Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Lord Hall Hall on BBC women
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
andrew |
JK2006 wrote:
And Andrew you reflect the public - which hates people making lots of money whilst simultaneously admiring them. At the same time they hate the BBC - prompted by the media which resents the extra advantage the BBC has - no tax to pay; licence fee money - which means they don't depend on advertising or making decent, commercial programmes. This is outrageous and means the publishers and owners like Murdoch and Rothermere actually have to produce decent commercial product to survive. And presenters, like footballers, get paid huge sums. It's called Capitalism and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Like Communism. The one certainty is that, as time progresses, survivors and strategists rise to the top and they are invariably useless at everything except saving their own skin. So they come up with protecting excuses like "we need more women in top jobs" or blacks or gays or paedos - whichever minority falls into favour this month. Instead of "we want the best and are prepared to pay for them". And naturally don't know who is best so end up falling for the best self salesmen - like Chris Evans.
So whom do I admire and nearly all BBC output is crap to me and so is the radio. TSM is also on YouTube along with live cricket watched a good match MCC vs Afghanistan some thing that BBC could afford easily broadcast via the red button.
Why don't BBC work with Cricket Ireland if they don't want to enter a bidding war with SKY or BT for ECB rights ?
They could in theory bought the rights for upcoming Nations League which should be FTA not on a pay wall.
If they didn't piss away money on crap presenters and over paying them, then maybe they could be healthy competitors for sports. ITV have are showing pre season football whilst BBC are showing more niche stuff that should be on Front Runner. |
|
JK2006 |
And Andrew you reflect the public - which hates people making lots of money whilst simultaneously admiring them. At the same time they hate the BBC - prompted by the media which resents the extra advantage the BBC has - no tax to pay; licence fee money - which means they don't depend on advertising or making decent, commercial programmes. This is outrageous and means the publishers and owners like Murdoch and Rothermere actually have to produce decent commercial product to survive. And presenters, like footballers, get paid huge sums. It's called Capitalism and sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Like Communism. The one certainty is that, as time progresses, survivors and strategists rise to the top and they are invariably useless at everything except saving their own skin. So they come up with protecting excuses like "we need more women in top jobs" or blacks or gays or paedos - whichever minority falls into favour this month. Instead of "we want the best and are prepared to pay for them". And naturally don't know who is best so end up falling for the best self salesmen - like Chris Evans. |
|
andrew |
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
andrew wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I also find it amazing that so many presenters are not employees of companies. Why on earth not? Surely the legal tax repercussions are enormous for them.
Clever loopholes and lawyers.
Why is Gary on a 2.4 million salary (or whatever) when he just talks about the highlights reel ?
Why dont I recognise half of these people I am paying for?
I was gloating to myself when I saw the news about this and thought I'm glad I'm not paying towards their salaries. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
andrew wrote:
JK2006 wrote:
I also find it amazing that so many presenters are not employees of companies. Why on earth not? Surely the legal tax repercussions are enormous for them.
Clever loopholes and lawyers.
Why is Gary on a 2.4 million salary (or whatever) when he just talks about the highlights reel ?
Why dont I recognise half of these people I am paying for? |
|
andrew |
JK2006 wrote:
I also find it amazing that so many presenters are not employees of companies. Why on earth not? Surely the legal tax repercussions are enormous for them.
Clever loopholes and lawyers.
Why is Gary on a 2.4 million salary (or whatever) when he just talks about the highlights reel ? |
|
|
|
