The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
So Leon, tell us, how many tweets have you deleted because your employers have told you to? 2 or 3 figures worth?
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
The thrust of the argument, which I think is an interesting one, is that Yousaf would lose less of the SNP vote than Forbes.
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.
As said upthread a swing of SNP to SLab could see a lot of seats revert to their pre 2015 norm with SLab dominating. It would make Starmers job a lot easier.
It would and according to the analysis I posted this would happen quicker with Forbes in charge. Which is maybe a reason to prefer her from my PoV!
I do think her leadership skills highly questionable, even compared with Yousaf!
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
The thrust of the argument, which I think is an interesting one, is that Yousaf would lose less of the SNP vote than Forbes.
If we accept that argument, we might suggest Forbes could sow the seeds of an SNP renewal even while losing votes faster.
As said upthread a swing of SNP to SLab could see a lot of seats revert to their pre 2015 norm with SLab dominating. It would make Starmers job a lot easier.
Nice fantasy
Not my fantasy, but a definite possibility. If the SNP vote declines, or is split between splinter parties, SLAB are the obvious electoral beneficiaries.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
The difference being there are many people who want to watch Clarkson do anything from driving a car around the world to running a farm.
How many people want to watch Lineker minus the football ?
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
Funnily enough, those attacking Lineker for the content of his Tweet never demanded Boris Johnson apologise for comparing the EU to Nazi Germany.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Clarkson literally generated £50m a year for the BBC in worldwide licensing for Top Gear, which was at one stage the single most popular non-drama tv programme on earth
Lineker was a really good footballer and is a solid and likeable soccer pundit. But he’s not earning the BBC £50m, is he?
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
But has Clarkson got a Golden Boot? Although he did get the boot for punching a lacky. Much the same thing, no doubt.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
If there aren't any commentators willing to work on Match of the Day, what will the BBC do?
Find a bloke in a pub? Play patriotic music?
How they will be loving this in Moscow and Beijing.
Is Xi Jinping that focused on the presenter position of BBC’s long running football highlights programme “Match of the Day?
Don't strain yourself. You've still got a whole day ahead of you to ensure you retain the "Most Ridiculous" title.
The "Most Ridiculous" title goes to the MOTD commentators and 'pundits'.
Get rid of them and save the money.
All these West Ham Villa fan Tories seem to reach the same conclusion, football without expert insight is the way forward.
Experts, cancelled! The current Conservative Party are owning cancel culture.
I am not a tory. I am not a football fan. I do like the BBC, and do not mind paying the licence fee.
Having said all that, it does stick in the craw when these idiots get paid so much for blathering on about effing footie, when the BBC threatens to cancel a load of stuff (including whole channels) that I am interested in.
If some on here had their way, the BBC would be nothing but sports' pundits talking about football.
"I am not a football fan". Well in that case, Lineker's behaviour aside, your opinion whilst valid, should be taken with a pinch of salt.
I wouldn't dream of suggesting Strictly Come Dancing should jettison their professional (expert) dancers on my whim. My judgement is suspect because I have no understanding of their importance to the entertainment quotient of the show.
Why should my opinion of the way the BBC
spends its licence fee be taken with a pinch of
salt? Why should the views of only football fans
matter?
You know nothing about football, don’t watch the show and seem to have an absolutely bizarre hatred of a sport nobody is forcing you to watch.
Therefore, your views on whether MotD should employ pundits are of fairly low value.
Every license fee payer in the land must pay around 4p per year for Gary Lineker. I'd say at that scale, everyone is entitled to a view. Gary Neville is also a tedious semi-informed wazzock, but I'm not obliged to give him money.
Why is Lineker paid so much? Because he has contacts inside football that no non-football person could possibly get and because he understands football. Crucially, he also knows how to present a TV programme. That’s a very rare combination. You often get one or the other. It’s hard to think of who else gives you both. Whether that’s worth £1.5 million to the BBC, I don’t know. But if he does end up leaving them, he’ll match it, at least, wherever he ends up - especially on a commercial station that needs punditry to run ads against.
No he won’t. And if we can frame a bet on this I’m happy to make that wager
No one else will pay him £1.5m a year. He’s ridiculously overpaid and he is - quite relevantly - 62 years old
I suspect he knows he’s in his last season or two as a major pundit and like the good sportsman he is he is going out in a flurry of drama. Better that than a sad dwindling
Perhaps one of BBC sport's greatest commentator and summarisers was the sublime velvet voiced Peter Allis.
Now Peter Allis was a vocal supporter of UKIP and during the Referendum leaving the EU, but I don't recall that it affected his status as a BBC sub-contractor (just like Lineker).
What has changed in the last ten years? Sharpe, Gibb and (maybe) Davie.
If Lineker were just a regular commentator there'd be less of a problem with him combining his BBC profile with political activism. The issue is more that he's been their most highly paid 'talent' for a long time.
Peter Allis was no shrinking violet, he also had his own golf themed chat show "A round with Allis" and as I just recalled, I even think his predecessor and mentor Henry Longhurst was also a Conservative MP. Whatever you may make of Lineker, you must see this has been an outrageous unforced misstep by both the BBC and Conservative Ministers. By claiming Lineker is being dealt with on the grounds of his impartiality it has blown a hole in the BBC's claims to be impartial.
Yesterday I was of the opinion this issue affected the political appointees of the BBC only, having slept on it, the BBC as we know it was holed below the waterline last night.
I hope not. That would be a result for the people cheering this indefensible decision. They hate the BBC. They want it to die. If it does we will lose something distinctive and valuable.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Fair enough on Salenko who was a bit of a freak winner, but Suker was a world-class striker and Stoichkov was legitimately on of the greatest players of his generation. They may not be household names *here*, but that’s not the point, is it?
It gets even better ..no inane interviews with footballers at the end of the match... "Well you know like.. you know what I mean like.... Well like..I got the ball.like and smacked it into the net...like.. you know what I mean. ....."
You are beginning to sound a little desperate in your attempts to justify Lineker' being cancelled.
Interesting interview with Greg Dyke on R4. After noting he'd refrained from commenting at all on BBC management ever since his departure, he was strongly of the opinion that it's simply not realistic to require 'impartiality' outside of work for anyone but those in news and current affairs.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Fair enough on Salenko who was a bit of a freak winner, but Suker was a world-class striker and Stoichkov was legitimately on of the greatest players of his generation. They may not be household names *here*, but that’s not the point, is it?
It is the point. Being a world cup golden boot winner doesn't automatically translate into the kind of global celebrity that can command multi-million media contracts.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Paragraph one might not age that well.
Paragraph two, correct. His chum Campbell suggests he is already toast.
Paragraph 3. More likely a flagship Wednesday prime time politics show on ITV. Edit...or Clarkson's replacement on "Millionaire".
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Is Clarkson a great example? Not sure Prime really landed the talent they thought they were getting. Hence the cancelling of his shows.
Is Lineker worth a punt for them? Nah....
The only reason prime paid so much for Clarkson was because he was a massive international star and they knew he would bring millions of new prime subscribers
The grand tour then turned out to be over scripted crap in the main (tho the last one was unexpectedly brilliant) but by then it didn’t matter. The prime subscribers were on board. That’s all bezos wanted
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
You'd clearly be surprised to learn how famous Clarkson is outside the Anglosphere.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Yet again the pig ignorance of PB Tories shows. Not only has he other places to go, he’s there already. He did the BT CL coverage as on top of MOTD until he decided to quit the former last season. He’s also regularly been on NBC Sports Network, is on Fox Sports Eredivisie, and would be snapped up by Amazon if he left the BBC. All of the above have deeper pockets than the BBC. So the position is exactly the opposite to that you postulate. He doesn’t need the BBC.
Tories should stop talking about football. It’s embarrassing how little they know.
Nah, keep going. It’s nice to get a bit of fun out of this debacle.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Sure. But how does that relate to the current issue? The current controversy has nothing to do with his financial affairs.
Also, the BBC is not his only gig. For example, he was on BT’s CL coverage until (I think) last season so his assessment was not simply down to income from the BBC.
In any event, trying to move the discussion away from the attempted censorship of the BBC onto what it pays its presenters just goes to show that you Rightists can’t argue the point. If Lineker wrote a cheque for £4.9m to HMRC tomorrow that issue remains.
Yes. His fee is utterly irrelevant to this debate. Quite weird how some on here are seeking to link it to it.
Perhaps because they think he is an overpaid twat and do not like being strongarmed into parting with £140 a year to BBC on pain of being made a criminal just for them to waste it on twat's like him to mumble some inane crap once a week.
“Given the Conservatives has wrecked the NHS, the BBC and filled the nations water with shit, it does beg the question, what were they trying to conserve?”
The answer seems obvious to me;
Wealth.
The only person wrecking the BBC is Gary “look at me and my tax avoiding saintliness” Lineker
The NHS was mediocre anyway and was fucked even more by lockdowns which Labour wanted to go on LONGER than the Tories
The shit in the rivers I cannot dispute
And you are at it again accusing Lineker of tax avoidance for apparently doing exactly what you do which is be a freelancer. OK we can put the last time you did this down to your ignorance and usual jumping to conclusions, but now you know better and yet you repeat it. Why don't you wait until a decision is made as whether he is a freelancer. On the face of it he is, like you. So what is he and you supposed to do about it then?
Lineker doesn’t deny he is a tax avoider (which is of course legal; evasion is the illegal stuff). His argument is that he is ONLY a tax avoider and hasn’t crossed any line
HMRC apparently disagrees
And I repeat how is he any different from you? The hypocrisy is obvious.
You rightly claim to be a freelancer, because you are.
He claims to be a freelancer, which on the face of it he is.
If he isn't, as HMRC claim, he should be taxed as an employee.
Honestly the fact you can't see this is mind boggling.
Why don't you wait until a decision is made before accusing others of tax avoidance and sneering at them when they do exactly what you do yourself, which by the way is not only legal, but proper. We would be in a proper mess if genuine freelancers weren't able to be so. I mean the economy would completely breakdown. I had at any one time 150 clients. Would that mean I had to have 150 employers.
Honestly stick to stuff you know something about.
He’s avoided £5m in tax and I have paid his salary as a Briton with a tv. On that basis alone I am entitled to an opinion
You seem curiously hysterical about all this. As do others. Odd
Its the BBC aspect.
The idolatry of a 1940s public service, nationalised industry nostalgic sentimentality.
Add on a personal nostalgia among those for whom watching MotD was part of their Saturday night viewing as they grew up.
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
Sure. But how does that relate to the current issue? The current controversy has nothing to do with his financial affairs.
Also, the BBC is not his only gig. For example, he was on BT’s CL coverage until (I think) last season so his assessment was not simply down to income from the BBC.
In any event, trying to move the discussion away from the attempted censorship of the BBC onto what it pays its presenters just goes to show that you Rightists can’t argue the point. If Lineker wrote a cheque for £4.9m to HMRC tomorrow that issue remains.
Yes. His fee is utterly irrelevant to this debate. Quite weird how some on here are seeking to link it to it.
It's the Daily Mail tactic of the character assassination of anyone that is shaping up as a political threat to them.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
You'd clearly be surprised to learn how famous Clarkson is outside the Anglosphere.
Crowds gather whenever he goes to Argentina, I hear.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
You'd clearly be surprised to learn how famous Clarkson is outside the Anglosphere.
Yes, that is a remarkably dumb comment. Clarkson had a massive international following at the height of top gear
One of the most recognisable tv stars on the planet
I suspect in marketing terms Clarkson and Lineker are valuable in similar ways - they engage middle aged males - a notoriously hard to reach demographic
(As they have both been around for ever the original males may not be quite as middle aged any more)
It would be interesting to know how the BBC justifies paying Lineker £1.5m a year - so much money he is fighting a £4.9m tax bill
Have they tried hiring someone for, say, just £900,000? Maybe £980,000? Is it literally impossible to get a decent football presenter for under £1.2 million?
Utterly ridiculous amount of money
There is an old joke about an engineer called to fix some recalcitrant piece of equipment. After some study he hits it with a hammer, and produces a bill for $100. When asked to justify the price, he replies "It's $5 for the hit, and $95 for knowing where to hit it."
So, to answer your question, that's the going rate for Lineker's knowledge and experience.
They could get someone cheaper to talk about football. It wouldn't be the same.
How is it the going rate? Do you have any evidence?
I am sincerely curious
I learnt long ago is that the price of X is whatever the buyer and seller agree. So, yes, Mr L is paid the going rate for MotD presenters.
Morning Carnyx, it is very easy when you are spaffing other people's cash about and don't need to have any commercial or business concerns.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
WOW he has a little bauble from when he kicked about a bit of leather
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Paragraph one might not age that well.
Paragraph two, correct. His chum Campbell suggests he is already toast.
Paragraph 3. More likely a flagship Wednesday prime time politics show on ITV.
I think Campbell, not for the first time, is wrong. If the BBC don't back down it will create huge problems if consistency and fairness for them. Should they then be employing a high profile presenter who publicly advocates voting Conservative (Sugar), for example ?
It would just guarantee the argument resurfaces constantly.
And for the decision to be made by a Tory donor and fixer who's currently still in post while under investigation would just make it even worse.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Why is Lineker paid so much? Because he has contacts inside football that no non-football person could possibly get and because he understands football. Crucially, he also knows how to present a TV programme. That’s a very rare combination. You often get one or the other. It’s hard to think of who else gives you both. Whether that’s worth £1.5 million to the BBC, I don’t know. But if he does end up leaving them, he’ll match it, at least, wherever he ends up - especially on a commercial station that needs punditry to run ads against.
No he won’t. And if we can frame a bet on this I’m happy to make that wager
No one else will pay him £1.5m a year. He’s ridiculously overpaid and he is - quite relevantly - 62 years old
I suspect he knows he’s in his last season or two as a major pundit and like the good sportsman he is he is going out in a flurry of drama. Better that than a sad dwindling
Let's try to frame that bet. The point is that he is not a pundit.
While I don't think Lineker's salary is particularly relevant, I do agree with those that think it's preposterously high for what he does.
Not as high, though, as that of Bernard Looney (sic) whose pay, as CEO of BP, rose from £4.5m to £10m in one year, beating inflation rather comfortably. I don't recall all those objecting to Lineker's remuneration expressing outrage at this when it was reported last week - maybe I missed it.
And yes, of course, Lineker's wages are licence fee money. But I reckon us taxpayers have also contributed to Looney's wealth through our purchases.
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
He wasn’t comparing the policy to Nazi Germany but rather the language being used to justify it. In that respect he is not alone - Braverman tried to force the deletion of a social media post saying the same thing a few months ago. If he was saying this stuff on MOTD then you’d have a point. As it is it is only personalities critical of the Government who are being told to shut up.
While I thought what Le Tiss said about vaccines was dumb he shouldn’t have been cancelled for it. Neither should Rodney Marsh about his tasteless Tsunami comment. The chilling factor here is that the Govt is pressuring the BBC to bin critical voices.
You Rightists have this idea, in the absence of your own morality, is that anyone who has morals only speaks out for the thrill of “virtue signalling” and are “vain”. You yourself only post on here because you like the “likes” you get from your inane package holiday posts about sandwiches. Not everyone is as vain and stupid as you are.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Fair enough on Salenko who was a bit of a freak winner, but Suker was a world-class striker and Stoichkov was legitimately on of the greatest players of his generation. They may not be household names *here*, but that’s not the point, is it?
It is the point. Being a world cup golden boot winner doesn't automatically translate into the kind of global celebrity that can command multi-million media contracts.
Nobody gave him a job on the sole basis of him being a golden boot winner. You might not rate him as a host, but loads of people do. His history as one of England’s best strikers ever gives him a bit of legitimacy as a football presenter, but it’s not *why* he has the job.
However, by all means do continue to make your point
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
So Leon, tell us, how many tweets have you deleted because your employers have told you to? 2 or 3 figures worth?
Lol
The Knapper’s Gazette did once politely ask me to “please stop tweeting from brothels”
Unlike Saint Gary Lineker of Tax Avoidance, I had the humility to see that they had a point. I deleted
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
WOW he has a little bauble from when he kicked about a bit of leather
To become a Scottish World Cup legend, you only have to qualify.
Match of the Day host Gary Lineker has agreed a £400,000 pay cut, the BBC has revealed as it publishes the latest list of its best-paid presenters.
Lineker was the highest-earning star with an unchanged salary of £1.75m in the 2019/20 financial year.
But he has since signed a new contract, which will see that fee cut by 23%.
He was getting paid at least 10 times what it was worth so that is a drop in the ocean, he woudl have bitten their hand off given he would have got a fraction of that in any other commercial business for the same job.
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
He wasn’t comparing the policy to Nazi Germany but rather the language being used to justify it. In that respect he is not alone - Braverman tried to force the deletion of a social media post saying the same thing a few months ago. If he was saying this stuff on MOTD then you’d have a point. As it is it is only personalities critical of the Government who are being told to shut up.
While I thought what Le Tiss said about vaccines was dumb he shouldn’t have been cancelled for it. Neither should Rodney Marsh about his tasteless Tsunami comment. The chilling factor here is that the Govt is pressuring the BBC to bin critical voices.
You Rightists have this idea, in the absence of your own morality, is that anyone who has morals only speaks out for the thrill of “virtue signalling” and are “vain”. You yourself only post on here because you like the “likes” you get from your inane package holiday posts about sandwiches. Not everyone is as vain and stupid as you are.
I suspect in marketing terms Clarkson and Lineker are valuable in similar ways - they engage middle aged males - a notoriously hard to reach demographic
(As they have both been around for ever the original males may not be quite as middle aged any more)
Clarkson has limited talents - being a shock-jock that middle-aged blokes could laugh along with was his schtick. If Lineker wants to be a shock-jock, he has to reinvent the presenter skill that is his schtick. And somebody is going to have to pay to discover if that works. Maybe.
Or, they could pay him very handsomely to do what he does (did?) at the Beeb. But on the basis that his contract says he disengages from social media and must generally STFU.
Why is Lineker paid so much? Because he has contacts inside football that no non-football person could possibly get and because he understands football. Crucially, he also knows how to present a TV programme. That’s a very rare combination. You often get one or the other. It’s hard to think of who else gives you both. Whether that’s worth £1.5 million to the BBC, I don’t know. But if he does end up leaving them, he’ll match it, at least, wherever he ends up - especially on a commercial station that needs punditry to run ads against.
No he won’t. And if we can frame a bet on this I’m happy to make that wager
No one else will pay him £1.5m a year. He’s ridiculously overpaid and he is - quite relevantly - 62 years old
I suspect he knows he’s in his last season or two as a major pundit and like the good sportsman he is he is going out in a flurry of drama. Better that than a sad dwindling
Let's try to frame that bet. The point is that he is not a pundit.
If you can frame it let’s do it. Quite hard tho
Also it’s highly unlikely that - wherever he goes next, if he leaves the BBC - we will ever know what he earns. It’s the only the BBC that has to reveal salaries isn’t it? Because of the “unique way it is funded”
A unique way which, I suggest, is now more endangered than it was, thanks to Lineker’s selfish narcissism
The BBC need to get a move on and sort this Lineker situation out.
They are showing two live FA Cup matches next weekend as well as a regular MOTD.
If the boycott is still in place….
They've made a monumental f*ck-up of this and now haven't a clue how to resolve the issue.
Not sure we should be surprised at that though, given two tories, Sharp and Davie are in charge. Sack them both.
No, it’s Lineker who has really fucked this up. Because he is a vain and silly man. All he had to do was delete the tweet and apologise and say “yeah, the comparison with Nazi germany was a bit over the top, sorry, I just feel passionately on this issue”. And everyone agrees it was over the top. Coz it was. Just apologise and move on. Crisis resolved. End of story
But he is so in love with the moral adoration he gets on Twitter he refused to do even that. His obstinacy and narcissism has now badly damaged the BBC. Which is ironic as all those defending him on here are lefties who love the BBC
He wasn’t comparing the policy to Nazi Germany but rather the language being used to justify it. In that respect he is not alone - Braverman tried to force the deletion of a social media post saying the same thing a few months ago. If he was saying this stuff on MOTD then you’d have a point. As it is it is only personalities critical of the Government who are being told to shut up.
While I thought what Le Tiss said about vaccines was dumb he shouldn’t have been cancelled for it. Neither should Rodney Marsh about his tasteless Tsunami comment. The chilling factor here is that the Govt is pressuring the BBC to bin critical voices.
You Rightists have this idea, in the absence of your own morality, is that anyone who has morals only speaks out for the thrill of “virtue signalling” and are “vain”. You yourself only post on here because you like the “likes” you get from your inane package holiday posts about sandwiches. Not everyone is as vain and stupid as you are.
I love it when you get angry
And that is the real reason you come here, perhaps ?
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
AIUI he has two years left to run on his contract, which possibly he wasn't going to renew anyway. If so the alternatives are for the BBC to pay him for presenting MotD for two years or for them to pay him the same amount not to present it.
This is on Sky Sports, watched by a lot of people who will not religiously follow the general news everyday. Many of them will be learning in detail about Tory control of the BBC for the first time here. https://twitter.com/SkyKaveh/status/1634288030658842641
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Yousaf will be the death knell for the SNP, though he is unlikely to last long. Some who declined are likely waiting to see how the court cases go and who if any of the cartel are left standing, ready to step up when Useless gets dumped.
Point of order Malc, if Yousaf doesn't last long he'll surely not be the death knell for the SNP.
Ben, One day of that turkey will be far too much I am afraid. However given who is running the voting and that only a select couple know how many actual members there are able to vote I fail to see how he can lose.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
No. But I do think her dog whistling on asylum seekers is close to incitement to violence, even though that is clearly not her intention. If I were an asylum seeker being put up in a hotel, I would not feel safe. I'd be very concerned that any publicity could lead to right-wing mobs assaulting me. And I hold Braverman and her allies in the press responsible for that.
Match of the Day host Gary Lineker has agreed a £400,000 pay cut, the BBC has revealed as it publishes the latest list of its best-paid presenters.
Lineker was the highest-earning star with an unchanged salary of £1.75m in the 2019/20 financial year.
But he has since signed a new contract, which will see that fee cut by 23%.
He was getting paid at least 10 times what it was worth so that is a drop in the ocean, he woudl have bitten their hand off given he would have got a fraction of that in any other commercial business for the same job.
And did he really take a pay cut? Or did the Beeb just quietly agree that he could take paid employment within their and other sports empires? Looks like Garry was doing alright, even after his MOTD fee got cut.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
No. Do you?
I am concerned about a government that dehumanises people and plays fast and loose with the law. Does that bother you, even a tiny bit?
Thanks Wulfrun. Your header deserves some comment. I don't know what the policy is on this, would the polling firm go back and check? I hope they don't think a correction would destroy their credibility.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
This is provable bullshit
Then prove it, brains trust.
You are so deliciously easy to humiliate
“Motoring show Top Gear has been crowned the world's Most widely watched factual TV programme in the new Guinness World Record 2013 Edition book.
The show's incredible audience covers 212 territories around the world from Ghana to Guatemala, Moldova to Myanmar.”
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
I can assure you that globally each of those has far more profile than Clarkson who is known primarily in English speaking countries only. Clarkson’s gammon demographic is somewhat limited.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Fair enough on Salenko who was a bit of a freak winner, but Suker was a world-class striker and Stoichkov was legitimately on of the greatest players of his generation. They may not be household names *here*, but that’s not the point, is it?
It is the point. Being a world cup golden boot winner doesn't automatically translate into the kind of global celebrity that can command multi-million media contracts.
Nobody gave him a job on the sole basis of him being a golden boot winner. You might not rate him as a host, but loads of people do. His history as one of England’s best strikers ever gives him a bit of legitimacy as a football presenter, but it’s not *why* he has the job.
However, by all means do continue to make your point
Spot on. Somehow, I can't see Wayne Rooney being selected as a replacement for Lineker, despite his similar footballing record.
I’m assuming that the frothing Rightists on here complaining about Lineker comparing the words coming out of the Home Office to those coming out of Nazi Germany were similarly outraged by a similar comment by an actual Holocaust survivor
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
WOW he has a little bauble from when he kicked about a bit of leather
To become a Scottish World Cup legend, you only have to qualify.
What a Fanny, typical thick Little Englander. Who mentioned anything about nationality. GFY
While I don't think Lineker's salary is particularly relevant, I do agree with those that think it's preposterously high for what he does.
Not as high, though, as that of Bernard Looney (sic) whose pay, as CEO of BP, rose from £4.5m to £10m in one year, beating inflation rather comfortably. I don't recall all those objecting to Lineker's remuneration expressing outrage at this when it was reported last week - maybe I missed it.
And yes, of course, Lineker's wages are licence fee money. But I reckon us taxpayers have also contributed to Looney's wealth through our purchases.
You have the option of not buying anything from BP or becoming a shareholder of BP and then voting against the directors remuneration package.
Of course the investment funds who own the majority of shares will still vote for the higher pay rises because the people making the decisions have a vested interest in ever higher executive pay.
Just like the people who agree Lineker's remuneration have a vested interest in ever higher pay at the BBC.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
WOW he has a little bauble from when he kicked about a bit of leather
To become a Scottish World Cup legend, you only have to qualify.
What a Fanny, typical thick Little Englander. Who mentioned anything about nationality. GFY
Why is Lineker paid so much? Because he has contacts inside football that no non-football person could possibly get and because he understands football. Crucially, he also knows how to present a TV programme. That’s a very rare combination. You often get one or the other. It’s hard to think of who else gives you both. Whether that’s worth £1.5 million to the BBC, I don’t know. But if he does end up leaving them, he’ll match it, at least, wherever he ends up - especially on a commercial station that needs punditry to run ads against.
No he won’t. And if we can frame a bet on this I’m happy to make that wager
No one else will pay him £1.5m a year. He’s ridiculously overpaid and he is - quite relevantly - 62 years old
I suspect he knows he’s in his last season or two as a major pundit and like the good sportsman he is he is going out in a flurry of drama. Better that than a sad dwindling
Let's try to frame that bet. The point is that he is not a pundit.
If you can frame it let’s do it. Quite hard tho
Also it’s highly unlikely that - wherever he goes next, if he leaves the BBC - we will ever know what he earns. It’s the only the BBC that has to reveal salaries isn’t it? Because of the “unique way it is funded”
A unique way which, I suggest, is now more endangered than it was, thanks to Lineker’s selfish narcissism
Are the BBC's guidelines on all staff, at all times not offering political opinions really maintainable in the current world? And what about the likes of Lord Sugar? Does he count? They aren't helping themselves here.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
No. But I do think her dog whistling on asylum seekers is close to incitement to violence, even though that is clearly not her intention. If I were an asylum seeker being put up in a hotel, I would not feel safe. I'd be very concerned that any publicity could lead to right-wing mobs assaulting me. And I hold Braverman and her allies in the press responsible for that.
If Suella Braverman were assassinated by somebody who took the comparison to heart, would you feel responsible?
Interesting interview with Greg Dyke on R4. After noting he'd refrained from commenting at all on BBC management ever since his departure, he was strongly of the opinion that it's simply not realistic to require 'impartiality' outside of work for anyone but those in news and current affairs.
Once you start unpicking it, it becomes insane.
What counts as making your opinions known? Talking to your family? Your mates down the pub? Commenting anonymously on a premier political blog? Using an easily-decoded nom-de-plume on said blog?
What counts as contributing to the BBC? Does it go all the way down to Eric the Gardener who hosts the "Green Fingers" slot every week on BBC Radio Countyshire?
The only lines that make sense is the existing ones, that News people stay inscrutable and nobody causes a riot. And although I can understand some people not liking the 1930's Germany comparison, it doesn't do that.
So Lineker's comments don't come in that category. That's why the BBC can't just dump him- they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. Hence the current impasse.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Yousaf will be the death knell for the SNP, though he is unlikely to last long. Some who declined are likely waiting to see how the court cases go and who if any of the cartel are left standing, ready to step up when Useless gets dumped.
Point of order Malc, if Yousaf doesn't last long he'll surely not be the death knell for the SNP.
Ben, One day of that turkey will be far too much I am afraid. However given who is running the voting and that only a select couple know how many actual members there are able to vote I fail to see how he can lose.
I wish that Forbes or Regan would announce the number of SNP members, and see whether the Murrells react.
Clarkson has an enormous 8M followers on Twitter. It is genuinely impressive. Whereas Lineker has only has following of 8.8M. Chalk and cheese. Completely different.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Fair enough on Salenko who was a bit of a freak winner, but Suker was a world-class striker and Stoichkov was legitimately on of the greatest players of his generation. They may not be household names *here*, but that’s not the point, is it?
It is the point. Being a world cup golden boot winner doesn't automatically translate into the kind of global celebrity that can command multi-million media contracts.
Nobody gave him a job on the sole basis of him being a golden boot winner. You might not rate him as a host, but loads of people do. His history as one of England’s best strikers ever gives him a bit of legitimacy as a football presenter, but it’s not *why* he has the job.
However, by all means do continue to make your point
Spot on. Somehow, I can't see Wayne Rooney being selected as a replacement for Lineker, despite his similar footballing record.
Why is Lineker paid so much? Because he has contacts inside football that no non-football person could possibly get and because he understands football. Crucially, he also knows how to present a TV programme. That’s a very rare combination. You often get one or the other. It’s hard to think of who else gives you both. Whether that’s worth £1.5 million to the BBC, I don’t know. But if he does end up leaving them, he’ll match it, at least, wherever he ends up - especially on a commercial station that needs punditry to run ads against.
No he won’t. And if we can frame a bet on this I’m happy to make that wager
No one else will pay him £1.5m a year. He’s ridiculously overpaid and he is - quite relevantly - 62 years old
I suspect he knows he’s in his last season or two as a major pundit and like the good sportsman he is he is going out in a flurry of drama. Better that than a sad dwindling
Let's try to frame that bet. The point is that he is not a pundit.
If you can frame it let’s do it. Quite hard tho
Also it’s highly unlikely that - wherever he goes next, if he leaves the BBC - we will ever know what he earns. It’s the only the BBC that has to reveal salaries isn’t it? Because of the “unique way it is funded”
A unique way which, I suggest, is now more endangered than it was, thanks to Lineker’s selfish narcissism
Are the BBC's guidelines on all staff, at all times not offering political opinions really maintainable in the current world? And what about the likes of Lord Sugar? Does he count? They aren't helping themselves here.
It’s a fair question but my answer is that the BBC HAS to enforce this rule or it is doomed as a national broadcaster funded by a poll tax. Even more so in the age of social media. It is probably doomed anyway but I imagine it will try and survive. Personally I’d quite like it to survive. It is British soft power in action
As I said the other day the rule should be - if you earn the majority of your cash from the BBC then you are not allowed to make any political comments on social media or in newspapers etc. That’s it. A flat easy rule for everyone which must apply to everyone left and right. So yes Alan Sugar as much as Lineker
This will be tough for some vocal people but if they want BBC money then this is what they will have to abide by. If you want to mouth off, leave the BBC
I also agree that the links between govt and the top levels of the BBC are unhealthy fwiw. The whole Boris loan thing completely stinks
Everyone should watch MOTD tonight, so that the BBC realise they could save a lot of money by always broadcasting the show with just the action and no punditry.
Clarkson has an enormous 8M followers on Twitter. It is genuinely impressive. Whereas Lineker has only has following of 8.8M. Chalk and cheese. Completely different.
Top Gear at its height had 380 million tv viewers worldwide. Match of the Day gets 2 million.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
She isn't and that's good news. Esp since she's the Home Secretary.
But here's the bad news. She whips up fear and hatred of migrants, dehumanizes them, talks about 'swarming' and 'swamping', exaggerates and lies about numbers and motives, talks of the "Establishment" being against her, talks of the "betrayal" of the "hard working" (code for real) "British people".
Anybody comfortable with this - or even worse relishing it - needs to take a long hard look at themselves imo, regardless of their politics unless their politics is genuinely hard right.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
No. Do you?
I am concerned about a government that dehumanises people and plays fast and loose with the law. Does that bother you, even a tiny bit?
Well said. The problem with Nazi comparisons, it allows people to imply moral acceptability purely because they have no intention of firing up the gas chambers.
Clarkson has an enormous 8M followers on Twitter. It is genuinely impressive. Whereas Lineker has only has following of 8.8M. Chalk and cheese. Completely different.
Top Gear at its height had 380 million tv viewers worldwide. Match of the Day gets 2 million.
If somebody is hired on a contractor basis and hence isn’t an employee, the employer cannot control what the person says when they are not representing or working for the company.
Lineker tweeted from his own Twitter account, clearly not representing anyone else but himself.
Clarkson has an enormous 8M followers on Twitter. It is genuinely impressive. Whereas Lineker has only has following of 8.8M. Chalk and cheese. Completely different.
Ex footballer, the world's most popular sport vs a loud mouth motoring enthusiast though.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
No. Do you?
I am concerned about a government that dehumanises people and plays fast and loose with the law. Does that bother you, even a tiny bit?
Well said. The problem with Nazi comparisons, it allows people to imply moral acceptability purely because they have no intention of firing up the gas chambers.
Which is preposterous.
Lineker never said it was a Nazi policy though. Read what he actually wrote
Everyone should watch MOTD tonight, so that the BBC realise they could save a lot of money by always broadcasting the show with just the action and no punditry.
Except it's a condition of their contract with the PL that they provide punditry.
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
She isn't and that's good news. Esp since she's the Home Secretary.
But here's the bad news. She whips up fear and hatred of migrants, dehumanizes them, talks about 'swarming' and 'swamping', exaggerates and lies about numbers and motives, talks of the "Establishment" being against her, talks of the "betrayal" of the "hard working" (code for real) "British people".
Anybody comfortable with this - or even worse relishing it - needs to take a long hard look at themselves imo, regardless of their politics unless their politics is genuinely hard right.
Morning all This concern about illegal immigration is a storm in a teacup when legal migration was half a million last year. Just a big distraction
I noticed that earlier on you were questioning the anecdote about American ordnance in the Vietnam war being so powerful on the Ho Chi Minh trail it made eyes pop out of skulls
You claimed it is urban myth
Here is the quote, from the book The Vietnam War: an Intimate History - based on the award winning tv documentary by Ken Burns
“The earth-shaking concussions had blown the eyeballs of some of them from their heads.” - page 224 if you want to check
Now, it might still be urban myth. And you’re a doctor. But that’s the claim and this is a famously detailed and fastidious investigation of the war
While I don't think Lineker's salary is particularly relevant, I do agree with those that think it's preposterously high for what he does.
Not as high, though, as that of Bernard Looney (sic) whose pay, as CEO of BP, rose from £4.5m to £10m in one year, beating inflation rather comfortably. I don't recall all those objecting to Lineker's remuneration expressing outrage at this when it was reported last week - maybe I missed it.
And yes, of course, Lineker's wages are licence fee money. But I reckon us taxpayers have also contributed to Looney's wealth through our purchases.
You have the option of not buying anything from BP or becoming a shareholder of BP and then voting against the directors remuneration package.
Of course the investment funds who own the majority of shares will still vote for the higher pay rises because the people making the decisions have a vested interest in ever higher executive pay.
Just like the people who agree Lineker's remuneration have a vested interest in ever higher pay at the BBC.
Huge though the remuneration numbers of oil company execs are, they have been paid out under performance-linked pay schemes. Their performance is linked into how well they do at delivering value for shareholders. Mnay of those shareholders are pension schemes - schemes from which the great majority benefit.
The only person who benefits from Garry Linker's performance is one Garry Lineker.
On topic, I suspect SNP (and Conservatives) have been more motivated supporters than Labour in Scotland. The turnout filter was justified.
Question is whether we're seeing a temporary blip in SNP fortunes or something more permanent. In principle Labour will do very well if it can pick up votes both from the SNP and the Tories.
Good morning
IMHO who wins between Yousaf and Forbes may well set the political agenda as they are so opposite to each other it is surprising they are in the same party
Good morning to yourself!
Interesting thread on why Yousaf might be the better choice for the SNP electorally. Forbes is a more popular choice - amongst those that would never vote SNP !
Though Forbes does at least offer the possibility of the SNP winning over other parties voters, thereby getting the elusive goal of independence over the line. The risk is that she loses some core vote.
Yousef is the safe, core vote choice, but no real possibility of expanding the SNP vote.
Yes millions of Scots just waiting to follow Forbes in opposition to abortion and homosexual marriage
Everybody here knows that you oppose Forbes because of the danger to the Tories. I am not sure who this sort of tripe is designed to convince.
Interesting interview with Greg Dyke on R4. After noting he'd refrained from commenting at all on BBC management ever since his departure, he was strongly of the opinion that it's simply not realistic to require 'impartiality' outside of work for anyone but those in news and current affairs.
Once you start unpicking it, it becomes insane.
What counts as making your opinions known? Talking to your family? Your mates down the pub? Commenting anonymously on a premier political blog? Using an easily-decoded nom-de-plume on said blog?
What counts as contributing to the BBC? Does it go all the way down to Eric the Gardener who hosts the "Green Fingers" slot every week on BBC Radio Countyshire?
The only lines that make sense is the existing ones, that News people stay inscrutable and nobody causes a riot. And although I can understand some people not liking the 1930's Germany comparison, it doesn't do that.
So Lineker's comments don't come in that category. That's why the BBC can't just dump him- they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. Hence the current impasse.
The current DG of the BBC has shown he isn't up to the job. He hasn't thought this through. He could well end up it's first casualty. People underestimate the 'talent' at their peril. The BBC have done reasonably well because of their reputation so can attract the best people without having to compete for them in the market. But that reputation can quickly disappear
Football Focus (the BBC lunchtime preview show of the weekend's football) has also been pulled now.
And all this - ALL THIS - could have been avoided if Gary had just been a bit more mature, and a little less vain, and said “yeah sorry, the Nazi thing was a bit excessive, I got over emotional coz I care”
Lineker's problem is that he has nowhere else to go. No other broadcaster is going to pay him THAT much, to be trouble in what he wants to say and in disrupting their pay grades for the rest of the talent. So he digs in.
But the Beeb can't back down - nobody is bigger than Auntie.
Maybe he could take an 80% pay cut to host a politics programme on BBC3?
Not so. There are plenty of organisations bigger and with far deeper pockets than the BBC. Clarkson got paid a lot more from Amazon. He will do alright.
Clarkson has a bigger international profile and directly generates revenue. Lineker is not in the same category at all.
Er no. He’s a World Cup Golden Boot winner.
Just like those household names Oleg Salenko, Hristo Stoichkov or Davor Suker.
Took you a while. All greats. Lineker is a unicorn. A footballer who reached the very top of the world game AND a charismatic broadcaster.
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
Do you think Suella Braverman is a Nazi?
No. But I do think her dog whistling on asylum seekers is close to incitement to violence, even though that is clearly not her intention. If I were an asylum seeker being put up in a hotel, I would not feel safe. I'd be very concerned that any publicity could lead to right-wing mobs assaulting me. And I hold Braverman and her allies in the press responsible for that.
If Suella Braverman were assassinated by somebody who took the comparison to heart, would you feel responsible?
I don't know what you're on about. I'm not aware of anybody comparing Braverman to a Nazi, though you seem keen to invent this myth for some reason. As I said, I think her gutter politics presents a risk to asylum seekers/refugees.
While I don't think Lineker's salary is particularly relevant, I do agree with those that think it's preposterously high for what he does.
Not as high, though, as that of Bernard Looney (sic) whose pay, as CEO of BP, rose from £4.5m to £10m in one year, beating inflation rather comfortably. I don't recall all those objecting to Lineker's remuneration expressing outrage at this when it was reported last week - maybe I missed it.
And yes, of course, Lineker's wages are licence fee money. But I reckon us taxpayers have also contributed to Looney's wealth through our purchases.
You have the option of not buying anything from BP or becoming a shareholder of BP and then voting against the directors remuneration package.
Of course the investment funds who own the majority of shares will still vote for the higher pay rises because the people making the decisions have a vested interest in ever higher executive pay.
Just like the people who agree Lineker's remuneration have a vested interest in ever higher pay at the BBC.
Huge though the remuneration numbers of oil company execs are, they have been paid out under performance-linked pay schemes. Their performance is linked into how well they do at delivering value for shareholders. Many of those shareholders are pension schemes - schemes from which the great majority benefit.
The only person who benefits from Garry Linker's performance is one Garry Lineker.
Fair point.
But is not unknown for the basis of directors remuneration to be changed to something more generous if the original contract is not performing as well as was expected.
On a more serious note. With the collapse of silicon vallet bank looks like there is another banking crisis incoming. Given the tories remaining support is asset rich old people could be disastrous for them.
Comments
2 or 3 figures worth?
How many people want to watch Lineker minus the football ?
Lineker was a really good footballer and is a solid and likeable soccer pundit. But he’s not earning the BBC £50m, is he?
He’s barely known outside the UK for a start
Not by what Lineker said, but by them proving him right.
No one else will pay him £1.5m a year. He’s ridiculously overpaid and he is - quite relevantly - 62 years old
I suspect he knows he’s in his last season or two as a major pundit and like the good sportsman he is he is going out in a flurry of drama. Better that than a sad dwindling
After noting he'd refrained from commenting at all on BBC management ever since his departure, he was strongly of the opinion that it's simply not realistic to require 'impartiality' outside of work for anyone but those in news and current affairs.
Paragraph two, correct. His chum Campbell suggests he is already toast.
Paragraph 3. More likely a flagship Wednesday prime time politics show on ITV. Edit...or Clarkson's replacement on "Millionaire".
The grand tour then turned out to be over scripted crap in the main (tho the last one was unexpectedly brilliant) but by then it didn’t matter. The prime subscribers were on board. That’s all bezos wanted
Anyway. I guess the more we talk about how much he’s made and less about the government dehumanising people and playing fast and loose with the law, the more it suits you.
The idolatry of a 1940s public service, nationalised industry nostalgic sentimentality.
Add on a personal nostalgia among those for whom watching MotD was part of their Saturday night viewing as they grew up.
One of the most recognisable tv stars on the planet
(As they have both been around for ever the original males may not be quite as middle aged any more)
Should they then be employing a high profile presenter who publicly advocates voting Conservative (Sugar), for example ?
It would just guarantee the argument resurfaces constantly.
And for the decision to be made by a Tory donor and fixer who's currently still in post while under investigation would just make it even worse.
Not as high, though, as that of Bernard Looney (sic) whose pay, as CEO of BP, rose from £4.5m to £10m in one year, beating inflation rather comfortably. I don't recall all those objecting to Lineker's remuneration expressing outrage at this when it was reported last week - maybe I missed it.
And yes, of course, Lineker's wages are licence fee money. But I reckon us taxpayers have also contributed to Looney's wealth through our purchases.
While I thought what Le Tiss said about vaccines was dumb he shouldn’t have been cancelled for it. Neither should Rodney Marsh about his tasteless Tsunami comment. The chilling factor here is that the Govt is pressuring the BBC to bin critical voices.
You Rightists have this idea, in the absence of your own morality, is that anyone who has morals only speaks out for the thrill of “virtue signalling” and are “vain”. You yourself only post on here because you like the “likes” you get from your inane package holiday posts about sandwiches. Not everyone is as vain and stupid as you are.
However, by all means do continue to make your point
The Knapper’s Gazette did once politely ask me to “please stop tweeting from brothels”
Unlike Saint Gary Lineker of Tax Avoidance, I had the humility to see that they had a point. I deleted
Or, they could pay him very handsomely to do what he does (did?) at the Beeb. But on the basis that his contract says he disengages from social media and must generally STFU.
Also it’s highly unlikely that - wherever he goes next, if he leaves the BBC - we will ever know what he earns. It’s the only the BBC that has to reveal salaries isn’t it? Because of the “unique way it is funded”
A unique way which, I suggest, is now more endangered than it was, thanks to Lineker’s selfish narcissism
https://twitter.com/SkyKaveh/status/1634288030658842641
I am concerned about a government that dehumanises people and plays fast and loose with the law. Does that bother you, even a tiny bit?
“Motoring show Top Gear has been crowned the world's Most widely watched factual TV programme in the new Guinness World Record 2013 Edition book.
The show's incredible audience covers 212 territories around the world from Ghana to Guatemala, Moldova to Myanmar.”
https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2012/9/top-gear-drives-its-way-into-into-guinness-world-records-2013-edition-44693
That’s why this whole thing has blown up. Who put Richard Sharp in charge?
https://news.sky.com/story/holocaust-survivor-says-home-secretarys-words-and-actions-are-similar-to-those-of-nazi-germany-12786451
Of course the investment funds who own the majority of shares will still vote for the higher pay rises because the people making the decisions have a vested interest in ever higher executive pay.
Just like the people who agree Lineker's remuneration have a vested interest in ever higher pay at the BBC.
What counts as making your opinions known? Talking to your family? Your mates down the pub? Commenting anonymously on a premier political blog? Using an easily-decoded nom-de-plume on said blog?
What counts as contributing to the BBC? Does it go all the way down to Eric the Gardener who hosts the "Green Fingers" slot every week on BBC Radio Countyshire?
The only lines that make sense is the existing ones, that News people stay inscrutable and nobody causes a riot. And although I can understand some people not liking the 1930's Germany comparison, it doesn't do that.
So Lineker's comments don't come in that category. That's why the BBC can't just dump him- they wouldn't have much of a leg to stand on. Hence the current impasse.
Its surprisingly good.
As I said the other day the rule should be - if you earn the majority of your cash from the BBC then you are not allowed to make any political comments on social media or in newspapers etc. That’s it. A flat easy rule for everyone which must apply to everyone left and right. So yes Alan Sugar as much as Lineker
This will be tough for some vocal people but if they want BBC money then this is what they will have to abide by. If you want to mouth off, leave the BBC
I also agree that the links between govt and the top levels of the BBC are unhealthy fwiw. The whole Boris loan thing completely stinks
Lol. Next
But here's the bad news. She whips up fear and hatred of migrants, dehumanizes them, talks about 'swarming' and 'swamping', exaggerates and lies about numbers and motives, talks of the "Establishment" being against her, talks of the "betrayal" of the "hard working" (code for real) "British people".
Anybody comfortable with this - or even worse relishing it - needs to take a long hard look at themselves imo, regardless of their politics unless their politics is genuinely hard right.
Which is preposterous.
Lineker tweeted from his own Twitter account, clearly not representing anyone else but himself.
The BBC has got this wrong
This concern about illegal immigration is a storm in a teacup when legal migration was half a million last year. Just a big distraction
I noticed that earlier on you were questioning the anecdote about American ordnance in the Vietnam war being so powerful on the Ho Chi Minh trail it made eyes pop out of skulls
You claimed it is urban myth
Here is the quote, from the book The Vietnam War: an Intimate History - based on the award winning tv documentary by Ken Burns
“The earth-shaking concussions had blown the eyeballs of some of them from their heads.” - page 224 if you want to check
Now, it might still be urban myth. And you’re a doctor. But that’s the claim and this is a famously detailed and fastidious investigation of the war
The only person who benefits from Garry Linker's performance is one Garry Lineker.
https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1634267082110955521
How he manages to say it with a straight face is truly impressive.
That’s all he had to do! What a wanker
But is not unknown for the basis of directors remuneration to be changed to something more generous if the original contract is not performing as well as was expected.
Given the tories remaining support is asset rich old people could be disastrous for them.