[MunroeForbes]

I hear he is paid in excess of £40,000 per year!!! So that's where all the licence fee money is going lolz!!!1!!

[Dickie]

£630,000 - quite alot in excess of £40,000

[TheCaptain]

This is awful. I'd rather the BEEB would go back to shunning the high earners like fatso and give new people a go. When they start getting too big for their boots let them go. BBC Radio is bigger than any person presenting it.

[Dickie]

The point was made at the time that DJ's on commercial stations make more money than their equivalent on Radio 1.

If the Beeb did go for 'new talent' as you put it then people would flip their argument from the money side to the quality side and say that the BBC's content is lacking. At the end of the day the BBC are never going to win in an argument with a license fee payer, there will always be one side to what they're doing that you don't approce of. At the end of the day they're there to please everyone though.

[professor capricorn]

This is awful. I'd rather the BEEB would go back to shunning the high earners like fatso and give new people a go. When they start getting too big for their boots let them go. BBC Radio is bigger than any person presenting it.

Well said Captain!

[Andy B]

The point was made at the time that DJ's on commercial stations make more money than their equivalent on Radio 1.

If the Beeb did go for 'new talent' as you put it then people would flip their argument from the money side to the quality side and say that the BBC's content is lacking. At the end of the day the BBC are never going to win in an argument with a license fee payer, there will always be one side to what they're doing that you don't approce of. At the end of the day they're there to please everyone though.

A very good point, well made.

[Wet Mix Johnny]

Who asked you? *chops.

[TheCaptain]

It's sad that some people think his wage is justified.

[Andy B]

It's sad that some people think his wage is justified.

I feel his wage is justified because as has already been previously stated his counterparts on various comercial radio stations earn a lot more than him so the BBC must offer him a salary in line with what he could earn elsewhere albeit at a radio station without the worldwide brand behind it and increased restrcitions from the Radioq Authority.

Chris Moyles has done a great job at R1 in that he's increased the listenership which is what the BBC wants. I do agree that if he starts demanding ridiculous salaries and starts asking for fridays off so he can concentrate on a his TV show and spend all weekend boozing with his showbiz mates then fair enough, get rid of him. No person is biger than R! but while he turns up for work on time (most of the time) and does a good job while he's there he deserves to be paid an appropriate amount.

As has previously been stated in this thred if they got rid of Moyles a lot of listeners would also go, and if they got some "new Talent" in on breakfast a lot of people would stop listening. "New talent" rarely has the mass appeal and needs to be tempered with experience.

At the end of the day you pays for what you gets, someone good in the morning that people on this site enjoy listening to or someone cheaper that probably wouldn't be as good.

[MunroeForbes]

It's sad that some people think his wage is justified.

I feel his wage is justified because as has already been previously stated his counterparts on various comercial radio stations earn a lot more than him so the BBC must offer him a salary in line with what he could earn elsewhere albeit at a radio station without the worldwide brand behind it and increased restrcitions from the Radioq Authority.

Chris Moyles has done a great job at R1 in that he's increased the listenership which is what the BBC wants. I do agree that if he starts demanding ridiculous salaries and starts asking for fridays off so he can concentrate on a his TV show and spend all weekend boozing with his showbiz mates then fair enough, get rid of him. No person is biger than R! but while he turns up for work on time (most of the time) and does a good job while he's there he deserves to be paid an appropriate amount.

As has previously been stated in this thred if they got rid of Moyles a lot of listeners would also go, and if they got some "new Talent" in on breakfast a lot of people would stop listening. "New talent" rarely has the mass appeal and needs to be tempered with experience.

At the end of the day you pays for what you gets, someone good in the morning that people on this site enjoy listening to or someone cheaper that probably wouldn't be as good.

Typical. There are people without clean water in the world and you think that being paid over half a million pounds for sitting on a chair talking is reasonable. Shame on you Andrew.

[Andy B]

Typical. There are people without clean water in the world and you think that being paid over half a million pounds for sitting on a chair talking is reasonable. Shame on you Andrew.

The affairs of other countries and the general ineffectiveness of thier governments is of no consequence to me. The British Government already has an overseas aid budget as do most other countries as well as the U.N. British people regularly donate to charities)admitiedly when they are much publicised.

The matter of people starving elsewhere in the world is not the issue here, it is whether or not Chris Moyles deserves a salary lower than his contemporaries when he has far more listeners.

[MunroeForbes]

He should tell the BBC that he can survive on £100,000 a year and give the rest to the third world. If he isn't greedy.

[Andy B]

He should tell the BBC that he can survive on £100,000 a year and give the rest to the third world. If he isn't greedy.

But you could argue the same thing for anyone. Bill gates has just stepped down as chairmen to concentrate on his various charity projects, you could say that he should donate all of his money to charity.

Where do you draw the line, how much money should everyone be forced to give to charity?

[MunroeForbes]

about £600 each

[Andy B]

about £600 each

Per month, per year, per week, per hour? Irrelevant really as it sounds to me like you're proposing a communist state where each person recieves the same amount irrespective of their job. Needless to say the whole world would be bored by another comunist debate so I'm claiming a moral victory on behalf of...well everyone in the free world.

[whytie]

Typical. There are people without clean water in the world and you think that being paid over half a million pounds for sitting on a chair talking is reasonable. Shame on you Andrew.

Munroe Geldof, how much do you actually donate to charity?

[MunroeForbes]

I donate £80

[whytie]

Why not £600 like you stated?

[MunroeForbes]

I donate £600 as well. I donate £80 and £600.

[whytie]

I donate £600 as well. I donate £80 and £600.

Paying a hooker is not a donation though.

[fish heads]

Split topic and moved from Radio Show comments as it was largly irrelivant for that topic, yet still a good topic for discussion

[DemonHorse]

He means £600 every 5 millenia

[TheCaptain]

I pay nothing to charity. I spit in the faces of christian aid.

[MunroeForbes]

He means £600 every 5 millenia

Resorting to non-sensical and unintelligent comments such as these justifies my points. There are no logical arguments for anyone to earn £600,000 a year.

[Console]

Yes there are, it's known in the business world as supply and demand. There's a demand for great DJ's and the supply doesn't fill that demand, so, because of the limited number of great DJ's for the large number of places, the amount of money people are willing to pay goes up.

Now, you may argue that, for whatever reason, these talented people should not accept such a high wage and instead take a smaller amount, but human nature is such that people generally take the path that gives them the greatest reward for the least effort, so taking a lower wage, when a high one is being offered, would be, generally speaking, illogical. There are a few cases where factors other than money are taken into account, but for most people money is very important.