+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Night Shows (/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Former Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=236)
+---- Forum: Sin TV (/forumdisplay.php?fid=347)
+---- Thread: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=63996)
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - admiral decker - 18-07-2015 01:51
(17-07-2015 18:49 )DB83 Wrote: But surely 'fit and proper' in the eyes of Ofcom only covers those items which they regulate. Financial ineptitude is not part of their remit yet.
In theory the 'fit and proper' rule could be used by Ofcom in any way they wanted, as it is a 'catch all' that they could do anything with.
However, you're right, nobody has ever lost their license due to financial ineptitude. A company could even be insolvent and go into administration or receivership and still keep its licence. They would just need to make sure they informed Ofcom of what was happening.
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - retah-rotaredom - 18-07-2015 08:34
(18-07-2015 01:03 )admiral decker Wrote:(17-07-2015 23:26 )De La Red Wrote: alleged questionable ethics/intentions
They didn't have any questionable ethics/intentions. That kind of talk is nonsense. They simply didn't know what they were doing.
As bigglesworth posted, Sin TV had just the one EPG slot and a low one at that, so how could they ever have managed to pay such a high wagebill? The answer must be that they thought the x-streams would bring calls rolling in, and that was obviously a horrendous error of judgement.
I think you are being far too generous in your analysis of the owners' motives.
As for the girls - well, the rinse and repeat was on them for once it seems.
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - southlondonphil - 18-07-2015 09:55
(17-07-2015 23:19 )ShandyHand Wrote: Does anyone think that Sin set out with the intention not to pay people?!
Obviously not. Quite the opposite actually. They had really grandiose plans and regarded themselves as in it for the long haul.
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - ShandyHand - 18-07-2015 10:04
(03-07-2015 21:55 )general drago Wrote:(03-07-2015 20:14 )HEX!T Wrote: 3 girls in the room could work if the production was willing to put another cam in there. preferably manned so it can get more than just static shots.
Well that's never gonna happen, this is sin TV after all. I think there's more chance of Rammy and scottishbloke agreeing about something
Glad we agree on that.
The way some have spoken on here has implied Sin bosses set out with criminal intent.
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - DB83 - 18-07-2015 10:07
All this discussion that a low EPG slot has influence in the success (or failure) of a channel puzzles me.
So you are then inferring that you can only succeed if you have a high one. s66 seem to do ok languishing at 940-1 . So what about the mid-tablers 912,914 etc. ? What actual evidence exists rather than just another wild theory ?
If any business deliberately set out to recruit without the intention to remunerate that is fraud pure and simple. So that, however inept they have been, should be discounted. This failure is more down to cause and effect. The effect that expected take-up did not reach anticipated levels with resultant cash flow issues. The effect of trying to do too much too quickly - 5 HD streams !!. The effect of under-funding or simply wasting money on stupid sets. Or both (more likely)
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - southlondonphil - 18-07-2015 10:20
(18-07-2015 10:07 )DB83 Wrote: So you are then inferring that you can only succeed if you have a high one.
Nobody's inferring that and nobody will because it isn't true.
What several people are trying to explain is that you can't have an extremely high wagebill with a low EPG slot and expect to succeed. Take Club Paradiso/Storm for example, who were right at the bottom of the EPG to start with and are still pretty low on it now. They are still around after all these years, but they have a wagebill that's realistic for the number of channels they have and the EPG slot they have. In other words, a low EPG slot is fine, and no barrier to success, so long as you are realistic about the level of calls such a slot will generate.
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - winsaw - 18-07-2015 10:26
(18-07-2015 10:07 )DB83 Wrote: All this discussion that a low EPG slot has influence in the success (or failure) of a channel puzzles me.
So you are then inferring that you can only succeed if you have a high one. s66 seem to do ok languishing at 940-1 . So what about the mid-tablers 912,914 etc. ? What actual evidence exists rather than just another wild theory ?
its a well know face and applies to all sky channels in every section of the epg,
it's been found that most people when going through the channels only do a few channels before finding something they like and sticking with it, the casual viewer just never gets to the top end of the epg,
thats why sky charges so much more of a low epg slot and why as a channels grows they are always trying to move to a lower epg slot,
you can make money at the top end but have to run your channel cheaper
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - Goodfella3041 - 18-07-2015 10:30
(18-07-2015 10:07 )DB83 Wrote: The effect that expected take-up did not reach anticipated levels with resultant cash flow issues.
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
If this is the case -- and I suspect that it is -- then Sin TV fell into a trap that has ensnared far smarter people in far worthier businesses. It is probably the single biggest cause of bankruptcy.
A large profit will make you rich ... IF the cashflow doesn't kill you first!
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - admiral decker - 18-07-2015 10:43
(18-07-2015 10:30 )Goodfella3041 Wrote:(18-07-2015 10:07 )DB83 Wrote: The effect that expected take-up did not reach anticipated levels with resultant cash flow issues.
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Exactly guys. Ignore the conspiracy theorists in this thread. DB83's comment summed it up perfectly, and yes the simplest explanation is usually the best. I would add some further explanation, but it's not necessary as DB83 couldn't have been more correct in his assessment.
RE: Sin TV - General Chat & Discussion - kevin symons - 18-07-2015 11:34
A lot of people are claiming that Sin TV is finished and about to fold, but I don't think that's certain (not yet anyway). If they could find additional investment they could still pull through and survive couldn't they (with a new realistic wagebill of course)? I don't now how easy it would be find new investment, but maybe it's premature to say they are certain to be gone.