(23-06-2011 00:16 )dirtyharry1962 Wrote:  Well if they do try not paying you Foxy, give me a shout and I'll come down and 'change their minds' I'm quite good at extracting funds!!!

(22-06-2011 09:51 )Bailey Wrote:  

(21-06-2011 00:31 )five pound coin Wrote:  Oh come on guys how long did you think this could last ??? everybody has their own opinion and this is mine, not going to be rude but this is what i think.
Sport was a terrible channel ! with so many aspects that were just wrong, production, lighting, girls, the list goes on and on ! I'm really surprised it lasted that long.
The Production was a total sham, sets were rubbish seen better oxfam windows, same for the lighting one night it looked like it was shot in my nans coal shed the next it looked like it was shot it the courtyard during a prison break. The Production, well was there any Production ??? even the Sport girls complained about their own production or lack of it.
You only have to flick over to BabeStation, which say what you will about them and their osg etc know how a show should be produced to see how bad Sport really was. your never see a girl flicking her hair while pouting and looking at herself in the monitor for eight hours every night. would the Sport girls have lasted on Babaestion? Yeah, for about two nights !

Cellcast were the first channel I ever worked for and I did 6 months there actually! a little longer than 2 days! They trained me well and the studio and production were a high standard! In one of your posts you say that Sport was the only option for the girls as no other channel would take them on....well thats funny because how is it the likes of Lucy Summers and TJ now work on anther channel and whilst I worked at Sport I also worked for another company (and still do) now.

As for the production side of things this was totally beyond the girls control and also the producers to some extent. You may be interested to know that some of the producers actually work for other channels to and do a very good job. One can only work with the materials provided with!

Bailey :-)

(23-06-2011 05:28 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  Sean, I think the problem will always be the raising of the required capital. I think you are talking a few hundred thousand pounds.

(23-06-2011 08:49 )seancarterjz Wrote:  

(23-06-2011 05:28 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  Sean, I think the problem will always be the raising of the required capital. I think you are talking a few hundred thousand pounds.

The key is first being willing to work for 'free' till you break even and finding willing investors like formal operators who had their licenses revoked or not renewed for one reason or the other. She certainly has a strong fan base to capitalize on ( just see her 'view stats' in this forum alone. Another option is to partner with an existing station and spin off another channel produced by her .
Like my old man always says ..where there is a will ..you can take down Bruce Lee

(22-06-2011 05:37 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  

(22-06-2011 01:26 )five pound coin Wrote:  {stuff}

(22-06-2011 01:26 )five pound coin Wrote:  [snip] ... So feel free guys to jump right in there again about the Cellcast OSG and other stuff you haven't got the first clue about, but feel you have the right to have an opinion on!

(23-06-2011 08:49 )seancarterjz Wrote:  

(23-06-2011 05:28 )Renfrew169 Wrote:  Sean, I think the problem will always be the raising of the required capital. I think you are talking a few hundred thousand pounds.

The key is first being willing to work for 'free' till you break even and finding willing investors like formal operators who had their licenses revoked or not renewed for one reason or the other. She certainly has a strong fan base to capitalize on ( just see her 'view stats' in this forum alone. Another option is to partner with an existing station and spin off another channel produced by her .
Like my old man always says ..where there is a will ..you can take down Bruce Lee