Do you know of others that are proven who would do a better job for significantly less?
Just thinking of candidates - perhaps, Jonathan Ross is an alternative to Graham Norton - I wonder how much he would cost?
Gary Neville perhaps a candidate for Match of the Day?
Zoe Ball? - I don’t listen to her so I can comment on an alternative.
Please remember the BBC discussion is nothing to do with cost - it is simply govt trying to control BBC.
In your opinion. I may think the manager of my local Intermarché is terrible at his job. But I’m one single customer so frankly what I think matters not a jot. If the store’s sales, standards, his KPIs, are at a level Intermarché (or the specific owner as I appreciate few are directly owned) are happy with then he is likely to be doing his job very well, whether I personally rage that he charges too much for apples or there’s never enough trolleys of the type I like to use. Ditto those presenters. If their employer are happy with the job they do, then they’re good. We’ve seen countless times that when those ratings start to slip or the press becomes negative, they’re not afraid to dump these people quick enough, because they consider they’re not hitting those KPIs.
The fact that the Beeb is partly funded by the licence fee clouds people’s judgement of the salaries their presenters are paid. Lineker and Norton could earn far more by jumping ship to ITV or Sky but they have chosen to stay put because clearly they enjoy their current working environment. Like them or not there are very popular as their constant high viewing figures show.
If you use the press as your arbiter then there has been fairly continuous criticism of Gary Linekar.
You obviously think they are worth a £1M +++ each but personally I do not think they or that anyone doing a similar job is whichever channel.
I thought Wossy was the worst.
I guess that’s why you’re not a TV executive Anne 
I don’t think soccer players “are worth it, but club owners do.
In my view the market dictates what talent is worth. Nobody in BBC HR is going to bung another 200K at those three just because they’d like it. We don’t know what other offers they have had. and the BBC is competing for their services.
Whether anyone thinks Lineker and co are ‘worth a £1M’ is irrelevant as it’s all about ratings and the ‘going rate’ for hosting a particular show.
Another whince at BBC news this morning. I was reading The Guardian revelations that some wealthy areas are in fact receiving many times more government ‘leveling-up’ funding than the poorest - and that indeed some of the high funding allocations seem mysteriously to map pretty well on Tory seats! - when my wife switched on the television, onto a BBC news item which also happened to be on leveling-up - and which spent a long time reporting what the government has said, interspersed with a few mildly critical opposition comments. But no mention at all of where funding was actually going.
That encapsulated for me - not for the first time - what’s wrong with the BBC version of ‘impartiality’, ‘balance’, ‘objectivity’: they see their job as reporting what each side of a political debate says - with no attempt at all to actually tell the truth!
Thorough, detailed and quite damning analysis of BBC coverage of Ukraine:
From a journalist who writes for the Morning Star, no political bias then. 
The Morning Star surely is one of the few UK media organs likely to be unbiased - since unlike most it is not owned by either the state or billionaire tax exiles - but by its own staff.
If your diet generally consists of junk food, full of sugar, etc, it can be hard to see much in good wholesome unadulterated food.
If being ‘left wing’ means unbiased then of course it is, on the other hand it could just be a different type of ‘junk food’. 
Or - to put the same insight into a slightly different perspective - it could be left wing because it is unbiased!
I forgot to add that it is also principally funded by its subscribers, rather than advertising. So you tell me Tim: all prejudice aside, which is most likely to provide honest, accurate reporting - a newspaper owned and run by its staff and funded mainly by its customers, or one owned by a single tax exile billionaire, or a Russian oligarch, and funded mainly by big-business advertising?
If the paper is owned and staffed by left leaning people it immediately has a defined slant on stories so is therefore no different than The Daily Mail (for example) when it comes to being ‘unbiased’.
Mmmmm…. 
Personally, I’d rather trust a group of professionals with no axe to grind other than satisfying their customers, than the tax-exile Jonathan Harold Esmond Vere Harmsworth, 4th Viscount Rothermere, heir to the fortune of a recognised Nazi and unrepentant admirer of Hitler.
But maybe I’m biased…
The fact that the Morning Star has a readership of just 10K shows how niche it is, can’t believe there are that many communists in the UK.
Christ, that rag still exists?
This might explain why the Morning Star has such a small readership -