Jump to content

Gary Lineker


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

Excellent post. Kens.

Disnae ken. You're missing the whole point. It's like the NHS. We all pay so that we all have it. 

I understand this view, but it's baby-out-with-the-bathwater stuff. The BBC needs to be reformed, and the model isn't perfect, but allowing short-term mismanagement to do away with the whole concept would be a mistake. Not to mention that it's arguably been part of the Tory plan all along, as with the NHS and other public services. Run them into the ground until people start pointing at how shite they are so they can be broken up and privatised for huge financial or political gain.

There are clearly structural changes required, and it will never be perfect. But I feel that a lot of people are falling for the gameplan here.

Yeah, sorry I wasn’t suggesting doing away with the BBC or actually getting rid of the fee.

My concern is that I don’t think that structural change will come. It’s essentially been taken over by the government, so anything done now will be for the appearance of change rather than the actual fundamental change needed of going back to being reasonably impartial, and free of government (any of them) influence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of me wonders whether the BBC is looking for an excuse to get Lineker to walk?  With the licence fee due to stop in 2027 and the budget being frozen for the next couple of years, they'll be forced into big cuts, and getting rid of their highest earner on a programme 99% of viewers would watch without him would help them massively.

Not quite as obvious as "you used somebody else's milk in the fridge so we have to let you go", but maybe somebody's exploring that avenue here?

More likely that it's largely down to them being an organisation run by corrupt Tory sympathisers, but a thought worth considering nonetheless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Hedgecutter said:

Part of me wonders whether the BBC is looking for an excuse to get Lineker to walk? 

An incredibly long-winded and damaging (from a PR perspective) way of saving what isn't a huge sum of money in the scheme of things.

They'd have just got rid of him 'to bring in a fresh voice'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, VincentGuerin said:

An incredibly long-winded and damaging (from a PR perspective) way of saving what isn't a huge sum of money in the scheme of things.

They'd have just got rid of him 'to bring in a fresh voice'.

Required cuts have to start somewhere, and laying off the equivalent of 45 employees on £30k pa just to keep a single non-essential personality wouldn't be a particularly good PR look either.

I'm just playing Devil's Advocate here btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...