaster. Its a bit like the cadre of "top" business leaders in this country - everyone claims they are in a market for top talent when in reality the market is not open, so the "market" becomes effectively a self-perpetuating caste.

The BBC put out the only Premier League highlights show. So if the presenter was lured away, it would still have the only Premier League highlights show and would doubtless retain the majority of its viewing figures. And if it didn't, then so what?

I don't think the market argument works particularly well in a public broadcaster context. So some other criteria must set the standard for "value" for the presenters?

[SaintRam]

On 7/19/2017 at 19:26, PodgeyRam said:

Without knowing the wages that commercial broadcasters pay their presenters/journalists I think it's pointless really. Comparing the two would be a better way of gauging if the BBC gets value for money.

I can't be arsed to read through the pages of (I imagine) dreary posts to see if this was responded to, but I seem to remember reading that Jamie Carragher is on £5m per year at Sky.

 

 

I find the public reaction to all this very bizarre if I'm honest. Feel like people don't understand financial basics.

 

Besides the public is paying wages and expenses of all politicians, for example, and I'd reckon the average person hates enough MPs and other members of office more than they hate Lineker to dwarf the money going to him. 

 

What do the angry public want? A paycut for him? He'll just go to a commercial channel and we'll have MOTD presented by Manish Bhasin or Jermaine f*****g Jenas. 

Lets all be livid at the amount the BBC is spending on shows we don't enjoy so they all get worse, until they are ended entirely and we're free of the TV license. Oh but then all the commercial TV stations without subscriptions will adopt subscriptions because they can. 

I don't really care about TV - I barely watch it nowadays, but the amount of people jumping on the back of a process thats clearly been orchestrated by Murdoch and his ilk so they can rip everyone off more is just crazy.

[tomsdubs]

Just now, SaintRam said:

I can't be arsed to read through the pages of (I imagine) dreary posts to see if this was responded to, but I seem to remember reading that Jamie Carragher is on £5m per year at Sky.

 

 

I find the public reaction to all this very bizarre if I'm honest. Feel like people don't understand financial basics.

 

Besides the public is paying wages and expenses of all politicians, for example, and I'd reckon the average person hates enough MPs and other members of office more than they hate Lineker to dwarf the money going to him. 

 

What do the angry public want? A paycut for him? He'll just go to a commercial channel and we'll have MOTD presented by Manish Bhasin or Jermaine f*****g Jenas. 

Lets all be livid at the amount the BBC is spending on shows we don't enjoy so they all get worse, until they are ended entirely and we're free of the TV license. Oh but then all the commercial TV stations without subscriptions will adopt subscriptions because they can. 

I don't really care about TV - I barely watch it nowadays, but the amount of people jumping on the back of a process thats clearly been orchestrated by Murdoch and his ilk so they can rip everyone off more is just crazy.

Agreed. ITV paid Jonathan Ross 6m a year. Just another right wing drive on a public institution hoping to drive more profits to private empires. Along with the NHS and Rail etc. People are far too naive. Why people think for profit institutions and profit driven parties like the Tories are better for them I'll never know. It's a witch hunt against their own personal interest, don't even get me started on the hypocrisy of right wing publications getting angry that some people earn vastly more money than others.

[StringerBell]

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Except of course we do - Otherwise you're suggesting that NO men want to have children? Men want to, and get to, have children without the physical burden of having to carry and birth them - In your statement above men get the 'reward' without the consequence - That's not equality?

 

Lol that's hilarious. No it isn't equality because men aren't equal in that sense. Perhaps men should have the privilege of commanding women to abort babies they don't want then? Woman's body. Woman's choice. Woman's consequence.

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

It's not "no too many men" - It's "why aren't there more women doing this?"

Because they don't want to?

And how does this manifest itself as anything other than discrimination against men. Or to use a feminist term 'benevolent discrimination' against women.

 

 

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

You mentioned previously equality of opportunity vs equality of output which I was thinking about last night - How do you give people who are biologically different equality of opportunity?

Short answer - you don't. Everybody is biologically different. I don't have a right to have a go on Angelina Jolie to compensate for the fact I don't look like Brad Pitt.  

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

 

Great example is toilets  - Because men can stand easier to wee it means we can more efficiently do our business - Equality of opportunity would suggest "put the same number of toilets in both mens and womens" - However because of biology that will make for inefficiencies - longer waits for the ladies if there are the same number of people - So we need to build more toilets in the ladies than the mens - To provide equality of outcome - Everyone has to wait the same amount of time for a wee regardless of gender

Or are you saying women should just be forced to hold it?

Why is everybody so obsessed with bathrooms now? Trans people and Republicans, militant breastfeeders and now apparently feminism too. I don't see women queuing for the toilet every time I head into town.

And have you factored poo into your equation?

[cheron85]

7 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Lol that's hilarious. No it isn't equality because men aren't equal in that sense. Perhaps men should have the privilege of commanding women to abort babies they don't want then? Woman's body. Woman's choice. Woman's consequence.

So women should have to choose between babies and a career but men don't have to

Are you SURE you understand what a liberal is?

8 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Because they don't want to?

But WHY don't they want to? Smarter people than either of us have suggested a very strong link between women not wanting to enter certain fields and the ongoing patriarchy

9 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Short answer - you don't. Everybody is biologically different.

Again - Are you SURE you're a liberal? You're starting to sound more and more like a tea party libertarian

The problem with your arguments are that essentially you're saying "Women - Know your place"

13 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Why is everybody so obsessed with bathrooms now? Trans people and Republicans, militant breastfeeders and now apparently feminism too. I don't see women queuing for the toilet every time I head into town.

And have you factored poo into your equation?

Okay well now I'm fairly clear that you don't in any way represent any liberal values

Poo happens less regularly than wee - And public toilets have both facilities for men - Most have more urinals than whatever the technical term is for the proper toilets - Because they know that people wee more than poo

Have you been to a festival recently? I was at one the other week and despite there being 2 portacabins for men and 3 for women there was still a massive wait for the ladies and not for the mens - You're honestly saying that in the face of that the solution is "women should just deal with it because it's their biology" and not "let's provide more toilets for women"?!?!?

[StringerBell]

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

So women should have to choose between babies and a career but men don't have to

Are you SURE you understand what a liberal is?

Yes. Isn't it awful that women have to make choices. They already get plenty of assistance. You want to compensate them. You want to put them on a pedastal for doing something most of them would gladly do anyway. Society places no such value on other people having children because this isn't The Children Of Men. The free market has spoken. 

If women are rewarded for having children then I want a reward for obeying the Highway Code.

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

But WHY don't they want to? Smarter people than either of us have suggested a very strong link between women not wanting to enter certain fields and the ongoing patriarchy

I don't know why they want to. Ask them. 

I don't think any smart person uses the word patriarchy unless they're talking about the Middle East. When feminists say patriarchy they mean meritocracy.

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Again - Are you SURE you're a liberal? You're starting to sound more and more like a tea party libertarian

The problem with your arguments are that essentially you're saying "Women - Know your place"

I don't care if I sound like a tea party libertarian, I'm a disaffected liberal who remembers what this word means. I also am not alone. Yes when I say I respect individual women's choices and don't see those choices as a problem that must be solved I am in fact saying they should know their place. Of course. Tell me when you're ready to land on planet earth, I'll be waiting.

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

Okay well now I'm fairly clear that you don't in any way represent any liberal values

Poo happens less regularly than wee - And public toilets have both facilities for men - Most have more urinals than whatever the technical term is for the proper toilets - Because they know that people wee more than poo

Have you been to a festival recently? I was at one the other week and despite there being 2 portacabins for men and 3 for women there was still a massive wait for the ladies and not for the mens - You're honestly saying that in the face of that the solution is "women should just deal with it because it's their biology" and not "let's provide more toilets for women"?!?!?

You know I don't represent liberal values how? Since when was having liberal values the same thing as telling people they have made incorrect choices and that these incorrect choices must be corrected?

I have not said anything about toilets other than suggest you might want to factor in poo. Poo's are less frequent but also take longer. 

I think I made it pretty clear that I'm not particularly interested in toilets. 

[King Kevin]

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

So women should have to choose between babies and a career but men don't have to

Are you SURE you understand what a liberal is?

But WHY don't they want to? Smarter people than either of us have suggested a very strong link between women not wanting to enter certain fields and the ongoing patriarchy

Again - Are you SURE you're a liberal? You're starting to sound more and more like a tea party libertarian

The problem with your arguments are that essentially you're saying "Women - Know your place"

Okay well now I'm fairly clear that you don't in any way represent any liberal values

Poo happens less regularly than wee - And public toilets have both facilities for men - Most have more urinals than whatever the technical term is for the proper toilets - Because they know that people wee more than poo

Have you been to a festival recently? I was at one the other week and despite there being 2 portacabins for men and 3 for women there was still a massive wait for the ladies and not for the mens - You're honestly saying that in the face of that the solution is "women should just deal with it because it's their biology" and not "let's provide more toilets for women"?!?!?

That's cause women go in pairs spend hours ferreting through handbags for make up and then spend the rest of the time gassing .

[cheron85]

14 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

Yes. Isn't it awful that women have to make choices. They already get plenty of assistance. You want to compensate them.

Compensation isn't the word I'd use but yes, society should be re-shaped to balance out the effects of biology - They have to do something which men don't and society historically has done nothing to balance that out - Nothing to do with pedestals and everything to do with equality

15 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

I don't think any smart person uses the word patriarchy unless they're talking about the Middle East. When feminists say patriarchy they mean meritocracy.

That's the kind of statement that raging misogynists use

We live in a global patriarchy - Thousands of years of male dominance over society doesn't go away in a century

17 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

I don't care if I sound like a tea party libertarian, I'm a disaffected liberal who remembers what this word means.

I genuinely think you have your own opinion on what liberal means - But it isn't the same as what liberal actually means - Maybe when you were growing up (I'm speculating you're at least 60?) they had a different definition of it - But anyone who is a liberal wouldn't use the phrase:

19 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

I am in fact saying they should know their place. Of course.

 

[Stive Pesley]

21 hours ago, Norman said:

I don't class kicking a ball hard work. Or stumbling his words as the adverts draw closer on BT sport as hard work, no. Running and training for a lot of money, three hours a day is not hard work. Footballers are always saying theyre lucky they have such an easy job.

It makes home life easier, having kids easier, running a house easier. 

And the footballer and broadcaster bit is your opinion

Regarding Lineker never having done a days hard work. I'm loathe to stick up for him, but a friend who lives in Leicester says they remember him in his youth academy days regularly working on his Dad's fruit & veg stall on Leicester market. Just saying.

[Stive Pesley]

On 7/20/2017 at 13:40, StringerBell said:

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.

Sorry to break up the argument - but I didn't see this yesterday. I know you've mentioned a few times that you don't believe that there is a gender pay gap. But this BBC document proves that there is at the BBC doesn't it? Unless you have evidence that women celebrities are worth less for some reason other than the fact that the BBC is run by a massive patriarchal set of old boys?

For example, I doubt they work shorter hours or don't work as hard. As far as I can see they are both in the same specialist field of showbiz

 

[cheron85]

1 minute ago, StivePesley said:

Sorry to break up the argument - but I didn't see this yesterday. I know you've mentioned a few times that you don't believe that there is a gender pay gap. But this BBC document proves that there is at the BBC doesn't it? Unless you have evidence that women celebrities are worth less for some reason other than the fact that the BBC is run by a massive patriarchal set of old boys?

For example, I doubt they work shorter hours or don't work as hard. As far as I can see they are both in the same specialist field of showbiz

Sssssssshhhhhhhhhh there's no gender pay gap and even if there was who cares right? It's just cos women won't work hard enough and should know their place... Oh and there's no such thing as the patriarchy - It was made up by feminists

[StringerBell]

16 minutes ago, StivePesley said:

Sorry to break up the argument - but I didn't see this yesterday. I know you've mentioned a few times that you don't believe that there is a gender pay gap. But this BBC document proves that there is at the BBC doesn't it? Unless you have evidence that women celebrities are worth less for some reason other than the fact that the BBC is run by a massive patriarchal set of old boys?

For example, I doubt they work shorter hours or don't work as hard. As far as I can see they are both in the same specialist field of showbiz

 

I fail to see how the BBC having a disparity in pay between gender is any different to the rest of the country. Should the main female host of the Chris Evans breakfast show should be paid £2.2 million a year?

And the main female host of Match of the Day should be paid £1.7 million a year or whatever it was Lineker gets?

 

[Stive Pesley]

3 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

I fail to see how the BBC having a disparity in pay between gender is any different to the rest of the country. Should the main female host of the Chris Evans breakfast show should be paid £2.2 million a year?

And the main female host of Match of the Day should be paid £1.7 million a year or whatever it was Lineker gets?

 

But I thought you said there was no such thing as "a disparity in pay between gender" when it was discussed before?

It's not hard - it's about 2 people doing to all intents and purposes the exact same job, yet getting paid differently.

For example the main male actor on Casualty earns between £350,000 and £399,999 per year

The main female actor on Casualty earns between £250,000 and £299,999

Why should they be paid differently?

 

[StringerBell]

1 hour ago, cheron85 said:

Compensation isn't the word I'd use but yes, society should be re-shaped to balance out the effects of biology - They have to do something which men don't and society historically has done nothing to balance that out - Nothing to do with pedestals and everything to do with equality

 

 

 Of outcome.

They don't have to do anything. Do you just see women as some sort of milk farm or something? The language you use and then you have the temerity to call me a misogynist just because I don't buy into a feminist ideology only  7% of the public possibly could ?

Ok, so some women face a problem men don't. What do you want to do when the reverse is true? What about the fact it is easier for women to have children than it is men? What, as a society do we do to correct this? Free surrogacy programs for men? A quick look shows it currently costs about $150,000 in the US. Should the tax payer fund this so single men can become dads? So that the fact that as a species we have twice as many female ancestors as we do men can be corrected? What is your solution to this 'problem'?

1 hour ago, cheron85 said:

 

That's the kind of statement that raging misogynists use

 

Do you know what other kind of people make these kind of statements? Liberals! 

You've already demonstrated with your earlier post on this thread that you set a very low bar for your criteria in what you choose to classify as misogynist. You employ shaming tactics. You appear not to be a liberal but a progressive. 

1 hour ago, cheron85 said:

We live in a global patriarchy - Thousands of years of male dominance over society doesn't go away in a century

 

We don't live in a global anything. Stop generalising.

 

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

I genuinely think you have your own opinion on what liberal means - But it isn't the same as what liberal actually means - Maybe when you were growing up (I'm speculating you're at least 60?) they had a different definition of it

 

 

Read that back to yourself and tell me how that's not contradictory. I have already said the word has been appropriated to mean something it doesn't. And so, it seems, have you.

I'm in my early thirties. My age doesn't matter. As a liberal I tend not to judge people by their age. A bit of knowledge about the age of Enlightement does matter to my outlook however.

2 hours ago, cheron85 said:

But anyone who is a liberal wouldn't use the phrase:

"I am in fact saying they should know their place. Of course."

 

Sarcasm doesn't seem to be your strong point.

[StringerBell]

2 hours ago, StivePesley said:

But I thought you said there was no such thing as "a disparity in pay between gender" when it was discussed before?

It's not hard - it's about 2 people doing to all intents and purposes the exact same job, yet getting paid differently.

For example the main male actor on Casualty earns between £350,000 and £399,999 per year

The main female actor on Casualty earns between £250,000 and £299,999

Why should they be paid differently?

 

The gender pay gap exists, it just doesn't exist for the reasons we are told and are expected to take it for granted exists. Economists do not take it seriously. It has been debunked a thousand times with no counter debunk and people are willingly choosing to believe in it because they want to. I don't know what kind of person someone would have to be to actually want and will sexism into existence.

The feminist brand of 'The Gender Pay Gap', just like 'The Glass Ceiling' does not exist. It isn't anything a normal non-sexist person would talk about.

Are you really asking why actors playing different roles get paid differently? Does the female Charlie from casualty get paid less than the male Charlie from casualty. Why is it that Charlie is the only character from Casualty I know of?

Did Harrison Ford get paid more than Daisy Ridley in The Force Awakens because he's a man or because he's Harrsson fooking Ford?

And why am I suppposed to care because one individual person negotiated a more lucrative contract than another individual person? This would be the meritocracy that feminists choose to call 'the patriarchy'.

[StringerBell]

Oh look, having looked it up, the actor who plays the only character from Casualty I could actually name is the one who Stive mentions earning the most. Shocking sexism on display there.

[Highgate]

7 hours ago, SaintRam said:

I find the public reaction to all this very bizarre if I'm honest. Feel like people don't understand financial basics.

 

The reaction has been predictably over the top, but i don't understand why some are surprised that people are questioning the wisdom of such high wages, given that they are paid for with public money. Surely concern is to be expected.

One financial basic which people are familiar with is 'value for money'...and is that what people are really getting when Gary Lineker is paid that much to do what he does?

After all who the **** tunes into MOTD for Lineker? Surely a decent 'journo' good do as could a job (at least) for a fraction of the money. Would the show really be adversely effected? The football is the product, not Lineker, he is really quite unnecessary window dressing. But for some reason he is deemed pivotal by the BBC. That's what confuses me.

When public money is wasted people have a right to be concerned. Given governments waste in every area this is no big deal really, but I wouldn't criticize people for adding Lineker's wages to the lengthy catalogue of poorly spent public money.

Can't blame Lineker though.

 

[PistoldPete2]

2 hours ago, StringerBell said:

Oh look, having looked it up, the actor who plays the only character from Casualty I could actually name is the one who Stive mentions earning the most. Shocking sexism on display there.

He's a male nurse getting paid ten times what female nurses are paid. Hashtag everyday sexism. And Gary lineker earns more than Clare balding? Sexist and lesbianist. 

[StringerBell]

1 hour ago, PistoldPete2 said:

He's a male nurse getting paid ten times what female nurses are paid. Hashtag everyday sexism. And Gary lineker earns more than Clare balding? Sexist and lesbianist. 

It wouldn't surprise me if one of the main reasons Clare Balding had a job was because she was a lesbian. Got to meet those diversity quotas.

[AndyinLiverpool]

9 minutes ago, StringerBell said:

It wouldn't surprise me if one of the main reasons Clare Balding had a job was because she was a lesbian. Got to meet those diversity quotas.

It would surprise me if such subjects were raised at interview.