I was worth it, says Jonathan Ross who claims rivals would have paid him more than the BBC. Jonathan Ross has insisted his former £6million a year salary at the BBC was less than he was really worth. The controversial TV presenter, who left the corporation last year, said he had ‘turned down millions’ to stay at the licence fee funded broadcaster. Ross, 50, also criticised corporation bosses for failing to back him up and say ‘yes that’s what he is worth’. He added that it was ‘ridiculous’ to compare how much he was paid to journalists, claiming it would be like him saying, ‘I can’t believe the director general is worth 1,000 people who clean up the tea’. When Ross signed his controversial £18million three-year deal at the BBC it was reported that ITV and Channel 4 had also been courting him to sign with them. But the BBC was victorious in securing his signature but at a huge price both financially and in terms of the political damage it caused to the corporation over the following years. Controversial: Ross with wife Jane Goldman Controversial: Ross with wife Jane Goldman Speaking on Richard Bacon’s Radio 5 Live show Mr Ross launched a staunch defence of his pay packet claiming it was wrong to portray him as ‘greedy’ when he could have got more money for the same or even less work from other broadcasters. When asked if he was paid too much, Mr Ross said: ‘No. I tell you why I don’t, because the market value was that I would have got several million more for doing the same volume of work, if not less, outside of the BBC.’ The star told the show: ‘Sure I was being paid a load of money and it must seem like an incredible amount to someone who is in a regular job, but at the same time I am not in a regular job I am in show-business and I was at the top of my game.’
He left the BBC in July 2010 after 13 years and in the same month he signed a deal to front a chat show for ITV. Mr Ross’s time at the corporation was soured after his part in the obscene phone call scandal involving actor Andrew Sachs. He was suspended without pay for three months. He admitted that the combination of continual criticism over his pay and the scrutiny on his behaviour in the wake of the answer phone scandal was part of the reason why he left. Ross said: ‘Partly I left and partly I was asked to leave, really. ‘I always said I wouldn’t sign another big contract with them because when the money became such a big story in the newspapers, I didn’t enjoy that, I didn’t enjoy being under scrutiny in that way, I didn’t think it was particularly fair as well because I turned down a much bigger offer to go outside the BBC to stay there. ‘So I thought it was very odd that I was being painted as this kind of greedy guy who was trying to get what he could out of the BBC, when in actual fact I turned down millions to stay there.’ The presenter said it was ‘unhelpful’ that the BBC did not back him up and say that he was worth the money and getting less than the going rate and that it stood by the decision. He accused them of trying to ‘fudge’ the issue and said they should have decided what they were going to say about the issue. Comedian: Russell Brand was involved in the Andrew Sachs scandal with Ross Centre of a row: Actor Andrew Sachs, outside his North London home
Scandal: Russell Brand, left, played a part in the obscene phone call that angered actor Andrew Sachs, right Mr Ross told Mr Bacon: ‘Look you wanted me to stay, you were prepared to pay that amount of money, you knew I could have got more going elsewhere, you were delighted I stayed, why don’t you say that. ‘Why don’t you say here’s the deal, we pay him a lot of money, millions of people watch his show every week, millions of people listen to his radio show, the film show is in safe hands and is really good…we are proud to have him here.’ He said alternatively they could have said that it was causing ‘unnecessary criticism’ and talked about the deal with him. He said he offered to go if they had wanted. Ross added: ‘I would have been willing to leave if they had wanted to.’ In the interview he claimed he did not miss the BBC and said it was doing ‘fine’ without him. He said by the end he had stopped enjoying every single week on his show. He said after the Sachs scandal there was a ‘feeling like everyone was waiting for you to mess up again’. The comedian claimed he had never said he was worth a thousand BBC journalists but was commenting on a piece he had read which had made the claim. But he did say if you are a front-line host with your name on a show then you would be paid considerably more than a journalist. He said it had been a ‘ridiculous’ to compare the pay of a journalist with someone whose name was on a show and said it was like him saying ‘I can’t believe the director general is worth 1,000 people who clean up the tea.’ He said was ‘a different job’, ‘a different skills set’ and a ‘different wage bracket’. The Jonathan Ross Show begins on ITV on Saturday.
[[[ *** RESPONSE *** ]]]
Now we know where all the wealth in Western countries go. More fat cats to debunk. And this time plutocratic news anchors?!? Stockholders and the general public and ordinary citizen should not tolerate this sort of salary scale. In private networks this might pass due to nepotism or cliques (which is rampant being private after all, though it cannot breed popularity in anycase even among the public and certainly not among the staff internally) but even then that would mean that we are being charged too high for electricity and cable given the extreme wealth people in Telecommunications or Energy are now showing, considering that a mere anchor is worth so much ! Boycott and demand salary reviews. A moutpiece deserves no more than a middle class retirement. ANYONE can gab away, but it takes good citizens to put things in perspective and take fat cats down to a level where they are earning something appropriate.
Western civilisation is a total mess. Ask how many people in Asia earn 6 million, no matter how well trained. Exceptional businessmen can hardly retire with 2 or 3 million, and these guys earn 6 million while millions of people starve or are homeless? Anyone advocate 200 people taking turns in a 5 year stint sharing this 1 shiny suited freak’s salary, announcing nonsesne and split up the cash from the ridiculous salary at 30K each? This is just too much. Whats so much better about this guy than everyone else starving or being homeless? A culture of plutocracy and likely patronage and oligarchy kills the West, enriches 1 or a handful while hundreds languish. Detestable Capitalist pigs. Citizens, switch off your TVs. Boycott entire channels. And bosses/paymasters/industry price setters, you are upsetting the social structure, causing sequestration of wealth, and devaluing degrees/education in general when mouthpieces who parrot verbatim what is doled out for them to read on a teleprompter are paid more than the highest qualified professors and academics who may not retire very well at all ! Vote for Joe Publics worth not more than 200K and stock investors, READ how much these guys are being paid and pull out if salaries are too much like this. Nothing against news anchors but that salary what what they do is sheer obscenity for the monotony and cult of personality of what the consumer has to put up with. A new face every week would be more interesting. And that way wealth distribution could actually occur.