Jonathon Ross.....18 million??
 

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | BBC stars 'are not paid too much'

From memory this seems to be a yearly thing, that a report comes out on how much the BBC pay their top earners.

To be honest if you can get the salaries being quoted then good on you. However apart from Jonathon Ross's late night show, what else does he do??

Chris Moyles and Terry Wogan may not be everyones cuppa tea, but i'm pretty sure that they do a fair bit more than just their breakfast shows and i suppose justify their salaries.

Ross? well he has me utterly confused on how he has managed to get paid 18 million over 3 years. Still he must be damn good come contract time.

He's average at best. I think he believes his own hype. I lost all respect for him when he said 'I'll f*ck you' to Gwyneth Paltrow. It was embarrasing and not an edifying thing to either say or hear.

I think he is very good but very creepy with female guests, makes my skin crawl sometimes, just seems like a dirty old man when he does that, he did it to Liza Minnelli FFS !

What more? Well, Ross does his radio show, Film2004/5/6/7/8/.... etc.

That's it he doesn't need to be like that. I mean Michael Parkinson didn't need to be lewd during his interviews. He let the guests be centre stage, I think with Wossy it's the other way around.

Well worth 6mil a year? I think not. Push all these high earners out and let the 'cheap' talent through.

Ah right never new he had a radio show. These Film2004/5/6... does he do those in 2008, or does he just do Film2008:wonder: :D

Didn't say he was, just making the point that he does more than just the JR friday evening show.

At the end of the day, it's down to viewing figures and who can get the viewers in. Doesn't really matter what you or I think of him as a presenter, what matters is what the majority think.

I used the like the show but got bored, he's rather sychophantic. Yes it can be more about him than the guests but that's not always a bad thing given some of the guests :D

Yeh replace him with a Polish interviewer. Jonni Roskij!

I say that but not sure if he still does it. Used to be every saturday morning to midday. Often better than the TV show it has to be said.

Yeh my misses was listening to him last Sat. Radio 2 between 11am and 1pm I think.

moyles entertains 6 million? every morning for a couple of hours. a kids party act want over £100 for 90 minutes for one day! so i guess cost per person is small.

Kirsty Young can do all the shows as far as I'm concerned :norty:

Ross- quite a good interviewer but thinks it's so clever to be crude when it's actually puerile. Not worth 1/10th of what he is paid IMHO. dl

Ross is a legend, well worth it IMO. :)

So what if he takes the piss a bit with some celebs, they are not gods!!

Don't really find Jonathan Ross very funny at all. To much "It's all about me".

Not worth £18m by a long way, but good for him if that's what he's negotiated.

Graham Norton on £5m for 2 year contract. Now that is a p1ss take.

Moyles on £630k a year. Money well spent IMO. Best presenter on Radio by far. Can be very funny. Don't really like his interviews much though. Some are good (Gordon Ramsey, Patrick Keeltey) but other are just embarrassing and I can't listen to them (Davina McCall, Osborne's).

If that complete bellend Chris Moyles is worth £630,000, then I think Ross is working pretty cheap.

I like the way that Wossy doesn't treat A listers with deference like other interviewers do, he treats them just like normal people which of course they all are :thumb:

Peoples earnings don't make any sense.

I remember in a few years ago in the top 100 or whatever its called. I got really annoyed when I noticed Jenson Button had earned the same as Jordan (Katie Price)

What the funk as Jordan done to warrant an annual income of IIRC £13M whereas JB at the time was the sole GBer with any hope of winning an F1 race.

Just didn't seem fair or make sense. I find that goes for just about every persons wages irrespective of industry.

Just make the most of it and ride the credit crunch. :)

To be famous and in the eye of the country I would want more than £630k

I would hate to be famous, people poking about in your bins, the press on your back. People following you and invading your privicy.

@ £630k and early mornings ... No thank you

What you have to bear in mind though is that part of that £18m will be his 'cut' of the rather large profits made when his chat show is sold on to other networks around the globe.

If the production company that makes Top Gear (owned by Jeremy Clarkson and Andy Wilman) didn't get to record the footage for their annual DVD alongside the TG shoots, you can bet that their salaries would be up there alongside Ross' too

To be fair to Katie Price, people do say that if you can see past the huge norks, she if a very switched on business woman. Can you think of any other glamour model that has made anywhere as much money as she has?

Good luck to her I say. We'd all like to make the same money. The difference between us and America's is that making money is seen as a good thing in America. All us British do it snipe at those who have made something for themselves. Buy a nice ferrari, and over here some c0ck will key it for you. Why? Jealousy. :mad:

I wouldn't say no to that. £630k for 3 hours work a day. Plus Moyles will get money from voice overs, TV appearences, and I dare bet he's made a decent amount of money from his book. 2nd one out soon.

I have to get up tomorrow morning at 5am and do a 12 hour shift, be in charge of multi million pound machinery and work to a tight deadline. For which I'll be paid £35k pa. Part of my hard earned will go to the recession proofed wages of the likes of Moyles who work in a vast inefficient public sector. I'm not jealous or bitter, but this takes the p1ss a bit when it's a publically funded corp.

Good or not these presenters maybe, the edges of their performance is rather frayed when you realise how much they earn through the public sector. Private sector, I have no issue with high wages. The BBC is such a dominant player in the media they distort market forces of pay.

Yet another example of the public sector bathing in money in times of hardship. Public spending needs to be cut drastically, and the BBC would be an excellent place to start with its £4billion annual budget for near on 30k employees.

In this day and age of multiple channels, and looking at the current output of the BBC, the annual drain to the public purse cannot be justified IMHO.

This makes for a good read:

BBC top 10 talent earners exceed $3.9 mil
30-40 TV, radio stars were paid nearly $2 mil each
By Mimi Turner

June 2, 2008, 05:05 PM

LONDON -- Offering a rare sneak peek into BBC talent fees, the pubcaster disclosed Monday that its top 10 earners each made "well in excess" of 2 million pounds ($3.9 million) in appearance fees last year, while "between 30 and 40" television and radio stars were each paid more than 1 million pounds ($1.9 million) in program fees alone.

Publishing a report into the BBC's talent payments, BBC Trust chairman Michael Lyons said there was "no evidence" that the BBC was paying more than the market price for talent and "no evidence that the BBC is systematically pushing up prices."

The report, by independent consultants Oliver and Ohlbaum, was commissioned last year after mounting concerns that such deals as chatshow host Jonathan Ross' rumored 18 million pounds ($35.4 million) three-year production contract were evidence that the pubcaster was wasting license fee payers' money.

The BBC's commercial competitors, including ITV, also had accused the BBC of bidding up talent payments at a time when an advertising recession meant they were struggling.

You don't HAVE to do anything, this is your life no-one elses - I hate this type of attitude, very prevelant in the UK - if you are not happy then do something about it, if you are annoyed that the BBC pays its top earners a big chunk, then find out how you can get a slice of the cake!!!!

Why didn't you get into radio presenting when you were younger, and work your way up as Moyles has done?

Its no good moaning about your job, you are the one that chooses where and how to work - if you don't like the situation you are in, get yourself out of it. Thats what I did myself years ago, and financially its the best move I ever made - not sure whether I am any happier earning a lot more than what I did back then though. :(

If the money is there, people will go and get it.

So I don't HAVE to pay a tv licence then even if I don't watch the BBC?

Thanks, I'll email the BBC and tell them I don't have to pay my licence anymore :thumb:

As I've said, I'm not jealous or bitter but I do resent paying for an obiviously over funded public sector such as the BBC which I can't opt out of.

If he has managed to negotiate a contract that pays him £18m, then the best of luck to him! Whether he is worth it or not is up for discussion, but someone at the BBC clearly thinks he is (and I'm sure it is linked into the commercial side of the BBC and is indicative of how much he contributes to overseas sales of his shows etc).

And what would happen if the BBC didn't pay it's presenter handsomely? ITV would. We'd then all complain that all the best presenters are on other channels and slate the BBC for losing them.

Look at Match of the day. The BBC lost that to ITV. ITV's version was shockingly sh*te. The BBC then bid enough of our money to get it back on the Beeb. The right place for it to be. I remember they got slated for paying so much. Yet would have been slated for not bidding enough if they hadn't got MOTD back.

They can't win.

You want to listen to or watch the best presenters presenting your favorite shows. It cost money.

Who would you rather listen to? Alan Hansen or Andy bl00dy Townsend?

The BBC have been slated for getting F1 back on the Beeb. Too much money for a small viewer audience. Probably the second most watched sport on the planet after football. If they hadn't taken it up, what would happen then? Channel 4 or nothing at all. Would have to then subscribe to Sky just to watch F1 coverage. Would cost far more than just your licence fee.

Firstly, I don't think they would pay him 18 million, especially if they knew the biggest wage payers in the business were having a cull. Secondly, say he did go to ITV, simply change channels to watch him, not rocket science is it?
I imagine you're on about talkingheads and adverts at halftime when you say coverage is ****e. The on the field coverage is the same as far as I can see, which is what it's all about isn't it? In anycase, the topic was massive pay for BBC presenters not bit time sports events.

I can on any other non BBC cannel. So any presenter not with the BBC is crap?
Neither, I can form my own opinion on a match without a hasbeen player telling me their opinion.

You have a choice to watch it on SKY. Maybe I don't want to watch F1 (nor pay for it) at all along with millions of others, we have no choice.

Break the whole thing off and privatise it.

The BBC is a public service, they shouldn't always be chasing ratings.
I think it's crimanl they keep spending our money on utter sh*te shows, designed purely for high ratings and to publicise musicals nobody cares about.

Hes resonable on a satdy morning radio 2 - dont bother otherwise