No- £500k+ is the staying rate.
Don't ask what the going rate is, we couldn't afford it

Happily, my brain is refusing to give me the mental image I was expecting of Bruce trying to AT...

The pay of those appearing on the show is relative to how they will be received by viewers, the bigger their personal appeal the more they are likely to be paid. It has little to do with specific dance related abilities. It's all about ratings.

But they mustn't get too popular, some professionals who have appeared on the show were getting more well known by the public than some of the Z-listers, that's why the likes of Daren an Lilia went.

By that logic surely they'd have to boot off Anton before anyone! He's the only one most people have heard of!

I do wonder how many viewers Alesha really pulls in. Not enough to justify £100k I suspect. I actually think the 'been there, done that' angle is worth pursuing though. One of the reasons it doesn't really work at the moment is because there are already two judges who mark quite strangely!

If they ditched Len and Bruno and got in, for example, Ian and Lilia, the panel would be nicely balanced with a meanie (Craig), a soft touch (Alesha) and two dance professionals. Plus it would be nice if the panel had two men and two women, and one of the women was someone who knew what she was talking about! Ian and Lilia also have nice, likeable personalities, but I don't think they would get to thinking the show was about them.

Katie, you've made a very sensible case, which is exactly why It'll never happen I'm afraid...

Only recently they had the opportunity to have one of the pros step in for Len, but what did we get instead? Jennifer Grey, along with her silly scoring and anodyne comments

Nope, they won't ditch Anton, he's now a "presenter" he's done "Step Up to the Plate" and been a captain in "Hole in the Wall" (two programmes I've avoided).
He'll stay in Strictly as they want to promote his image so he's recognised by more people, in the next show he presents.

As to the appeal of others in the show, it's not about how they appeal to the viewers as much as how the BBC thinks they do, these two things aren't necessarily the same.
It's no good you trying to apply sensible logic.

Yes you're both right, it's just annoying to think they could probably save money, get better judges and improve the show and yet they don't!

Plus also, it means if they teach then their bookings for dance lessons will sky rocket - and possibly they will be able to charge a bit more due to the being on the tele factor. If they do exhibitions or corporate events, again their bookablilty will rise and again, possibly what they charge will increase as well.

The cachet of being associated with a popular programme can't be underestimated.

What ever we were told at the time about why Alesha was chosen as a judge, I think Alesha as a former champion is a great choice to have on the panel - for that reason though, not to pull in viewers because she looks good, her age or she is a singer, etc.

Originally when the show started, none of the judges had any experience of being a TV judge, but after nine series we now all know what we like and don't like about a judge. Alesha joining the panel was handled very badly, partly because she wasn't told that she was replacing Arlene and then of course, it turned in to an ageist debate. It's taken a while for people to accept Alesha as a judge and some people still can't stand her in that role. Darcey and Jennifer didn't go down well with a lot of people on here, although we don't know what the 10 million or so viewers thought. So either way any changes to the panel need to be managed carefully because we have seen how it can negatively affect the show if it is badly handled.

Personally I'd be happy with any pro as a judge who has had some TV presenting experience (including ITT segments) and from that group, anybody who also has judging experience in another country's version of the show and/or in the real world would give them an advantage. That's actually quite a few pros, but I'd prefer any pros who are dancing now to stay as dancers.

PS In Anton's case, I want him to replace Brucie!

I think they've already ear-marked Anton for Brucie, but Bruce will continue until he's had enough.
One might have thought he'd chuck it in when he got his knighthood, but that doesn't look like it will happen.
The fact that the ratings are increasing will appeal to him as he loves being the centre of attention.

If he gave it up, what else would he do?
At his age there's a limit to the number of times you'd want, or are able, to play golf each week.

Always amusing that BBC telly tax obsessives don't permit the rest of us to express a different point of view without sneering.

You've got to admire the Daily Mail, they have a "corrections and omissions" section...daily.

So making a positive out of a negative, guess it will help sell more papers.

I miss Brian

I think he will retire after the next series because it is a milestone series. He's suddenly doing a lot more than playing golf, some charity work and working on a Saturday. He's released an album of him singing his favourite songs and to celebrate 70 years in showbiz he is doing a one-off performance at the Royal Albert Hall next May. Can't imagine who will buy the album or a ticket to the show tbh.

Please God, let him retire after this series and just do the Christmas shows. That will do it.
And how come he gets to choose when he retires when newsreaders and others years younger are blown around like chaff on the wind?

i cant believe they missed off Jill in darren's bit and i didn't like the way he spoke about his partners

It did say that Darren's high point was winning with Jill and I don't believe Darren said anything bad about his former partners - he's never come across as the type of person to publically speak ill of others - I don't believe he was even spoken to for this article - it's DM doing their typical tabloid stirring!

It's not in quotes, so it's not him talking. It's just the journalist's opinions, who probably didn't even watch.

It's an old one but...

EDITOR - Can you write me 500 words about Strictly?
JOURNO - But I've never watched it
EDITOR - That wasn't the question

Without trying to stir up a whole hornets nest, I think one thing has been overlooked about Alesha being given the job is her ethic background. I must make it clear that I don't think the BBC specifically went on the hunt for someone from a minority, nor do I have any issue with it either.

But ballroom dancing - in this country - has always been a predominantly 'white' pastime, and one mainly done by the elderly (except in competition). Thats why the SCD judges and SCD 'professionals' tend to be white too, as are most of the champs in national competitions. Its a fairly 'middle-class', middle of the road pastime. When you have senior members/former members of the BBC management describing certain areas of the Beeb as 'hideously white', then look at SCD with its Caucasian presenters, judges and professionals, you can see that Alesha was a godsend.

She won the competition, was young, female and popular. Against the X-Factor, SCD doesn't look very 'diverse' or 'modern' for a primetime show and I think this was something the BBC took into consideration. As for Arlene - she was dreadful - cornier and clumsier than Bruce!

Yeah, it's gone bonkers this year but seems to be coming out in the wash. Since Alesha arrived, Bruno has always reserved his score to balance the others. Now, Len scores to balance Craig and Alesha has started scoring randomly to create a perception of being independent.

I think it would be better to have:

One judge for complexity of choreography and use of props (Karen Hardy) - this would essentially be a score for the pro but I think quite often the audience simply does not appreciate the difficulty of a routine - a few lifts and the ratings soar.

One judge (Bruno) for the upper body - back, shoulders, elbows, hands, head

One judge for the lower body (Craig) - feet, knees, hips

I think that would increase the accuracy of the scores. Craig would have to be asked to decrease his range. His high scores are fine but it isn't really etiquette to go below 5 for anyone.

Then the audience score is for 'performance' i.e. entertainment - each to their own as to what is good entertainment.

I saw her once on the XFactor and she shouts all the time and seems not to have any saliva. She gets into arguments with the judge from Covent Garden who can't say anything except 'you're buzzin' or i'm feelin' it'. Awful. But for people like her, their world has been turned upside down and they either sink like her or swim like Len, who was one of the first technical judges to start saying 'look, it's not all about technique', when he realised the popularity of some celebs and the new power of the audience vote (ker-ching).

When criticised about his low marks, Craig said that the judges are given paddles with marks ranging from 1 to 10 on them, not from 5 to 10.

I think he is entitled to give scores below 5 if deserved.

£35 K paid (for 3 months) to the pros is 'only a living wage' in a working class area ?? Some of these people should try living on the state pension of no more than £6300 a year plus whatever small amount of other pension someone might have. I know there are some wealthy pensioners, with capital too, but loads of pensioners, even with a professional pension, are living on around 11K or less. I can assure you it is easily possible to live on that and run a car. True we may not have a mortgage to pay now, but when we DID, interest rates were hugely higher than they are now. However we can't afford £79 tickets to go and see the tour show and there should be concessions fro pensioners. But to say 35K is a low wage , rubbish.