Apparently the judges will get £90,000(a 50% rise on last year) and the professionals will get £30,000 - a rise of £6,500.

Len and Bruno were pushing for the increase because they have to flit backwards and forwards between the UK and USA because of their involvement in Dancing with the Stars.

Not sure that is a good reason for the BBC to pay them more though. I bet they earn a mint on the US show and they wouldn't have got that without SCD.

I would like to see the professionals get more to be honest. They work much harder and much longer hours.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/news...-with-BBC.html

That's something we often overlook.

Still, I suppose transatlantic air fares are going up all the time.

I wonder if they get their fares paid, on top of all that, as expenses. And what about housing costs for their LA seaview mansions.

The mind boggles.

Hardly "belt-tightening", is it.

[Though you can argue that BBC Worldwide makes an even bigger fortune through marketing the shows worldwide, and which helps fund the BBC]

Bet the sneaky devils have persuaded the Americans to pay the same set of expenses!

I just think that the amount they get paid for what they do (including ITT) is disproportionate to the professional dancers, who are now celebrities in their own right.

You're absolutely right, they must work on Strictly around one day a week altogether and the professionals LIVE it for 14 weeks and get a third of what they get

I came across the item below, which is 2 years old. With the increasing popularity of the show the figures may have increased since then. I certainly hope the judges don't get paid more than the participants on the US show...

From Reality TV World, 19 April 2006:

"Dancing with the Stars" champion Drew Lachey says the salary ABC pays to the celebrities on its hit series are 'ridiculous.'

'In terms of TV and for the ratings that the show gets, it's ridiculous,' Lachey told Wednesday's New York Post.

'The topic of what stars are paid for the dance competition was raised by Sirius Satellite radio jock Howard Stern Tuesday, who revealed his girlfriend, Beth Ostrosky, has been asked to appear next season for about $245,000 for eight weeks of work. '

Do we conclude that salaries on the US show are 5 times what they are here.

Maybe Len and Bruno do "merit" a huge rise - they think they're getting paid peanuts here.

I wouldn't mind seeing that missing Inland Revenue disk, with Len Goodman's details on it. Wonder if anyone's got a copy for sale on Ebay.

Can't say I'm in the slightest bit surprised at this...disgusted yes, surprised no!

It's hardly a new thing that those who sit around on their asses and talk out of them more often than not get a far bigger slice than those actually doing the graft...

I think the judges were a joke last year and I am actually disappointed to see Arelene will be back. I actually find her quite painful to watch and she is my least favourite out of the three. She always looks like it is a major effort to get every sentence out coherently. She was like that on the BBC yesterday.

I would love to see a breakdown of how many hours they work and how many the pro dancers do. We can probably work it out roughly from the hours trained figures.

I think the US stars wouldn't even get out of bed for 30k!
***nips off to ebay to investigate availability of LG tax disc***

I agree Wiz Net that last year was a new low for the judges...Either through repeating themselves from other series, fourth-rate alliteration, scoring strangely, talking over each other like crazed muppets or constantly moving the goalposts of the dance-off to suit their needs at the time...I'll stick with PJ's comments in future and turn the sound off when the muppet show starts...

That sounds like a plan. Muppet Show though! Now when I watch it I will think of Arlene as Miss Piggy, Len and Craig as the two old boys who sit in the balcony (Stadtler and Waldo?) and Bruno could be Animal!

Ridiculous. The pro dancers add far more to the show than the judges, who reached a new low last season, with perhaps Craig being the only one coming out of it with some dignity.

It is totally beyond me why the judges should get 3 times more than the pro dancers who work so hard and put their heart and soul into the show (and often blood sweat and tears)........none of the judges came out with any credibility last year (except Craig) and at best they were laughable and at worse a disgrace.......i really have no time whatsoever for Len any more .....the way he spoke to Arlene sometimes was .........well.........a disgrace (putting it mildly) and he was a total clown with some of his "professional" comments and scores...nope,no respect for him at all.

I even got to the point last year of switching over from ITT whenever Len was on.

That is EXACTLY how I feel about her! Painful is the only word, I always think of her as Arlene Botox (what Jonathan Ross called her on his show when the series was on!) Those rehearsed put downs were cringe-worthy, I used to mute the telly whenever she started alliterating

Re the pay discrepancies, I think £30,000 is not a sum to be scoffed at as there are those "normal" people, outside the entertainment industry who don't even make that in a year HOWEVER, if it's between the judges and the pros who gets the most money well it's obviously the dancers who deserve it. To think the judges are being paid £90,000 for supposedly professional opinions that are mostly anything but. I would agree that Craig maintained the most dignity of the four regarding scoring, but some of his comments were unprofessional and below the belt at times - he made Tish and Penny cry!!

I tend to listen to Philip Jackson as well - whose opinion (as well as the pro dancer commentating) is usually the polar opposite of what the judges say! I think at one point he and the pro thought John Barnes' upper body was great and the feet weren't whereas the judges stated the opposite. It also annoys me when they say they are looking for different things! I'm not a dancer but surely either the technique is right or it isn't, I don't see how it can be that much of a grey area. The idea that Len is the one who most looks for technique is laughable.

sorry that was quite a rant!

What Arlene needs is for Anne Robinson to be asked to compete! OMG - can you imagine what would happen if she tried her acidic style on Anne? Now THAT would be good TV.

I do agree that the behaviour of the judges was pretty awful last year. I also resented the fact that Len lambasted the great British public for their voting.

One lesson the judges need to learn this year is that if they are unnecessarily cruel to competitors, people will vote for them!! It happened on SCD and it happened on Nancy.

I think the judges think that they are the celebrities and sadly this pay rise will make them think even more of themselves than they did last year!

There will be tears before bedtime!!!!

One thing I did read in Len's favour recently is that when the BBC initially approached him for the series, he was forced to choose between doing Strictly and judging professionally, I think at Blackpool. He chose Strictly with no way of knowing that it would become the success it has, and he did it because if he didn't do it they were just going to use Arlene, Bruno and Craig, none of whom have a ballroom/latin background. He took a risk because he wanted his industry to be represented properly.

Of the dancers who will take part in series six, only Anton, Brendan, Camilla and Erin could say the same- the rest have joined knowing that it will be successful and raise their profile.

Not saying this justifies the huge pay discrepancies, personally I would be happy to see the pros on 90k and the judges on 30k, but I do think he deserves a little bit of respect for that.

I didn't know that katie. I have to say I have a lot of time for Len but I think that even he was playing up for cameras last year. I think the problem is that the BBC wants good television and them sitting there and saying "that was very nice" or "that was not up to standard" just doesn't pull in the viewers.

I felt they were a lot better in the earlier series. The way they spoke to some of the couples last year was really quite unpleasant. And some of Arlene's comments just sounded totally rehearsed and very, very contrived.

I personally think that it would be fairer if the judges and the professional dancers were paid the same. 30k for the dancers seems to low and 90k for the judges too much.

Perhaps 50k for everyone would be fairer?

What I do wonder if what happens when a pro dancer goes out towards the start of the competition. do they still receive the same amount? I now they take part in the pro dances, but they don't have to put in as many hours.

Good point too Katie_P about the original pro's They did go out on a limb in doing the show. It could have been a mickey-taking one series disaster and they'd have had to have gone back and faced the irritation of their fellow pro dancers for the damage done to dance in this country

I hadn't realised this. I actually don't have a problem with Len, really (although that might not have been clear with my previous post!). The panel does need someone who is actually in the ballroom/latin industry rather than general choreographers. I appreciate Len's stand on encouraging the celebs with his comments and scores - it must be so hard for the celeb and pro when they've had a thrashing from Craig - but the scores should still reflect the standard of the dance, not just whether or not they "came out on that floor" () and had a go.

I've often thought about that Wiz ?? but i would guess all the pros get the £30,000 (regardless if they are out first week or make it to the final) because they don't know how long they are going to last in the comp and they can't really accept any other work over that 4 months (other than what they have agreed to before SCD starts)....the further you get in the comp i suppose the more the pros are "paid" in publicity and credibility to their reputation.

I don't actually think £30,000 is that much for 4 and a half months work (and if you look at what the pro's do)........i know it is to a 9-5 NHS worker like me but i earn over 12 months not like the pros who are relying on that amount maybe for the bulk of their years income.
(i'm not sure about that........someone's opinion in the dance world would be interesting on that theory)

Just going back to Len........he was OK for the first few series but i just felt he turned into a complete *whatever* in the last series.

That is an excellent point. And I guess that they have to block that time out well in advance and not take on any other commitments (as do the celebs). I suppose the pro dancers who go out right at the start can pick up some work during the remaining period and they still have the pro dances to do.

I wonder how much the celebs are getting paid this year - the article didn't mention that.

Weird new story: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...t-BBC-pay.html

Apparently the judges haven't got their pay rise and are threatening to quit
Also the pros apparently aren't getting any extra- can't see them agreeing to that somehow as an extra two weeks means a huge amount more work for them.

Weirdly enough the Sun actually tends to run pretty accurate Strictly stories, so I'm guessing their story is right and this one not.

Now that is strange. I enquired about the transmission date this week for a magazine section I am working on. The BBC said that SCD was definitely returning this autumn but the transmission date had not been set.

I queried it because last year it appeared in the autumn press pack and this year it didn't. Mind you, the BBC is now famous for its "coming soon" trailers and not giving dates!!!

It's absolutely disgraceful that the professionals get paid so much less than the "judges". The pros are now stars in their own right and have to work a darn sight harder.

As for Len and Bruno - jeez I would love to see what their carbon footprints amount to! Why oh why do they keep scheduling both SCD and DWTS at the same blimin time?

I couldn't agree more!!

Well, it's two separate countries, two separate audiences, two separate broadcasting organisations. They schedule according to their respective (local) conditions and overall schedules. I doubt that the BBC has any influence.