Graham Norton Takes Over Children In Need.

[andy-hughes]

http://radiotoday.co.uk/2016/10/graham-norton-replaces-sir-terry-wogan-on-cin/

It's been announced that Graham Norton will host this year's Children In Need from the BBC.

I wonder if he will take a salary - the only person involved in the show to do so - and then, when found out, say he didn't even know he was being paid - like his predecessor Saint Terry Wogan did?

[dunnitall]

Thank goodness I don't watch it, I cannot stand his shouty over the top style of comparing tv shows...worst person to choose methinks.

[B00]

He did a sterling job when he took over from Terry on the Eurovision Song Contest, so I don't see why he shouldn't be as successful on this too.

I was never a fan of Terry's so IMO anyone would do a better job anyway!

[ummmm]

Why have a dig at Terry Wogan....again?

[andy-hughes]

There is an argument that Ken Bruce should do it.

I think the BBC are trying to get 'value' out of the massive contract they have with Graham Norton - so hopefully they won't be shelling out eight grand at time for his night's services like they did with the dreadful Irishman.

[andy-hughes]

ummmm - //Why have a dig at Terry Wogan....again? //

Because he shamelessly took a large fee when everyone else worked for free, and when it was exposed, he had the gall to say he didn't even know he was being paid, and he would have gladly done the show for nothing.

If someone can receive eight thousand pounds and not know about it, they either have a lousy accountant, or far too much money, or both.

There was never any mention of it being paid back, either to the charity of the BBC.

[ummmm]

To be honest Andy....You don't know, you're guessing and judging.

Anyway...I like Graham Norton.

[douglas9401]

These Irish eh? If they're not 'shouty' they're going on about dead daughters or taking money offered for services rendered.

Oughta be a law.

[andy-hughes]

ummmm -

//To be honest Andy....You don't know, you're guessing and judging. //

The only thing I am guessing about is the fee, it was actually nine grand, rather than eight.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-439875/Wogan-celeb-paid-Children-In-Need.html

[ummmm]

It doesn't matter. You're assuming he studied his bank statements. The man probably had loads of different accounts and paid someone to deal with them. He accountant would only be lousy if he was missing dodgy transactions.

[andy-hughes]

ummmm - //It doesn't matter. You're assuming he studied his bank statements. The man probably had loads of different accounts and paid someone to deal with them. He accountant would only be lousy if he was missing dodgy transactions. //

I think it would be naiive to assume that not once in all those years did anyone ever mention the subject of fees to Mr Wogan, and that he was actually unaware of his payment.

As far as 'lots of accounts' are concerned - he was a contracted BBC employee - his payments would have been itemised in that contract - unless we want to assume that he didn't read it before signing?

I appreciate your loyalty, but I believe it is misplaced in this instance.

[ummmm]

I'm not naive. I'm a book-keeper and know how ignorant people can be over their own finances.

[andy-hughes]

ummmm - //I'm not naive. I'm a book-keeper and know how ignorant people can be over their own finances. //

I did not state, or suggest that you are naiive.

I simply put forward my points that Terry Wogan would be aware of his payment for services under his BBC contract, and that his accountant would be aware of a payment for services for Children In Need.

To assume that no-one was aware that Mr Wogan was being paid, and that it was kept a secret from the licence payers and CIN donors is naive, and it took the Freedom Of Information Act to reveal this shabby financial chicanery.

I would have respected Mr Wogan far more if he had simply owned up, apologised, and handed the money back, instead of falling back on his aching self-deprecation, and 'Silly little old me, what do I know about money? ... ' act.

[murraymints]

I think Norton would be a very good choice !!

[hereIam]

Me too.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //I would have respected Mr Wogan far more if he had simply owned up, apologised//

I can't imagine he'd have cared whether you respected him or not. You know nothing about his life or his financial arrangements.

[Baldric]

/// I'm a book-keeper and know how ignorant people can be over their own finances.///

Surely that kinda backs up Andy's point?

[murraymints]

time to draw a line..Wogan is dead....alas....

[naomi24]

Hopefully this will stop the malicious gossip. // Wogan stated that he would have done it for nothing and that he "never asked for a fee". Wogan donated his BBC fees to the charity. The BBC stated that the fee had "never been negotiated".//

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Wogan

[ummmm]

Baldric - no it doesn't.

The way Andy is speaking it's as if Wogan would be rubbing his greedy hands with glee when he sees his fee for Children in Need hit his bank account. The chances are he doesn't even look at his bank accounts.

[andy-hughes]

ummmm - //The way Andy is speaking it's as if Wogan would be rubbing his greedy hands with glee when he sees his fee for Children in Need hit his bank account. The chances are he doesn't even look at his bank accounts. //

That's not what I am saying at all.

My point is - I do not for a second believe that Wogan did not know he was being paid, and secondly, when he was exposed, he laughed it off with his usual 'Irish charm' and put it down to his usual horribly self-deprecating garbage persona "I'm just an Orish eejit ..." when he was clearly anything but.

He was dissembling, and then obnoxious about it - hopefully Mr Norton will be neither.