RTE Salaries

padraig102

Can anyone explain why RTE presenters get paid so much? is there anything that can be done about it?

earnings in 2010 and last year have not been released yet.

in 2009:
-Kenny earned €729,604

-The late Gerry Ryan was second-highest earner, with earnings of €585,944

-Ryan Tubridy on €519,667

-Miriam O’Callaghan €290,625 in 2009

-Marian Finucane, whose fee of €570,000 is particularly controversial because she only broadcasts four hours a week, saw a 10 per cent reduction to €513,270.

-The staff presenters are Derek Mooney, who was seventh-highest-paid on €268,985, and Sean O'Rourke, ninth-highest on €214,084.

Are the cuts high enough from these crazies salaries.

http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/tv-radio/late-late-show-host-ryan-tubridy-happy-to-live-on-373000-3195117.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1112/1224307460365.html

srsly78

Well in theory if they do a good job there will be lots of viewers. Lots of viewers = lots of ad revenue. Therefore they should be worth it.

However in reality noone watches RTE so I have no idea.

Damien360

Mad figures but they are semi-state and nothing can be done. The salaries are based on the revenue they generate for RTE. That is calculated on advertising revenue and the rate charged is based on the calculated viewers/listeners.

The last part is the one that bugs me. 600,000 viewers for Late Late Show. I am closing in on 40 and I can count 5 people that watch it. It would also seem odd that the presenters salaries are based on turnover, instead of reflecting at least some of the costs involved.

What you fail to add is some of the hours put in by the same presenters. Marian Finnucane does the sum total of 4 hours radio for her pay. What is the rate of advertising per slot and how many slots in an hour. Cannot be covering her salary in any way whatsoever.

We have a population of greater manchester and pay should reflect that. Salaries no better than Manchester Radio and TV.

mike65

Not this again!

Its not really economic unless you think RTE star contract pay is emblematic of semi-states generally.

I think its something that developed almost by accident and no one shouted "stop!". The big names knew they were big as the other media kept referring to them as household names and the very programmes they front often bore their name. RTE got rich on TV licence hikes and the boom in advertising in the Celtic Tiger era esp the fake Tiger (2002-2007) TV3 and Newstalk were national competition and in theory might try to poach a top name - they never did of course, (Dunphys Friday Night on TV3 doesn't really count as he is a freelancer) they only got those who's day had already come and gone like Mark Cagney. But RTE caved in anyway and signed for long term contracts that were well above any true market rate. The top 10 are now on about 30% less than peak, the next round of negotiations will be interesting as there seems to be a
move by the revenue with regard to the fact the stars are not paid a salary directly but draw an income from a company of which they are the only employee and so avoid tax to a certain % as compared to a regular employee.

antoobrien

srsly78 wrote: »

However in reality noone watches RTE so I have no idea.

Rte1 & 2 have a combined share of 27% of the Irish tv market - hardly nobody.

juan.kerr

antoobrien wrote: »

Rte1 & 2 have a combined share of 27% of the Irish tv market - hardly nobody.

Mainly because they use the TV licence fee income to buy popular US shows and sports.

Lumbo

juan.kerr wrote: »

Mainly because they use the TV licence fee income to buy popular US shows and sports.

At least that's using the money in a good way to attract viewers.

The wages of presenters on the other hand....

antoobrien

juan.kerr wrote: »

Mainly because they use the TV licence fee income to buy popular US shows and sports.

Not really no. RTE 1 is mostly domestic (except films, documentarties and the like), rte 2 is mostly sport and foreign - and is not helping them get the upper hand on TV3.

http://www.tamireland.ie/
Channel | % Share
RTE 1 | 18.11
RTE 2 | 8.81
TV3 | 9.88

Sleepy

juan.kerr wrote: »

Mainly because they use the TV licence fee income to buy popular US shows and sports.

In an age of Netflix, Torrents and Box-sets, I can't see that being a working strategy...

Max Powers

RTE is like most other state bodies; undereffective, a lot of overpaid/over holidayed staff especially at upper levels, oversized in general has an uncanny ability to make embarrassing half-a$$ed copies of succesful things from the abroad.

The TV tax should be scrapped,
RTE will then be forced to cut number of channels/staff and stand on its own 2 feet with its significant ad money

Laminations

Damien360 wrote: »

What you fail to add is some of the hours put in by the same presenters. Marian Finnucane does the sum total of 4 hours radio for her pay. What is the rate of advertising per slot and how many slots in an hour. Cannot be covering her salary in any way whatsoever.

Yes, because there is no prep time, research or production meetings that need doing as a presenter. While I think they are overpaid, comments like this greatly underestimate the workload and difficulty of the job. If you think it is so easy and cushy, go get a job on the telly. While many people criticise Pat Kenny, he is a very knowledgeable and sharp guy.... not so much so that he is worth three quarters of a million as I don't think tv3 (the only competition for Pats talents) could afford such a salary for him.

Laminations

Max Powers wrote: »

RTE is like most other state bodies; undereffective, a lot of overpaid/over holidayed staff especially at upper levels, oversized in general has an uncanny ability to make embarrassing half-a$$ed copies of succesful things from the abroad.

The TV tax should be scrapped,
RTE will then be forced to cut number of channels/staff and stand on its own 2 feet with its significant ad money

So TV should just be about competing for audience figures? Guess we'll get x-factor and Britain's got talent type sh1te on 24 hour cycles in that world. TV should have a cultural and educational value and not just commercial concerns. While it can be argued that RTE are failing to properly fulfill this role as state broadcaster - it is that role that the licence fee pays for.

Head The Wall

Laminations wrote: »

Yes, because there is no prep time, research or production meetings that need doing as a presenter. While I think they are overpaid, comments like this greatly underestimate the workload and difficulty of the job. If you think it is so easy and cushy, go get a job on the telly. While many people criticise Pat Kenny, he is a very knowledgeable and sharp guy.... not so much so that he is worth three quarters of a million as I don't think tv3 (the only competition for Pats talents) could afford such a salary for him.

They should reduce their pay to the level above what the competition would pay and no more. I guarantee that no other broadcaster would pay them anything remotely near what they currently get

carpejugulum

People get upset about the household charge, but TV license is a much more unfair and unreasonable tax.

paddy147

Jayus lads,,lay off RTE and the licence fee.

Poor Pat Kenny needs every cent he can get,as he cant get by on 500k a year.


Hes having a tough life you knwo............................:pac::pac:

christmas2012

RTE ratings are down the sh!thole,yet these assholes are still demanding premium hollywood wages..FFS

[Jackass]

The wages are obscene really and the content on RTE is absolutely appalling.

For the cost of the station to the tax payer, I'm struggling to think of a single original production by RTE that has been picked up or even broadcast anywhere else in the world at any stage in the last 50+ years.

The service is absolutely atrocious.

alastair

[Jackass] wrote: »

I'm struggling to think of a single original production by RTE that has been picked up or even broadcast anywhere else in the world at any stage in the last 50+ years.

The Lyrics Board has been franchised all over the place. They love it! Proof that, while RTE may be iffy, there's far worse out there in the world.

Black Smoke

paddy147 wrote: »

Jayus lads,,lay off RTE and the licence fee.

Poor Pat Kenny needs every cent he can get,as he cant get by on 500k a year.


Hes having a tough life you knwo............................:pac::pac:

Didn't he have to "borrow", a bit of land off his neighbour to try make ends meet:cool:

NIMAN

I've always wondered if the head honcho's at RTE called in the likes of PK, Miriam, Turbidy, Joe Duffy etc and said "listen folks, we are broke, and we are putting a salary cap on wages here at €150k, you've got to take it or leave it", how many would actually leave?

Lets be honest, maybe one or 2 might get a better paying job across the water (such as Turbidy as he has done some time at the BBC), but the rest of them are only 'big' here in this small country. Would anyone like BBC, Sky, ITV, C4, CNN, ITN etc really want the likes of Miriam, or Joe duffy or Pat Kenny?

I think not, and I think they'd sign on the dotted line for the €150k. Fortune saved.

hmmm

RTE spent hundreds of millions last year. I think this focus on top presenter salaries is a convenient distraction from what looks like massive over-spending in general, probably at all levels.

Pottler

It's fairly simple really, these guys are all on fairly short contracts. Come renewal time, offer them 1/4. No-one else would hire them for even that, so play hardball RTE, have some nerve. Regardless, reality will, as always, prevail eventually, and this is what will happen. Good. Just give it a bit of time.

goose2005

NIMAN wrote: »

I've always wondered if the head honcho's at RTE called in the likes of PK, Miriam, Turbidy, Joe Duffy etc and said "listen folks, we are broke, and we are putting a salary cap on wages here at €150k, you've got to take it or leave it", how many would actually leave?

Lets be honest, maybe one or 2 might get a better paying job across the water (such as Turbidy as he has done some time at the BBC), but the rest of them are only 'big' here in this small country. Would anyone like BBC, Sky, ITV, C4, CNN, ITN etc really want the likes of Miriam, or Joe duffy or Pat Kenny?

I think not, and I think they'd sign on the dotted line for the €150k. Fortune saved.

The head honchos are in-laws, friends, golfing buddies of the 'stars'. And if the 'stars' are on huge salaries, it makes the management's salaries look small in comparison.

hmmm wrote: »

RTE spent hundreds of millions last year. I think this focus on top presenter salaries is a convenient distraction from what looks like massive over-spending in general, probably at all levels.

It's interesting that the credits of an RTE show will often have 40-50 names in the credits while a TG4 production might have less than 20, with no real difference in quality.

Kinski

NIMAN wrote: »

I've always wondered if the head honcho's at RTE called in the likes of PK, Miriam, Turbidy, Joe Duffy etc and said "listen folks, we are broke, and we are putting a salary cap on wages here at €150k, you've got to take it or leave it", how many would actually leave?

Lets be honest, maybe one or 2 might get a better paying job across the water (such as Turbidy as he has done some time at the BBC), but the rest of them are only 'big' here in this small country. Would anyone like BBC, Sky, ITV, C4, CNN, ITN etc really want the likes of Miriam, or Joe duffy or Pat Kenny?

I think not, and I think they'd sign on the dotted line for the €150k. Fortune saved.

It's not the BBC or Channel 4 poaching their stars that concerns RTE, it's Newstalk and TV3 doing it.

Bear in mind that these salary levels are related to ad revenues. Gerry Ryan took a massive amount of stick when he initially refused to take a paycut along with RTE's other stars, claiming that he was worth what he was being paid. He gave in eventually, but after his death his original point was proved - listenership is way down for his slot, meaning much less coming in from selling advertising in that slot.

Now, just to be clear, I think these people are all mediocre talents, and I can't account for their popularity (just like I can't account for the popularity of Davina McCall or Graham Norton in the UK,) but if RTE slashed Pat Kenny's or Joe Duffy's pay packets, the O'Brien-controlled media outlets would be more than happy to offer well in excess of 150k euro a year for their services.

OU812

Gerry Ryan only worked the first four months of 2010 too !

He was worth the money though.

blindsider

Kinski wrote: »

It's not the BBC or Channel 4 poaching their stars that concerns RTE, it's Newstalk and TV3 doing it.

Bear in mind that these salary levels are related to ad revenues. Gerry Ryan took a massive amount of stick when he initially refused to take a paycut along with RTE's other stars, claiming that he was worth what he was being paid. He gave in eventually, but after his death his original point was proved - listenership is way down for his slot, meaning much less coming in from selling advertising in that slot.

Now, just to be clear, I think these people are all mediocre talents, and I can't account for their popularity (just like I can't account for the popularity of Davina McCall or Graham Norton in the UK,) but if RTE slashed Pat Kenny's or Joe Duffy's pay packets, the O'Brien-controlled media outlets would be more than happy to offer well in excess of 150k euro a year for their services.

I'd like to see that actually happen - I have my doubts TBH. Ray d'Arcy is the biggest independent name and he's on €250K. He's worth it to TodayFM because he's built up the listenership - but it took a long time. I'd be surprised if anyone except ian Dempsey is anywhere near him - and Newstalk are well known to be poor payers (relatively speaking.)

I just can't see e.g. Joe Duffy hacking it on 4FM - he doesn't have a 'Unique Selling Point' - any decent broadcaster can do what he does.

anyway, this is all idle specualtion, because RTE won't bite the bullet - and we are the ones who suffer!

Kinski

blindsider wrote: »

anyway, this is all idle specualtion, because RTE won't bite the bullet - and we are the ones who suffer!

We may find out if RTE ever tries to tempt Darcy back to the fold. He's still got something like 80,000 less listeners than Ryan had (and is on half as much), but is more popular than Tubridy.

As an aside, for nepotism-fans, I like to point out (because it doesn't seem common enough knowledge) that Tubridy's grandfather Todd Andrews was a prominent FF supporter, who was not only DG of RTE, but also served stints as chairman of CIE and managing director of Bord na Mona.

mike65

I thought EVERYONE knew that Todd Andrews was Tubs grandpappy, and is cousin to various other FF Andrews.

Kinski

You'd be surprised.

Tinie

People here really think there will be cuts on RTE for the "top dogs"? Really?

All that needs to be said is that the people paying the wages are good mates of the "top dogs" of RTE presenters. Nuff said.

M three

srsly78 wrote: »

Well in theory if they do a good job there will be lots of viewers. Lots of viewers = lots of ad revenue. Therefore they should be worth it.

However in reality noone watches RTE so I have no idea.

It doesnt stand up that Irish tv show presenters wages are based on viewer figures and therefore ad revenue, because english tv show presenters who broadcast to many times more viewers arent paid the same multiple amount of salary.
RTE presenters are way overpaid, and deluded. Miriam O'Callaghan was touted as a potential presidential candidate, albeit by her buddies in the media but rather than dismiss such a mad idea miriam said that she was "honoured" to be linked with the job.
Just goes to show how far up her arse her head is

EchoO

Kinski wrote: »

Bear in mind that these salary levels are related to ad revenues. Gerry Ryan took a massive amount of stick when he initially refused to take a paycut along with RTE's other stars, claiming that he was worth what he was being paid. He gave in eventually, but after his death his original point was proved - listenership is way down for his slot, meaning much less coming in from selling advertising in that slot.

The collapse of Gerry Ryan's old audience was down to how truly awful Tubridy was as a replacement. RTE picked the wrong person.

if RTE slashed Pat Kenny's or Joe Duffy's pay packets, the O'Brien-controlled media outlets would be more than happy to offer well in excess of 150k euro a year for their services.

Newstalk paid Eamon Dunphy 100k to present a Sunday morning show. On year later he had the grand total of 50,000 listeners. His Saturday Show on RTE Radio 1 had an audience of 260,000. The station tries to cut his wages in half and he flounces off.

I don't think O'Brien-controlled media outlets will be overly eager to try this again with another RTE star. Having a show on the national institution that is RTE Radio 1, is much more important than who the presenter is. The brand loyalty to that station is so strong that vast majority of listeners would just continue to listen to Kenny's or Duffy's replacement. They just don't don't turn the dial away from Radio 1.

FreudianSlippers

Kinski wrote: »

It's not the BBC or Channel 4 poaching their stars that concerns RTE, it's Newstalk and TV3 doing it.

Bear in mind that these salary levels are related to ad revenues. Gerry Ryan took a massive amount of stick when he initially refused to take a paycut along with RTE's other stars, claiming that he was worth what he was being paid. He gave in eventually, but after his death his original point was proved - listenership is way down for his slot, meaning much less coming in from selling advertising in that slot.

Now, just to be clear, I think these people are all mediocre talents, and I can't account for their popularity (just like I can't account for the popularity of Davina McCall or Graham Norton in the UK,) but if RTE slashed Pat Kenny's or Joe Duffy's pay packets, the O'Brien-controlled media outlets would be more than happy to offer well in excess of 150k euro a year for their services.

That's exactly the point - the breakdown of RTÉ income is roughly 50% public and 50% private (mainly from advertising revenue).
It may be an exercise in semantics (as it all goes in the same 'pot' initially), but my understanding is that 'talent' salaries are earmarked mainly out of the private income, that way they are linked to ad revenue... you sell more ad space you get more money.

In reality if you want to complain about TV licence money, you'd see TG4 and a bunch of Radio gone before RTÉ1&2 TV or radio lowered the salaries of their 'stars'.

EchoO

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's exactly the point - the breakdown of RTÉ income is roughly 50% public and 50% private (mainly from advertising revenue).
It may be an exercise in semantics (as it all goes in the same 'pot' initially), but my understanding is that 'talent' salaries are earmarked mainly out of the private income, that way they are linked to ad revenue... you sell more ad space you get more money.

In reality if you want to complain about TV licence money, you'd see TG4 and a bunch of Radio gone before RTÉ1&2 TV or radio lowered the salaries of their 'stars'.

RTE's commercial revenues have fallen by 32 per cent since 2007. Yet nearly all these 'stars' were locked into to boom time contracts throughout the recessions. Many of those contracts are only up for renewal this year. RTE's net deficit is 16.8 million.

I don't think you can say their salaries comes out of ad revenue but not the licence fee. If that licence fee element was removed, even allowing for the radical changes that would have to be made to the organisation, would they still be able to pay the 'stars' the same amount? I doubt it.

And it's not just a case of how much their respective shows generate. More relevent is how much more does that timeslot generate than if someone else was presenting at that time. It most cases I would say - not very much.

There's also the question of why would any company pay vastly greater amounts to their employees than their competitors would, or could?

M three

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's exactly the point - the breakdown of RTÉ income is roughly 50% public and 50% private (mainly from advertising revenue).
It may be an exercise in semantics (as it all goes in the same 'pot' initially), but my understanding is that 'talent' salaries are earmarked mainly out of the private income, that way they are linked to ad revenue... you sell more ad space you get more money.

In reality if you want to complain about TV licence money, you'd see TG4 and a bunch of Radio gone before RTÉ1&2 TV or radio lowered the salaries of their 'stars'.

Taking about Rte income misses the point, they are spending way more than they take in. Pay is too high.
It should be made stand on its own two feet and only pay out what it can afford.
Of course that wouldnt suit whatever government is in power as they wouldnt have a compliant little propaganda tool for their own use.

Anyone that doesnt realise this would want to pay attention to the amount of crap rte news puts out and the amount of non stories they report on

goose2005

EchoO wrote: »

RTE's commercial revenues have fallen by 32 per cent since 2007. Yet nearly all these 'stars' were locked into to boom time contracts throughout the recessions. Many of those contracts are only up for renewal this year. RTE's net deficit is 16.8 million.

I don't think you can say their salaries comes out of ad revenue but not the licence fee. If that licence fee element was removed, even allowing for the radical changes that would have to be made to the organisation, would they still be able to pay the 'stars' the same amount? I doubt it.

And it's not just a case of how much their respective shows generate. More relevent is how much more does that timeslot generate than if someone else was presenting at that time. It most cases I would say - not very much.

There's also the question of why would any company pay vastly greater amounts to their employees than their competitors would, or could?

And all of this makes the assumption that RTE's purpose is to generate money: it's not. It's supposed to be a public service broadcaster, supplying work of value to society that the commercial sector can't afford to do, or won't risk doing.

M three

goose2005 wrote: »

And all of this makes the assumption that RTE's purpose is to generate money: it's not. It's supposed to be a public service broadcaster, supplying work of value to society that the commercial sector can't afford to do, or won't risk doing.

No one is asking rte to make money that I know of.
They should be covering their costs. Saying they are a public service broadcaster doesnt mean they should be shelling out millions to mediocre presenters.
The excuse that the public need them is a bit much, with cable, satellite, downloads etc they are not needed as much as they try to let on.
They're needed more by the government of the day to put their own spin on things.
Anyway hasn't sky news lost money every year its existed? Proof that news is more about propaganda than money

Cerco

Miriam O'Callaghan was chairing the Pat Kenny show yesterday. I expect she will soon be doing the Weather, the Lotto and Spin the wheel. Is there any limit to her talents?

M three

Cerco wrote: »

Miriam O'Callaghan was chairing the Pat Kenny show yesterday. I expect she will soon be doing the Weather, the Lotto and Spin the wheel. Is there any limit to her talents?

Yes, there definitely is.
She is unable to put a half decent question to any politician from a government party and prefers to kiss ass on air instead.

mike65

goose2005 wrote: »

And all of this makes the assumption that RTE's purpose is to generate money: it's not. It's supposed to be a public service broadcaster, supplying work of value to society that the commercial sector can't afford to do, or won't risk doing.

Its not their job to lose millions year after year while costs are not tackled with a proper enthusiasm. RTE are in a hole for the medium term they have to cut their cloth.

thebman

goose2005 wrote: »

And all of this makes the assumption that RTE's purpose is to generate money: it's not. It's supposed to be a public service broadcaster, supplying work of value to society that the commercial sector can't afford to do, or won't risk doing.

To a limit past which the tax payer isn't willing to make up the difference.

Well past that point at the moment.

Their deficit is after all the money they have been given from license fees etc... so they are taking that money and still crying out, please sir can I have some more to the tune of millions to pay for staff costs not quality programming.

Not sustainable or acceptable to any sane person who doesn't work there IMO.

Benedict

No tourist would visit Ireland if no police force existed. Therefore, a garda should get thousands of Euro a week because without him/her, there would be no tourists.
This is the sort of farcical reasoning used to justify the fact that we are still paying obscene salaries to RTE presenters. Advertising is worth millions to RTE, Joe Duffy makes people listen to RTE therefore he is responsible for making millions therefore he is actually cheap at nearly 6k a week for less than 8 hours work per week.
Here's another one folks - without ink manufacturers, there'd be no money, so ink manufacturers should get paid huge sums every week. Without teachers, nobody would be able to read, the economy would fail, so teachers should get what? Even more per week than Joe Duffy?
How in God's name is it right that Joe Duffy gets more per week (whether he's on - or someone else is standing in) than Barak Obama.
And we're paying it!

Tim Robbins

srsly78 wrote: »

Well in theory if they do a good job there will be lots of viewers. Lots of viewers = lots of ad revenue. Therefore they should be worth it.

However in reality noone watches RTE so I have no idea.

That's a bogus comparison. They get subsidised so they have to show less ads and make better quality programs so they should be getting good figures.

If mars bars got subsidised by the tax payer you'd expect them to out sell snicker bars?

Farmer Pudsey

RTE is just the tip of an iceberg that is Semi-State pay. This often means that we are paying a higher price for services provided by semi-state bodies than we should. At present Electricity prices in Ireland are 40% higher than the EU average. I know that wages are only a small part of this however it seem to be an atitude accross semi-state bodies that workers come first and consumers stump up.

RTE pay wages way out of sync with its size. The reality is that if Pat Kenny, Joe Duffy and Ryan Turbidy went to the open market it is unliky that they would recieve 60% of these wages. However the real issue is that there is a second tier of presenters such as Marian Finnucane and Derek Davis that are semi retired and either do radion program over the weekend or are wheeled out for the summer when the big name presenters dissappear for 6-8 weeks.

I do not see comparable close downs in the BBC or other TV stations where there main presenters get holidays at Christmass, Easter Summer and even at mid-term.

The wages in the ESB, Board Gais, Bord na Mona et al are similar are push up part of the price of there products

Tim Robbins

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

RTE is just the tip of an iceberg that is Semi-State pay. This often means that we are paying a higher price for services provided by semi-state bodies than we should. At present Electricity prices in Ireland are 40% higher than the EU average. I know that wages are only a small part of this however it seem to be an atitude accross semi-state bodies that workers come first and consumers stump up.

It is a power nexus. Bryan Dobson was on 300K a year and running private media coaching courses teaching politicians how to answer questions at the same time a few years ago.

Miriam O'Callaghan know very little about anything but yet commands a leading position in current affairs! She has FF relations as does Tubs - not saying that got her to where she is but she is pretty useless at what she does considering the tricks the politicians are up to in this state it should be easy to pressurise them.

Chucky the tree

Benedict wrote: »

No tourist would visit Ireland if no police force existed. Therefore, a garda should get thousands of Euro a week because without him/her, there would be no tourists.
This is the sort of farcical reasoning used to justify the fact that we are still paying obscene salaries to RTE presenters. Advertising is worth millions to RTE, Joe Duffy makes people listen to RTE therefore he is responsible for making millions therefore he is actually cheap at nearly 6k a week for less than 8 hours work per week.
Here's another one folks - without ink manufacturers, there'd be no money, so ink manufacturers should get paid huge sums every week. Without teachers, nobody would be able to read, the economy would fail, so teachers should get what? Even more per week than Joe Duffy?
How in God's name is it right that Joe Duffy gets more per week (whether he's on - or someone else is standing in) than Barak Obama.
And we're paying it!

Supply and demand. If there is a large demand for something but a limited supply then that will effect the price/cost. We can easily supply lots of guards for much less then €1k per week so there is no need paying them that. The question is can a radio show host bring in as many listeners as Joe Duffy et. all? Most couldn't, that's the problem. Problem then is to work out how many listeners can be lost for saving €100k on his wage.

Farmer Pudsey

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Supply and demand. If there is a large demand for something but a limited supply then that will effect the price/cost. We can easily supply lots of guards for much less then €1k per week so there is no need paying them that. The question is can a radio show host bring in as many listeners as Joe Duffy et. all? Most couldn't, that's the problem. Problem then is to work out how many listeners can be lost for saving €100k on his wage.

The other question is could Duffy command the same salary from a private radio station. Yes he could command more from a UK station but is his type of program transferable accross the water. Also remember he has sailed close to the water with libel cases this is a cost as well. I would like to see wage scales of presenters on private stations.

Is Vincent Brown on more than RTE current affairs presenters. Most RTE current affaris presenters on TV are only on 3 days a week and then only for part of the program. Vincent is tied to the chair four nights a week ans is the sole presenter.

Matt Cooper presents the last word for 2.5 hours 5 days a week again he is the sole presenter. I believe that RTE takes the easy option on wages. Ryan Turbidy's radio show is not exactly show stopping his wages are. Another issue is the way RTE allows them to sub contract these presenters the revenue comissioners are clamping down on it in Privtae industry but I do not see them sending a team into RTE.

Chemical Burn

padraig102 wrote: »

Marian Finucane, whose fee of €570,000

4 hours per week at 52 weeks per year, 208 hours.
€570,000/208hours
€2,740/hour

mikom

Chemical Burn wrote: »

4 hours per week at 52 weeks per year, 208 hours.
€570,000/208hours
€2,740/hour

Try 30 weeks per year.
She is missing every third or forth week.

Rape of the licence payer is what it is.

Fr Tod Umptious

Chemical Burn wrote: »

4 hours per week at 52 weeks per year, 208 hours.
€570,000/208hours
€2,740/hour

If you really think that TV or radio presenters only work the hours that they are on air then there is no use having a debate with you here.

kippy

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If you really think that TV or radio presenters only work the hours that they are on air then there is no use having a debate with you here.

Obviously she "works" more than the hours she is on the air - but no where near enough to justify the salary she is getting paid.
There is absolutely no reason any public service paid presenter of anything in this country should be getting paid over and above 150K per year and that in itself is generous.
If they were "THAT" good at attracting "revenue" for advertising I wouldn't have had to stump up 160 quid for the past few years on a license fee.

If they "threaten" to go else where, let them off. Hire in someone else, there are plenty young media graduates out there with the drive to do a lot more than the current guys in there.