BBC reveals best paid stars. Is Chris Evans worth £2.3m?

  • Chris Evans has topped the list of the BBC's best-paid stars.

    He made between £2.2m and £2.25m in 2016/2017, while Claudia Winkleman was the highest-paid female celebrity, earning between £450,000 and £500,000.

    About two-thirds of stars earning more than £150,000 are male, compared to one-third female, according to the BBC annual report.


    So, Chris Evans gets paid £2.2m for presenting a radio programme and for a failed tv car show. Claudia Winklemen gets paid for a dancing show and film review show, of course these earth shattering skills need to be rewarded with such generous pay, don't they...?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I wonder how much they were paying Susanna Reed (BBC Breakfast) to demonstrate that she had no brain?

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • Graham Norton and Vanessa Feltz <X

    There, in a mauve light of drifted lupins,

    They hung in the cupped hands of mountains

    Made of tingling atoms.- Ted Hughes


  • I wonder how much they were paying Susanna Reed (BBC Breakfast) to demonstrate that she had no brain?

    I know a BBC News channel female presenter said she got a £70k basic pay, so as Reid fronted the far more high profile breakfast programme, I am sure it was in excess of £100k.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Graham Norton and Vanessa Feltz <X

    Don't be rude LW. They're "talent" you know. They're worth every penny and must be worshipped for all the qualities they bring to British broadcasting.:S:rolleyes:

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I would love to be at the BBC today when the likes of Andrew Neil read that others like Huw Edwards get double their what they receive. Or, how about the Strictly panel.... that'll be a bun fight! Why do Len and Bruno get more than the others? They do exactly the same job.


    All the papers this morning have picked up on the massive pay gap between genders. Now, here we were all thinking that the BBC was liberal and left leaning and treated everyone equally. Rubbish!

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Don't be rude LW. They're "talent" you know. They're worth every penny and must be worshipped for all the qualities they bring to British broadcasting.:S:rolleyes:

    I know, I should be more aware of greatness. I am a worm.

    There, in a mauve light of drifted lupins,

    They hung in the cupped hands of mountains

    Made of tingling atoms.- Ted Hughes


  • Former BBC China editor Carrie Gracie has said she is "very angry" about the way the BBC has treated some female members of staff.

    The presenter, who resigned from her post earlier this month in protest at pay inequality, was giving evidence to a committee of MPs.

    Although the question of pay at the BBC started in July of last year, the story has not gone away and this latest episode today is the newest chapter in this long running saga.


    I spent most of the afternoon watching this, so a "few" thoughts here.


    The lady is claiming sex discrimination because as China editor she is paid far less than her male colleague who works as the BBC's editor in America. His name is Jon Sopel.


    The BBC's response to that was that they are totally different jobs. While her job is mainly to do features on China, Sopel's job is much more demanding, like a treadmill and comparable to their UK political editor as there is so much going on in America of interest to us.


    The BBC's boss Tony Hall went on to explain that he promoted her to current position and he will ensure that there are many more women in senior positions at the BBC in the future. But is this a case of chickens come home to roost here?


    Rather than hiring people based on ability, the BBC is purposely discriminating by employing women (or whatever it happens to be..) and now it's come back to bite them.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Chris Evans has announced he will be leaving the Radio 2 breakfast show after eight years at the helm, and 13 years at the station.

    "I'm going to leave. I'm leaving Radio 2," he told listeners, but promised he'd stay on air until Christmas.

    Explaining the decision, he said: "Some of us are mountain climbers [but] if you get to the top of your favourite mountain and you stay there, you become an observer.

    "I want to keep climbing."

    He may say he wants to keep "climbing," but after last year's pay scandal that BBC "stars" are getting excessive amounts of pay, exceeding what they would get elsewhere, I can't help but think that Evan's departure is linked.


    Has he stepped down before he was pushed out?

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I don't know, and don't particularly care, but there isn't a TV presenter alive that is worth an annual £2.3m of licence payers money.

  • If Virgin is paying Evans millions, then good luck to him, as long as we don't have to fund his lavish lifestyle anymore.


    The presenters on the news channel, not the high profile ones, just the ones who do the day and night shifts, get well over £100k. It's totally out of control.


    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • If Virgin is paying Evans millions, then good luck to him, as long as we don't have to fund his lavish lifestyle anymore.


    The presenters on the news channel, not the high profile ones, just the ones who do the day and night shifts, get well over £100k. It's totally out of control.


    The thought of Kay Burley getting this sort of money makes me feel sick!

  • I'd imagine Queen Kay would probably get far, far more than £100k, but that's nothing to do with the BBC which is what I meant. Although, regardless of broadcaster, anyone getting £100k or more for reading from a autoscript is ridiculous.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Our dustmen and nurses should get paid the same amount as Chris. Not just because that's only fair but also because the dustmen are having to clear away the rubbish that Chris creates and the nurses are having to tend to us when Chris's salary makes us sick

    Now called casablanca.

  • I don't care what Virgin pay him, that's their business although it is around the £1.5m he was getting at the beeb. Even that's a pay cut to his salary last year which was well north of £2m, but that included payment for his top gear presenting too.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • BBC salaries: Outrage as stars pay rises 10 per cent just weeks after licence fee axed

    The BBC have today announced their 2019 salary list which shows the top earners at the corporation.


    Gary Lineker tops the list with a whopping £1.75million wage, which hasn’t changed since last year.

    However, there has undoubtedly been a rise in payment out to some stars.

    BBC director general Tony Hall confirmed the total talent bill had risen by £10million, however, he argued that it was a smaller proportion of total programming costs.

    Hey, good timing by the beeb coming shortly after their announcement that they're cutting the free license fee for the over 75s.... but hey, that gigantic force in sports tv, Mr Personality himself, Gary Lineker, is worth every penny...:rolleyes:

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • I can't stand Lineker, and I'm not that keen on Chris Evans ... but what do I know??????? I, and others, just pay the licence fee.

  • Of course we watch Match of the Day for the wonderful Lineker presentation. It makes my day.:P


    Definitely old boy network, or lefty network.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • These figures that the BBC has been forced to release are only the tip off the iceberg: They omit often much larger sums paid to the same "stars" and many others through their services companies from commercial part of the BBC.


    More paymenst revealed on link above.

    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • It's why I think some people like Andrew Neil and his his politics programmes are getting dumped, as the BBC don't want to disclose what they get paid as they're technically self-employed.

    If my post is in this colour, it is a moderator decision. Please abide by it.

  • Seems the BBC's largesse doesn't end with the celebrities:


    History is much like an Endless Waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever.

    4312-gwban-gif

    If my post is in this colour  it is moderation. Take note.

  • I wouldn't mind who the BBC employs or how much they pay except for the fact that over three quarters of their income of nearly 5 billion comes from the general public and that this fee is unrelated to whether and how much one chooses to view or listen to the BBC. At present the only licence fee exemptions are being 75 years & over or not having the means to receive BBC TV (through a TV or a computer).


    Strictly speaking the BBC is not nationalised but a Royal Charter. This, in theory, means it can operate independently of Government but, in practice, the existence and price of the licence is dependent on consent of Government. So with the Government controlling over 75% of the BBC's lifeline and with practically every household in the country having to pay for that lifeline, the BBC becomes to all intents & purposes a nationalised corporation.


    We once had to pay through our taxes for British Rail, even if we chose not to travel by train. Many of us are indifferent or at least not enraged now Britain's rail system is privatised. I think that's because we still have the choice on whether to travel by rail. Those who have little or no choice eg rail commuters are up-in-arms because they are captive users being taken advantage of by negligent service and exploitative prices.


    In the case of the BBC practically all of us are being taken advantage of by having to pay for a service even if we don't want it and even if we think it substandard compared with other TV broadcasters which offer a basic pack of programmes free of charge (eg Freeview) and charge a price only if we choose to pay for additional programmes or packages. With that formula, where I pay for what I view rather than pay a blanket licence fee, why should I care whether the BBC pay a fortune to a talent-less creep. The price a truly commercially independent the BBC paid for that creep will be justified by whether it can make a satisfactory profit from that hiring. It would be entirely their business and none of my business.


    I think Chris Evans is just one example of how the BBC fritters away the money of involuntary tax payers rather than voluntary investor shareholders. The BBC has considerable assets, a worldwide top class reputation and a massive audience. Even if they might not have enough heft amidst today's broadcasting giants there are numerous possibilities for mergers, acquisitions and partnerships that can launch the BBC into a real world rather than remaining within the safe, cosy extravagance of Government ownership, sailing under a false flag of independence.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member to leave a comment.