When it comes to 2nd-tier talent like Hansen then it isn't market forces as much as a desire by the BBC to hang onto something that is "working" for them.
If you pay significantly over the odds it's a barrier to a person either being poached (by Sky/ITV) or quitting to sail around the world or whatever.
The BBC did lose their entire "One Show" presenting team recently after all, probably because they really couldn't offer such mental sums any more. Too closely watched.
Alan Hansen on £250k/year might jump ship or just decide to do something less boring. But if offered 4 times your worth who would say no?
The BBC execs don't care, it's not their money.
Something less boring?! I'd bet the majority of men in this country would do his job for their current salary....it's a dream job for a lot of people.
And have you just decided that his "worth" is £250k per annum? Or have you got some evidence to support this? I'm thinking you've probably just pulled that figure out of the air.
What pisses me off is that Linekar get £2 millions a year for what amounts to a few hours work. He is a terrible front man, and all he does on MOTD is say hello and goodbye and start a few questions off. It's Hansen and co who do all the talking.
What the hell else does he do to get 2 million a year?
And why do he and Hansen have to be paid so much? Who cares who does the yakking on MOTD, people watch it to watch the football, doesn't matter who introduces it or moans about the players.
It's like what we see in the USA with regards the film studios, it's playing it safe.
Remakes, sequels, big up-front payments for "stars"... It's the film studio executives going for "bankers". The safest option that will almost guarantee them a return. Not much of a return it has to be said, and not much of a film experience for the viewers either.
MOTD as presented by Lineker/Hansen/Shearer is possibly the dreariest football programme there has ever been. But the neurotic BBC executive is desperate for something that functions as a working TV programme that they will pay big money for it.
Although ITV/CH4/CH5 are doing the same thing too.
What I said. Clearly....or I wouldn't have said it.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion but sadly your comment that Hansen is worth that ridiuculous amount of money for sitting in a chair talking about football just sums up the greed that is ruining football
What pisses me off is that Linekar get £2 millions a year for what amounts to a few hours work. He is a terrible front man, and all he does on MOTD is say hello and goodbye and start a few questions off. It's Hansen and co who do all the talking.
What the hell else does he do to get 2 million a year?
And why do he and Hansen have to be paid so much? Who cares who does the yakking on MOTD, people watch it to watch the football, doesn't matter who introduces it or moans about the players.
The ratings indicate that this is true; a lot of people complain about Colin Murray- I don't know why Lineker doesn't present the Sunday Match of the Day- but the ratings for Match of the Day 2 are often on a par with Match of the Day, only being relatively low when there are just 1 or 2 Sunday Premier League matches and when those matches aren't generally considered 'big' .
Interesting article here from The Guardian about Hansen, et al, which makes the point that being on the BBC enables them to earn plenty of income elsewhere.
Interesting article here from The Guardian about Hansen, et al, which makes the point that being on the BBC enables them to earn plenty of income elsewhere.
I wouldn't even object to them paying market prices. But Alan Hansen wouldn't earn anywhere near £40k per show anywhere else in the industry.
But as that Guardian piece states, he is not likely to be picking up £40,000 per show:
Someone has divided the bottom line on his annual contract, which is whatever it is (I really cannot be bothered with exact figures, that is what we have investigative journalists for), divided it by the number of programmes he appears on, and come up with the forty grand. I expect the annual contract also covers promos, the odd documentary, sticking his face on the website and all that, and it buys the BBC exclusivity – apart, obviously, from the national newspaper column and the Morrisons ads.
Interesting article here from The Guardian about Hansen, et al, which makes the point that being on the BBC enables them to earn plenty of income elsewhere.
The sooner the BBC fully realise their position of strength and stop paying "market prices" that they don't need to, the better.
Bollocks though, from a writer who even admits in the article he doesn't really know what he's talking about and knows he's using made up numbers. And we have established already that given the Telegraph has pulled its story, the numbers are quite likely to be fabricated.
In particular, this notion that the BBC is worth that much as a promotional vehicle is just nonsense. There's so many restrictions on talent working for the BBC it's unfunny, and there are plenty of other broadcasters out there who offer considerably more opportunity. Most of the time agents seek considerable compensation from the BBC from the fact being a BBC presenter prevents a wide variety of very profitable activities.
I find it hard to believe that in the current climate of BBC cuts, that people can defend the outlandish salaries paid to Hanson and Linekar.
Yes there are restrictions on some of the advertising BBC figures can make, but that doesnt'stop Hanson and Linekar making millions from Morrisons and Walkers. Those deals probably wouldn't happen if those two were locked away on Sky.
If the BBC lost Linekar and Hanson then so what? They have plenty of capable people throughout BBC TV, 5live, local radio etc who can step up to the challenge. Also when the likes of Des Lynam and Bob Wilson have taken the ITV shilling, its not exactly worked out brilliantly for them has it?
It's not quite as straightforward as that- you have to remember that, in 1971, for instance, most people had b&w licences and that most of those people changed to colour TV only as the decade progressed. The 1971 and 1981 levels also lasted for more than three years, so what initially looks like a reasonably generous settlement is, in reality, much less so. (The calculator shows the colour licence fee in 1984 to have been worth £114.54, in today's terms, for instance.)
Then there's the increasing rate of UK population growth over the last 40 years to be taken in to account.
The truth is that, even taking in to account responsibility for digital switchover etc- and I hate putting this as a BBC supporter- the BBC has had oodles more money, in real terms, over recent years than they've ever had and they've spread it thinly- I'll leave others to ponder where it might have gone- and they've given the audience less in the way of frontline entertainment than at any point since the early 60s, when there was a shake-up in their output in response to the then dominant ITV. Due to the weakness of ITV in recent years, the BBC has been 'getting away with it' and managing low expectations.
I find it hard to believe that in the current climate of BBC cuts, that people can defend the outlandish salaries paid to Hanson and Linekar.
Any salaries paid are under contracts negotiated before the cuts. As has been made clear by Mark Thompson in the recent past, when BBC talent renegotiate their contracts, they cannot expect the same level of salary.
It's not quite as straightforward as that- you have to remember that, in 1971, for instance, most people had b&w licences and that most of those people changed to colour TV only as the decade progressed. The 1971 and 1981 levels also lasted for more than three years, so what initially looks like a reasonably generous settlement is, in reality, much less so. (The calculator shows the colour licence fee in 1984 to have been worth £114.54, in today's terms, for instance.)
Then there's the increasing rate of UK population growth over the last 40 years to be taken in to account.
The truth is that, even taking in to account responsibility for digital switchover etc- and I hate putting this as a BBC supporter- the BBC has had oodles more money, in real terms, over recent years than they've ever had and they've spread it thinly- I'll leave others to ponder where it might have gone- and they've given the audience less in the way of frontline entertainment than at any point since the early 60s, when there was a shake-up in their output in response to the then dominant ITV. Due to the weakness of ITV in recent years, the BBC has been 'getting away with it' and managing low expectations.
Great post
Another point to add:
think how much money the BBC make from shows like Dr Who (overseas licensing and DVD sales)
and all the other successful shows which you can buy on DVD from the BBC.
Personally if it was possible to buy a TV tuner/set top box which encrypted the BBC output and only allowed the commercial stations i would happily buy it if it meant i did not have to pay the BBC the tax that is the license fee.
I barely watch any BBC output and would be happy enough with the other 5 commercial Muxes on Freeview
Bollocks though, from a writer who even admits in the article he doesn't really know what he's talking about and knows he's using made up numbers. And we have established already that given the Telegraph has pulled its story, the numbers are quite likely to be fabricated.
The article in question was this Monday's edition of Martin Kelner's Screen Break column, a satirical look at the week's TV sports coverage. It is not meant to be read as a serious news report, rather an opinion piece on whatever is the most newsworthy bit of sports coverage that week. In regards to Kelner's references to Hansen's appearance fee, he prefaced the first mention to it by saying the figure was according to "a couple of papers", so he wasn't making out as if this was gospel.
As for Hansen's salary, be it in the region of the figure bandied around or not - the expression money for old rope springs to mind.
Great post
Another point to add:
think how much money the BBC make from shows like Dr Who (overseas licensing and DVD sales)
and all the other successful shows which you can buy on DVD from the BBC.
Personally if it was possible to buy a TV tuner/set top box which encrypted the BBC output and only allowed the commercial stations i would happily buy it if it meant i did not have to pay the BBC the tax that is the license fee.
I barely watch any BBC output and would be happy enough with the other 5 commercial Muxes on Freeview
Well, thank you, but I'd prefer it if you valued what the BBC does and what more it could do- it has guaranteed income and so doesn't have to follow commercial principles anywhere near as much as it does.
Commercial channels offer relatively little range in their schedules and the BBC is still good value; certainly much better value than any commercial operator.
Any salaries paid are under contracts negotiated before the cuts. As has been made clear by Mark Thompson in the recent past, when BBC talent renegotiate their contracts, they cannot expect the same level of salary.
It can easily be argued that Hanson should never have been paid that sort of salary in the first place.
Well, thank you, but I'd prefer it if you valued what the BBC does and what more it could do- it has guaranteed income and so doesn't have to follow commercial principles anywhere near as much as it does.
Commercial channels offer relatively little range in their schedules and the BBC is still good value; certainly much better value than any commercial operator.
Well that is obviously your opinion and of course you are entitled to it (i respect that)
But i am also entitled to my own opinion, and my own opinion is the BBC is antiquated, out of touch and churning out poor programmes all at the publics expense.
Us mere mortals have no say over content and i resent the fact my license fee is going towards the plethora of cash cow shows like Dr Who, Strictly which i have zero interest in.
As i said before, if it came to a choice between £145.50 extra in my pocket or access to the BBC's output i would take the money every time!
The fact i might want to watch a Documentary on CH4 (which is funded by advertising) means i HAVE to pay the BBC regardless of the fact i never watch/listen to their content.
It can easily be argued that Hanson should never have been paid that sort of salary in the first place.
It can (and is), but the mere fact that salaries will be lower for any new contracts is a recognition of that, so really there is little to discuss going forward.
As i said before, if it came to a choice between £145.50 extra in my pocket or access to the BBC's output i would take the money every time!
The fact i might want to watch a Documentary on CH4 (which is funded by advertising) means i HAVE to pay the BBC regardless of the fact i never watch/listen to their content.
Ah diddums:p.
If that's the worst thing you have to worry about then you are lucky, some people are just natural whingers. I could equally complain about paying for advertising on channels I don't watch but I just accept this as it isn't going to change.
Comments
Something less boring?! I'd bet the majority of men in this country would do his job for their current salary....it's a dream job for a lot of people.
And have you just decided that his "worth" is £250k per annum? Or have you got some evidence to support this? I'm thinking you've probably just pulled that figure out of the air.
What the hell else does he do to get 2 million a year?
And why do he and Hansen have to be paid so much? Who cares who does the yakking on MOTD, people watch it to watch the football, doesn't matter who introduces it or moans about the players.
Remakes, sequels, big up-front payments for "stars"... It's the film studio executives going for "bankers". The safest option that will almost guarantee them a return. Not much of a return it has to be said, and not much of a film experience for the viewers either.
MOTD as presented by Lineker/Hansen/Shearer is possibly the dreariest football programme there has ever been. But the neurotic BBC executive is desperate for something that functions as a working TV programme that they will pay big money for it.
Although ITV/CH4/CH5 are doing the same thing too.
You are obviously entitled to your opinion but sadly your comment that Hansen is worth that ridiuculous amount of money for sitting in a chair talking about football just sums up the greed that is ruining football
The ratings indicate that this is true; a lot of people complain about Colin Murray- I don't know why Lineker doesn't present the Sunday Match of the Day- but the ratings for Match of the Day 2 are often on a par with Match of the Day, only being relatively low when there are just 1 or 2 Sunday Premier League matches and when those matches aren't generally considered 'big' .
Lets be honest, its a great gig working on the most iconic and watched football programme each weekend for that sort of salary.
Well done than man.
True...I bet we'll see less and less current players move into management TBH and become pundits.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/nov/06/alan-hansen-match-of-the-day-lineker
The sooner the BBC fully realise their position of strength and stop paying "market prices" that they don't need to, the better.
I wouldn't even object to them paying market prices. But Alan Hansen wouldn't earn anywhere near £40k per show anywhere else in the industry.
Bollocks though, from a writer who even admits in the article he doesn't really know what he's talking about and knows he's using made up numbers. And we have established already that given the Telegraph has pulled its story, the numbers are quite likely to be fabricated.
In particular, this notion that the BBC is worth that much as a promotional vehicle is just nonsense. There's so many restrictions on talent working for the BBC it's unfunny, and there are plenty of other broadcasters out there who offer considerably more opportunity. Most of the time agents seek considerable compensation from the BBC from the fact being a BBC presenter prevents a wide variety of very profitable activities.
Phazer
Yes there are restrictions on some of the advertising BBC figures can make, but that doesnt'stop Hanson and Linekar making millions from Morrisons and Walkers. Those deals probably wouldn't happen if those two were locked away on Sky.
If the BBC lost Linekar and Hanson then so what? They have plenty of capable people throughout BBC TV, 5live, local radio etc who can step up to the challenge. Also when the likes of Des Lynam and Bob Wilson have taken the ITV shilling, its not exactly worked out brilliantly for them has it?
And that is why the TV License Fee has almost doubled in the last 15 years.
Oh it must be great to be on the BBC Gravy Train
It was £89.50 15 years ago, so an 63% increase.
Apparently an inflation only increase would put it at £126 today rather then the actual £145.5
However (according to an inflation calculator*) the TV Licence in 1971, £12, would be £136 today. Fairly close to the actual.
In 1981, £46 (by inflation =£145.36)
So really it has only outstripped inflation during the last 15 years, the BBC did have more stuff to deal with though.
*
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/bills/article-1633409/Historic-inflation-calculator-value-money-changed-1900.html
It's not quite as straightforward as that- you have to remember that, in 1971, for instance, most people had b&w licences and that most of those people changed to colour TV only as the decade progressed. The 1971 and 1981 levels also lasted for more than three years, so what initially looks like a reasonably generous settlement is, in reality, much less so. (The calculator shows the colour licence fee in 1984 to have been worth £114.54, in today's terms, for instance.)
Then there's the increasing rate of UK population growth over the last 40 years to be taken in to account.
The truth is that, even taking in to account responsibility for digital switchover etc- and I hate putting this as a BBC supporter- the BBC has had oodles more money, in real terms, over recent years than they've ever had and they've spread it thinly- I'll leave others to ponder where it might have gone- and they've given the audience less in the way of frontline entertainment than at any point since the early 60s, when there was a shake-up in their output in response to the then dominant ITV. Due to the weakness of ITV in recent years, the BBC has been 'getting away with it' and managing low expectations.
Great post
Another point to add:
think how much money the BBC make from shows like Dr Who (overseas licensing and DVD sales)
and all the other successful shows which you can buy on DVD from the BBC.
Personally if it was possible to buy a TV tuner/set top box which encrypted the BBC output and only allowed the commercial stations i would happily buy it if it meant i did not have to pay the BBC the tax that is the license fee.
I barely watch any BBC output and would be happy enough with the other 5 commercial Muxes on Freeview
The article in question was this Monday's edition of Martin Kelner's Screen Break column, a satirical look at the week's TV sports coverage. It is not meant to be read as a serious news report, rather an opinion piece on whatever is the most newsworthy bit of sports coverage that week. In regards to Kelner's references to Hansen's appearance fee, he prefaced the first mention to it by saying the figure was according to "a couple of papers", so he wasn't making out as if this was gospel.
As for Hansen's salary, be it in the region of the figure bandied around or not - the expression money for old rope springs to mind.
Well, thank you, but I'd prefer it if you valued what the BBC does and what more it could do- it has guaranteed income and so doesn't have to follow commercial principles anywhere near as much as it does.
Commercial channels offer relatively little range in their schedules and the BBC is still good value; certainly much better value than any commercial operator.
It can easily be argued that Hanson should never have been paid that sort of salary in the first place.
Well that is obviously your opinion and of course you are entitled to it (i respect that)
But i am also entitled to my own opinion, and my own opinion is the BBC is antiquated, out of touch and churning out poor programmes all at the publics expense.
Us mere mortals have no say over content and i resent the fact my license fee is going towards the plethora of cash cow shows like Dr Who, Strictly which i have zero interest in.
As i said before, if it came to a choice between £145.50 extra in my pocket or access to the BBC's output i would take the money every time!
The fact i might want to watch a Documentary on CH4 (which is funded by advertising) means i HAVE to pay the BBC regardless of the fact i never watch/listen to their content.
Going back up the thread, I thought that there is no actual evidence that the figure is true?
Ah diddums:p.
If that's the worst thing you have to worry about then you are lucky, some people are just natural whingers. I could equally complain about paying for advertising on channels I don't watch but I just accept this as it isn't going to change.