They had a budget of £5.06billion for 2011/2011. I expect their actual income to be close to £7.0billion.
Ex BBC DG George Entwistle Pay Off
- Thread starter Arazi
- Start date
They had a budget of £5.06billion for 2011/2011. I expect their actual income to be close to £7.0billion.
Almost certainly not, they just tend to print a correction and carry on, as witnessed after the Guardian printed a false story about the news of the world that was a key factor in the paper closing and all the staff becoming unemployed. (source)
Having said that, I'm not sure Entwistle did anything wrong apart from failing to immediately start suspending people and programs when the truth came to light. With the size and scope of the BBC, one employee cannot be expected to be accountable for everything in the way this seems to have been done.
Ultimately it's his responsibility. Isn't that what he's paid the big bucks for? I'm sure that's the line that's usually bandied about when executive salary is questioned...
To get another year's salary on top is obscene.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Why not just ask them to sign a compromise agreement waving their rights as part of the initial contract.
Because sort of person who does that without an incentive isn't the sort of person you want making decisions as they clearly aren't very good at it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
How would you feel if I said to you you had to waive your rights when you join a job?
Edit: beaten
kd
That maybe correct but when he took the job of DG, then being the DG means he is responsible for the corporation and everything that goes with it does it not, you cant just change the rules as you see fit once the horse has bolted, like my above post, the guy seemed to bury his head in the sand for the past month or so and now gets a payoff of a years salary.
He was legally only entitled to 6 months salary, so why has he got 12 months? because they felt sorry for him or was it a deal to keep his opinions to himself about what was really going on behind the scenes at the BBC?
Yes i also agree he was unlucky to take the job and the all the Saville stuff and what followed to come out a month or so into the job, but his job is to deal with anything that comes along, he didnt.
Ultimately it's his responsibility in his contract (but not under employment law, it just wouldn't fly), but resigning isn't managing the problem when it involves staff who were all in place before his tenure started.
Managing newsnight and the staff would have been a far more appropriate response than resigning.
Unless you're one of the people who thinks employment law and alternative approaches shouldn't be universal.
Those are privately owned companies and if they're small then the senior types probably have an equity stake in them and have assumed a certain level of personal financial risk and other responsibilities surrounding running a business in addition to their main job.
The BBC is publicly owned and tbh.. I'm not sure that a salary man who's worked his way up should be rewarded quite as well. There are plenty of other people in the public sector with greater levels of responsibility (including the PM) who are on much less.
Edit - I guess on reflection its not *that* excessive as far as salaries at those levels go, I was more taking issue with the comparison with people running small companies.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
There is an incentive. They get the job.
How would feel employing a top executive that was so lacking in confidence in their ability to do the job they needed to rely on employment law to prevent them being dismissed.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 3,165
- Location
- 3rd rock...
So this is what this stupid outfit does with the TV tax they fleece us with.
This approach would be far more effective at the bottom of the job market, where skills are common, commitment levels low, consequence of failure low and people easily replaceable, than at the top where skills, commitment levels and consequences of failure are much greater...
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2010
- Posts
- 16,513
- Location
- Swimming in a lake
Wow. You really have no idea about exec reward or the economics of incentive in jobs at any level.
kd
Last edited:
"TV Tax" How about you just stop watching TV if you don't want to pay for it?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,315
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
Haha, are insuts how people "in the know" settle a debate.
You're right, I've never had a job or had dealing with people who have jobs. A mear simpleton such as myself would have know idea what motivates people to perform, exec level or otherwise.
Please explain.
Blind Freddy could have done a better job in the circumstances. This guy was an absolute joke. He's either a brazen liar, or chronically incompetent. In any event, he certainly doesn't deserve a £450k golden farewell at the taxpayer's expense.
The payoff is just another clue that this was a PR exercise.
why not?
in certain industries such as aerospace, flaws in the company's methods that lead to somthing like a plane crash can result in the CEO doing jail time dspite being very far removed from the source of the problem.
it's a way to make sure tere's always incentive right from the top for accountability/making sure things are done right, after all a CEO/DG will be less likely to turn a blind eye to things he hears if he;s directly accountable.
Technically speaking of course, one small detail of an otherwise perfectly correct story was wrong. And it wasn't the detail most people cared about. The NoTW did read the messages, they just didn't delete them. At the time, no-one was quite sure why the messages had gone, and the phone company wasn't talking. If the paper concerned hadn't hacked the phones at all, I'd want to see the Grauniad editor off as well. But I rather suspect that Murdoch would have pulled the plug on the NoTW even if the Graun had got the deletion bit right.
he quit ffs, he should be getting sod all.
really getting sick of people claiming to be in the know about how exec pay works and saying it like it should excuse idiotic pay outs like this.
you walk out on of a job you shouldnt be getting anything let alone a years pay as a golden hand shake. now if you get let go i can accept you will get something but to have a clause in your contract that says you can work less than 3 months, quit and get a 12 months pay is just bonkers.
this falls in to the same half arsed contracts the government draws up on deals where the price can double and they still pay it. i have the view that a lot of the so called experts and highly educated idiots haven't gotten a clue when it comes to drawing up contracts and just sign off anything they want for there friends.
and just to add more idiocy to this, the guy was hired by chris patton, he said he wanted him, so in my view patton should be up for the high jump as well. no one else knew the guy untill patton told them who he wanted. sounds yet again like jobs for the boys.