£5,000 a week is a lot of money, but there are plenty whom are paid a lot more for a lot less. I struggle to understand what more than one or two celebrities are actually famous for, other than being media-whores. Why reward that?

One of the reasons that I would pay the dancers more is that in many cases they are not only more famous than the celebrities, but are also more talented. I don't mind rewarding hard work and talent. One of the things that most cheers me about Strictly is the fact that talented people, who have chosen to do something they loved when it was deeply unfashionable, and worked hard for it, no doubt putting up with a lot of thankless and grotty venues and a lot of teasing / jibes from their peers, are now appreciated for their abilities and effort. I am so pleased that people like Ian Waite, who was reportedly about to give up and find another career before strictly came along, has got something material for years of effort. It makes me feel, albeit naively, that there is something in that 'work hard, commit to doing something that you love, it isn't all about the money' line.

End of the day, though, the market will no doubt decide what they are worth.

Do you think if the celebs danced with complete pro strangers the tour would attract so much interest ?

I doubt it.

I don't think it's in any doubt that both the pros and the celebrities need each other, and they both need format of the live shows because otherwise no one is interested in watching (as someone else pointed out, just one pro pair in a small venue can have trouble filling it).

What isn't fair is that one set of people are paid twice as much as the other, on the same show, doing more or less the same thing . That's where it gets unfair.

As I said, there is a small minority who go to see the pro dances, I doubt for those people any pro dancer would be a stranger.

Despite strong partnerships on tv, the tour hasnt suffered when the celeb has a different pro partner and the tv show hasnt suffered when pros are replaced with dancers who are strangers to the non-dance community.

On a personal level, my enjoyment this year is much improved now the chief gurners are no longer taking part.


They are not doing the same jobs at all and the celebs are the draw not the pros. Celebs>hosts>judging panel>pro dancers. It's impossibly naive to suggest the pros are on an equal footing with the celebs. The show is not about them.

ITA !

Someone mentioned earlier the celebs get paid more because they could be off earning more money doing their `normal` jobs but I suspect they sign up for the show and tour because there isn`t much work around for them at the time.

And pro dancers will sign up for SCD tour because they can't find many jobs that offer more than £5000 per week either. And because being on SCD and the tour will continue to boast their future earnings. Which just goes to show that the pay is roughly the going market price for pros and celebs.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

I look at it this way:

I love SCD, I want to see the live show.

I don't actually care who is taking part, which Z list celebs they've managed to snag this week, or, if I'm honest, which pros (apart from Matthew, it's imperative he's there ). It's the whole caboodle I'm interested in, not petty personalities.

As far as I'm concerned, each component of 'The Show' is equally important, and could probably be done by anyone with suitable skills, so WHY should anyone be paid more than double for their part contribution to the whole?

Notwithstanding the above, I would argue quite vociferously that it's gone beyond the 'celebs' being the draw, I think it's the Show.

Because you need both parts for the show, celebs and professionals and whereas a celeb can charge a higher fee in another job a professional dancer will not have as many options - although that may change eventually as some of the dancers can cross over to being celebrities in their own right. It's like asking why someone would pay more for a David Beckham appearance than for Chris Hollins if they are both to play football and are therefore doing the same job. And it's not just talent it is demand as a clapped out David Beckham would still be more bookable than some world class players.

I just had a look at this story:

Paragraph 1: reportedly angry
Paragraph 2: According to the News of the World
Paragraph 3: Reportedly forced to delay
Paragraph 4: Unattributed quote
Paragraph 5: Unnamed source

The solitary fact is in the last sentence: the tour starts in Jan and lasts six weeks.

What would it take for Digital Spy to show a little respect for its members and start posting reports instead of stories?

I've just checked the latest headline ("Johnson, Waite row over jive routine") as well, in case the above story was a one-off:

Paragraph 1: ...say reports
Paragraph 2: According to the The Sun
Paragraph 3 & 4: Unattributed quote
Paragraph 5: Unnamed source

Never mind the dancers' pay, I wonder what kind of wage people take to turn out this kind of patronising rubbish?

Not a great deal, journalists don't get paid very much at all and they work long hours. They knew that when they entered their profession though so tough. Just as I knew my career is a popular one so wages are comparitively low.

I'm not sure I'd really categorise the Digital Spy "news" articles as journalism.

11 grand a week?

Sounds excessive to me.

How many performances do they do in a week?