A 'very grim' meeting

Roadster44

Active Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2004
Messages
269
Location
Greater Detroit Area, MI USA
Car(s)
2007 VW GTI
I'm not bothered by what people derive from my avatar...I was browsing gifs, found this one to be mildly amusing and threw it on here without thinking twice about it.

Dr_Grip, no worries on your bit of personal attack, but Plissken is right. I've looked into BLF, it's not the same thing by far and large.
 
Last edited:

Doctor Blade

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
600
Location
SE US of A!
Car(s)
92 Nissan Sentra XE (of Doom!)
I don't think he's in danger of going bankrupt.
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,969
Location
HEL
Car(s)
79 Opel Kadett|72 Ford Country Sedan|92 Volvo 945
It isn't. It really isn't.

Actually, that's beside the point. Point is that the BBC has a steadier source of income than a privately-funded broadcaster who depends on advertising.

That does not mean that the BBC does not have one of the best original program selection in the world and i can't figure a way any other broadcaster, private or public, could compete against them, simply due to their unmatched quality. It does not mean that i do not think the BBC does deserve this money. Both from a media theoretical point and as a film worker i am all for public broadcasters.

All i tried to say is that from my POV this salary rule makes a lot of sense, no matter how good or bad ITV's program is.

Nevertheless, even if its beside the point, it's clearly stated here that:

House of Lords 2nd Report of Session 2005-06 said:
In January 2006 the Office of National Statistics re-classified the licence fee as a tax.
 
Last edited:

Ferrari_Freak

Well-Known Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2008
Messages
768
Location
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Car(s)
Specialized Allez Elite :)
I have trouble believing that it's a grim situation seeing as their salaries are so high as it is. Even a 40% cut leaves them dozens of times higher than the average salary.
 

MWF

Now needs wood
Joined
May 29, 2008
Messages
28,283
Location
MWF HQ, Ukadia
Car(s)
MX-5 1.8i Indiana SE, update pending
I know it's a broadcast license fee, but as it's mandatory it's more or less the same...

You may be right in that it's mandatory, but that doesn't detract from the fact the Plissken is correct in stating that the quality from the commercial broadcasters in the UK, particularly ITV which is the largest of them all, has been in sharp and steady decline for a long time.

Even the Average Joe and the working class here in the UK are getting far more sophisticated and with the advent of multi-channel TV via satellite and cable plus the internet, programming aimed at the lowest common denominator is no longer a viable business model which is why ITV has been hardest hit as it has completely failed to evolve and follow the tastes of the nation. It's a Vauxhall channel in a world where people aspire to and can afford BMW.

The BBC on the other hand while being a "volume manufacturer" is a VAG channel - it's output is varied enough to appeal to all tastes and budgets (think Skoda, VW, Audi, Seat) but it manages to maintain the quality of product across a broad spectrum of choice thus retaining it's already solid reputation while growing its market share.

Media analysis in a petrolhead friendly format courtesy of Mineworksfine Enterprises. If you have enjoyed this presentation please click on the plus sign to your left and follow the instructions on the screen.
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
I am a massive supporter of the BBC, and the idea that it should cut wages simply because the opposition cannot compete appalls me almost as much as the misreporting of presenter salaries. The oft-quoted figure for Ross of ?18m covers everything, from his Radio 2 show, his chat show, Film XX and everything else. It also covers the cost of production, so actually pays several more salaries, equipment, studio time etc etc.

It would not surprise me if Clarksons quoted salary was the same, covering the cost of TG, plus taking a rather large chunk out for stuff like the books, magazines, DVDs and sales overseas.

Why is this the situation? Because the last Government insisted on it, and John Birt brought in market forces and outsourcing of production.

The BBC ebbs and flows and it has been doing well for a few years, despite continually getting threatened with funding cuts because it has upset the Government of the day. It also faces the problem that in the commercial space, the opposition is so incredibly bad.

The BBC had a massive hit with Life on Mars, and sold it to the States. Channel 4 turned it down. Men Behaving Badly was a massive hit. ITV had decided not to renew it. Little Britain was a massive hit, because Lucas and Walliams had had time invested in them by the BBC, with a couple of series on radio, before a TV show on a niche channel so that they got it right. ITV yanks shows off the air after two episodes. Channel 4 is flogging the 10th series of Big Brother, a horse so dead that even the skeleton has turned to dust.

Complaining that the BBC is harming ITV is like complaining that England beat Andorra 6-0. What they hell are they supposed to do - play with 9 men just to make it a competitive game?
 
Last edited:

be-ach

Active Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2009
Messages
233
Location
Calgary, or Winnipeg Canada
Car(s)
bus pass... yay university. i miss my nissan
Britain really seems to hate rich people. The resentment people with money get there is way more then in N.A. People who make a lot of money usually worked to get to the point where they can, and even if they had an easier start in life, why should they feel guilty about it? I think the reaction these pay cuts is going to get is going to be predictably "About damn time," which really annoys me. Sorry for the mini-rant.

Anywho, more on topic, I'm sure all three of the guys will stay on. i mean it's not as if any other network is going to be able to pay more. Also does anybody know when their contracts are up?
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
Nah, we don't hate rich people.

We do, however, enjoy putting people up on pedestals and then trying to knock them off for being on pedestals.
 

Dr_Grip

Made from concentrate
Joined
Jul 8, 2008
Messages
14,969
Location
HEL
Car(s)
79 Opel Kadett|72 Ford Country Sedan|92 Volvo 945
I give it to you that maybe that mandatory pay cut is not the best idea ever... i don't know how bad ITV is. Of course the risk that the BBC's staff falls victim to the private broadcasters failiure is in this rule, too... i did not see that at first.

But it's still a tax.
 

flydiscovery

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2009
Messages
3,972
Location
US
Car(s)
2013 Hyundai Elantra GLS
Well, the fact of the matter is people budget for the income they expect and RIGHTLY so. This includes mortgage payments (and you can't just sell and get out these days), car payments, school tuition, etc. All are things committed to prior to the news of a severe salary cut. Do I feel really sorry for someone who may have to drive the same XC90 for 3 years instead of 3 months? Not particularly. Would I be upset if I were in that position? Yes and justifiably so. That's a BIG percentage cut in expected income. It's hard enough to find people who are living squarely within their means, whatever those means are, but do you really expect someone is living 40% below their means simply because their means are large? That doesn't seem logical to me. I'm sure these people, if they've been given sound financial advice, will manage just fine but it's not just water off a duck's back ya know.
 

Plissken

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 26, 2005
Messages
1,404
Nevertheless, even if its beside the point, it's clearly stated here that:

(Quote messed up, that the ONS classified the licence fee as a tax.)

Interesting. I didn't notice that one. However, the next paragraph states that the Lords themselves do not agree with the decision, and set out a number of reasons why.

It also states that only the ONS call it a tax for the purpose of National Accounts and collating statistics and the rest of the Government (i.e. the Treasury) does not see it that way.
 
Last edited:

jenna42

Active Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2008
Messages
206
Location
Scotland
There's actually support for Jeremy in the Daily Mail today - Richard Littlejohn's column:-

"As I've argued before, Clarkson is worth every penny of whatever they pay him. Unlike some other stars, he's self-financing. Top Gear, a brilliant format created by Clarkson and his oppo Andy Wilman, earns the BBC millions of pounds in overseas sales.

Clarkson could have defected to America, where he would have been paid more in a month than he earns here in a year, but he decided to stay loyal both to Britain and the BBC. And, even in their current parlous financial states, ITV and Channel 4 would break the bank to poach to him. I doubt that applies to any other of BBC Television's big names, Jonathan Ross included."
 

veyya

Not A Dude
Joined
Nov 23, 2008
Messages
60
Location
Aus
Car(s)
Learning in... My dad's Holden Vectra. Um...
I reckon Clarkson's pretty much set up for life, only doubt to that would come from when he was mentioning that his money had vanished with his bank the other year. His talent, though, for what he's built up, is pretty much amazing. Plus let's look at what he does - works amazingly hard to get things going, but then he also gets to go have all that fun and access to POWAAAAH etc, etc. It's probably give and take a lot, I admire him for the fact that he actually did get this empire up and running, and now he's reaping the rewards for it.
And if the BBC has to cut costs, then they need to. I'm not from the UK, though, so I probably can't comment too well.
 
Top