For the amount of time they actually spend working..

Do you think OUR money is well spent by BBC?

or the judges know an easy gig when they see it?

Are you bored?

Sometimes I can be.....lol......You?

I'm at the hospital again tomorrow - can't sleep. Turning out the light to try again - catch you tomorrow.

(Just realised it is tomorrow but you know what I mean!)

Yes its tomorrow.....you must be bad.

Have a good night........

Do they get 90 grand???????

Could they be replaced cheaper? That is the question. I know nothing about the dance/choreography circuit but I would take a vague guess at saying 'yes'.

Its all about market rates. JS evidently will cost you 15k for a PA - presumably an after dinner speech. A judge is about 80% cheaper.

360k fills the primetime weekend slots for nearly 4 months and 40 hours of BBC 2 time too - its very cheap. The show looks cheap too even if you add on Brucie getting more than them all put together, Tess, the pros and the celebs . If anyone its the celebs who are underpaid.The moderately famous would make more opening a supermarket a fortnight.

So how long do YOU think that they "spend working"?

And how do fees paid to those in TV and the entertainment industry compare to the average run-of-the-mill salaries?

I think everyone in the public eye is overpaid, but I don't see that SCD judges are particularly overpaid for the environment they're in. The producers seem to get their pound of flesh in that they're all shunted onto ITT or to pimp the show and whatever narrative it's got going on on so-called news channels.

No I don't think they are especially when you consider how much the professionals are paid - I even think Brucie & Tess are overpaid

We need 4 judges who fell off the back of a lorry,
not 4 who are off their trolley.

Compared to what? Nurse? Professional footballer?

This is all steming from the "he who shall not be named" drama isn't it ...surely sooooo last week now ?

I think all that this carry on has actually proved is that any pros coming from abroad (and DWTS in particular) should have a look at our show first before agreeing to take part. Same could be said for the celebs....we're in the 6th series ffs.

(It seems to me it's maybe been a bit of a culture shock that our judges don't just say "Not great but very entertaining" to the no hopers.Our pro's all seem to get on well with the judges and most seem really eager to please Craig...if the show was sans Arlene and Craig and we ended up with DWTS I'd be devasted.)



Anyway Saturday's show was really fantastic wasn't it?

I don't know what's happened to this forum of late we've just had some amazing dancing in the last 2 weeks....technically good and entertaining..."its raining men" I mean c'mon, Rachel's rumba, Lisa's lovely quickstep, Jodies' plucky spirit, Tom's nerves and Camilla's interesting tango choreography, Christine smiling through her dodgy chacha...not to mention some super pros dances.

Why everyone wants to focus on moaning about the judges, replacing this or that presenter/pro, it's beyond me. Especially since if anyone was ACTUALLY given the boot you know there'd be a thread + online petition demanding their instant reinstatment up within days. LOL

(I mean I like a good moan as much as the next person but you know... )

We should be careful ...we might in fact be guilty of bullying the judges... I mean all the posts expressed in this forum, slagging off their performance... some with the obvious intention of getting them sacked.... surely that constitues bullying of some sort....this is a public place afterall...

There not even worth 90p

yep they do

Bruce gets 450 grand
Celebs get 25 grand
Pros get 30 grand

Seems to be the more you do the less you get,

Its a 14 week show, with the judges appearing for approx 2 hrs Sat Sun, and on occasion on ITT for 30 mins.

They then hold down their own jobs so SCD is part time.

so say 3 hrs a week. 14 x 3 = 42 hrs work 90 grand.

Compared to what they actually do?

Meaning what? Compared to other TV presenters / professional dance judges? Or other professions?

You can't value something to any degree of validity without a benchmark or comparison.

Comparing something to "what they do" is meaningless.

I understand you're just trying to stir things up, but you at least need to give it a context.

So they don't do rehearsals then? They spend no time in makeup? They only need to turn up a minute or two before the Saturday show starts, take their seats and away?

Do you suppose that Claudia only works for around 30-odd mins a day, five days a week doing ITT?

Do you suppose that the bloke who reads the 10-min regional news bulletin on BBC1 at 1.30pm just turns up at 1.29, takes his seat and departs at around 1.41pm?

Or that any presenter of any programme only works for the time that they are on screen?


Maybe a touch of reality would be useful here, coupled with an acceptance that those that appear on TV and those directly in the entertainment business tend to be much more highly paid than those in "normal" jobs. That's the nature of the business. The politics of envy won't change that one iota.

If stirring it up means asking a question...about money for old rope......yea thats stirring.

Compare it to what they actually do ?...

What are they rehearsing...how to sit on a seat....how to hold up a paddle........or write down the funny lines they are going to say....on a dance they have not seen yet.

Makeup.......yes I agree they do have to actually turn up with their face......but thats about it. Thats not working ?

Well, that reply sort of demonstrates that you really have little understanding as to what is actually involved in the production od a TV programme.


And the same goes for that remark I'm afraid.

And as the other poster stated, you seem to want to stir things up .... find and dandy, but at least post from a standpoint of facts and a proper understanding.

yea, good way of evading the question.

I don't know about 90 grand...are the judges worth 90p?