Ron Maclean Makes 600K?
Mayor Tommy
year.
If anybody wants to work for the public broadcasting network in this country
they shouldn't expect to nor should
the powers that be be doling out 600K of OUR tax money to what is no more
than a straight man who works
maybe 70 nights a year. There are many broadcasters the equal of Maclean who
would gladly take 200 or at
most 300 grand to do the job and they'd do it just as well. Throw that extra
300 grand at somebody who needs
it like our fucking embarassingly sad and useless military.
A stupid gopher looking puppet head making 600 thousand a year - what a
bunch of suckers we all are.
If Maclean is worth 600 grand Cherry is worth at least 3 or 4 million. I
wonder what Cherry really is worth.
Shouldn't be hard to figure it out really. Bet he's underpaid.
Howard Burger
This is even more disturbing than what Maclean makes. To think Don Cherry
makes that much coin for having a big mouth and a 5 cent brain. At least
Maclean can speak proper english.
Now who wants to go to Quiznos and get a "samich" with Don Cherry? He's
buying.
"Mayor Tommy" <al...@inforamp.net> wrote in message
news:%SHf9.161994$GK2....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Will
"Howard Burger" <howard...@EATMEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yxIf9.162413$GK2....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
> According to Fan 590 yesterday morning Cherry makes about 750K.
>
> This is even more disturbing than what Maclean makes. To think Don Cherry
> makes that much coin for having a big mouth and a 5 cent brain.
At least you offer the same for no money.
Oily Steve
to contribute? I didn't think so, same old Will.
"Will" <wi...@will.not> wrote in message
news:CRIf9.23824$jG2.1...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Will
"Oily Steve" <sd...@sdf.ca> wrote in message
news:unut5qc...@corp.supernews.com...
CR@IG
It sure is.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mayor+tommy+group:rec.arts.movies.erotica
Will
"CR@IG" <trust...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:AVLf9.2322$621.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >Unfuckingbelievable.<snip>
>
> It sure is.
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=mayor+tommy+group:rec.arts.movies.erotica
>
>
Mayor Porny has moved his act to the Howard Stern group:
From: Mayor Tommy (al...@inforamp.net)
Subject: Luke Ford Back?
Newsgroups: alt.fan.howard-stern
View this article only
Date: 2002-08-20 16:00:23 PST
just read on a messageboard that Luke Ford was back doing his quasi
journalism about the porn industry.
Sure looks and sounds like his old site. Man what a trainwreck his old site
became.
Jack
Is this dude trolling?
"Howard Burger" <howard...@EATMEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yxIf9.162413$GK2....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Jack
"Howard Burger" <howard...@EATMEhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yxIf9.162413$GK2....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Owl
http://www.canoe.ca/Slam020911/nhl_cbc2-sun.html
So far the comments have been shock, dismay, and 'must be a lie' type
bullshit.
Ferget it. More power to 'em. Those two guys are as close as it gets
to being the face of hockey. They built, they fed it, they groomed
it, and they should damn well make as much as they can out of it.
They didn't inherit it, they didn't swindle it, and they didn't rob a
bank. Unless someone revoked more rights lately - that's the whole
friggin dream!
Waddya think prime-time announcers are making in other sports? What's
the advertising space worth between periods if there's no Ronny &
Donny Show? Whether you agree or disagree, do you remember the
narrator of hockey from the past, or Saturday night's tirade on
Coach's Corner?
HNIC is CBC's most-watched program and more than pays it's way in the
middle of corporate welfare tv station. Take way McLean and Cherry
and you could measure the drop-off after the first period on the
ricther scale.
If you want to get p.o.'d, turn your barrels onto Hotstove Lounge for
bringing Al Strachan back ... and probably paying him.
Van
> Waddya think prime-time announcers are making in other sports? What's
> the advertising space worth between periods if there's no Ronny &
> Donny Show? Whether you agree or disagree, do you remember the
> narrator of hockey from the past, or Saturday night's tirade on
> Coach's Corner?
I'm take-him-or-leave-him as far as Cherry goes. In truth, more often than
not my thoughts at the end of Coach's Corner run along the lines of, "What
an ass." On the other hand, I like his patriotism tirades and support for
the military, and his support for women's hockey is top drawer. I enjoy the
hockey insights [when I agree with them] and I enjoy the anecdotes. On the
other hand, I hate the rants and the sermons. I will say this ... when it's
on, I'm watching. And so are a lot of other people.
Put a dollar figure on it? Well, I don't buy in to the loudmouth view that
because an agency is run by the government it should be paying slave wages
in order to have more money to spend on bread and circuses for the
proletariat. In fact, a government run agency should pay competitive wages
in order to produce a competitive product. HNIC is one of the scant examples
where this succeeds. Cherry and the little guy sell a ton of bad beer to
the masses with their frequently inane banter, and that's good for the
taxpayers' pocketbooks. Presumably the guys making the decisions about what
their salaries will be are capable, well-paid executives that know how to
crunch the numbers and come to an equitable salary.
And for those who think they should go the cheap route and save a few bucks,
I've got two words for you ... no, not those two words ...
... Bob Goldham.
Van
Owl
>> Waddya think prime-time announcers are making in other sports? What's
>> the advertising space worth between periods if there's no Ronny &
>> Donny Show? Whether you agree or disagree, do you remember the
>> narrator of hockey from the past, or Saturday night's tirade on
>> Coach's Corner?
>I'm take-him-or-leave-him as far as Cherry goes. In truth, more often than
>not my thoughts at the end of Coach's Corner run along the lines of, "What
>an ass."
Ditto. More than a few rants here about Cherry's latest flight from
the planet Earth.
> On the other hand, I like his patriotism tirades and support for
>the military, and his support for women's hockey is top drawer. I enjoy the
>hockey insights [when I agree with them] and I enjoy the anecdotes. On the
>other hand, I hate the rants and the sermons. I will say this ... when it's
>on, I'm watching. And so are a lot of other people.
Howard Kossell made Monday Night Football a national icon. He didn't
do it with popularity, he did it with controversy. If you heat it,
they will come.
Will
"Van" <m...@there.com> wrote in message
news:XKPf9.2173$COX....@news04.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com...
Ward Cornell, much scarier.
Brian
Cherry, I'd say) and does a hell of a lot of work before and after the
show that you don't know. For one of the most well-known sports
broadcasters in the country, 600k is quite reasonable. Plus he doesn't
get all the commercial endorsements Cherry does.
"Mayor Tommy" <al...@inforamp.net> wrote in message news:<%SHf9.161994$GK2....@news02.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>...
Peter Morris
Organization:
Will <wi...@will.not> wrote:
:> I've got two words for you ... no, not those two words ...
:>
:> ... Bob Goldham.
:>
:>
: Ward Cornell, much scarier.
Knock off the knocks on Ward. He was the face of Sat. nite hockey for all
of us in the '60s. Did a great job of it.
Better to aim your jabs at...wait for it...
Gary Dornhoffer!!!!!
Owl
<ryan.j...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>I think the main problem is with the existence of the CBC as such.
hahahahaaa ... fasten your seatbelts, heeere we go again.
> The network is a left-wing, government-owned "ministry of truth" that ought to
>be outright abolished and/or privatized.
Take a nap. CBC is like an oasis of some good stuff in the lower
wasteland of channels these days.
> "Hockey night in Canada" is about the only program worth watching.
Rubbish. I'd rather watch their news and their specials coverage than
most of the steroid-jacked analyze-it-to-death and spin-in stuff
anywhere else. I'll tune elsewhere for sports cause I'm a junkie but
that's about it. Name One other private Canadian channel that does
the job they do.
> With Cherry's and McLean's popularity in
>Canada, a private broadcasting outfit were certainly offer them good,
>perhaps better, salaries.
There's no proof of that at all. If there wasn't a cross-country
HNIC, it'd be regional broadcasts of local hockey on Saturday night
... and they wouldn't pay those kind of bucks.
Jack
game... and I didn't mean to reply twice.. I pressed control and enter and
it sent off the email prematurely.
"Owl" <O...@moonlite.com> wrote in message
news:9kdvnusp4f30r1bok...@4ax.com...
Owl
>For some reason I always thought Cherry was doing it for the love of the
>game... and I didn't mean to reply twice.. I pressed control and enter and
>it sent off the email prematurely.
They both do way more than their share of 'love of the game' stuff.
Cherry was on a radio interview a few months ago after it came out he
missed a charity function down east (Nova Scotia?). He replied that
he wanted to go but the schedule got so overwhelmed he really was
bagged out. He'd been to about 10 in the previous 14 days.
Both he and MacLean have to turn down a lot of requests for
appearances. If somebody off-the-ice is gonna make the big bucks,
these are two guys I'll go with, for giving back from what they get.
Mike
Ryan David Jamieson wrote:
> I think the main problem is with the existence of the CBC as such. The
> network is a left-wing, government-owned "ministry of truth" that ought to
> be outright abolished and/or privatized. "Hockey night in Canada" is about
> the only program worth watching. With Cherry's and McLean's popularity in
> Canada, a private broadcasting outfit were certainly offer them good,
> perhaps better, salaries.
>
> =-Ryan Jamieson-=
You're nuts. I'm an American and watch CBC for the news broadcasts because they
are top notch. CBC has a lot of good stuff on if your not into watching garbage
like Must see tv or American Idol. CBC and PBS are a breath of fresh air.
>
>
> "Brian" <beerand...@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
> news:59fa9149.02091...@posting.google.com...
Mike
Mayor Tommy wrote:
Maclean has to be worth $5 mil a year. Whoever can put up with Horse jumping
and curling on CBC sports Saturday has my respect. What about Brian Williams?
The poor guy has to put up with synchronized swimming, trampoline jumping, and
rowing. He is underpaid. I can go on and on. Ok, I'll have to mention Chris
Walby. The John Madden of Canada. You anti-cbc loons don't know quality tv.
Owl
<ryan.j...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Let me ask you a question: do you not think a private
>corporation with the (virtually unlimited) financial resources of the CBC
>couldn't do a much better job?
First, your remark about the 'virtually unlimited financial resources'
of the CBC is insulting. As a public corporation it is under constant
scrutiny and criticism. That's why the local bureaus in different
regions no longer exists. That's why it isn't on the air 24 hours a
day.
In answer to what I believe is your real question about a private
national network, we have those. As private, profit-oriented,
businesses they gravitate their programming and budgets to the areas
with the greatest populations. It's a direct relationship between
advertising income and power. The CBC represents perhaps the only
network with a framework bigger than Montreal/Windsor corridor.
>Compare the annual budgets of, say, Global or CTV to that of the CBC. The
>interesting fact is that private TV stations in Canada are still able to
>attract large numbers of viewers, many of whom have little use for the
>leftist-environmentalist-multi-culturalist-nationalist agenda of the CBC.
Global turns off at 1 a.m. and the porn adds take over. That's hardly
an indication of a flourishing audience. CTV is the one fairly
national alternative to CBC that is national in scope, and the quality
of its programming is now generally low-budget and scraping by.
And you clearly show your billie-jo-bob teeth with the all the trashy
graffitti you use for adjectives to describe the CBC.
>And these channels have to compete for our money (our viewership). Notice
>that if I don't watch CTV, Global or CityTV, those channels must improve
>their programming in order to attract my attention as a consumer. Not so
>with the CBC: it collects our money irrespective of demand and has little
>impetus to improve its programming.
Clearly you haven't caught on to the basics. Such high-cost
improvements as Ed the Sock and Seindfeld reruns are the kinds of
programming improvements that are a load of trash. You also have this
delirious idea that the CBC is all run off our tax money.
> Have you heard of socialism?
Beauty. Let's looks for red spies at the CBC. Let's restart the Cold
War.
> Do you wonder why our dollar, once worth USD$1.06 in 1979, is now worth a measly
>USD$0.63? Oh, but of course we need the CBC. Who else would propogate
>"Canadian culture" to bind us together as a nation.
"Houston, we have problem." For you to join the dots between the CBC
and the exchange rate is the type of imagination that doctors write
books about, and the Space Channel turns into major expose's.
>Now let me see what's on Fox (that's a US network, by the way, headed by an
>Australian--heard of Rupert Murdock?)...
More beauty. The People's Court, Judge Judy, Crossing Over, and more
Seindeld reruns. Just which one of that classic selection do you want
the CBC to offer up?
>> > With Cherry's and McLean's popularity in
>> >Canada, a private broadcasting outfit were certainly offer them good,
>> >perhaps better, salaries.
>> There's no proof of that at all. If there wasn't a cross-country
>> HNIC, it'd be regional broadcasts of local hockey on Saturday night
>> ... and they wouldn't pay those kind of bucks.
>If American channels were permitted to compete full-scale in Canada (which
>they're not), it would be in their own interest to create programming that
>appeals to mass Canadian tastes and sensibilities. More likely than not
>that would include hockey (you realize the Canadian government doesn't
>control the NHL, don't you?) coverage and national personalities like
>Cherry.
First you delve into the mythical "yeabutif" scenario, then
pre-declare a victory, and then use that to reach the bizarre
conclusion that the Americans would change their horrid programming.
Somehow you go straight off the high diving board thinking they would
now beef up their pretty lame coverage of hockey.
>But I can hardly blame you for your stance, the CBC (along with the entire
>education system) does a good job at brainwashing people.
If there's anyone that's walked in here with a lack of independent
thought process, it's you. As for the insult directed my way about
being brain-washed, it's grade-school stuff.