Gary Linekar - Presenter

[Colbro]

Don't really understand what people's problem is with these salaries.

Like RC has said, if he's turned down better offers, maybe the likes of ITV and Sky should reveal their wage plan too. Might be an eye-opener.

Sky and ITV can pay what they like to their presenters. They are privately owned and only have to justify themselves to their shareholders

The BBC is funded by license payers money - which as far as I am concerned is a form of tax - something we have to pay whether we like it or not to have a TV...

In Lineker's case, sure, you can argue over whether or not he's a decent presenter and the best man for the job, but the BBC think he is.

The BBC may think he is - It doesn't mean I have to agree with them

No doubt the BBC could get someone cheaper to present it, and it's possible they may even do a better job of it. But then I dare say the same could be said about a lot of us in our jobs too.

I agree. There is no doubt the BBC could employ a perfectly adequate replacement. If you look down the list of payments they are paying to their presenters of other sports they could be paying £300K - or even less for someone to do the job.

So is Gary really SIX times better

Maybe Sky or ITV may think so - If the advertisers would pay a premium for their advertising on a programme hosted by him

BBC though are funded by the license payers i.e. US

Don't really understand what people's problem is with these salaries.

And that is the problem I personally have with the salary given to Gary Lineker - although I admit that I am probably in a tiny minority who really don't like the bloke

 

[rcgills]

Sky and ITV can pay what they like to their presenters. They are privately owned and only have to justify themselves to their shareholders

The BBC is funded by license payers money - which as far as I am concerned is a form of tax - something we have to pay whether we like it or not to have a TV...

Just leaving Gary Lineker aside for one minute, do you think that the BBC in general produces programmes worth watching? Obviously no-one's going to like everything they do, they have to cater for all tastes, but presumably for most people, there's something on the BBC that's worth watching. If you want the BBC to be able to keep on producing things worth watching, they need to be able to remain competitive, which means that like it or not, what Sky or ITV pay is relevant. They need to be able to offer salaries for those who they consider to be the best talent to ensure they don't go off to Sky/ITV/wherever.

The BBC may think he is - It doesn't mean I have to agree with them

No, you don't have to agree with them. But nor do they really have to care too much for your opinion. No presenter is going to be universally popular, but they're the ones in charge, and they think he's the man for the job. Disagree? What are you going to do, write a letter to Points of View (is that still going?)

I agree. There is no doubt the BBC could employ a perfectly adequate replacement. If you look down the list of payments they are paying to their presenters of other sports they could be paying £300K - or even less for someone to do the job.

So is Gary really SIX times better

From their point of view, Lineker's probably seen as a pretty safe choice. Who are you going to take from further down the list? Alan Shearer? Adrian Chiles? Sue Barker? Look what happened to Top Gear when they thought they could carry on the programme with different presenters. Why risk rocking the boat unnecessarily when they've got a presenter who's shown he can handle the job?

And that is the problem I personally have with the salary given to Gary Lineker - although I admit that I am probably in a tiny minority who really don't like the bloke

And that's part of the problem. It shouldn't be about your opinion specifically on Gary Lineker. You don't like him, others do, no problem. It should be about looking at the bigger picture of the BBC as a whole, and whether you want them to be able to compete with ITV and Sky in offering quality programmes. Obviously if you don't think they offer any quality programmes then that's a whole different argument.

 

[Colbro]

The one question you avoided RC was do you think Gary is worth six times more than what they could be paying?

It requires a one word answer but I don't think I will get one from you

AND it is different because SKY and ITV are privately funded - the BBC is not and WE (OK maybe not you in Spain but you get my drift) pay for him

I think no - but if I am in the minority - and the majority of the license payers think he is value for money and that when he is presenting he enhances their enjoyment of watching football by the premium being paid - then I will accept I am in the minority

So - Is Gary Lineker so good that "you" think he is worth - not so much the money - but the six times premium - he is paid by the UK license payers ?

If so please say so - and we can then just agree to disagree

 

[rcgills]

To be honest Colbro, I tend to just agree to disagree with you before I even read what you write, 9 times out of 10 I find it saves time.

Not being the head of the BBC, my opinion is as irrelevant as yours (in fact, not being a UK licence payer, my opinion is probably even more irrelevant than yours), but for the record, you've not answered my question. Who from that list are we talking about? Alan Shearer? Yes, I reckon Lineker's probably worth 4 times more than him. Adrian Chiles? From what I remember he got slated last time he presented football (was it the World Cup on ITV?). Sue Barker? If we're talking MOTD, yes. If we're talking, for example, SPOTY, then no.

So, who would you replace him with for somewhere in the region of 300k a year?

 

[Colbro]

To be honest Colbro, I tend to just agree to disagree with you before I even read what you write, 9 times out of 10 I find it saves time.

But you choose to argue with me here

So, who would you replace him with for somewhere in the region of 300k a year?

Jon Inverdale
Mark Chapman
Jason Mahommed
Claire Balding
Dan Walker
Gabby Logan
Steve Rider
Kirsty Gallagher
Manish ..
Jake Humphrey

And That is just off the top off my head

Who could be worse

Colin Murray

The one question you avoided RC was do you think Gary is worth six times more than what they could be paying?

It requires a one word answer but I don't think I will get one from you

I was right - Wasn't I

You couldn't give a one word answer

 

[rcgills]

Jon Inverdale - 2 words, Marion Bartoli
Mark Chapman - no idea who he is
Jason Mahommed - ditto
Claire Balding
Dan Walker - again, no idea who he is
Gabby Logan - not bad, nowhere near as good an option as Lineker though
Steve Rider - has he not retired yet?
Kirsty Gallagher - no
Manish .. - the bloke who did the Football League highlights programme? Are you fucking kidding me, he's one of the worst presenters out there
Jake Humphrey - no idea who he is

Next

 

[Colbro]

In other words you think Lineker IS worth the money

If so

Well then lets agree to disagree

it also means that you would watch MOTD on Saturday - because Gary is presenting

but you would not watch motd2 on Sunday

because you had never heard of the guy presenting it

To be honest Colbro, I tend to just agree to disagree with you before I even read what you write, 9 times out of 10 I find it saves time.

 

[rcgills]

I imagine he's probably paid the going rate for a presenter of his background (former England captain, 3rd highest scorer in their history), with his presenting experience, on a programme like that. I don't think he's "worth" the money. But that's a whole different debate.

I have very little interest in the Premier League. I had no idea there was such a thing as MOTD2. I don't watch MOTD with Lineker presenting, I wouldn't watch it without him. I've been known to turn off the Football League roundup as a direct result of Manish though.