★★★★★ 0/5

Nine cuts to target “glory days” salaries

Is it really the right time to be launching Money for Jam when Channel Nine is about trim $20m in costs?

21
Leave a comment

moneyforjamMore details emerge today on the cost cutting that will likely proceed at Nine.

The Australian reports that there will be salary reductions for some highly paid executives and on-air talent, particularly those coming off contract. But suggestions that the reductions will be directed towards those on more than $300,000 a year are believed to be incorrect. Insiders said the focus would be on those receiving “glory days” pay packets negotiated when Nine was the nation’s ratings leader.

Eddie McGuire, who is believed to be on a long-term contract of more than $5m a year, is expected to escape the pay purge. As one Nine insider joked last night: “Eddie, the Hot Seat millionaire, will keep his pay packet.”

There are conflicting accounts of where the cuts will come from. One insider suggested all areas of the business were being looked at, including on-air staff, as the focus at Nine turned to looking at efficiencies of operations and to “trying to make TV cheaper”.

But another source said: “The focus will be finding efficiencies that do not involve on-air content.”

News and current affairs is believed to be safe from the cuts.

PBL Media has a debt load of $3.8 billion.

And Nine is about to launch Money for Jam? Only in television….

Source: The Australian

21 Responses

  1. Does this mean that ’20-to-1′ will now be aired up to 40 times a week? Imagine, Antiques Roadshow might go prime-time! Nine will be truly be going down the gurgler, with Eddie laughing all the way to the bank.

  2. i would have though it was legitimate to launch a show that deals with financial common sense, while you’re pruning overpaid hacks that are running your network into the ground. launching that show while continuing to flush money down the toilet would be more questionable.

  3. Ch9 is just a misplaced and neglected betting chip in the back pocket of Jamie’s pants.

    Now it’s about to go through the washing machine on full spin cycle.

    Franz, they tried to get a comment from Humphrey but as usual he remained tight lipped..

    🙂

  5. Wait a minute Travis. Your logic becomes a little shaky when you propose saving money by axing shows that you have just yourself acknowledged won’t be returning!
    As regards Getaway, I agree they could shed some talent, but you still have to produce on hour of tv a week, even if you do replace some dead wood with new blood.

  6. The way things are going now at Nine and their terrible programming, they should just axe the whole station and put it out of its (and the viewers’) misery.

  7. Ed, surely four presenters for Getaway is more than enough. Plus half of those shows wouldn’t be returning anyway, and the others aren’t on air at the moment. So I think Nine could live.

  8. Casey, GO! no amount of money would improve the transmission quality of GO!
    Due to the way the government regulates digital tv each channel only has a certain amount of bandwidth in which to transmit it’s main channel, HD channel and any other channels, such as GO! or ONE HD.

    Hence, if you want to get a better signal on GO!, 9 or 9HD will have to drop bandwidth and hence quality. It’s kind of like logging into three streaming internet websites and having to spread your broadband across all three.

  9. So Travis now you’ve axed half of Getaway and several shows what will you fill those scheduling holes with. And which presenters will you replace the Getaway hosts with?

  10. no, as usual it will be cuts to people like studio crew, who get paid the least, work the longest hours and as they keep cutting positions, do the work of more people! I agree with alfagirl – put the programmers on commission!

  11. The GO! channel has a lot of potential, but its picture quality is so bad. If this is primarily because Nine have cheapened out on using a better broadcast standard that’d cost more money, this is an extremely stupid decision.

  13. Is this the same thinking they used when they axed Sunday and Nightline and commissioned THIS afternoon? They should just axe the main network and pull all their money into GO! At least then quality programming would get more of a focus. Or just continue what they’re doing and play 2.5 men and 20 to 1 30 times a week, at least then they’d continue to generate revenue.

  14. A monkey could replace all the staff in the programming department. It will be a win/win for Nine, less staff = less wages, and the programming would be of a much higher quality = more viewers = more revenue.

  15. Let Eddie keep his money. Put the programmers and the program devolpment people on commission. If their choices don’t rate no commission. We might see a massive improvement. Yeah right. Nothing can help channel 9.

  16. Let us axe some people now….Jules Lund, Catriona Rowntree, Ben Dark, Shane Crawford, Tim Campbell, Don Burke, Giaan Rooney, Matthew Johns, Andrew Johns and Grant Hackett. And cut back Eddie’s pay.

    Now some shows to be axed…Footy Classified, Commercial Breakdown, SInging Bee, Australia’s Perfect Couple, Home Made, What’s Good for You and Ladette to Lady.

    There…quite a bit of money saved already. Plus some crap shows gone too.

  17. I think Eddie needs to take a pay cut… $5m a year to host a half-hour game show? Is the expense of his salary being paid back in advertising? He has no executive role at Nine anymore so his should be the first to be adjusted.

  18. Yeah, pretty much what Zambora said… Warehousing talent is just so other networks don’t get the chance to use that talent (if it is even talent)… And I’m sure the programmers are on over a Mil or many more perhaps – take them out the back and shoot them.

Leave a Reply