BBC Staff

[KalamityKel]

"BBC staff could receive ?46,000 pay sweetener to move to broadcaster's new home

By Paul Revoir

(Daily Mail)

The BBC is to offer staff up to ?46,000 to persuade them to move from London to Salford.

The corporation is planning to move 1,600 employees north to its new Media City headquarters.

Among the parts of the BBC being transferred are children's programming, sport and Radio 5 Live.

BBC headquarters

BBC's existing headquarters in London. The broadcaster is offering staff huge financial incentives to move to Salford

The latest details about the move show some staff will get rent and bills paid on flats in the Manchester area while they keep their home in the south.

Those who qualify for the 'remote location allowance' will be eligible for expenses of up to ?1,900 a month to cover costs of rent and bills for up to two years while they take up their new role in Salford.

The payments have been set up to help staff with personal circumstances which would be affected by an immediate move.

Those whose children are at critical points in their education, or who provide care for their elderly relatives could qualify for the deal.

A staff member whose partner struggles to find work in the North West might also qualify for the scheme.

This would allow workers to stay in a flat within reach of Salford during the week while returning to their family home in the south at the weekend.

But critics fear some could take advantage of the generous package to improve their standard of living before moving back to the south.

BBC Media City

The new BBC Media City under construction in the north west. The corporation is under fire for profligacy at a time when many companies are being forced to tighten their belts

Homeowners who decide to make the move to Salford also get up to ?8,000 tax free to help cover costs of moving house. This includes as much as ?3,000 for curtains and carpets.

The BBC is already guaranteeing to give staff involved in the move 85 per cent of their home's market value.

The ?240million move to Salford is to counter claims that the BBC has become too 'London-centric'.

Mark Wallace of the TaxPayers' Alliance said of the scheme: 'It is extremely generous and a sharp contrast with the situation faced by ordinary licence-fee payers struggling to afford their bills and commercial channels being forced to make cutbacks.'

Liberal Democrat culture spokesman Don Foster added: 'If the move to Salford is gold-plated in this way, it starts to make the whole project look ridiculous.'

A BBC spokesman said: 'The support we offer is in line with other major employers in the public and private sectors. Only a small minority of staff in specific circumstances would qualify for the remote relocation scheme.

'The revised policy announced last month is fair but affordable and was actually changed to reduce significantly the financial risk to the BBC and licence-fee payers.'

It has also emerged the BBC paid 20 senior managers ?200,000 in expenses over the past two years. They include BBC North boss Peter Salmon, head of the new Salford base, who claimed nearly ?20,000."

Is this fair?

[Tony.London Suburbs]

I'd want more than 46 Large to visit Salford, let alone live there:-$

Too much "White-On-White" Crime, pour moi, Je suis afraid.....

[KalamityKel]

I'm quite grrr over it all. My neighbour would fall into this category. She's hardly ever home anyway and to me it's a waste of a house that someone else could be using. I don't see why people need to have two or more homes especially when there are many people/families out there in need of affordable housing...

[dulwichdreadlocks]

I'm gonna apply for a job at the BBC so I can take advantage of this pronto

[SeanMacGabhann]

There is nothing odd about that story at all - it is standard practice for any corporation who needs to retain some of it's experienced staff. Usually companies relocating get to keep about a third of it's experienced staff when relocating like this.

And the package is "up to" 46k - rest aussured most won't get that. Some will undoubtedly retain a London home as insurance if things don't pan out oop North - what is wrong with that? It's not exactly entering the realms of buy to let investordom is it?

Anything spouted by "TaxPayers' Alliance" is usually emotional, manipulative piffle anyway. "Most taxpayers" they are referring to stand every chance of being offered a similar deal at some point in their lives - when I first lived in London 20 years ago, earning approx 8k a year (very much an "ordinary taxpayer") my non-taf-funded, private insurance company relocated to Devon and offered similar packages. It's not sharp practice in the slightest!

Only long serving staff will qualify and most of them will turn down the offer. So is it fair? In a word, yes

[Nero]

'Up to ?46,000' is the key phrase, as Mr McG has pointed out.

Is it likely that a newspaper such as the Daily Mail will ever say anything complemetary about the BBC and its finances? Please read between the lines and not just the heads!

[woofmarkthedog]

46K doesn't get the blood boiling does it, just about keeps your head above water.....add kids and you start sinking

Salford....no F****g way.........not for 100k

WOOF

[*Bob*]

?46k for Salford.

How much for, say, Hull?

[KalamityKel]

Nero Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is it likely that a newspaper such as the Daily

> Mail will ever say anything complemetary about the

> BBC and its finances? Please read between the

> lines and not just the heads!

The article from the Daily Mail was the only example I could find at the time. It is the topic of discussion in other areas though.

As mentioned my neighbour would be one of those affected and I have heard her discuss the topic with other colleagues - her trying to figure out how much money she would be able to claim, wanting the top amount.

Yes read between the lines if you will.

[*Bob*]

Doesn't everybody 'want the top amount'? Even if you just do a paper round?

[snorky]

Despite its reputation as the most vibrant / exciting/ happening city in Europe, Manchester is quite frankly, a depressing shithole that should be avoided at all costs. ?46K ? I would sooner go to Iraq as a freelance christian missionary on a bycicle than move to manchester.awful.

[Ted Max]

Is it the old glass to the wall routine, Kels? Me too, although I only ever seem to be able to pick up the idents from Living TV.

[Marmora Man]

I'm with Sean McG on this. Absolutely standard practice - much fairer than MP's expenses which are not properly audited, relocation usually pays for receipted "out of pocket" costs of moving from one area to another at the request of the employer. So the employer pays:

a. Agents fees

b. Removal expenses

c. Temporary accommodation while house searching (in my experience for a max of 3 months)

d. Some incidentals - breakages, maybe a new cooker or similar (usually capped at a reasonable sum - say ?1,000). Again against receipts.

So the relocation expenses / fees are about right. In my experience no-one paid relocation makes a "profit" on the deal, they merely have the majority (but not all) of the additional costs covered off.

However, I would query why BBC is moving to Salford? It has a perfectly adequate base, staff and facilities in London. The total cost of moving the BBC will be huge (possibly including a temporary reduction in quality / performance as well) just to satisfy a government wish to achieve geographical diversity. London is the country's capital - it should be the center of things, this is not wrong but natural.

[Ted Max]

I agree this is a non-story in terms of re-location allowances.

But as for reasons for the move - I don't think it's just a goverment wish to achieve geographical diversity. I think the Beeb has also been prodded by a hostile right wing press and elements of the Conservative Party that never misses the chance to bash it as representative only of the supposed left-liberal metro-centric elite.

Of course, just moving the same elite lock-stock up to Manchester is not going to solve that problem. But something had to be done.

[AllforNun]

The whole thing is a massive piss take. These people are untouchable and it is about time it ended. Channel4 Suddenly nearly bankrupt and Sky claiming they (C4) have wasted 270m on stupid projects over the past 8 years, when incidently they have gone through 3 Chief Executives in 9 years and all x BBC ! previous to this they had 2 bloody great one's in 22 years. ITV now in serious trouble, hundreds of forced redundancies and the BBC trumpeting every one's else problems on its website and ignoring it own near corrupt and ring fenced position. The Answer is simple.

The Licence fee no longer goes just to the BBC it gets split between them and ITV and C4 obviously BBC getting the largest proportion, but at least we would be able to have a little more say where this outdated tax goes and that we may finally get some other voices coming through. The government are kept at arms length from the broadcasters and they all get back to making groundbreaking and inspiring Programmes and not chasing ratings with W > nkers on ice jungle big brother toss fest. How about some inspiring opera running 3 hours with viewing figures about 500,000 only.

[James]

As others have said, the Daily Mail is a nasty vindictive little rag that has certain targets it regularly spews bile at, the BBC being one.

I note the Mail is strangely quiet about the new London mayor's axing of important transport projects that would help less affluent Londoners (e.g. Peckham tram, congestion charge extension etc.) Let alone the useless cronies he appoints with alarming regularity - also at taxpayers' expense.

[Nero]

If you didn't have a license fee, you wouldn't have as much good output - radio, tv, online, - community services, specialised channels, educational support etc - as you do today. I agree that money should be spent more wisely within the BBC, but please, do think before you flush the baby out with the bath water. The BBC is unrivalled and once gone will never be replicated.

Do you really, really think that non-public service broadcasters would produce output as good as that produced currently by the BBC, on all its platforms?

[hackette]

Bob, I'd pay the BBC to go and work in Hull (or 'Urll it's know locally) - it's a fantastic city! AllforNun, I'm confused - how would giving ITV and C4 some of the licence fee mean that the BBC would improve its output? The three channels are already in competition and they're all pretty chronic - how would your plan change any of that?

[red devil]

Tony.London Suburbs Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'd want more than 46 Large to visit Salford, let

> alone live there:-$

>

> Too much "White-On-White" Crime, pour moi, Je suis

> afraid.....

''We don't want yer softy shite fookin' southern poofters here anyway...''

http://www.tvscoop.tv/sh-shameless.jpg

[AllforNun]

hi hackette, well the idea written on the back of my dogs for the day, really is about stopping the bbc executives taking the piss with their own wages and handing the money back to programme makers within those corporations who actually know how to make telly. At the moment they are all actually virtually unaccountable, how on earth have they got away with being based in the worlds most expensive city for such a long time, what a joke. And as for i get paid 1mill + because that is the market rate, thats ridiculous too, those rates are set by the Beeb themselves. 500grand for head of subtitles, do me a favour.

as for nero's "The BBC is unrivalled and once gone will never be replicated" i think north korea still has a similar deal going on with it's main broadcaster !

and the beeb and C4 are not in competition C4 got taken over by the beeb and the government years ago.

[*Bob*]

Yeah - let's ditch the Beeb!

We can get ourselves some of that there quality telly - like what they have in America and Australia.

Looking forward to it.

[Tony.London Suburbs]

red devil Wrote:

'We don't want yer softy shite fookin' southern poofters here anyway...

''> http://www.tvscoop.tv/sh-shameless.jpg

......and who could plain yer?...Used to get the "Soft Southern Sh*t" accusation levelled at us whenever we watched our team oop North back in the 1970's/1980's at places like Bolton/Oldhamand bloody Barnsley....:))

Problem was in my case, they were right!

[AllforNun]

No lets not ditch the beeb, lets just make sure the company runs luck a proper fucking business and make those dicks at the top work for our money.