Broadcasting charge

carpejugulum

RTÉ reveals deficit of €65.2m last year

So after losing €16.8m in 2011 they increased it to 65.2! No austerity in RTE obviously.

beeno67

alastair wrote: »

I will when everyone else who recognises that the subsidies have an economic stimulus aspect to them does. Sorry if that offends.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99916513

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/16/arts/16mone.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I knew I should have left it alone.

Mr.Micro

carpejugulum wrote: »

RTÉ reveals deficit of €65.2m last year

So after losing €16.8m in 2011 they increased it to 65.2! No austerity in RTE obviously.

Anybody ever question that its not run well? RTE has a position of privilege IMO, and its management structure needs to be examined?

alastair

alastair wrote: »

The money was spent on keeping the orchestras going - within the economy. It's not like it was poured down a hole. How do you know it's not productive in the long term? Riverdance has been a major cash cow, and the producers have gone to great lengths to point out that the skills and expertise that made that happen were reliant on state subsidies.




You can listen to them on the radio without spending anything over your TV licence. And tickets are pretty reasonable - far from an elitist pricing structure. The argument about not wanting to pay taxes for things you don't personally make use of is a bit of a blind alley.

If an orchestra can be productive and earn money then let them do it themselves. The state isn`t a charity. Subsidizing an orchestra while the state is bankrupt is obscene.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

If an orchestra can be productive and earn money then let them do it themselves. The state isn`t a charity. Subsidizing an orchestra while the state is bankrupt is obscene.

It's quite possible to be both productive, and require subsidy to continue. Pretty much every state service is getting 'charity' by your line of thinking.

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

RTÉ reveals deficit of €65.2m last year

So after losing €16.8m in 2011 they increased it to 65.2! No austerity in RTE obviously.

From the piece:

Much of RTÉ’s deficit was due to a one-off €46 million restructuring charge.
This funded an overhaul of the company’s operations, which was aimed at ultimately reducing the company’s cost base.
RTÉ said the €2.2 million euro operating profit was made in spite of further reductions in revenue in 2012 and was driven by reductions in operating costs of €18.4 million euros.

Max Powers

alastair wrote: »

You sure about this? The NCH has the third highest footfall of visitors to cultural institutions in Dublin - ahead of the National Gallery and The National Museums.

http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2012/01/31/00046.asp

the national concert hall is not the RTE orchestra.

golfwallah

carpejugulum wrote: »

RTÉ reveals deficit of €65.2m last year

So after losing €16.8m in 2011 they increased it to 65.2! No austerity in RTE obviously.

Actually, the real losses in RTE are much worse than appear in the headlines.

“Total Comprehensive Losses” jump to €71.4m in 2012 (€68.8m in 2011), after taking account of pension deficit of €5.8m (€50.1m in 2011) plus other charges (pages 79 & 58 of 2012 and 2011 accounts): http://cdn.thejournal.ie/media/2013/08/rte-annual-report-2012.pdf and http://www.rte.ie/documents/about/RTE%202011%20Annual%20Report%20-%20English.pdf

alastair

Max Powers wrote: »

the national concert hall is not the RTE orchestra.

It's just where 90% of their performances take place.

golfwallah

The ancient Romans provided bread, circuses, road and water infrastructure to keep their citizens happy. These people understood that money had to come from somewhere – if not from taxpayers, then through war booty or mineral wealth. As a result their government system lasted for centuries.

Contrast this with our government today – spending on inefficiency and waste - financed from taxation today and the hope of yet more taxes tomorrow (through borrowing).

Examples of this largess with your money:
Government:
• Subsidies to and losses by semi state bodies:
o RTE – Recorded loss of €65.2m in 2012 after loss of €16.8m in 2011. However, “Total Comprehensive Losses” jump to €71.4m in 2012 (€68.8m in 2011), after taking account of pension deficit of €5.8m (€50.1m in 2011) plus other charges (see previous post for source).
o CIE – Recorded modest profit of €11.7m in 2012, after receiving PSO subsidy of €257m plus additional subvention of €36m, but before taking account of pensions deficit of €492m: http://194.106.151.76/about_us/annual_reports.asp
o Bord Na Mona – Recorded Total Recognised Loss of €45.7m for 2011/12, after charging pension actuarial loss of €31.4m: http://www.bordnamona.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Annual_Report_2011_to_2012.pdf
• Protection of semi state oligopolies:
o ESB –just look at your ESB Bill and their generous staff remuneration packages.
• Right to preserve deferred teacher lump-sums and pensions for TDs and ministers (although waived by Taoiseach Enda Kenny) http://www.independent.ie/national-news/elections/latest-news/department-not-legally-obliged-to-pay-kenny-his-pension-2550121.html
• Universal rights (with no tax claw-back) to:
o Medical Cards for over 70s (opposed by Joan Burton in opposition – “We need a Dail body to oversee the management of public service delivery at a reasonable cost”: http://www.kildarestreet.com/debate/?id=2005-05-17.293.34)
o Free Travel, Telephone Rental, Children’s Allowance
• Non-delivery on Croke Park Agreement: “There will be significantly improved performance management across all Public Service areas, with promotion and incremental progression linked in all cases to performance”.

Local Authorities:
• Huge borrowings being run up.
• Subsidies paid to loss making golf courses.
• Unaffordably high staffing costs in Libraries (e.g. average cost per book loan in Fingal is about €10).

How on earth will we ever pay back our huge debt burden ....... maybe we’ll discover lots of oil, gold or other minerals? If not, it will be back to the old reliable taxpayer!

carpejugulum

alastair wrote: »

But those who do pay are the only ones subsidising all RTE activities

Not true as RTE received additional subsidies from the gvt.

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

Not true as RTE received additional subsidies from the gvt.

Such as?

carpejugulum

alastair wrote: »

Such as?

Why isn't RTE in receivership after such heavy losses?

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

Why isn't RTE in receivership after such heavy losses?

I was hoping for some detail on the additional subsidies that you say RTE get?

They're engaged in pretty serious rationalisation and expect to be back on track next year, so receivership wouldn't be appropriate - just as it wouldn't for any business in the same situation in the private sector. They've borrowed to carry themselves over. There's no additional state subsidies being called on that I'm aware of.

carpejugulum

alastair wrote: »

I was hoping for some detail on the additional subsidies that you say RTE get?

They're engaged in pretty serious rationalisation and expect to be back on track next year, so receivership wouldn't be appropriate - just as it wouldn't for any business in the same situation in the private sector. They've borrowed to carry themselves over. There's no additional state subsidies being called on that I'm aware of.

Nobody would borrow a lousy company like RTE without government backing.

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

Nobody would borrow a lousy company like RTE without government backing.

So, those additional subsidies you mentioned?

carpejugulum

alastair wrote: »

So, those additional subsidies you mentioned?

Backing a bankrupt company is a subsidy.

Mr.Micro

carpejugulum wrote: »

Backing a bankrupt company is a subsidy.

That is an interesting point. To have such losses of €65 million and no other funds other than the licence fee and the ability to generate income, means that RTE would have to make big profits for years to clear that debt? In the mean time it carries on on the basis that it will be able to do that, against more and more competition and a tough advertizing environment?

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

Backing a bankrupt company is a subsidy.

Who's backing RTE?

The state /taxpayer is through the usual TV licence subvention - no change there.
And if a private lender sees fit to lend to them on the back of their business plan (break even next year, operating profit this year), then where's the problem? Are all business's who have been provided with bank loans 'subsidised' by that definition? Is your mortgage a 'subsidy'?

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

That is an interesting point. To have such losses of €65 million and no other funds other than the licence fee and the ability to generate income, means that RTE would have to make big profits for years to clear that debt? In the mean time it carries on on the basis that it will be able to do that, against more and more competition and a tough advertizing environment?

They've gutted their operating costs though (100 salaries gone, including Pat's, obvious reduction in commissioning/production overhead), so they have the potential for fairly healthy repayments over the next few years.

Mr.Micro

alastair wrote: »

They've gutted their operating costs though (100 salaries gone, including Pat's, obvious reduction in commissioning/production overhead), so they have the potential for fairly healthy repayments over the next few years.

We will see. It clearly needs help to survive each year via the licence fee funds, which equates to about half of its funding I do believe. I could not see RTE surviving in its present form if that funding was cut.

alastair

Mr.Micro wrote: »

We will see. It clearly needs help to survive each year via the licence fee funds, which equates to about half of its funding I do believe. I could not see RTE surviving in its present form if that funding was cut.

Of course it wouldn't. But no-one was suggesting it's funding would be cut. It's always required the licence fee for it's continuance - even in the healthy years.

carpejugulum

alastair wrote: »

Who's backing RTE?

The state /taxpayer is through the usual TV licence subvention - no change there.
And if a private lender sees fit to lend to them on the back of their business plan (break even next year, operating profit this year), then where's the problem? Are all business's who have been provided with bank loans 'subsidised' by that definition? Is your mortgage a 'subsidy'?

Is this 'private' lender a state-owned bank per chance?

Also are you an ex or current RTE employee?

jman0war

alastair wrote: »

So, those additional subsidies you mentioned?

Isn't the planned Broadcasting Charge additional subisidy?
It's just a widening of the net of the yearly shake-down of the irish people, to stump up for the likes of that very glamourous entertainment company.

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

Is this 'private' lender a state-owned bank per chance?

Also are you an ex or current RTE employee?

What bank is state-owned?

And, no, I'm not. Are you?

alastair

jman0war wrote: »

Isn't the planned Broadcasting Charge additional subisidy?
It's just a widening of the net of the yearly shake-down of the irish people, to stump up for the likes of that very glamourous entertainment company.

Problem is that there is no Broadcast Charge. There's a notional future broadcast charge, but that doesn't really equate to 'RTE having received additional government subsidies', does it?

golfwallah

jman0war wrote: »

Isn't the planned Broadcasting Charge additional subisidy?
It's just a widening of the net of the yearly shake-down of the irish people, to stump up for the likes of that very glamourous entertainment company.

When customers have no choice but to pay - I guess it's a subsidy.

The real problem is not RTE's past losses - and remember it's “Total Comprehensive Losses” (after massive pension deficits) jump to €71.4m in 2012 and €68.8m in 2011 - not just the recorded annual loss of €65.2m in 2012 and €16.8m in 2011.

I would see the main issues facing them, even with the new Broadcasting Charge, as continued excessive cost base, more effective competition (e.g. Pat Kenny now with Denis O'Brien's Newstalk, for a start) and further declining revenues.

RTE needs to get its act together much more quickly in response to changing events than has been their record to date (massive losses in 2011 & 2012).

I wonder how much longer their Labour Minister, Pat Rabbitte, can continue to prop them up, if their losses continue.

alastair

golfwallah wrote: »

I wonder how much longer their Labour Minister, Pat Rabbitte, can continue to prop them up, if their losses continue.

Pat Rabbitte (their Minister?) isn't propping them up at all - beyond sending them the usual TV licence cheque once a year. And you continue to ignore the fact that the massive loss this year is on the back of laying off 100 staffers. Even the most cynical observers have had to admit that RTE (off all people) have been pretty ruthless in cutting back expenditure to respond to the ****storm they find themselves in.

SpaceTime

The issue is that they wouldn't need to be so ruthless if they hadn't become so bloated and had kept cash reserves!

The spend it if you have it philosophy pervades everything here.

Even if they'd spent it on production facilities or one off shows or anything other than inflating current expenditure the situation would have been sustainable.

There seems to have been no realisation that normality in Ireland is probably more like the 1990s and that 2003-2007 was a massive bubble. Large areas of the economy assumed that it was the new normal.

If you've windfalls you spend on capital items and save! You don't increase your current expenditure in ways that will involve long term commitments that may exceed your income.

That applies to mortgages and public bodies in equal measure!

shleedance

I don't watch TV, never listen to radio and never access anything to do with RTE online. Don't see why I have to pay for something I literally don't use in any aspect.

For films and TV programmes, I access the likes of Netflix. For news, I read it online through various websites. For radio, I listen to podcasts on the subjects I like and online stations for music I like. None of these have any connection to RTE and its related channels and services.

shleedance

shleedance wrote: »

I don't watch TV, never listen to radio and never access anything to do with RTE online. Don't see why I have to pay for something I literally don't use in any aspect.
For films and TV programmes, I access the likes of Netflix. For news, I read it online through various websites. For radio, I listen to podcasts on the subjects I like and online stations for music I like. None of these have any connection to RTE and its related channels and services.

This is why a Broadcasting Fee is being considered. To cover all methods of receiving media. It only affects a small minority of people, as most pay a TV licence already.

shleedance

I already pay for Netflix and my Internet connection. I don't see why I have to pay extra, since the charge will do nothing in improving the overall content I view, listen and read.

RTE being a subscription service would make more sense.

jman0war

shleedance wrote: »

I already pay for Netflix and my Internet connection. I don't see why I have to pay extra, since the charge will do nothing in improving the overall content I view, listen and read.

RTE being a subscription service would make more sense.

It's because "important people" have decided that we need to do something to secure the finances of our very own Pvada.

It reminds me of the early days of the internt, in USA some Congressmen were floating the idea of levying a 5 cent tax on every email sent.
So they could keep the US postal service funded for lost business.
Thankfully this braindead idea was dropped.

But dont be surpised if it's resurrected again right here in this little banana republic.

golfwallah

jman0war wrote: »

It's because "important people" have decided that we need to do something to secure the finances of our very own Pvada.

It reminds me of the early days of the internt, in USA some Congressmen were floating the idea of levying a 5 cent tax on every email sent.
So they could keep the US postal service funded for lost business.
Thankfully this braindead idea was dropped.

But dont be surpised if it's resurrected again right here in this little banana republic.

Fair point.

But then, if the old licence fee and new broadcasting tax is to provide "public service broadcasting", then why not introduce an element of competition to keep broadcasters like RTE becoming "too fat"?

A way could surely be found for the "loss making" public service element to be put out to tender so that stations avoid overpaying their staff and incurring additional waste in the non-pay area as well.

alastair

golfwallah wrote: »

Fair point.

But then, if the old licence fee and new broadcasting tax is to provide "public service broadcasting", then why not introduce an element of competition to keep broadcasters like RTE becoming "too fat"?

A way could surely be found for the "loss making" public service element to be put out to tender so that stations avoid overpaying their staff and incurring additional waste in the non-pay area as well.

I'm pretty sure there's already competition for RTE. and haven't they just lost one of their overpaid staff to the competition, who are prepared to pay him even more?

golfwallah

alastair wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there's already competition for RTE. and haven't they just lost one of their overpaid staff to the competition, who are prepared to pay him even more?

Agreed there is already competition for RTE, but the point is that RTE have been incurring massive losses and we are now talking about the new Broadcasting Charge that will produce a lot more revenue than the old licence fee system.

Pat Kenny's departure to Newstalk will certainly help to level the competitive playing pitch and I'm sure more high profile moves will follow.

My concern would be how best to ensure the additional revenue produced by the Broadcasting Charge is not squandered by being put wholly into RTE to subsidize future losses.

RTE has and is going a long way towards reducing pay to high profile broadcasters and fair play to them. But they have a lot more to do than simply paying less to the high earners if they are to remain competitive and get back to break-even or profitability.

alastair

golfwallah wrote: »

Agreed there is already competition for RTE, but the point is that RTE have been incurring massive losses and we are now talking about the new Broadcasting Charge that will produce a lot more revenue than the old licence fee system.

Pat Kenny's departure to Newstalk will certainly help to level the competitive playing pitch and I'm sure more high profile moves will follow.

My concern would be how best to ensure the additional revenue produced by the Broadcasting Charge is not squandered by being put wholly into RTE to subsidize future losses.

RTE has and is going a long way towards reducing pay to high profile broadcasters and fair play to them. But they have a lot more to do than simply paying less to the high earners if they are to remain competitive and get back to break-even or profitability.

They've done a lot more than this though. Cut numbers back, cut pay, cut commissioning budgets. Some/many of their decisions are open to criticism, and they've never been a particularly dynamic organisation, but they were breaking even before the arse fell out of the advertising revenue, and they're looking pretty serious about getting their finances in order - even if it means lowering their quality of output.

golfwallah

alastair wrote: »

They've done a lot more than this though. Cut numbers back, cut pay, cut commissioning budgets. Some/many of their decisions are open to criticism, and they've never been a particularly dynamic organisation, but they were breaking even before the arse fell out of the advertising revenue, and they're looking pretty serious about getting their finances in order - even if it means lowering their quality of output.

Accepted they have changed - but not enough to avoid the losses of €170m clocked up over 2011 & 2012.

All I'm saying is there is a lot more to do for RTE to break-even and get back to profitability ....... just like the Dubs yesterday ..... not enough to play well and put scores on the board ...... you have to win.

If they don't do that, then all the rest is excuses for losses and lack of success, which, IMHO, is not good enough for an organisation like RTE.

Or would you prefer excuses to results? Pat Rabbitte and RTE have to produce the goods - otherwise, they will be rightly considered ineffectual and should go!

alastair

golfwallah wrote: »

Accepted they have changed - but not enough to avoid the losses of €170m clocked up over 2011 & 2012.

All I'm saying is there is a lot more to do for RTE to break-even and get back to profitability ....... just like the Dubs yesterday ..... not enough to play well and put scores on the board ...... you have to win.

If they don't do that, then all the rest is excuses for losses and lack of success, which, IMHO, is not good enough for an organisation like RTE.

Or would you prefer excuses to results? Pat Rabbitte and RTE have to produce the goods - otherwise, they will be rightly considered ineffectual and should go!

They've not offered any excuses so far - just a commitment to break even next year. I'll wait and see.

carpejugulum

alastair wrote: »

Problem is that there is no Broadcast Charge. There's a notional future broadcast charge, but that doesn't really equate to 'RTE having received additional government subsidies', does it?

Since the charge will cover losses incurred since 2011, it indeed does.

alastair

carpejugulum wrote: »

Since the charge will cover losses incurred since 2011, it indeed does.

You're very optimistic about; A. How much more revenue the switch to a broadcast charge would bring in, and B. How much of an increase RTE would get from that notional increased revenue. I'd go as far as to say there's not a hope of anything they might get out of a broadcast charge being sufficient to cover their debt.

Even if I'm completely wrong on all of the above - it's still not any additional govt subsidies received to date, so no - it doesn't.

golfwallah

A few facts that might clear the air about subsidies or otherwise of RTE are:

• It’s estimated the new Broadcasting Charge to bring in an extra €30m a year (based on about 20% non payment of licence fees). That puts the total revenue from the new charge at about €150 a year.

• The Minister has undertaken to send in consultants to find further efficiencies – before an increase in funding of RTE.
http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/every-single-home-to-be-hit-with-new-broadcasting-charge-29428338.html

• Independent broadcasters are not happy with the new arrangement because almost 100% of the funding goes to RTE, which has only a 30% market share: http://news.eircom.net/business/21259695/

golfwallah

In fairness to Minister Pat Rabbitte, he has announced the beginning of the consultation period on the Broadcasting Charge.

It's good to see how to make submissions online.

Now's your chance, Boardsies - but you need to read and follow the instructions, if you want to be taken seriously!!

Will be interesting to see how RTE's competitors react to the consultation process.

Dampintheattic

I'm formally registering myself as a caveman, so I won't have to pay the charge.

ART6

Dampintheattic wrote: »

I'm formally registering myself as a caveman, so I won't have to pay the charge.

Won't work. Your cave will have to be registered with the Revenue for property tax, and will be deemed to have the capability of receiving PS broadcasts even if no such facilities are installed since they could be. In addition, you will not be permitted to hunt or gather because the EU Directives prohibit that in protecting threatened species, and you will certainly not be permitted to drag your woman about by her hair. You are living in cloud Cuckoo land from which there is no escape. Simply take your pay packet and split out half of it to send to your dedicated representatives, and all will be well.

Damien360

ART6 wrote: »

Won't work. Your cave will have to be registered with the Revenue for property tax, and will be deemed to have the capability of receiving PS broadcasts even if no such facilities are installed since they could be. In addition, you will not be permitted to hunt or gather because the EU Directives prohibit that in protecting threatened species, and you will certainly not be permitted to drag your woman about by her hair. You are living in cloud Cuckoo land from which there is no escape. Simply take your pay packet and split out half of it to send to your dedicated representatives, and all will be well.

Thanks ART6, you cheered me up

yosserhughes

ART6 wrote: »

Won't work. Your cave will have to be registered with the Revenue for property tax, and will be deemed to have the capability of receiving PS broadcasts even if no such facilities are installed since they could be. In addition, you will not be permitted to hunt or gather because the EU Directives prohibit that in protecting threatened species, and you will certainly not be permitted to drag your woman about by her hair. You are living in cloud Cuckoo land from which there is no escape. Simply take your pay packet and split out half of it to send to your dedicated representatives, and all will be well.

So in other words you pay whether or not you have a TV/Laptop etc?SO it will really be a poll tax with a different title..I suppose everybody in the country will have to pay road tax car or not.After all the road passes close to every house in the country,.

SpaceTime

Its just the new RTE pension levy.

Politically, I think it will be quite damaging for Labour.

It's like in Greece where they included your TV licence in your electricity bill so you couldn't avoid paying.

Wait until they start charging VAT on income tax.

I think about 35% of it should be pumped into broadband access networks if they're serious about pretending that it's about online content.

I actually don't mind paying for public service broadcasting but I strongly object to handing most of the cash to a very bloated RTE!

Phoebas

yosserhughes wrote: »

So in other words you pay whether or not you have a TV/Laptop etc?SO it will really be a poll tax with a different title..I suppose everybody in the country will have to pay road tax car or not.After all the road passes close to every house in the country,.

Every taxpayer already pays for the road network and everybody, whether they drive on them or not, benefits from the road network.

The same argument applies to public service broadcasting; society in general benefits from it, including those few who don't directly consume it.

Waestrel

Phoebas wrote: »

Every taxpayer already pays for the road network and everybody, whether they drive on them or not, benefits from the road network.

The same argument applies to public service broadcasting; society in general benefits from it, including those few who don't directly consume it.

Can yo illustrate how society is served by Fade Street, partial news broadcasting and overpaid, moderately talented Celebrities?