talkFORUM

Spot on Kankers. This high horse routine is pathetically tedious.

Confirmed today that if you cut back everyone in the BBC's whose salary is £150k or above it would save £25m.
The amount in this debate is £750m
So for all the piss and wind, as ever the know-nothings have no argument.
As for the "bloated management " explain that to us. If you know, you must have details . I have asked before.
As for staff doing MBAs that's common in large organisations, and actually intended to improve things.
Go have a look at how much is paid, how much is spent on perks and development, in business organisations of the same scale and you will see the BBC is actually quite modest.
Its DG earns just over half a million. If it was industry a job of that scale would be well over £1m

Have you an independent source of your news? I would be keen on assessing this so I can make my own judgment unless you feel you are the only person allowed to comment. It like Prada and the Soviet State Agency with you.

Hillman avenger wrote:Confirmed today that if you cut back everyone in the BBC's whose salary is £150k or above it would save £25m.
The amount in this debate is £750m
So for all the piss and wind, as ever the know-nothings have no argument.
As for the "bloated management " explain that to us. If you know, you must have details . I have asked before.
As for staff doing MBAs that's common in large organisations, and actually intended to improve things.
Go have a look at how much is paid, how much is spent on perks and development, in business organisations of the same scale and you will see the BBC is actually quite modest.
Its DG earns just over half a million. If it was industry a job of that scale would be well over £1m

They could find the £750 m without any problem whatsoever. They probably waste more than that in three months.

kancutlawns wrote:Have you an independent source of your news? I would be keen on assessing this so I can make my own judgment unless you feel you are the only person allowed to comment. It like Prada and the Soviet State Agency with you.

I always had you down as a man who takes pride in his appearance

How much does the state sponsored broadcaster take in each year?

If you opt out, do they leave you alone or do they threaten and harass you?

Hillman avenger wrote:Confirmed today that if you cut back everyone in the BBC's whose salary is £150k or above it would save £25m.
The amount in this debate is £750m
So for all the piss and wind, as ever the know-nothings have no argument.
As for the "bloated management " explain that to us. If you know, you must have details . I have asked before.
As for staff doing MBAs that's common in large organisations, and actually intended to improve things.
Go have a look at how much is paid, how much is spent on perks and development, in business organisations of the same scale and you will see the BBC is actually quite modest.
Its DG earns just over half a million. If it was industry a job of that scale would be well over £1m

I told you in my previous post , in which I compared it to sky , that money is wasted in every possible way at the BBC . Huge un necessary staffing levels and production costs etc etc

I don't really care much to what some presenters earn; generally, it is lower than their counterparts on commercial TV.

What my gripe is that no matter what streaming service (Prime, Now, Netflix - that I know have) that they have loads of BBC content I can only presume as earning them a great deal of revenue. The BBC have missed a trick in not charging for the content available on their Player

A simple solution to their TV licence and costing problems would be to have a different cost for various accesses.

The Standard cost would be what you can see or hear live, and anything else and also the vast amount of series, documentaries etc lying on their shelves doing nothing are charged at a monthly subscription in the same manner as the streaming services mentioned.

They do charge for providing material to other channels.
And there are some, like Dave, that wouldn't exist without it.

Zambo wrote:

Hillman avenger wrote:Confirmed today that if you cut back everyone in the BBC's whose salary is £150k or above it would save £25m.
The amount in this debate is £750m
So for all the piss and wind, as ever the know-nothings have no argument.
As for the "bloated management " explain that to us. If you know, you must have details . I have asked before.
As for staff doing MBAs that's common in large organisations, and actually intended to improve things.
Go have a look at how much is paid, how much is spent on perks and development, in business organisations of the same scale and you will see the BBC is actually quite modest.
Its DG earns just over half a million. If it was industry a job of that scale would be well over £1m

They could find the £750 m without any problem whatsoever. They probably waste more than that in three months.

Show us how then.
If you are so sure
Try facts not just another list of opinions.
£750m represents 20% of their costs.

Hillman avenger wrote:They do charge for providing material to other channels.
And there are some, like Dave, that wouldn't exist without it.

What purpose does Dave actually serve if you’re not into endless repeats of Top Gear, that twat Romesh or other worthless crap?

Hillman avenger wrote:Confirmed today that if you cut back everyone in the BBC's whose salary is £150k or above it would save £25m.
The amount in this debate is £750m
So for all the piss and wind, as ever the know-nothings have no argument.
As for the "bloated management " explain that to us. If you know, you must have details . I have asked before.
As for staff doing MBAs that's common in large organisations, and actually intended to improve things.
Go have a look at how much is paid, how much is spent on perks and development, in business organisations of the same scale and you will see the BBC is actually quite modest.
Its DG earns just over half a million. If it was industry a job of that scale would be well over £1m

What did sending their staff on MBAs do to actually ‘improve things’? MBAs are generally worthless qualifications that makes anyone who does them think they’ve achieved something as opposed to for example doing an engineering, Computer Science or more worthwhile technical degree.

Do you actually know how much it costs to send someone on an executive MBA programme over say a 3-5 year part time basis?

They do charge for providing material to other channels.
And there are some, like Dave, that wouldn't exist without it.

kancutlawns wrote:

Hillman avenger wrote:Confirmed today that if you cut back everyone in the BBC's whose salary is £150k or above it would save £25m.
The amount in this debate is £750m
So for all the piss and wind, as ever the know-nothings have no argument.
As for the "bloated management " explain that to us. If you know, you must have details . I have asked before.
As for staff doing MBAs that's common in large organisations, and actually intended to improve things.
Go have a look at how much is paid, how much is spent on perks and development, in business organisations of the same scale and you will see the BBC is actually quite modest.
Its DG earns just over half a million. If it was industry a job of that scale would be well over £1m

What did sending their staff on MBAs do to actually ‘improve things’? MBAs are generally worthless qualifications that makes anyone who does them think they’ve achieved something as opposed to for example doing an engineering, Computer Science or more worthwhile technical degree.

Do you actually know how much it costs to send someone on an executive MBA programme over say a 3-5 year part time basis?

I do.
I have done it.
It took 2 years and there was a definite improvement in our management standards.
It also helped us retain young promising managers.
It is widely done by big companies, and the cost per place is way less than the recruitment cost of replacing someone.

Yes I know all that. Was it self funded? How did it improve you? One has to ask if it’s worth the investment sending someone on a £28k programme to send someone who then comes back thinking they’re some Billy Big Bollocks to them make a number of positions redundant.