Media

8° London Hi 9°C / Lo 3°C

BBC's top stars paid £54 million

By Sherna Noah, Press Association

Figures will show that the BBC spends £70 million a year from its £3.6 billion annual licence fee income on its "top talent" - names which have included Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton (pictured) - who receive at least £100,000 a year.

Getty

Figures will show that the BBC spends £70 million a year from its £3.6 billion annual licence fee income on its "top talent" - names which have included Jonathan Ross and Graham Norton (pictured) - who receive at least £100,000 a year.

The BBC spends £54 million on its top-earning stars, according to figures out today.

The figure accounts for 1.55% of the £3.6 billion annual licence fee income and is paid to artists, presenters, musicians and other contributors earning £150,000 and more.

£115 million was spent on those earning up to £50,000, £44 million on those earning between £50,000 and £100,000 and £16 million on the £100,000 to £150,000 bracket.

The BBC is not releasing details of individual salaries, but top-earners are reported to include Jonathan Ross, Graham Norton, Jeremy Paxman and Fiona Bruce.

The BBC, which came under fire for Ross's £6 million-a-year deal, pays presenters, actors and other talent on its TV and radio programmes a total of £229 million a year.

The amount being paid by the BBC, which also released the businesses expenses of 107 of its most senior staff today, will now be published every year in the annual report.

A total of £188,000 was claimed in overall expenses by 107 of the BBC's most senior staff between July and September 2009, a monthly average per executive of £586.

For the first time, the BBC also published a register of the gifts and hospitality received by senior managers.

Director-general Mark Thompson attended Glyndebourne, the Wimbledon Ladies Final, the Chelsea Flower Show and the Royal Box at Ascot with his wife last year.

He also attended the British Grand Prix with his son.

Mr Thompson, who earns £664,000 a year, has claims ranging from 57p for a parking meter to £5,616 spent through the BBC's central bookings system for a flight to Seoul.

Deputy director-general Mark Byford also attended Wimbledon but donated £120 to charity after he and his wife were invited to the Womad music festival by Peter Gabriel.

The expenses of Jana Bennett, director of BBC Vision, include £38.48 for a "sympathy gift for a key presenter" and £1,254 on six nights at Sunset Boulevard Hotel in Los Angeles for meetings with co-producers and studio heads.

She spent £2,392 on taxis through the BBC central bookings service and £106 through expenses.

Lunch with a presenter and agent cost £161.

Eric Huggers, director of future media and technology, spent £7,514.80 on a flight to Seoul last year.

He spent £4,984 on taxis between July and September. There were 13 fares that totalled more than £100 each. The biggest single fare was £627.37.

BBC creative director Alan Yentob's expenses included £317.19 hosting a dinner for 10 people.

Peter Johnston, director of BBC Northern Ireland, claimed £456.20 for staff entertainment on drinks for a table at the Sony Awards at the Grosvenor House Hotel.

Menna Richards, director of BBC Wales, claimed £435 for a taxi on one day.

A BBC spokeswoman said a freelance driver employed on an ad hoc basis for longer journeys is also categorised as a "taxi" on the central expenses system.

She said: "Such journeys would sometimes include other members of the BBC Wales board as well as the director and offer value for money in comparison with the cost of travelling by rail."

Roger Wright, controller of Radio 3 and director of BBC Proms, spent £1,459 on taxis, plus a further £1,599.83 on those which were centrally booked. Nine of these were over £100.

His claims also included £470.87 for lunch for Radio 3 presenters.

A post-concert supper following the first night of the Proms cost £655.20.

Andy Parfitt, controller of Radio 1, 1Xtra, Asian Network and BBC Switch, put in for £509.05 at the Sony Awards.

His hospitality included two tickets to the Mercury Prize and he spent £820 on internal hospitality on three monthly team briefings.

Director of audio and music Tim Davie's taxi fares during the quarter came to £1,300.77

Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer spent £290 on a thank-you event for six people.

BBC1 controller Jay Hunt took a taxi for £22 because she had heavy scripts and DVDs to carry into work.

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

[info]doug_piranha wrote:
Tuesday, 9 February 2010 at 01:13 pm (UTC)
"EXPENSIVE FACES "

perfect - that is exactly what they are .
What an insult to people that every aspect of life - even question time -
has been infected with the cult of celebrity. What do I care what some glib
comedian thinks about......anything ?

Documentaries are now some celeb or another - gadding about the world or lecturing
us on historical matters. The common factor is that we see the talking head more than
we see the countries / the animals / the historical sites - they are supposed to be talking about.

I don't care WHO reads the news - presents a documentary - or some feeble game show.
As long as it is not some reality TV show winner (loser ?)
What do call a plethora of newsreaders the BBC of course.
[info]snotcricket wrote:
Tuesday, 9 February 2010 at 02:23 pm (UTC)
BBC 24 two newsreaders/business/sports correspondent folowed by weather brained/manbo/bimbo all reading from script etc Mmmmmmmmm

Perhaps the use of 5 staff when one could do the job is one of many reasons the BBC demands £3:6 billion/ann of our money plus the £110 million from sales plus the £235 million for its overseas service.

Like any government/public organisation overmanned/overpaid.

Personally I'd like to be able to say thank you, but no thank you but seemingly that right of the indiviudal is no right, indeed illegal how very balanced, how very fair, how very BBC, they pontificate on all & everything demanding fairess for whoever on their consumer progs whilst offering none of these rights to the individual with their own demands for money, imagine butchers demanding veggies buy meat whether they eat it or not? Whats the betting the BBC's dept for indignantion would be straight on its case.

For those who wish to view the Beeb pay for it, for those who don't, the opportunity not to subsidise someone elses preference, seems fair & reasonable to me.
Re: What do call a plethora of newsreaders the BBC of course.
[info]ffoulkes_aycke wrote:
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 at 02:30 pm (UTC)


What is the point of Breakfast,,, every hour 5 mins on real news,,,55mins on pointless rubbish

" Gurn" Williams must need to rest her facial muscles afterall the insincere expressions she pulls,,,like someone who went to a 4th rate acting school
Re: What do call a plethora of newsreaders the BBC of course.
[info]snotcricket wrote:
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 at 04:01 pm (UTC)
Some of them pull their work colleagues too.

The BBC news presenters do seem politically biased allowing some guests to wax lyrically whilst interrupting/berating other politicians (not a lot different to QT).

However in fairness compared to Sky snooze it does have topicality/diversity in subject matter, but then again the repeats of Fawlty Towers/AbFab have more topicality/diversity than Sky snooooozzzze.
(no subject) - [info]sceptic007 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010 at 11:38 pm (UTC) Expand
My Liscence Fee To The Sleeze Norton?
[info]indy76 wrote:
Tuesday, 9 February 2010 at 02:44 pm (UTC)
The idea that my taxes are paid to a sex obbsessed emotionally retarded sicko like Norton makes me feel ill.
Re: My Liscence Fee To The Sleeze Norton?
[info]tedthedog wrote:
Friday, 12 February 2010 at 10:25 am (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly. The only thing is, I don't know what he looks like. Even as a pensioner, my zapper finger is quicker than his appearance on anything I'm watching.

I could certainly add a few names to your comment, but what's the point....we all know who they are.

PUBLIC MONEY
[info]ganef wrote:
Tuesday, 9 February 2010 at 02:51 pm (UTC)
When names such as Graham Norton and Jonathan Woss are mentioned, remember these names have been "coaxed" from commercial stations to, basically, do exactly, or near enough, for the Beeb as they did before. The public gets no better value and only the "star" benefits financially.

But its public money the BBC are spending and they don't care; ratings are everything.
Re: PUBLIC MONEY
[info]lucid1984 wrote:
Tuesday, 9 February 2010 at 05:26 pm (UTC)
If ratings were everything I wonder why Two Pints of Sixth Form Writing and a Packet of Failing Careers is on it's 40th season...
Football Analogy
[info]kaptainkitten wrote:
Tuesday, 9 February 2010 at 03:56 pm (UTC)
When clubs buy the services of some big name simply to get quick results, as opposed to building a team and promoting talent from within.

One is almost cheating, although it's very widespread and we have come to see it as normal.

But should the BBC be playing that money game? The only reason transfer fees have risen so high is because money is available and those who own these clubs are more interested in the kudos in ownership of a winning club than the "how" of the win.

In my view it's a hollow victory if it's achieved through money. Like buying an honour rather than earning it.


Obviously the BBC can play that game too, the money is there. But what sort of executive thinks it's acceptable to basically cheat simply to "win" a ratings battle?

A BBC executive sadly.
things the bbc should not do
[info]alexfreddy wrote:
Tuesday, 9 February 2010 at 06:34 pm (UTC)
Pay car travel costs - use public transport - from trips to and from local studios to daily taxis for staff to trips to out of London/ office locations

Rescind its offer to pay additional furniture costs for out of London re-locations

Do they really pay auto-cue new readers 100K a year?

Look at how other companies work and start to conform, where value is not added, cut the costs.

Sack those who authorize these out of order payments.
better the devil you know.....
[info]mrbong73 wrote:
Wednesday, 10 February 2010 at 12:48 pm (UTC)
considering what they get at the moment for such large sums of money, the mind boggles at what lack of talent awaits a lower budget. going on the cheap might just see them find someone with even less dimensions and talent that the current crop at the BBC, which is saying something.
(no subject) - [info]sceptic007 - Wednesday, 10 February 2010 at 08:06 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: Makes, not earns
[info]xyz07 wrote:
Friday, 12 February 2010 at 01:35 pm (UTC)
Excellent point!
BBC Waste
[info]phippss wrote:
Thursday, 11 February 2010 at 01:27 am (UTC)
I agree wth the points about the newsreaders etc but even worse for me is the sports coverage.
Why do they have to have four people to discuss a football match? Why three for many tennis matches on both TV and radio, when Dan Maskell and Max Robertson could do it on their own at one time. Why have a studio at many events when they could have the same sort of result from a studio here in the UK at a fraction of the cost. Even the Superbowl, which Channel 5 have covered very well with two folk, was far more expensive when covered by the Beeb. Three in the studio and of course, two wasted in the stadium in Miami. Some one really needs to stop the waste from the BBC. Unless it is essential to allow reasonable coverage of news and sport etc, spending (and generally waste) should be restricted and the licence payers money used in a more sensible way.
Next we have the Winter Olympics and the World Cup. More "jobs for the boys" and more of a couldnt care less attitude from the Sports and News Departments.
Outrageous
[info]xyz07 wrote:
Friday, 12 February 2010 at 07:38 am (UTC)
I, for one, do not give a damn about “figures” such as Ross or Norton, have no time for their stupid jokes and find them boring. I don’t even know who the other ones mentioned here are and I don’t believe I’m alone.
This is just another example of our present unfair state of things: Most people have to work hard to scrape a living doing real jobs, threatened with redundancy due to “outsourcing”, having their income reduced because of the crisis, while the happy-go-lucky, unaccountable carrousel of marketing, management and celebrity leeches and hot air sellers have the power to claim and waste obscene sums of money. We are back to feudal times.
Highly BLOATED BBC *!%***.........................
[info]rob_kitts wrote:
Saturday, 13 February 2010 at 07:25 pm (UTC)
Roll on the gravy train. So long as our fees are paid every year, we get to watch the most awful overfed overpaid and spoilt bores with too much exposure on TV
Thats ok because we have BBC3 and BBC4 to replay the same shows so those presenters get paid more per repeat show. Finally if its a documentary it will be repeated on BBC World
Content hasnt been great on the BBC since it started churning out 7 episodes a week of boring fifteen Anne Robinson ex watchdog to one...catch my drift. If anyone appears on eastenders well its just a fast track to being a presenter on anyone of a number of boring nostalgia shows about last weeks tv, which then gets repeated and repeated and so on and so on..................................................
maria
[info]mariatamis wrote:
Monday, 15 February 2010 at 10:08 am (UTC)
I reckon the problem is that if you found out how much your favourite announcer was earning, you would not maybe support him so much and his annual income would fall. Whereupon his supporters would take to the streets to get it up to a value that most of them would class as satisfactorily extortionate. This is the world 2010, not a lot of folk around who are the full shilling.
maria
[info]mariatamis wrote:
Monday, 15 February 2010 at 10:11 am (UTC)
Most worrying is loony catholic Mark Thompson himself. Never mind Silverstone, how much license fee was spent on his recent trip to the Vatican to have a chinwag with the Pope about how to best cover his upcoming (publicly funded) visit to the UK and how much will the BBC then spend on the coverage?


house of nutrition coupon