Red Light Central - Web Show - Chat & Discussion

(20-06-2018 17:54 )Dave_A Wrote:  The company seems to be doing well to my untrained eye, the last information given shows a quite large increase in Net worth and a increase in assets.
Is this due to Laura operating RLC through this company ?

I think you're all barking up the wrong tree here.

Laura apparently took over Red Light at the end of last year, somewhere around November time. Those accounts are made up to August last year, so are irrelevant to the operations of Red Light.

That view I accept Admiral..
So Why hasn't she made the company accounts from the time she took over up to the point when the whole ruckus started available?

so to refresh my memory from since when were the girls have said when the last time any of the girls are claiming she never paid them?

My gut instinct tells me that she is taking the feminist & predator approach in all of this - the feminist approach being that she would at the drop of a hat (or maybe knickers) she would love to shut down the babe channels one by one and that she hates the babe channels

Then this where the predatory bit comes in : for her to achieve this she has to acquire a stake in the company that allows her to take full control and then bleed the financial assets dry for her own end to the point where it becomes financially impossible for a company to operate not caring about the employees, and eventually walking away with huge sums of money in her bank account.

(23-06-2018 06:05 )babelover48 Wrote:  So Why hasn't she made the company accounts from the time she took over up to the point when the whole ruckus started available?

Because they don't exist yet.

Company accounts are generally filed on an annual basis. The last accounts were made up to 31 August 2017, so the next set of accounts will almost certainly be made up to 31 August 2018.

(23-06-2018 01:21 )admiral decker Wrote:  Laura apparently took over Red Light at the end of last year.

That's interesting, i didn't know Laura only took over Red Light around November last year (2017).

So what we do know is :
Phil Barry resigned from RLC TV LTD as a Director on the 17th of October 2016.
Phil/Pumpkin Film Productions sold the company around October/November 2016 .
After the 16th of November 2016 and up to the latest official companies house records, they show Mr Antony Paul Horton Tilley as being the major share holder and the only person having significant control of the company RLC TV LTD.

Laura Macrow joins RLC TV LTD on the 3rd of March 2017 as a Director.
Laura resigns as a Director of RLC TV LTD on the 1st of November 2017
Laura then apparently around November of 2017 took over RLC .

So the question is who was running Red Light after Phil resigned in October 2016 until Laura took over Red Light a year or so later ?

I wonder what input or output of any money or decisions etc Laura was having involving RLC TV LTD while she was a Director from March onwards and before she took over Red Light in November ?

^ Yeah, this is what's confusing me.

How to bring AD's statements into what we already have?

She's director of RLC TV Ltd for half a year before she's "in charge" of RLC from November. Then she's resigns as director of RLC TV Ltd but she's in charge enough of RLC to move monies around after that (if AD is implying it would have shown on JLM Production's Accounts Summary if it was the one covering the correct period i.e. their next one). Would some care to explain wtf we are saying here? Because that don't seem to add up to this laymen.

(23-06-2018 18:39 )ShandyHand Wrote:  ^ Yeah, this is what's confusing me.

How to bring AD's statements into what we already have?

She's director of RLC TV Ltd for half a year before she's "in charge" of RLC from November. Then she's resigns as director of RLC TV Ltd but she's in charge enough of RLC to move monies around after that (if AD is implying it would have shown on JLM Production's Accounts Summary if it was the one covering the correct period i.e. their next one). Would some care to explain wtf we are saying here? Because that don't seem to add up to this laymen.

From memory (about 15 years so bear with me ) a Ltd company need to have at least 2 Directors one of which has to designated as the Company Secretary. However you don't need to be a Director to spend money (that what Letters of Delegation do). So she may have been empowered to spend money on behalf of the Ltd company without actually being a partner or having any form of ownership. So there may be no connection between her being "in charge" day to day and her role as a partner.

Probably doesnt help clear anything up but may explain the anomaly

^^ that's because AD is talking rubbish, Laura was not running it from November she was running it from the moment Phil sold it, Phil was a paid adviser for the first 6 months then after that she was running it on her own until January this year when she got some new investment and these investors wanted to be more involved,
The latest set of account are for her first year running it, all that happened last November was all the girls where not paid and it nearly went to the wall and Laura had to bail it out with her own money,

ok but if that is the general rule Surely with Tilley being the only other director named he could have had the power of veto on any spending plan Laura could have had planned.. whether he IS a silent director or not/ Even by not having a power of veto, I would say his role in the company was meaningless from the start AND I would not be surprised if he ends up having tough questions to answer of his own in all of this..

(23-06-2018 21:48 )babelover48 Wrote:  ok but if that is the general rule Surely with Tilley being the only other director named he could have had the power of veto on any spending plan Laura could have had planned.. whether he IS a silent director or not/ Even by not having a power of veto, I would say his role in the company was meaningless from the start AND I would not be surprised if he ends up having tough questions to answer of his own in all of this..

Just because you are a Director in a company doesn't mean you have an equal share. So if its a 51/49 split between two people basically the 51% can do what they like.

If you look at most Ltd companies which are used by independent IT contractors for tax reasons the "other" Director is usually the spouse. Most companies of this size are Ltd for tax reasons. If there is any issues they will simply dissolve the company because being a Ltd means personal assets can be protected (this is how Trump cam be made bankrupt 8 times and still be rich). Its the employees (in this case the ladies) as always that get shafted when a company goes bust

(23-06-2018 13:06 )Dave_A Wrote:  So the question is who was running Red Light after Phil resigned in October 2016 until Laura took over Red Light a year or so later ?

According to the Red Light website it was being run by RLC TV during that time. From around November onwards it was being run by JLM Productions.