£450,000 a year for the BBC's new chairman

[brus 10]

Today's news : B.B.C. appoints its new chairman on a salary of £450,000 a year,

But yet he is taking a pay drop from his predecessor who was on over £600,000 a year.

Is it time the B.B.C used adverts to fund itself.

[Bonzo77 13]

Today's news : B.B.C. appoints its new chairman on a salary of £450,000 a year,

But yet he is taking a pay drop from his predecessor who was on over £600,000 a year.

Is it time the B.B.C used adverts to fund itself.

 

I've been saying this for years.

 

Although the BBC does make some amazing programmes, (in my opinion), I resent paying for something that I refuse to watch, like Strictly or Eastenders.

 

Plus, with modern viewing boxes,you can work it so you can skip the adverts.

[Rupert_Baehr 10]

There seem to be 2 questions here:

 

1. How should the BBC be funded?

2. Is the pay of the new director-general excessive?

 

I agree that the BBC should be funded solely by advertisements (it has no qualms about adverts on its overseas channels and those adverts don't seem to stop people from watching them.)

 

As for the salary of the new dg:

 

1. It appears he's prepared to accept 75% of his predecessor's salary. - I wonder how many people on this forum would, when looking for a new job, offer to take 75% of their predecessor's salary?

 

2. The news article I saw which talked about his appointment listed his qualifications and experience, both of which were pretty impressive. presumably, somebody thinks he's very good and is likely to do a very good job. I'm sure they could get somebody who would do the job for less ... you can usually find somebody who will do a job for less and will do it badly.

 

3. It appears that his salary will be 450k. If he quits, he walks away - he doesn't get a huge taxpayer handout (unlike many others.) (I've quite one or two jobs, I walked away with whatever salary was due to me - I wasn't given a handout.)

 

If somebody is made redundant, then redundancy pay may well be appropriate, but if somebody screws up a job and quits, why should he be rewarded fro screwing up?

 

4. The job is "Director-General of the BBC"- not "Head of BBC Television", "Head of one or more TV Channels", "Head of the World Service" etc. He is responsible for the whole of the BBC - a rather large enterprise. How much money would the head of an organisation of similar size get?

 

It's a lot of money, but given that the incoming dg appears to have accepted ¾ of the pay of his predecessor without the sort of outrageous 'golden parachute' scheme so many others seem to get, what are people complaining about?

[Defunct 10]

There seem to be 2 questions here:

 

1. How should the BBC be funded?

2. Is the pay of the new director-general excessive?

 

I agree that the BBC should be funded solely by advertisements (it has no qualms about adverts on its overseas channels and those adverts don't seem to stop people from watching them.)

 

As for the salary of the new dg:

 

1. It appears he's prepared to accept 75% of his predecessor's salary. - I wonder how many people on this forum would, when looking for a new job, offer to take 75% of their predecessor's salary?

 

2. The news article I saw which talked about his appointment listed his qualifications and experience, both of which were pretty impressive. presumably, somebody thinks he's very good and is likely to do a very good job. I'm sure they could get somebody who would do the job for less ... you can usually find somebody who will do a job for less and will do it badly.

 

3. It appears that his salary will be 450k. If he quits, he walks away - he doesn't get a huge taxpayer handout (unlike many others.) (I've quite one or two jobs, I walked away with whatever salary was due to me - I wasn't given a handout.)

 

If somebody is made redundant, then redundancy pay may well be appropriate, but if somebody screws up a job and quits, why should he be rewarded fro screwing up?

 

4. The job is "Director-General of the BBC"- not "Head of BBC Television", "Head of one or more TV Channels", "Head of the World Service" etc. He is responsible for the whole of the BBC - a rather large enterprise. How much money would the head of an organisation of similar size get?

 

It's a lot of money, but given that the incoming dg appears to have accepted ¾ of the pay of his predecessor without the sort of outrageous 'golden parachute' scheme so many others seem to get, what are people complaining about?

 

 

Indeed there were two questions there. There are now about eight. Thank you for simplifying and clarifying the situation.

[dvp82 10]

I don't know the coporate set up at the BBC but wouldn't the DG of the BBC be on par with a CEO's job.

 

A salary of 450K for been head honcho at a business as large as the beeb isn't really all that much.

Edited July 4, 2012 by dvp82

[Bloomdido 10]

Don't forget the £150,000 it cost to appoint headhunters to recruit him in the first place.

[Eater Sundae 12]

I've been saying this for years.

 

Although the BBC does make some amazing programmes, (in my opinion), I resent paying for something that I refuse to watch, like Strictly or Eastenders.

 

Plus, with modern viewing boxes,you can work it so you can skip the adverts.

 

As more and more people record all their viewing and skip the adverts, then more and more advertisers will decide to no longer use commercial TV. This source of funding will reduce, leading to poorer quality programming on commercial stations. I hope that the BBC does not follow this route.

[dosxuk 10]

This source of funding will reduce, leading to poorer quality programming on commercial stations.

 

It could be argued that this has already happened...

[llamatron 10]

Today's news : B.B.C. appoints its new chairman on a salary of £450,000 a year,

But yet he is taking a pay drop from his predecessor who was on over £600,000 a year.

Is it time the B.B.C used adverts to fund itself.

 

Absolutely not! The bbc is the only thing keeping our telly from turning into the tripe you get in america. I admit it could do with raising the bar further as it does charge for use but to resort to funding by advertisements is to send it into the gutter!

[LeMaquis 10]

Although the BBC does make some amazing programmes, (in my opinion), I resent paying for something that I refuse to watch, like Strictly or Eastenders.

 

So you refuse to watch something and as a result the BBC's method of funding should be altered. As long as you don't think the world revolves round your ego. Maybe the council tax system should be abolished because some people send their kids to a private school.

 

The BBC's output is massive. Even if you didn't boycott certain programmes there is no way anyone could watch and listen to everything the BBC produces for television and radio. So you can boycott the rubbish and still find something worth enjoying.

[llamatron 10]

So you refuse to watch something and as a result the BBC's method of funding should be altered. As long as you don't think the world revolves round your ego. Maybe the council tax system should be abolished because some people send their kids to a private school.

 

The BBC's output is massive. Even if you didn't boycott certain programmes there is no way anyone could watch and listen to everything the BBC produces for television and radio. So you can boycott the rubbish and still find something worth enjoying.

 

the council tax system should be abolished because they are idiots:rant:

[mossdog 10]

As more and more people record all their viewing and skip the adverts, then more and more advertisers will decide to no longer use commercial TV. This source of funding will reduce, leading to poorer quality programming on commercial stations. I hope that the BBC does not follow this route.

Lets face it!...........adverts are worse than the sperm of Satan! good riddance,it's worth the licence fee for the BBC not to show adverts.You think you have arrived in a mental institution when they interrupt a program you are watching...............mind you if you watch Eastenders,you have arrived in a mental institution!