are you really trying to suggest because the presenter earns 20k the money for contestants is therefore less? do you assume Bradley Walsh does it for free?? the mind boggles.
It's pretty clear what I was saying. ITV are richer than the BBC. They make enough cash through advertising to pay Bradley a good wage and still offer contestants good money. If Pointless got shut of Alexander and got someone in cheaper, they could afford to up what contestants can win, which is far too low.
I've been a bit prickly of late to be fair. But it's a beautiful sunny day and the Reds are playing, so onwards and upwards!
Why is it far too low? Is the worry that attention hungry people will stop applying to go on pointless if they don't match the prize money of other stations?