Studio66 & OnlyFans

(22-10-2018 11:12 )winsaw Wrote:  Head is a little update on the mind set of the management at 66 from someone who works there, safe to say they are losing it a bit as its not going all there own way as they expected it to,
Yes he has said that of the girls don’t give them there onlyfans details and share revenue they have been told to leave or there not getting shifts! Also that if to many girls leave he will shut the company down and start up again with a different name? And rebrand !
Sounds a bit desperate to me, basically pressure to fall in line or he will sack everyone

^ He seems like a rabid dog that needs to be put down.

I humbly offer my services.

^His actions and motives make Saddam Hussein look completely honest, but not that of rabid dog - not just yet

Let's summarise, S66 are up shit creek and this is a speculative, legally questionable, punt in the dark. The girls need to check their employment contracts. If it's not specified that they are unable to earn money from other companies of a similar nature and not specified what happens if they do then they are the ones holding the paddles. After all, how many girls in the past have had their own website with membership? Did S66 demand payments? How many girls have worked on adultwork webcamming while also being at S66? Did S66 demand payments? How many of their girls escorted while working for S66. See how dark this area is getting?

For a start, The (s66 management)y never demanded payment for websites (lie Fern's for example). or from outside webcam use (like Adultwork which seemed a popular choice amongst S66 girls and I've used with one babe several times) before now which meant they never saw it as a specified threat before OF came along, so they were more than likely happy about it at the time.

But now that OF has grown at possibly an alarming rate, they suddenly see that as a specified threat to their business model, so the question remains - Are you saying the girls hold all the aces at this precise moment if it was a game of poker?

(22-10-2018 11:46 )babelover48 Wrote:  ^His actions and motives make Saddam Hussein look completely honest, but not that of rabid dog - not just yet

I was thinking his actions were more akin to something Donald Trump would do, maybe Trump is a discrete partner .
Trump likes his pussy , S66 did have a USA channel as well .
Maybe a re-branding would be called White House 66

Unfortunately this channel and - in particular - their lazy producers, have stood idly by for such a long time (making little effort with the on-screen product, or keeping things fresh and exciting) that they are CLEARLY panicking now. To a quite extreme degree.

At this juncture surely compromise is required. The 66 'brand' is already irrelevant, IMO, anyway. So if they were too restart with a new name it wouldn't make much difference. Guys still want girls to call and wank over, after all.

(22-10-2018 12:09 )msgny72 Wrote:  The girls need to check their employment contracts.

The girls don't have any employment contracts because they aren't employees.

(22-10-2018 12:36 )elgar1uk Wrote:  

(22-10-2018 12:09 )msgny72 Wrote:  The girls need to check their employment contracts.

The girls don't have any employment contracts because they aren't employees.

even though they are self employed they still have contracts with 66, which state things like the amount of shifts they will get, rates of pay, amount of pervcam they are expected to do each week, 66 want them to sign new ones that will give them the right to the 30%

(22-10-2018 11:12 )winsaw Wrote:  if to many girls leave he will shut the company down and start up again with a different name? And rebrand !

Starting again with mostly a new crop of girls would not be a bad move at this point, but I'm not sure why a rebrand would be necessary?

(22-10-2018 12:51 )winsaw Wrote:  even though they are self employed they still have contracts with 66

Yes they have contracts, but not contracts of employment.

That means the girls are not holding the paddles, in the manner stated by msgny72. They are not covered by employment law.