BBC hands stars £11m pay rise, cuts free licence

[JoyofBrex8889]

BBC hands stars £11m pay rise - while cutting free TV licences for over-75s.

Truly is there anything more ugly than a Leftist organisation impoverishing the elderly while enriching its managers and so-called “talent”.

The sooner the BBC is privatised, the better.

If the BBC didn’t already exist, you wouldn’t create it.

[uspaul666]

There is an exemption for the truly impoverished, the rest of the remarkably wealthy elderly can pay their way along with the rest of us.

[richfool]

There is an exemption for the truly impoverished, the rest of the remarkably wealthy elderly can pay their way along with the rest of us.

Yes, I suppose we should all do the honourable thing and chip in our bit, to ensure Gary Linnaker get's his full £1.75 million pa.

We can always turn the central heating down a couple more degrees next winter to ensure Gary and mates at the Beeb don't go short.

In fact I would willingly kick him into touch for a reduction in fees.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/11481 ... rs-news-uk

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/0 ... y-lineker/

[djbenedict]

BBC hands stars £11m pay rise - while cutting free TV licences for over-75s.

The funding for universal free TV licenses for over 75s was withdrawn by the government, which funded this social benefit since the year 2000. The BBC has simply chosen not to make up the shortfall by cutting costs elsewhere. So don't shoot the messenger. It's an austerity-era cut in public services.

The sooner the BBC is privatised, the better.

If the BBC didn’t already exist, you wouldn’t create it.

I don't agree. I think the BBC is a great institution with minor faults.

[UncleEbenezer]

I thought they said that the amount paid in obscene pay had actually fallen by today's preferred measure (as used by HMG of our national profligacy), the proportion of the total budget. Not that I'd want to defend a single penny of public money going on anything associated with something so obscenely overfunded as professional football.

As for the free licence, a particularly silly bribe to voters who are not at all poor unless they fall outside the generous pre-existing provision such as the state pension and minimum income guarantee.

[Dod101]

I genuinely do not know what Gary Linnaker does to earn (if that is the right word) his £1.75 million. I only ever see him chairing Match of the Day and turning up in a suit for Champions League matches. I do not watch much TV in general but I do watch quite a bit of football. It seems like an ridiculous amount of money to me.

In principle I have no problem with paying for my TV licence but it infuriates me when I hear the Director General complaining that if they met the full cost to the over 75s it would mean closing a whole raft of programmes. It is time they were exposed to the real world.

Dod

[Dod101]

O and here's an idea. Why not cut the licence fee for everyone including the over 75s, except for those on benefits? Tell the BBC that they will need to live with that. The more money they have the more they will spend. It is human nature.

Dod

[UncleEbenezer]

O and here's an idea. Why not cut the licence fee for everyone including the over 75s, except for those on benefits? Tell the BBC that they will need to live with that. The more money they have the more they will spend. It is human nature.

Dod

"Except for those on benefits" is utterly wrong: it leads to all kinds of poverty traps where cascading benefits cause a £1 rise in income to cost £1000 (or sometimes much more) in loss of benefits. As in my own situation as recently as 2003, when an income of £3000 lost me a would-be benefits package of £8000 (the majority of which would've been the local level of housing benefit) compared to sitting at home doing nothing but claim benefits.

(Since experiencing that I have sympathy for those who refuse to take low-paying work, or fail to declare it).

[richfool]

I genuinely do not know what Gary Linnaker does to earn (if that is the right word) his £1.75 million. I only ever see him chairing Match of the Day and turning up in a suit for Champions League matches. I do not watch much TV in general but I do watch quite a bit of football. It seems like an ridiculous amount of money to me.

In principle I have no problem with paying for my TV licence but it infuriates me when I hear the Director General complaining that if they met the full cost to the over 75s it would mean closing a whole raft of programmes. It is time they were exposed to the real world.

Dod

Besides chairing football programmes, Gary Linnaker has given the odd bit of Brexit advice! Advice I can well do without, particularly from a football commentator who we are paying £1.75m. I don't tell him how to play football, and it irritates me when people such as him make public comments about Brexit. He should have received a yellow card for that.

I think all TV presenters earning over £400K are overpaid.

Obscene salaries.

[bungeejumper]

Oh dear, oh dear, the scummy lefty BBC again. The organisation that brought us all those offensively simplistic "d'ya want Brexit with that?" ads that incensed the 48% for half a year before they had the good sense to call it a day. The organisation that has put the solidly blue Fiona Bruce in charge of Question Time, where she's mangling the art of debate on so many levels.

And the organisation that allows the lovely Ms Bruce to conceal her vast BBC earnings, because it only lists the money that she gets paid directly - not the additional £200K that she trousers every year from the BBC through her "tax-efficient" private company operation for Antiques Roadshow.

Totally agree with others about abolishing the licence fee freebie for pensioners, though. We still pay for ours, and we have no intention of sponging. Although, looking again at the OP's post, he seems to me to be complaining about its loss?

BJ

[SalvorHardin]

I genuinely do not know what Gary Linnaker does to earn (if that is the right word) his £1.75 million. I only ever see him chairing Match of the Day and turning up in a suit for Champions League matches.

That's it, asides from the occasional non-football programme for the BBC. He presents Champions League football for BT Sport, not the BBC.

I generally avoid the BBC's football coverage, or at least the pundits. Football punditry is poor compared to most other sports; generally it's "tell us the bleeding obvious using the vocabulary of an eight year old". A pundit covering the rugby, cricket, tennis or formula one who performed to the same level as the typical football pundit would never be invited back. As I type this I'm watching England v New Zealand and the insight from the commentary team is streets ahead. The football equivalent would be; "well, e hit the ball with them bat and it went fur some runs, y'know, like"

The BBC's women pundits are better than the men - I suspect because they can't trade on their ex-pro status to the same extent so they have to put in some effort.

Gary Neville rightly gets praise for his punditry on Sky because he operates at a level that's close to that of other sports. In contrast BBC pundits have at times revelled in their ignorance

"Before the Algeria versus Slovenia game in Group C on Sunday, Shearer seemed to be speaking for the entire BBC panel when he said, "Our knowledge of these two teams is limited." Limited! What the former England striker was saying was that he hadn't done his homework, that he hadn't spoken to any of his vast array of contacts in the game, hadn't tapped into the BBC's huge research machinery, hadn't even bothered, seemingly, to peruse the internet for some background on Algeria and Slovenia or even flick through a newspaper or a magazine. Shearer was content to sit in front of the cameras and tell the viewers that, really, he didn't know much. "

https://www.scotsman.com/sport/tom-engl ... g-1-813206

[Dod101]

Oh dear, oh dear, the scummy lefty BBC again. The organisation that brought us all those offensively simplistic "d'ya want Brexit with that?" ads that incensed the 48% for half a year before they had the good sense to call it a day. The organisation that has put the solidly blue Fiona Bruce in charge of Question Time, where she's mangling the art of debate on so many levels.

And the organisation that allows the lovely Ms Bruce to conceal her vast BBC earnings, because it only lists the money that she gets paid directly - not the additional £200K that she trousers every year from the BBC through her "tax-efficient" private company operation for Antiques Roadshow.

Funny that about Fiona Bruce. I saw the report that her salary had increased from a mere £180,000 to an equally mean £255,000 for taking on Question Time and I thought that was on the low side for what she does (by BBC standards anyway). At least she has a substantial profile on BBC, like her or not.

Linnaker on the other hand, as I have said is hardly seen, and certainly many football fans could make pretty much the same comments for free. Sorry, you are right, SH. Of course Champions League is on BT Sport. He will not being doing that for nothing seeing as he is so highly prized by the BBC. Do you think they know?

Dod

[Dod101]

O and here's an idea. Why not cut the licence fee for everyone including the over 75s, except for those on benefits? Tell the BBC that they will need to live with that. The more money they have the more they will spend. It is human nature.

Dod

"Except for those on benefits" is utterly wrong: it leads to all kinds of poverty traps where cascading benefits cause a £1 rise in income to cost £1000 (or sometimes much more) in loss of benefits. As in my own situation as recently as 2003, when an income of £3000 lost me a would-be benefits package of £8000 (the majority of which would've been the local level of housing benefit) compared to sitting at home doing nothing but claim benefits.

(Since experiencing that I have sympathy for those who refuse to take low-paying work, or fail to declare it).

That's another whole discussion of course and I do not know since I have never had the misfortune to be in that situation (And of course I should have added '.... on benefits who should get a free licence?')

Dod

[SalvorHardin]

Linnaker on the other hand, as I have said is hardly seen, and certainly many football fans could make pretty much the same comments for free. Sorry, you are right, SH. Of course Champions League is on BT Sport. He will not being doing that for nothing seeing as he is so highly prized by the BBC. Do you think they know?

Apparently his contract allows him to work elsewhere. From 2015:

"The contract with the corporation, that will keep him as its face of football until 2020, is non-exclusive, and the former footballer is thought to be near to announcing that he will also front BT Sport’s live Champions League coverage next season"

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... r-deal-bbc

Bring back James Richardson, the best football presenter of the lot (remember Football Italia on Channel 4).

[Dod101]

Staying with Linnaker. That is surely outrageous. He is paid £1.75 million by the BBC and they explicitly allow him, in addition, to work elsewhere?

Dod

[dionaeamuscipula]

Gary Neville rightly gets praise for his punditry on Sky because he operates at a level that's close to that of other sports. In contrast BBC pundits have at times revelled in their ignorance

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football ... ky-8598881

This article from 2016 says that Neville is being paid £1.5m per annum by Sky. And that Thierry Henri is being paid £4m per annum.

Lineker is IMO by far the most competent host of any Sports programming. In comparison to his peers he is underpaid by about 75%.

DM

[Gaggsy]

Lineker.

It's Lineker.

NOT Linnaker ffs.

You'd think with the amount of media coverage he gets, folk would manage to spell his name right.

[bungeejumper]

It's Lineker.

NOT Linnaker ffs.

You'd think with the amount of media coverage he gets, folk would manage to spell his name right.

Somebody remind me again. Lineker who?

BJ

[Gaggsy]

Somebody remind me again.

As we're on GoF you can do your own research.
But just see what happens when you look up 'Linnaker'

[SalvorHardin]

This article from 2016 says that Neville is being paid £1.5m per annum by Sky. And that Thierry Henri is being paid £4m per annum.

Lineker is IMO by far the most competent host of any Sports programming. In comparison to his peers he is underpaid by about 75%.

Thierry Henry isn't a good pundit, wasn't a host, and was massively overpaid (he didn't last long). Gary Neville commentates, analyses and presents. On a per hour basis he's paid a lot less than Lineker (he usually does at least one match co-commentating a week, as well as other programs).

Better hosts of sports programming than Lineker? A few thoughts (based on my recent viewing):

Everyone on Sky Sports' cricket coverage
Sue Barker
Annabelle Croft (tennis on Eurosport)
Martin Bayfield and Sarra Elgan (rugby union on BT Sport)
Everyone on Eurosport's cycling coverage (e.g. Jonathan Edwards (olympic triple jumper)).
Gabby Logan (Six Nations on the BBC)
Anna Woolhouse (Boxing on Sky)
Dave Clark (Darts and Boxing on Sky)

Then there's James Richardson and Jeff Stelling, both of whom are versatile enough to turn their hands at most sports.

To be fair Lineker is much better on BT Sport than on the BBC. It helps that BT has better pundits (Steve McManaman, Owen Hargreaves, Rio Ferdinand) to work with.

The last decent bit of football punditry I remember on the BBC was Slaven Bilić at the 2018 World Cup, who talked more sense than everyone else.