Dee Forbes banging the RTE TV licence drum again 60m uncollected fee *poll not working - pl ignore*

Shefwedfan

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

They didn't drop any of em-they lost the rights because they were outbid.
IF they dropped em, it would have been down to lack of viewership-sort of why they dropped things like Formula 1. Audiences dipped. As they did with things like Tour de France or Tennis.

For Rugby, football, or horse racing, to name a few-the ratings were high across the board.
They simply couldn't afford the rights to air them.

Drop or lose what happened the money that was used to buy the rights before?

retalivity

Elmo wrote: »

There were 2 seasons and it was replaced by taken down

Which will be replaced by 'Going up'.
Which will be replaced by 'Pissing off'.

All starring Amy Huberman.

ButtersSuki

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

They didn't drop any of em-they lost the rights because they were outbid.
IF they dropped em, it would have been down to lack of viewership-sort of why they dropped things like Formula 1. Audiences dipped. As they did with things like Tour de France or Tennis.

For Rugby, football, or horse racing, to name a few-the ratings were high across the board.
They simply couldn't afford the rights to air them AS THEY HAD TO PAY D’ARCY, TUBBS, DUFFY AND CO. OUTRAGEOUS FEES FOR PATETHIC OUTPUT.

FYP. And I didn’t even mention Lottie Ryan....

Ulysses Gaze

Blueshoe wrote: »

Tubridys bank account and fancy buffets for the rte staff.
If everyone just stopped watching it then it will die. Advertisers will either pay less for air time because nobody is watching would be one effect. Mass non payment of the TV licence would finish it off.

Do rte pay its staff pensions?

This is where the significant chunk of the license fee is going IMO.

To pay for those pensions. Probably all linked to current salaries too.

RabbleRouser2k

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Drop or lose what happened the money that was used to buy the rights before?

Well, generally when they're negotiating rights and deals, they kind of come at it with 'We'll pay this much, and our sponsors will pay *insert sum here* to advertise on the chosen sports tournament/ race', All that is kind of negotiated up front, and it's how they apply for rights.

IF they lose the rights, they lose that proposed money too. With RTE, and Ryle Nugent, there was always a propensity to hold onto the Rugby (Ryle seemed biased towards it) and his job seemed secure as long as they had the rugby.

Sure enough, RTE lost the Rugby. And Ryle was told where to go.

lawred2

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

They didn't drop any of em-they lost the rights because they were outbid.
IF they dropped em, it would have been down to lack of viewership-sort of why they dropped things like Formula 1. Audiences dipped. As they did with things like Tour de France or Tennis.

For Rugby, football, or horse racing, to name a few-the ratings were high across the board.
They simply couldn't afford the rights to air them.

Well that still means that funds that would have been spent on those sports wasn't so what was that money used for?

RabbleRouser2k

lawred2 wrote: »

Well that still means that funds that would have been spent on those sports wasn't so what was that money used for?

I believe they ended up spending it on stuff like the Women's world cup, the Winter Olympics, and other 'meh' tournaments'.

I know RTE have to prove the funds were spent where they were meant to be spent.
You can't, say, be given money for Home produced television shows, and then turn around and spend it on the Late Late Show, for example.

Shefwedfan

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Well, generally when they're negotiating rights and deals, they kind of come at it with 'We'll pay this much, and our sponsors will pay *insert sum here* to advertise on the chosen sports tournament/ race', All that is kind of negotiated up front, and it's how they apply for rights.

IF they lose the rights, they lose that proposed money too. With RTE, and Ryle Nugent, there was always a propensity to hold onto the Rugby (Ryle seemed biased towards it) and his job seemed secure as long as they had the rugby.

Sure enough, RTE lost the Rugby. And Ryle was told where to go.

Ryle left....he was told where to go



Plus the question was asked to Ryle, I think on rugby forum, and he said budget was squeeze and his budget had to cover all sports in Ireland etc and that's why he had to drop Pro14....


So blaming the last person out the door seems to be common with most of these organizations.....did Ryle or his replacement ever make the decision how much money he gets to cover sport v paying 5m to 2fm who very few people even listen to anymore

scottdconnolly

Beta Ray Bill wrote: »

Dee Forbes is at it again over the TV licence fee.

Whinging the €60m wasn't collected and RTE cannot compete.

That's about 375,00 homes not paying the fee, so evasion is about 15%

The whole TV licence thing REALLY bugs me.
I don't watch RTE, not even for the Soccer/GAA. I might listen to the radio when I drive the car in the morning (which is once a blue moon)
I don't use the service, why the hell should I have to pay for it!

Obviously we cannot get rid of RTE as there are a great many people that do use the service.
That being said massive reforms are needed.
Firstly, do we really need RTE1 and RTE2? One channel would be enough.
Same with the radio stations, we only need one.
Do we REALLY need TG4?

The land they are on as well is ridiculous, some of the most valuable land in the country. They don't need to be there, they could be out in Athlone or somewhere an no one would know the difference.

And then there's the salaries of the bigshots
Ryan Tubridy - €500,000 per year is the biggest Joke of all
That salary puts him on a par with the likes of Claudia Winkleman, Alan Shearer, Fiona Bruce of the BBC.
He is nothing compared to them.
BBC can justify big salaries as it is broadcast around the world, and the content is generally quite good.
No one outside of Ireland know's who Tubb's is.

Totally agree..... hate being forced into something I don’t use or want!!
Free to air should be free!!!!

Your totally right about the salaries way over the top but that’s across the board not jut RTE.
Alan shearer is a guest on a show not even a presenter.

Dee Forbes can f+*k off!!

Blueshoe

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

This is where the significant chunk of the license fee is going IMO.

To pay for those pensions. Probably all linked to current salaries too.

How can they be getting pensions if they are contractors to rte?

Stop paying the license fee you absolute shower of mugs

Bass Reeves

RTE are spouting propaganda. They quote an evasion rate and there is also houses with no TV in them. Then there is a house vacancy rate.

Recently talking to lad that did door to door sales for a while and he think that empty houses could be well over 5% of the housing stock. This is before you allow for empty flats over commercial premises. Some houses being vacant is short term but he is of the opinion that a large amount are vacant for longer than 4 months ( this takes student accommodation out of the equation) This would mean RTE's plan to put the TV licience onto property tax or utility bills would mean that these houses would have to pay the licience.

Another factors is that the way only requires you to have a licience if you own a TV. People who do not own a TV are evaders. We have a large population of non nationals. A lots of these people have no interest in watching Irish TV content programs so do not have a TV. So the evasion rate may be much lower than they think.

If the licience is collected from property tax or utility bill collection, landlords will have to include it in there rents but charge it at a higher rate to cover defaulters, vacancy and collection chages.

Take student accommodation where it is let out for about 40 weeks these would have to collect this charge in that 40 weeks

Elmo

Bass Reeves wrote: »

RTE are spouting propaganda. They quote an evasion rate and there is also houses with no TV in them. Then there is a house vacancy rate.

Recently talking to lad that did door to door sales for a while and he think that empty houses could be well over 5% of the housing stock. This is before you allow for empty flats over commercial premises. Some houses being vacant is short term but he is of the opinion that a large amount are vacant for longer than 4 months ( this takes student accommodation out of the equation) This would mean RTE's plan to put the TV licience onto property tax or utility bills would mean that these houses would have to pay the licience.

Another factors is that the way only requires you to have a licience if you own a TV. People who do not own a TV are evaders. We have a large population of non nationals. A lots of these people have no interest in watching Irish TV content programs so do not have a TV. So the evasion rate may be much lower than they think.

If the licience is collected from property tax or utility bill collection, landlords will have to include it in there rents but charge it at a higher rate to cover defaulters, vacancy and collection chages.

Take student accommodation where it is let out for about 40 weeks these would have to collect this charge in that 40 weeks

There is a huge question for me over the gov figures.

An Posts annual report for 2018 states that they sold 1.48m tv licences.
The last figures I saw for the Dept of Social welfare had their "free" licences at €59m or around 360,000 licences (for the over 70s and others)
bring the number of licences up to 1.84m
The CSO states in 2016 there were 1.6m households.

Now not withstanding holiday homes (which require a licence) and businesses the Irish household's evasion rate seems much lower than the 10% - 15% suggested.

They should give the number of licence issued to households and those issued to business.

I'll continue to question the rate of evasion.

If people can avoid the tax and wish to they should, lots of people avoid tax it is perfectly legal and really should be brought into the discussion about evasion rates.

AlmightyCushion

To call it an evasion rate is pretty disingenuous. Evasion implies that people are not paying the fee when they should be. Plenty of people are avoiding the tax by not having a TV.

Bass Reeves

Elmo wrote: »

There is a huge question for me over the gov figures.

An Posts annual report for 2018 states that they sold 1.48m tv licences.
The last figures I saw for the Dept of Social welfare had their "free" licences at €59m or around 360,000 licences (for the over 70s and others)
bring the number of licences up to 1.84m
The CSO states in 2016 there were 1.6m households.

Now not withstanding holiday homes (which require a licence) and businesses the Irish household's evasion rate seems much lower than the 10% - 15% suggested.

They should give the number of licence issued to households and those issued to business.

I'll continue to question the rate of evasion.

If people can avoid the tax and wish to they should, lots of people avoid tax it is perfectly legal and really should be brought into the discussion about evasion rates.

Department of SW free liciences are bought off the post office. Yes we should see the amount of liciences issued for business is it 5% of total. If 5% of total it would mean a non licience rate of 12% this would nearly be a real nonpayment rate of 3-5%

Elmo

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Department of SW free liciences are bought off the post office.

Would have thought that they paid the Dept of Communications directly rather than buy a set amount from An Post. ????

InTheShadows

I've a TV and don't pay the licence fee. For me it's a matter of principle even though I could easily pay I refuse to fund a "public" broadcaster that makes millionaires of its employees whilst plenty of our citizens who haven't got the money are forced to pay at the threat of jail.

I've been to court twice and mountjoy for three hours once for non payment a few years back and they seem to have left me in peace now.

Pa ElGrande

InTheShadows wrote: »

I've a TV and don't pay the licence fee. For me it's a matter of principle even though I could easily pay I refuse to fund a "public" broadcaster that makes millionaires of its employees whilst plenty of our citizens who haven't got the money are forced to pay at the threat of jail.

I've been to court twice and mountjoy for three hours once for non payment a few years back and they seem to have left me in peace now.

What principle is that exactly?


Are you implying you would pay the tax if RTE employees worked for minimum wage levels?


What is the right price for RTE employees that you would happily pay the tax?

If the compensation levels of RTE employees were resolved to your satisfaction would you pay the back taxes and interest owed?

Do you continue to or have you consumed RTE services since you stopped paying the tax?

Elmo

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

What principle is that exactly?

I can answer all those questions and I agree with the licence fee and pay it.

Are you implying you would pay the tax if RTE employees worked for minimum wage levels?

Talking about higher earners in RTÉ who are not worth the amount they are paid

What is the right price for RTE employees that you would happily pay the tax?

A good wage but not an excessive one. Current ones are excessive, understandable when you reach the top of you career you should be paid well, but anything over 200,000 for so-called public service broadcasters is too much.

If the compensation levels of RTE employees were resolved to your satisfaction would you pay the back taxes and interest owed?

Would they be willing to return their pay?

Do you continue to or have you consumed RTE services since you stopped paying the tax?

This I cannot answer for the poster but even if they do they watch ads which also pay for the programming.

Bass Reeves

Elmo wrote: »

Would have thought that they paid the Dept of Communications directly rather than buy a set amount from An Post. ????

No An Post is the collector of TV licences. The money is collected by them. The main reason is it allows them to have all the information on there database of which house has a licence

Pa ElGrande

Elmo wrote: »

Talking about higher earners in RTÉ who are not worth the amount they are paid

At what pay threshold do you define higher earners? is it 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%, 150% above market rates?

Elmo wrote: »

A good wage but not an excessive one. Current ones are excessive, understandable when you reach the top of you career you should be paid well, but anything over 200,000 for so-called public service broadcasters is too much.

Does this criteria apply to presenters only?

Does this apply to other professionals either employed or contracted by RTE?

Are you comparing like with like? How does their domestic competition compensation rates compare with RTE?

Surely if an organisation has dominant market share it would pay more to retain that talent and in fact sets the market price?

Elmo wrote: »

This I cannot answer for the poster but even if they do they watch ads which also pay for the programming.

Are the compensation rates for employees and contractors in line with the commercial revenue they bring to the organisation? or is the compensation being underwritten by claiming the lions share of the TV tax income and other government grants?

Ulysses Gaze

Blueshoe wrote: »

How can they be getting pensions if they are contractors to rte?

Stop paying the license fee you absolute shower of mugs

It's not the Contractors pensions. It's the jobsworths in the organisation.

People that retired 20 years ago in their 50's and 60's and whose pensions are index linked to current salaries.

This is what is costing RTE a fortune.

Elmo

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

At what pay threshold do you define higher earners? is it 10%, 20%, 50%, 100%, 150% above market rates?

You have to remember RTÉ is a semi-state body it has not time to take risks by paying above market rates for presenters.

Take again Ray D'Arcy, why was he sought out by RTÉ, how did he improve either RTÉ Radio or TV? Take Pat Kenny how did his leaving RTÉ affect RTÉ TV or Radio? How did he do on TV?

Does this criteria apply to presenters only?

Does this apply to other professionals either employed or contracted by RTE?

Are you comparing like with like? How does their domestic competition compensation rates compare with RTE?

Professions are different, I'd question the rate of pay for the DG and her expenses. Large the DG should possible be the top of the scale. It's a semi-state body it knows about pay scales.

Again in relation to domestic competition I would question how RTÉ going after a competitors top presenter would help them.

Surely if an organisation has dominant market share it would pay more to retain that talent and in fact sets the market price?

Are the compensation rates for employees and contractors in line with the commercial revenue they bring to the organisation? or is the compensation being underwritten by claiming the lions share of the TV tax income and other government grants?

Again Ray D'Arcy, massive dip in TV show (that's where the money is), only slight increase for Radio show and Radio overall, he brought nothing.

Elmo

Bass Reeves wrote: »

No An Post is the collector of TV licences. The money is collected by them. The main reason is it allows them to have all the information on there database of which house has a licence

Funny because I know a 105 year old who got a licence fee request in the door. I suspect the only reason is so that the gov can provide An Post with a collection fee.

An Post are making a packet out of fees they are not even collecting, it makes no sense to send it thought An Post from the Exchequer back to another department.

Daft daft daft.

InTheShadows

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

What principle is that exactly?


Are you implying you would pay the tax if RTE employees worked for minimum wage levels?


What is the right price for RTE employees that you would happily pay the tax?

If the compensation levels of RTE employees were resolved to your satisfaction would you pay the back taxes and interest owed?

Do you continue to or have you consumed RTE services since you stopped paying the tax?

Average industrial wage

Yes I'd pay back fees if RTE millionaire employees paid back their ridiculous wages in the same period.

Yes

InTheShadows

Ray Darcy gets the guts of 500k a year. Over 10 years that's 5 million quid. Anyone who excepts that and pays the fee is off their rocker.

Elmo

InTheShadows wrote: »

Average industrial wage

Yes I'd pay back fees if RTE millionaire employees paid back their ridiculous wages in the same period.

Yes

Come on now that won’t happen, you have a certain amount of quality compensation.

Would you do there job on the average industrial wage?

Shefwedfan

Pa ElGrande wrote: »

What principle is that exactly?


Are you implying you would pay the tax if RTE employees worked for minimum wage levels?


What is the right price for RTE employees that you would happily pay the tax?

If the compensation levels of RTE employees were resolved to your satisfaction would you pay the back taxes and interest owed?

Do you continue to or have you consumed RTE services since you stopped paying the tax?

From a presentator point of view RTE should be trying to push young talent into the market place. Then if a Virgin etc want to pay the big bucks and bing them over let them off. How many times have BBC done the same and someone ends up with Sky or ITV?


At the moment they are propped up with a couple of high earners and the ratings are dropping through the floor. So they cant use the excuse they are keeping those higher earners to keep the viewers.



Why did they need to bring Ray Darcy back at huge money? what exactly has he added to RTE only a huge overhead of wages.....why not invest that money in young talent or a new TV show


Darcy is doing a show on a Saturday night and how many people are actually watching it?



Tubs is bloody useless and also on huge wages. I said before, if they turned around tomorrow and said they would let go of all the "top talent" it would be interesting to see who wou;d come in for them and what they would actually pay?



Based on the advertising money they are driving at the moment I would expect none of them would get close to what they are pulling off the tax payer

The Late Late Show

Deleted User wrote: »

Striking Out is on repeat now on RTE 1. Terrible acting and galling to think they get a cut for showing it again :mad:

Striking Out was tame, insipid drivel. It was replaced by a similar show called Finding Joy. RTE listened to all the complaints about the killing of a cat onscreen and called Amy in to do these instead!

James Brown

RTE needs to hire from the general population. They do not do that. It's still very much who you know.
As regards presenters, it's a higher level of the same DNA. Ryan Tubridy's grandfather was controller general of RTE. Tubbs has been on the air since he was a smaller sprog. We'll have Lottie Ryan hosting a chat show within ten years and those battle weary from watching tripe will accept it as par for the course.

We have numerous colleges teaching media, radio/television production so there is no excuse for keeping it in the family.

Elmo

The Late Late Show wrote: »

Striking Out was tame, insipid drivel. It was replaced by a similar show called Finding Joy. RTE listened to all the complaints about the killing of a cat onscreen and called Amy in to do these instead!

Finding Joy was not the replacement for Striking Out, Taken Down was, either way neither were renewed.