So, it's a green light for Jonathan Ross's £18 million pay-packet, but trouble could loom for Chris Moyles or John Humphrys - if, that is, the BBC Trust gets its way and persuades Corporation bosses to actually better-manage the pay packets of some of its top radio presenters and journalists.

Not that the Trust itself puts it like that: its review of stars' pay at the BBC runs to 141 pages, with lots of obscure points included, and anything racy - like how much the top 50 presenters at the BBC earned last year - cut out.

What does shine through, though, is that pay for 'talent' is rising by six per cent a year, well ahead of inflation and the rate of increase in the licence fee. And when you earn in excess of £1 million a year (and about 30 to 60 of its stars in Britain do, says the Trust), six per cent is actually £60,000; well in excess of the wage of most licence fee payers. Presenters, both famous and little-known, cost £204 million last year. That, for reference, is about £8.16 on the licence fee.

That's hardly a surprise, although at least somebody has tried to put some figures out into the public domain. But no amount of charts can obscure the fact that the BBC seems to be doing precious little to manage top talent costs - at a time when the Corporation is having to slash programme budgets.

Why re-sign Alan Hansen, for all his skills as a football pundit, as happened a few weeks ago, when there is almost no live football on the BBC? Why is Jonathan Ross worth £18 million to the BBC - when it is not clear he helps bring audiences to other less popular programmes? Why are there no rules to prevent a repeat of the BBC offering £400,000 to then ITN newsreader Dermot Murnaghan back in 2002, a salary the commercial provider claimed could not be justified by the market?

And why exonerate Ross or Graham Norton, but pick on Sir Terry Wogan, or a newscaster? The argument that there is competition with ITV and Channel 4 in light entertainment, but no real competition in commercial radio, and not much in news, is intellectually coherent at first glance. But think again - it makes no sense to the public: why pick on some highly-paid stars and not others, when the real question is how distinctive they make the BBC for the price paid.

There will be a further review in 12 months - oooh - but BBC managers have already been quick to defend the pay that newscasters and DJs get. So, any attempt to restrain pay beyond a percentage point or two will involve a battle not just with the likes of Mr Humphrys, but with the Director-General too.

Don't hold your breath, but then again, don't forget either that audiences tune into their millions to watch Ross without really worrying about how much he is paid.

Times Recommends

• Minister in talks with Saudis to protect creditors
• Premier Inn hits back in £29-a-room row
• Bankers hit back at 'populist' bonus supertax