Gary Lineker agrees to huge pay cut from his £1.75m BBC salary after fury over axing licences for OAPs.
Ridiculous salary to pay someone to talk about football.
Printable View
Gary Lineker agrees to huge pay cut from his £1.75m BBC salary after fury over axing licences for OAPs.
Ridiculous salary to pay someone to talk about football.
It's probably the going rate for the anchor of a flagship prime time TV show.Quote:
Originally Posted by theonlywayisup
Saying he just talks about football, is like saying Lewis Hamilton just drives cars, or Ussain Bolt is quite good at running
They are paid for being the best at what they do.
I don’t it’s ridiculous. He’s good at what he does, why shouldn’t he be paid. Actors make hundreds of millions for movies, no different. Sure they could get some no mark and pay him £50,000 a year, but the quality will be way down.
Do the bbc pay Gary Linekar more than they pay to Scottish football then?
That used to be said about Alan Hanson, I’ve no idea how much they pay for right to show our highlights now though?
Would be nice to say good on him. Market rates apply to commentators as well as players and managers. If hugely paid players in a time of national crisis... no wait I’m holding my breath. at least in Brasil many of the stars give something back I think it’s called conscious but there’s real problems over there but the gulf between mega rich and poor in this country is widening.Quote:
Originally Posted by theonlywayisup
Should've went and worked for Sky instead. Would have got twice the money.
Good for him. Not a ridiculous salary because they, a massive business, obviously value him highly. He wouldn't be getting payed that much if he didn't earn them much more.
Doesn’t he still work for BT Sport?Quote:
Originally Posted by 500miles
BBC invest less in their whole Scottish football production than they do in Gary Lineker.
It's fair enough that they don't pay "over the odds" for the rights to broadcast the highlights, but spending much. much less on production values, cameras and staff means the highlights programme is very poor compared with MOTD. Put simply It is selling Scottish licence payers short.
All about opinions but I think he's a terrible presenter and that salary is an absolute joke. The amount of times he asks a question then looks away as if checking autocue and not paying attention to the answer. And don't get me started on the time they tried him presenting the Open, his interview of Jack Nicklaus was embarrassing.
I'm sure he'll survive with his BT Sport and Walkers crisps money.
Ridiculous salary. No-one is worth that type of money for doing a job in the entertainment industry. I don't watch MOTD that often but if I do I tape it and then fast forward through the analysis.
Crazy amount of money but they obviously felt he was worth that with respect to the show and it's viewing figures etc...
The problem though is that the BBC ultimately answers to license payers (or should) so it's hard to justify salaries of that amount in today's current climate of equality etc. along with cuts to services. We should honestly abolish the TV License as it's draconian in the face of modern streaming services and other subscription based services.
He’s kind of the face of BBC sport. Can’t see that big a deal tbh.
Dutch Auction time, I'll do the job for £500,000 a year and an appearance on Pointless Celebrities.
Don't think he's ever had an original thought but is a master of stating the bleeding obvious.
He doesn't really state the obvious though, he's not an analyst, he's paid to facilitate the analysts and it's a job he does very well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient hibee
MOTD is probably one of shows that brings in the BBC's highest ratings, so it's main presenter is always going to be well paid.
Gary Lineker is worth every penny. Face facts, more people will tune in for MOTD than will ever watch a Scottish football match on the BBC.
How does he earn them any money?Quote:
Originally Posted by MWHIBBIES
Nobody watched Match of the Day for its presenter. They want to watch the football highlights. The rest is just noise.
Because the things he presents get very high ratings? He definitely contributes positively to the BBC's coffers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven79
You do realise that if a show on the BBC gets no viewers or 20 million they get the same amount of money?Quote:
Originally Posted by MWHIBBIES
You do realise that is absolute rubbish? They sell their shows to other broadcasting companies, the more popular those shows are, the more they sell for.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven79
**** the BBC. Scotland should be getting 8% of the national spend on English football. We get just over £1 million
We should get circa £16million
Why the SFA haven’t called this out is an absolute joke.
Second class citizens and it seems the BBC spend more on Women’s football, cricket and other English sports rather than support the game north of the border
And Lineker has nothing to do with that. You could put a mop in the presenters chair and MOTD would get high ratings. I also don't think they can sell MOTD to anyone else as it's the premier league who have the rights overseas etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWHIBBIES
I can't be doing with sycophants bootlicking someone who gets paid a lot with the They're worth every penny guff. I remember back pre 08 when Goodwin was the apple in the eye of the Edinburgh financial types and being told he was worth every penny.
Im still puzzled at why you guys pay a tv licence, a licence to have a tv, wtf. I buy my tv and then choose a package from a multitude of providers including internet, hundreds of channels including bbc, sports channels that provide live english games, rugby formula 1 and loads of foreign tv. That for 40 euros pm. No licence needed, dont think any other country keeps you hostage for a licence.
They can't sell that show anywhere else in the world as they don't own the rights to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by MWHIBBIES
Please check out the facts before posting absolute drivel...
People watch MoTD for more than just the goals. If the production, presenters and pundits didn't matter then no one would watch it as the highlights are on YouTube.Quote:
Originally Posted by Torto7
Gary Lineker does a very difficult job very well.
We live in a dictatorial state that makes people pay for a service that could well be a subscription service at this point in time to brainwash the masses with their propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil MaGlass
It would make places like the Soviet Union & China look on with envy at this way of state control.
A very difficult job. Geez peace. He's a jug eared goof with crap patter. You could put Eilidh Barbour in as the presenter and she'd do a superior job for a lot less.Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael
Quote:
Originally Posted by Torto7
How much do you think he should be paid?
(As if it's our business)
It's not linkers fault this BBC offered him that much
We would all lap that up if in similar position
Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
I think Lineker is very good at his job. Of course I don't in any way think he is worth his salary. But I don't get the hate he is receiving from some.
Right but high ratings for that show makes their business bigger and stronger, meaning they can make other shows, sell other shows etc. You can seriously believe he makes the BBC no money at all and they earn the same if a program gets no vewiers as if it gets 20 million. Surely you aren't that daft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven79
They also advertise their other shows before and after prime shows like MOTD. I mean, this really isn't difficult to understand.
BBC make a good bit from Linekers talents and he is well compensated.
Surely he would be better accepting the full amount then donate the percentage he was willing to reduce his salary by to help the OAPs to pay their licence. Otherwise the BBC will use the money saved to pay more to some other pundit to talk cr@p. Alan Shearer for one.Quote:
Originally Posted by theonlywayisup
Don't get the BBC haters.
The BBC is brilliant and has always been.
The licence fee has always been a good deal.
BBC TV & Radio produce quality rather than fluff.
All Pay for view, for profit, shareholder, TV is the devil.
People are so short sighted. Can only see today and the deal that is in front of them.
The BBC who brought me the John Peel show, Bob Crampsey, David Begg commentaries, Sportsound, BBC 6 music, great documentaries, Play for Today, Wimbledon, The Open etc.
Sky on the other hand out bid everyone for every sporting event they wanted like a big greedy ****, held us all to ransom, totally ****ed the football market for Scottish football teams and sucked vast sums of money out of our pockets.
If the BBC goes all you have is the worst blood sucking capitalist TV stations.
The massive businesses kill the opposition and then **** everyone up the arse with the"going rate" which brings us back to Lineker.
Gary Lineker is good at what he does but he is overpayed given the honour of being on BBC. Performers always worked for the BBC for reasons other than the money. However, you could easily argue that he is not overpayed if you look at the salaries Gabby Yorath & Claire Balding are paid for ruining sports programmes with their trite uninformed hiya drivel. The late Ron Pickering and the not late Brendan Foster must be disgusted with only Steve Cram now giving athletics the gravitas of presentation the sport deserves.
[QUOTE=CMurdoch;5930028]Don't get the BBC haters.
The BBC is brilliant and has always been.
The licence fee has always been a good deal.
Totally agree - people who complain about it should experience what other countries have - I can't think of many better ways to spend £12 every month.
I think you're getting a bit carried away with yourself here CM.Quote:
Originally Posted by CMurdoch
In the early days the BBC was so good at propaganda that Joseph Goebbels used it as a model for Hitler's Nazi propaganda machine.
You might expect the Corporation to produce some good programming in the near 100 years they've been in existence, particularly so, given that they had a monopoly on the TV screen for so long but I think it's fair to say that they've also produced some amount of guff and, as an aside, the budget they 'give' to Scottish Football is an absolute joke.
With regard to Gary Lineker he is massively overpaid for what he does, whether he does it well or not is not relevant. I don't see people turning off MOTD when it's presented by Dan Walker or anyone else half decent for that matter.
For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to Sky TV but at least I can opt in or out as I please. I have no option with the BBC and genuinely grudge seeing my TV licence fee wasted on former footballers and worse still failed reporters and politicians like Andrew Neil and Micheal Portillo.
I think you have over egged that. Speak to any immigrant and they will tell you what state control is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven79
The very fact you are able to make your claim is evidence enough it isn't as bad as other places and in the world.
This. He was a top class player and a good ambassador for the sport, I've not got any problem with him presenting MOTD although agree that he, like a lot of other celebrities, is overpaid. He doesn't take himself too seriously too, and in my eyes that's a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Barman Stanton
I think we should be allowed to opt out of the bbc programmes and licence fees,it is foisted upon us whether we like it or not.
There is next to nothing on the BBC that interests me or I can't get elsewhere and I haven't watched it in literally years.
I concluded years ago that BBC HQ in England and its subsidiary BBC Scotland reflect Scotland the way they would like it to be rather than the reality of what Scotland is really like.
Linekar is an excellent presenter and an interesting and progressive person but if the BBC makes the choice of paying him £1.7m while paying £2m annually for the rights to Scottish Football then its only fair I also make my own choices regarding paying license fees for owning a TV set.
Its a very weird tax in this day and age and of course totally unenforceable.
I’m actually surprised he doesn’t get paid more.
Probably doubles up on BT.Quote:
Originally Posted by calumhibee1
They could certainly save a load of cash and improve Match of the Day by having insightful sports journalists on alongside Lineker rather than the tedious ex footballers Jenas, Shearer etc who always have me reaching for the fast forward button.Quote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Well said. Dont get me started about BBC salaries. Cant stand Linekar.Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffers
Or how the unbiased bbc took sides during the Scottish referendum. *******sQuote:
Originally Posted by Moody Blues
You pay pennies a day for everything available on the BBC and yet some would rather do away with it so we can watch adverts every ten minutes. It is still by far the best value for money out there. Be careful what you wish for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cx27k4789qdt
'Leaving BBC earlier than expected'. A polite way of saying they sacked him.
He'll walk into a job at SKY or TNT whatever. Don't mind him to be honest, no doubt his inability to keep himself from publicly commenting on what he sees as social injustice didn't help him, and in the current lurch to the right in England that doesn't go down well with the overwhelmingly right wing printed press and the right wing politicians who have influence over BBC funding. Including a current Labour government who seem so terrified of losing voters to the right wing they attempt to appease rather than fight them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
He's been too big for his boots for years that melt.
He was already stepping away from most of his BBC work at the end of the week to dedicate more time to his booming podcast business. The shows he produces seem to be dominating the podcast charts for a range of different interests/topics.Quote:
Originally Posted by NAE NOOKIE
It's farcical that he has been pushed out early.
Many folk were just out to get him and look for anything they can blow up.
Crazy to think this is what happens when you're in the spotlight and speak out against Israel.
Very good pundit, decent guy who lives in a country where you're allowed to have an opinion and freedom of speech h whatever you do for a living.
Will walk into another job if he wants to.
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
Yup. See also the stuff with Kneecap. I'm not saying I agree with what they said about Tory MPs but it was from 2023. Suddenly it's become a huge issue now that they've dared to criticise Israel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatdayinmay16
Fwiw I've not had a license in years and wouldn't dream of giving the BBC any money but I always liked Linekar and they will be seriously worse off without him.
All the folk that are after him are the someone's that moan constantly how you can't say anything anymore because of the wokes. Suddenly Israel come up and it's a different tune.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wembley67
Correct, I dislike Kneecap for other reasons.Quote:
Originally Posted by neil7908
But anyone that speaks out against Israel/Jewish people are instantly called "anti-Semitic" or a "nazi".
It's fine defending his right to freedom of speech if you accept it works both ways. As the former BBC head of sport says in that story how would those defending him feel if instead of pro-Remain and pro-Palestine posts he'd posted in support of Brexit and Israel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bostonhibby
It's his hypocrisy when supposedly standing up for human rights that rankles with me. He was prepared to front the BBC's World Cup coverage from Qatar after all.
Freedom of expression covers it both ways for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
A hypocrite might well seem to take both sides,in my opinion.
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
The BBC let all this long list go... https://www.theguardian.com/media/20...versies-quotesQuote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
He was only finally binned for assaulting a colleague. The difference with Lineker is he has the right wing press against him.
I guess this why none of our BBC reporters address the Sectarianism up here… 🤷
They also hired Andrew Neil who never shied away from giving his opinion and that was never an issue for folkQuote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
If Lineker's views were more right wing, The Sun and Daily Mail wouldn't have been running front pages slagging him off either
Don't actually mind Gary Lineker, at least he has some sort of clue what he's talking about unlike the utter trumpets we get up here (Mikey Stewart anyone?).
Always loved that during Euro 2016 when Lennon was a pundit and halfway through the competition appointed Hibs Manager that Lineker asked him about it and how he was looking forward to managing Hibs live on air.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElginHibbie
100% correct.
The Murdoch media, the Daily Hate and the Torygraph have an agenda against the BBC, they absolutely detest it.
Amplifying outrage against a presenter for having opinions is just a convenient line of attack. If Lineker liked that prick Farage they'd praise him but find a way to attack 'lefty' BBC bosses for curtailing his freedom of speech.
The biggest fans of freedom of speech ever, who love freedom of speech, honest, get another person sacked for saying something they don't like. Funny, that.
I'm not sure that was the case with Neil at the BBC. The only really significant time I recall him going 'off script' was after the Bataclan terrorist massacre, for which he got a lot of plaudits.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElginHibbie
Otherwise he was a ferocious interviewer for sure, but equally capable of putting the boot into politicians from the left or right. And that's the bigger point, he was a political journalist not a sports presenter.
The paltry coverage of that Rangers banner at the last old firm game was pathetic.Quote:
Originally Posted by EdinMike
Daily Mail types will be delighted. Funny how the same rules never applied to Clarkson? Huw Edwards had his pay increased after getting arrested. :rolleyes:
I like Lineker and would largely align with his opinions.
The thing is though - he ruffled feathers, he was controversial and definitely had folk gunning for him. Under such circumstances the tiniest of errors of judgment was always going to be seized upon.
The BBC prefer people to keep quiet and stick to safe subjects. Ultimately they couldn’t wait to get rid of him and I don’t think he can really have many complaints.
I think it's a bit different when public money pays your wages. The man himself admitted he shouldn't have shared it and shown himself up.
I for one am delighted that this woke loudmouth, who had a right cheek to criticise mass genocide and the execution of 10s of thousands of illegal innocent defenseless kids and healthcare workers, is finally off our airwaves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
Tough interviewer or not, he was a senior political journalist who made no secret of his own political affiliations.
The BBC is now run by a bunch of Tories and the double standards are shocking.
Seems to me Jeremy Clarkson could be the best man for the gig, popular establishment figure, popular with a fair slice of the demographic and unlikely to be called out for his non "woke" views.
I'm off to the Holy Ground........
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
It's a shame Lineker wasn't a convicted sex offender.
The BBC have always been nothing but kind to them.
Huw Edwards, Saville & most recently an appearance on the Romanov story podcast/docuseries for Graham Rix.
That company should have been put to the sword a long time ago.
As someone with Jewish heritage in the family, I felt that he crossed a line last week. Anti-Semitism is the oldest form of racism, all too often swept under a cloak of being 'anti-Israel'. He betrayed a (sadly common) lack of historical awareness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Since452
However, as I've mentioned on another thread my bugbear with him was that while he seemed fine with pontificating on the more 'centrist dad' issues of the day like Brexit, he refused to engage when questioned about his silence on biological men undermining women's sport, an issue you'd think as a high-profile sports presenter he might have a opinion worth hearing. Yet when challenged about it on a Q&A on The Rest is Football podcast by Martina Navratilova and others he just said it was 'too nuanced'.
Tweet about the Arab-Israeli conflict, one of the world's longest running and most divisive issues, no problem. But men in women's sport? Way too complex.
I couldn't stand the man I'm afraid, too full of his own importance. Said that he wasn't political but always voicing his opinion on matters nothing to do with football. I always thought that Alan Hanson was a better and more knowledgeable pundit. Grossly overpaid and only got the job because his face fitted at the time and was an establishment figure.
Agree with his politics, can't be bothered with his smugness and arrogance on MotD.
Talk about the football Gary, other than that just STFU.
We've plenty of other people better qualified and with big platforms who can publicise what's going on in Gaza so that we can then carry on ignoring Netanyahu's deranged pogrom.
Footballers really aren't "establishment figures."Quote:
Originally Posted by James70
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thatdayinmay16
:agree:
In this country, that's a big no-no.
Regardless of personal political opinions, BBC are supposed to be an impartial broadcaster, therefore their employees should be. Lineker has failed to be that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
What did Lineker say that was anti-semitic?
:dunno:
Quote:
Originally Posted by James70
Lineker wasn't a pundit, he was the host. Very different role.
This is like criticising Boyle for not being the best centre back in our squad.
He reposted something from a Palestinian activist about Zionism on instagram which had a rat emoji on it. He claims he didn't notice the rat and even if he had he wouldn't have realised it was an antisemitic trope used by the Nazis. However, when made aware he deleted the post and apologised.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens
Thanks, I must have missed that.
:aok:
But noone with a functioning brain genuinely, truly believes Lineker is ACTUALLY anti-Semitic. Thats ludicrous. Its a debate based on distraction and falsehoods, smear and diversion. Looking at and learning about whats genuinely happening and tolerated in that part of the world is so distressing and enough to make you lose your grip on reality, so its hardly surprising distraction and disinformation works.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
The rights or wrongs of retweets aside I don't mind him and respect the fact that he can laugh at himself literally crapping himself on the pitch.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fw088iGTlM
Andrew Neil was, and still is, a right wing zealot and has never disguised it, particularly when he was interviewing anybody left of centre. It's a disgrace that somebody with the very obvious right wing views he had was allowed to host any kind of political programme. As a union official for over 35 years I've never had any respect for the man, he was given a platform to promote his views by the BBC and is now on that right wing garbage otherwise known as GB News, but you're quite right he was never a sports presenter. Apologies by the way, I'm not having a dig at you personally at all and we're all entitled to different points of view obviously, I just hope to God he's not a Hibs fan!Quote:
Originally Posted by He's here!
You're right but I think the reaction of the BBC and parts of its audience are a bit selective in that regard.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul1642
I give you openly tory supporting and everyone's favourite DJ, who did a bit more than DJ'ing Sir Jimmy Saville for example. Never pulled up for his political views, or anything else.
Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk
Spot on in ever point. In my opinionQuote:
Originally Posted by allmodcons
Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Yep, agreed.
What's worse, accidentally re-posting a message that you didn't realise had an offensive meaning (then apologizing when it's pointed out to you)... or bombing, shooting and starving people to death on a daily basis?
While people shouldn't be posting anything anti-semitic or islamaphobic, for some people, it is a really easy/useful distraction from a serious issue.
Yet Jeremy Clarkson could say what wanted and was only sacked when he physically attacked someone because he couldn't have sausages.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul1642
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
He actually saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
"trans people are some of the most persecuted on the planet” in a recent interview, describing the noise created by anti-trans activists around trans inclusion in sports as “too nuanced” for social media discussion.
Nonsense about anti-semitism and
I think you're confused and equating being anti genocidal with being anti-Semitic. He re-posted a video that was anti-Zionist, it included a rat emoticon that is apparently a symbol of anti-semitism ( something I also never knew). He nows says he deeply regretted this (the emoticon).
In your world criticism of the Israeli genocide often contains underlying anti-Semitism. For many of us it seems the opposite, the anti-Semitic line is used too often to try and silence dissenting voices.
If speaking out against the Tories, homophobia, persecution of trans sportspeople, genocide in Palestine, right wing populism and anti-immigration makes you a "centrist dad", then there's no helping you.
Well done to Lineker for having the bawz to stand up for the rights of others and speak out. He's grown further in my estimation
Yep. A long history of voicing right wing sentiments, xenophobia, racism, misogyny and stating striking British workers should be "executed." BBC fine with that. All in jest of course :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Kato
Kept on for 3 weeks after punching a producer and directing anti Irish slurs at him.
Im really trying to keep this on Lineker and not going holy ground, because it’s interesting, but the rat being a ‘symbol’ of antisemitism is a bit simplistic anyway, its used widely in cinema to generate revulsion in the viewer (because we are hard wired to worry about those creatures). The nazis used them in disgusting anti jewish propaganda of the time, but its a cinematic trope used more widely-look at JFK-Oliver Stone uses really Goebells like rat like imagery in the Joe Pesci scene. The use of a rat, or a line from a historical novel for that matter,, isnt a smoking gun that should be a resigning issue for him. And it probably wasnt, he’s probably just sick of the BBC anyway because of his opinion of their Israeli war crime coverage.Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith_M
Whether he's racist or not isn't the issue here (and I don't think anyone seriously things he is either). It's the lazy re-posting of a highly subjective (ie anti-Jewish) view of Zionism accompanied by an offensive Nazi-related emoji, the wisdom of which anyone with a functioning brain should have thought twice about. Epitomises how blase many are about commentary which harms Jews.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Its not an anti-jewish view of zionism, its an anti-zionist view of zionism. Lots of jews abhor zionism, and the state of Israel. If you conflate the two, it’s simple propaganda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hibspur
Anyway, I’ve clearly now failed to keep this on Lineker, and off the politics of mass murder and war crimes, so im out now.
There was one very particular propaganda movie made by Goebbels' which even Hitler thought was beyond the pale. They ended up cutting even more rat footage into the movie. It worked. It worked because propaganda works.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
Sent from my SM-A528B using Tapatalk
Quote:
Originally Posted by superfurryhibby
Public figure uses his public profile to highlight things he perceives (along with many others) to be spoken out against, I don’t see an issue with that.
I don’t believe he knew the symbolism regarding the rat, like you I didn’t either, and he has removed the post and apologised. If he’d posted something with a swastika displayed on it I could understand the furore about this, as it is it feels more like an easy way for the right wing to further criticise him, and ultimately leading to him leaving his role prematurely.
Only in its weaponised form.Quote:
Originally Posted by hibsbollah
And while many Jews support a two-state solution it doesn't mean they abhor the idea of a Jewish homeland.