Quizzes & Puzzles9 mins ago
Are Gary Lineker and Alan Hansen worth £1million+?
BBC salaries for its highest paid entertainers are in the news again. There are said to be 15 personalities earning in excess of £500,000 a year. Many I personally do not like but understand their worth and can see they get the viewers/listeners to justify the fee. Graham Norton and Chris evans fall into this category.
But I fail to see the worth of Lineker and Hansen. Lineker is so bland and Hansen is an absurd idiot. MotD would be so much better without the pair. It just adds insult to injury that they are paid huge amounts of money as well.
http://
The BBC think it is worth paying these 'stars'. Are they right?
But I fail to see the worth of Lineker and Hansen. Lineker is so bland and Hansen is an absurd idiot. MotD would be so much better without the pair. It just adds insult to injury that they are paid huge amounts of money as well.
http://
The BBC think it is worth paying these 'stars'. Are they right?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Gromit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Norton, Evans and Moyles are different than Lineker and Hansen. They get high ratings because people like what they do and tune in for them.
Match of the Day is different. It is a football highlights show. People tune in for the football not the presenters. When MotD presenters have left or changed in the past, the show carries on regardless. Why the current presenters are rewarded so highly is a mystery. Even the going rate arguement is false in this instance. ITV do not have any rights to show English Premiership highlights so there is no competition to MotD.
Match of the Day is different. It is a football highlights show. People tune in for the football not the presenters. When MotD presenters have left or changed in the past, the show carries on regardless. Why the current presenters are rewarded so highly is a mystery. Even the going rate arguement is false in this instance. ITV do not have any rights to show English Premiership highlights so there is no competition to MotD.
Don't these presenters entertain millions of people?
You may not like them, but the BBC is paying them what they are worth because they are popular. You may not like Graham Norton ET al, but millions watch his show specifically for him.
Let's say that tomorrow, the BBC decided reduce the salaries of its 15 highest paid presenter to 10% of what they are now. The stars would leave for other broadcasters, opening the door for younger, hungrier presenters.
The public might warm to these presenters, without a significant drop in viewing figures..
You might think, "Ha...everyone wins". But the economies of the entertainment industry don't work like that. Once these new batch of stars (or rather their agents) cotton onto the value they bring, their salaries would rise because that's how the free market works, and we're back to square one.
I'll reiterate this point, because I think it's key...it's the market that determines the value of a presenter. If they can deliver an audience, a broadcaster will pay.
I personally think that Jeremy Clarkson is the biggest Git this country has ever produced and I find him boorish, infantile and incredibly irritating, whenever I've stumbled across one of his programmes.
However, he guarantees an extremely healthy revenue for the BBC, and therefore, despite my opinion of his, I reckon his deserves his (massive) salary.
You may not like them, but the BBC is paying them what they are worth because they are popular. You may not like Graham Norton ET al, but millions watch his show specifically for him.
Let's say that tomorrow, the BBC decided reduce the salaries of its 15 highest paid presenter to 10% of what they are now. The stars would leave for other broadcasters, opening the door for younger, hungrier presenters.
The public might warm to these presenters, without a significant drop in viewing figures..
You might think, "Ha...everyone wins". But the economies of the entertainment industry don't work like that. Once these new batch of stars (or rather their agents) cotton onto the value they bring, their salaries would rise because that's how the free market works, and we're back to square one.
I'll reiterate this point, because I think it's key...it's the market that determines the value of a presenter. If they can deliver an audience, a broadcaster will pay.
I personally think that Jeremy Clarkson is the biggest Git this country has ever produced and I find him boorish, infantile and incredibly irritating, whenever I've stumbled across one of his programmes.
However, he guarantees an extremely healthy revenue for the BBC, and therefore, despite my opinion of his, I reckon his deserves his (massive) salary.
Hansen is definitely surplus to requirements. One may say that presenters and pundits entertain millions. However, I personally watch MOTD for the football, the skill, and hopefully excitement. I don't need someone to tell me what I didn't see; something a player should have done but didn't.
Take away the pundits Hansen, Shearer, Lawrenson et al and would the programme suffer? I don't think so.
Take away the pundits Hansen, Shearer, Lawrenson et al and would the programme suffer? I don't think so.
It is annoying, speaking as one who spends 2 1/2 hours commuting into London every day, that they can earn 15 times as much as me for sitting on their bums for a few hours. Especially as my taxed income is paying the licence fee which pays for them. That said, I like Gary Lineker. Alan Hansen is a twit.#
Anngel, my money goes to to pay people i despise, seems a pity when we don't get a choice. Why they need endless top brass is beyond me, and paying a presenter who has a show on once a week, for perhaps an hour, 1 million quid is wrong.
The same nonsense has been levied about the bankers, to get the best you have to pay top whack, well look where's that's got us.
The same nonsense has been levied about the bankers, to get the best you have to pay top whack, well look where's that's got us.
Two completely separate arguments for totally separate debates em. Yes, the presenters are only on air for 1 hour but there are rehearsals and you're paying for their skills. I personally don't like G Norton but I'll happily pay a few pence towards his salary for the excellent TV and Internet services which the ADVERT FREE Beeb provides. I record everything I want to watch on commercial stations and 'whizz' thru the Ad's.
Personally, I dont think they are worth it, but it would seem this is what the BBC believe the market value is.
The programme would work just as well with what would amount to a continuity announcer and the game commentators. Whats needed is a mass turn off - the only thing that would get the attention of the bosses would be a ratings flop.
Hard to imagine such a campaign generating much enthusiasm though... too many people want to see the football highlights....
The programme would work just as well with what would amount to a continuity announcer and the game commentators. Whats needed is a mass turn off - the only thing that would get the attention of the bosses would be a ratings flop.
Hard to imagine such a campaign generating much enthusiasm though... too many people want to see the football highlights....
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.