State Broadcaster goes after Elderly poor

[Royal24s]

Yes well that's it isn't it ?
Lineker ticks the boxes politically.
Of course you're right that there are plenty of people who could do it better for a lot less

[kancutlawns]

Zummers, you could say the same about those cunts Rio, Carragher and Neville who know fuck all about anything, can’t talk normal English and have absolutely no track record in coaching and management to speak about. You and I are paying for them taking shite and if anything, they’re getting more money for more screen time.

Why should I pay them? Sky and BT Sport monopolise live football so I have no alternative where I can watch. Also, why the fuck should I watch and listen to ex players of Man U and Liverpool, both of whom I despise?

[kancutlawns]

Yes well that's it isn't it ?
Lineker ticks the boxes politically.
Of course you're right that there are plenty of people who could do it better for a lot less

At least Lineker can string a sentence together. Can’t really say that for the uneducated Northern professional monkeys who are on Sky Sport.

[subsub]

No one is worth that sort of money for talking about football for an hour or two each week during the season, particularly when the BBC are so hard up apparently that they have to stitch up the oldies. I'll give Lineker one thing though, he's not such a big of a cunt as Lewis Hamilton, although it's a close call. I just wonder if you would be backing Lineker if he wasn't a leftie fanny

Not sure why you've steamed in with a gratuitous mention of Hamilton. Bit weird. Still never heard a genuinely valid criticism of Hamilton in this 'ere bailiwick, but let's not go down that road again.

Don't give a toss about Lineker's politics (or him, for that matter). I only watch Match Of The Day occasionally, too. But again you've gone down the simplistic route, describing presenting one of the BBC's flagship shows as 'talking about football for an hour or two each week' – you know there's more to it than that.

[Darkyboy]

Lineker is a decent presenter, but so are Mark Chapman and Jason Mohammad and they earn a damn sight less. I wouldn't go as far as to say anyone can do what Lineker does, but he is not an exceptional talent by any means. And when public money is involved, he is piss-poor value for money.

[Zambo]

No one is worth that sort of money for talking about football for an hour or two each week during the season, particularly when the BBC are so hard up apparently that they have to stitch up the oldies. I'll give Lineker one thing though, he's not such a big of a cunt as Lewis Hamilton, although it's a close call. I just wonder if you would be backing Lineker if he wasn't a leftie fanny

Not sure why you've steamed in with a gratuitous mention of Hamilton. Bit weird. Still never heard a genuinely valid criticism of Hamilton in this 'ere bailiwick, but let's not go down that road again.

Don't give a toss about Lineker's politics (or him, for that matter). I only watch Match Of The Day occasionally, too. But again you've gone down the simplistic route, describing presenting one of the BBC's flagship shows as 'talking about football for an hour or two each week' – you know there's more to it than that.

No, I don't think it is more than that. Lineker is the anchor across the table from the pundits. Yes, he played a lot football and the highest level, but that doesn't mean you are a £1.7m football programme presenter. Playing a lot of football gives you experience of, er playing football. Some of his opinions on match changing incidents during a game make me cringe. Most players would make shite referees for example, so I don't think you can say great player equals great presenter.

The likes of Dan Walker and Mark Chapman haven't played football at all, yet they often do a job equal to Lineker imo, and I bet they don't get paid anywhere near as much for that particular job.

[Hillman avenger]

Fuck off the greys and whites at your peril. They might be old, but there are a lot of them. Boris or whoever is next PM needs to take note.

What are they going to do? Vote for yet more cuts? They've been doing that forever, it was only a matter of time until they got bit in the arse.

The working poor, disabled, unemployed can starve. Just don’t touch their freebies from the government.

There are a large number of 75+ housebound for various reasons, who's lives are mainly a bit of entertaiment on the box. It's a low and it's petty when the BBC could quite easily have covered this internally.

If you are so sure they could have found the £750m internally, and more in the future as the over-75s cohort increases, please tell us how. And it's not enough to say "everyone knows" or tell us again about Fiona Bruce's salary. Tell us where they can find the £750m.

[kancutlawns]

Trim down top management as it’s top heavy, reduce it’s overseas output, send skeleton staff to cover for example top sporting events, reduce the number of channels, reduce the high earning presenters, get them to put their hands in their pockets to subsidise their hotels costs, close down in the middle of the night.

FFS, how hard is it to make strong cuts? You know about economics don’t you? How can you possibly say that a huge, bloated bureaucracy like the Beeb can’t make cuts? Are you a party official in the old Soviet Union?

[Zambo]

Cut some of the crap tv channels and radio stations that no one ever watches or listens to for starters. Check out the National Audit Office report and recommendations for cost cutting. Loads of stuff they could have done before this low and underhand announcement.They could also stop sending teams abroad, when a couple of staff members would to using first class travel and 5 star hotels.

[kancutlawns]

Cut some of the crap tv channels and radio stations that no one ever watches or listens to for starters. Check out the National Audit Office report and recommendations for cost cutting. Loads of stuff they could have done before this low and underhand announcement.They could also stop sending teams abroad, when a couple of staff members would to using first class travel and 5 star hotels.

Exactly. To say it’s not possible to make £750m is rubbish on the extreme. There are ways of reducing expenditure, private companies who are accountable to others have to do this, why but public bodies who pissing our hard earned up the wall?

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

Fuck off the greys and whites at your peril. They might be old, but there are a lot of them. Boris or whoever is next PM needs to take note.

What are they going to do? Vote for yet more cuts? They've been doing that forever, it was only a matter of time until they got bit in the arse.

The working poor, disabled, unemployed can starve. Just don’t touch their freebies from the government.

There are a large number of 75+ housebound for various reasons, who's lives are mainly a bit of entertaiment on the box. It's a low and it's petty when the BBC could quite easily have covered this internally.

If you are so sure they could have found the £750m internally, and more in the future as the over-75s cohort increases, please tell us how. And it's not enough to say "everyone knows" or tell us again about Fiona Bruce's salary. Tell us where they can find the £750m.

Maybe not sending 300 troughguzzlers to the gymnastics might be a start

[The Ghost of Alex Higgins]

Zummers, you could say the same about those cunts Rio, Carragher and Neville who know fuck all about anything, can’t talk normal English and have absolutely no track record in coaching and management to speak about. You and I are paying for them taking shite and if anything, they’re getting more money for more screen time.

Why should I pay them? Sky and BT Sport monopolise live football so I have no alternative where I can watch. Also, why the fuck should I watch and listen to ex players of Man U and Liverpool, both of whom I despise?

Fuckin A. These cunts evaporate my piss

[Hillman avenger]

Trim down top management as it’s top heavy, reduce it’s overseas output, send skeleton staff to cover for example top sporting events, reduce the number of channels, reduce the high earning presenters, get them to put their hands in their pockets to subsidise their hotels costs, close down in the middle of the night.

FFS, how hard is it to make strong cuts? You know about economics don’t you? How can you possibly say that a huge, bloated bureaucracy like the Beeb can’t make cuts? Are you a party official in the old Soviet Union?

BBC World and the World Service are services they committed to the government to deliver.
A lot of their overseas output is profit-making.
How do you know its top management is too much? Tell us how you know.
Reduce channels- they have done. BBC3 only broadcasts now from 7pm
They have cut back on radio channels. Radio One, Two, Four and Five all still have the largest audiences in their segments.
The Today programme alone gets an audience 4 times bigger than Talksport.
What other organisations or businesses expect their employees to subsidise their accommodation when they travel on business?
The whole BBC overnight operation is repeats, and probably employs a handful of technicians,
Again, tell us how you KNOW they could save £750m...what you mention would get nowhere near it.
It's remarkable how people make these judgements and if asked to justify simply list their prejudices.

[Royal24s]

Best thing would be to save 5 or 6 billion by abolishing the thing.
I've been in both the Sky Newsroom and the BBC Newsroom and I can assure you that the latter is much more lavish with several floors of people doing some kind of admin - maybe ten times more staff and everyone gets a taxi in and out. At Sky there are maybe 20 off screen staff.
I've similarly been in both the Talksport and BBC radio studios and the same applies by a factor of 10.

A Sky News Report is done by one reporter , a producer and a film crew in maybe a few hours, but the BBC News equivalent might take months and the whole BBC setup is duplicated in I don't know how many places at the locals .

They could certainly save that figure

[kancutlawns]

Trim down top management as it’s top heavy, reduce it’s overseas output, send skeleton staff to cover for example top sporting events, reduce the number of channels, reduce the high earning presenters, get them to put their hands in their pockets to subsidise their hotels costs, close down in the middle of the night.

FFS, how hard is it to make strong cuts? You know about economics don’t you? How can you possibly say that a huge, bloated bureaucracy like the Beeb can’t make cuts? Are you a party official in the old Soviet Union?

BBC World and the World Service are services they committed to the government to deliver.
A lot of their overseas output is profit-making.
How do you know its top management is too much? Tell us how you know.
Reduce channels- they have done. BBC3 only broadcasts now from 7pm
They have cut back on radio channels. Radio One, Two, Four and Five all still have the largest audiences in their segments.
The Today programme alone gets an audience 4 times bigger than Talksport.
What other organisations or businesses expect their employees to subsidise their accommodation when they travel on business?
The whole BBC overnight operation is repeats, and probably employs a handful of technicians,
Again, tell us how you KNOW they could save £750m...what you mention would get nowhere near it.
It's remarkable how people make these judgements and if asked to justify simply list their prejudices.

Don’t talk down to you as if you have a remarkable insight that the rest of us are not privileged to. I extract the information I am given just as you do and make my own judgments as I too have a brain that enables me to reason for myself. The BBC has for years been reputed to have a bloated management structure where they were sent on MBA programmes and had very generous executive enumerations. You would have heard these accounts yourself and they were well reported from the early 2000- mid 2000s.

That you again do your best Wenger “I did not see it” schtick is breathtaking. Do you really see no way in the how the broadcaster can possibly cut costs? Remarkable.

And what prejudices do you think I have. You have absolutely no idea what my political affiliation, social status or lifestyle is so cut it out with your assumptions of me.

I have previously explained how the costs can be cut. It’s not my problem that you are obstinate in reading and accepting what another poster writes. The Beeb needs to be reformed and it cannot be allowed to continue in it’s present guise. If you think the status quo is fine, explain why and for a change learn to debate.