AIBU to think BBC salaries should not be secret?

[tuckchop]

They are all paid out of compulsory TV license fee. And the enormous salaries should be made public

Jumping your first stabat facts were wrong. Presenters salaries are secret.

If you have no conscience on vastly different salaries. It amazes me. Did yoiu support Jimmy Carr with the Mail?

tuckshop : you are right, I'd not go back down to £30 an hour

and actually a lot of them are hired by the production companies - who make the big money.

Hat Trick were paid by the BBC to provide shows so maybe all of what the production companies get paid should be in the public domain.

My opinions and reading material are not subject to one of your writings

I don't understand what a 'stabat' is.

Some of you are probably confusing BBC presenter with execs.

The new DG at the Beeb is on about 700 grand a year. But he is not a presenter

tuckchop
get your facts right - he will be on £450k a year : a LOT less than the £700k the current one gets
www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-18702085

making " stab" is a sort of guess. Common useage. Say sorry when youmake a wrong factual assertion Jumping Jack Cash

It suprising me how someof you tolerate such unfairness in salaries. You cant all be cameron buddies. Stop sulking and get into the debate.

I am for transparency the Coalition say they are too. They dont mean it. Buty Daves wad is published about 140 grand a year .Is he urning it?

Peace we are talking big bucks on execs. But peanuts compared to presenters.

How little sense of fairness or justice some of you seem to have. Are you BBC employees?

Lets have a joke. We had an empire and an emperor. We had a kingdom and a king. NOW WE HAVE A COUNTRY (sorry dave)

When we get a bit uptight , Humour is the best medicine

Personally I find the £100,000 a WEEK that footballers get paid out of the subscriptions of Sky watchers MUCH more offensive.

Yeah. What TP2 said.

"Personally I find the £100,000 a WEEK that footballers get paid out of the subscriptions of Sky watchers MUCH more offensive."

Why? they're employees of private enterprises getting paid their market worth?

£100,000 a week is hardly just from Sky subscriptions, is it?

You're a writer..... Really? Or do you work for ITV or Sky?

Stop trying to rile people up. The BBC has cut salaries by loads.

If you want to start a campaign on overpaid useless people start on NHS middle management.

denise34
The premier league get the money to pay the wages from the multi billion TV deal
which is with Sky
and Sky get the money from the subs for the sports channels
so YES
EVERY penny that the footballers and their fragrant WAGs get comes from people with Sky subscriptions

• as even the sponsorship deals would be worth less without the advertising on Sky channels ....

I think the point of not disclosing who gets paid what is that it creates even more wage inflation amongst the on-screen "talent". E.g. "don't you think I'm better than x?" sort of talk.

I don't get this obsession with presenter salaries though. I don't think anyone wants to pay them very much, it's more that they think they need to in order to provide the public with the programmes that they want. If you don't like the salary, don't watch the programmes. I think you'll get your money's worth from the rest of the content.

so EVERY penny apart from corporate sponsorship, world-wide tv deals, matchday ticket sales, personal sponsorship deals and tournament prize money.

Quimby
if you look at the accounts of any UK football club, the wages come straight from the TV deal - ie Sky
gate receipts are trivial, as is prize money : cover admin and other overheads
sponsorship covers the debt repayments on the stadiums : the clubs that have gone broke (Pompey and Rangers) have had their FULL accounts published

if you have a sky box, you are paying for Colleen Rooney's holidays. Simple as.

schmee
the other reason they are dead cagey is that they do not like to admit how LITTLE they earn : local breakfast DJ will be lucky to get £20k
and all of the 'reality' shows rely on not paying the "talent" at all.

but I don't see your point, or why that's a bad thing. of course if you are paying a company which has the premier league as one of the cornerstones of it's business then you'll be paying towards the premier league.
people pay for Sky Sports to watch the sports that they cover. Football is by far the biggest draw on those packages so commands the highest fee. If Sky didn't buy the rights someone else would. Match day over the course of a season could cover Rooneys wages for about 4 years. world wide tv sales, especially in the Asian market at present are huge, whch have nothing to do with Sky. The Champions League payouts are one of the biggest and have been for years even when Sky didn't cover them.
It's not as though if Sky didn't cover it there'd be less money in football, someone else would bite the Premier Leagues hand off, and then there'd simply be less money for a host of other sports that Sky cover.
I just don't get your point, if you resent paying Sky for a product they produce then don't pay them for it.
I'm much happier seeing the players take the high wages and be rewarded for their talent than the companies just retaining the cash.

Champions Leage and Premier leage are the creations of the Murdoch beast
if you cannot see the distorting effect that unreal money has on markets I cannot explain