Are Cellcast having problems?

(19-06-2011 09:55 )the fat parky Wrote:  Cellcast costs are high because of their commitment to freeview as those channels are expensive to operate.

True but the higher costs should be offset by a increase in revenue from a larger freeview audience with no competition until 1am when Elite broadcasts on freeview , lets not forget that Cellcast only have 1 free to air phone in channel and a encrypted channel on freeview , freeview channels 94 and 97 belong to "Square 1 Management Limited" not Cellcast . Cellcast just use other company's licences and air time to broadcast these channels from in the same way that Elite uses the TVX channel , but obviously they will have to pay the parent company's for the use of their channels . It makes you wonder how much longer Cellcast will keep going with them continuing to be in the red financially .

I don't suppose the top executives are too worried about the losses.
I assume they get to watch BS Xtreme for free, and perhaps there are other perks.

(19-06-2011 10:54 )mr mystery Wrote:  It makes you wonder how much longer Cellcast will keep going with them continuing to be in the red financially .

But are they much in the red, as you claim? The only borrowing they have is £100,000 from one of their own directors. That's not much money for a company with a sales turnover of over 19 million pounds.

It's not me that is claiming Cellcast are in the red mate or how much they are in the red , " Cellcast still in the red" are the headlines that are used when you click on the link "chilly's" provided on post 42 of this thread . It says Cellcast failed to move into profit again , it doesn't make any difference what the turnover is , it's whether you make a profit or loss that matters , at the moment Cellcast are making a loss not a profit .

(17-06-2011 20:23 )Chilly Wrote:  Cellcast still in the red:

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/Cellcas...l?x=0&.v=1

(19-06-2011 17:08 )mr mystery Wrote:  It's not me that is claiming Cellcast are in the red mate or how much they are in the red , " Cellcast still in the red" are the headlines that are used when you click on the link "chilly's" provided on post 42 of this thread . It says Cellcast failed to move into profit again , it doesn't make any difference what the turnover is , it's whether you make a profit or loss that matters , at the moment Cellcast are making a loss not a profit .

I'm no business expert, but I'm not sure whether making a loss or a profit in isolation is relevant. If you're making a loss in x year, x year + 1 etc, is the important thing not whether you can service your debt?

Chelsea make a loss year on year. I guess Man U may do too, although I'm not sure (I wonder what % of analogies on this forum relate to football). I don't see their losses really mattering as long as their turnover is sufficent to service their debt. Plenty of companies are set up to make a loss in certain years of expansion or investment, while their long term goal is to eventually make a profit. Some companies are set up to make a loss full stop if doing so aids their tax "fiddle".

(19-06-2011 18:28 )skateguy Wrote:  

(19-06-2011 17:08 )mr mystery Wrote:  It's not me that is claiming Cellcast are in the red mate or how much they are in the red , " Cellcast still in the red" are the headlines that are used when you click on the link "chilly's" provided on post 42 of this thread . It says Cellcast failed to move into profit again , it doesn't make any difference what the turnover is , it's whether you make a profit or loss that matters , at the moment Cellcast are making a loss not a profit .

I'm no business expert, but I'm not sure whether making a loss or a profit in isolation is relevant. If you're making a loss in x year, x year + 1 etc, is the important thing not whether you can service your debt?

Chelsea make a loss year on year. I guess Man U may do too, although I'm not sure (I wonder what % of analogies on this forum relate to football). I don't see their losses really mattering as long as their turnover is sufficent to service their debt. Plenty of companies are set up to make a loss in certain years of expansion or investment, while their long term goal is to eventually make a profit. Some companies are set up to make a loss full stop if doing so aids their tax "fiddle".

It doesn't really matter what our opinions are about Cellcast being in the red and making a loss , its what Cellcast thinks about being in the red that matters , was it predicted and are the losses acceptable to Cellcast is all that really matters .
It does not bother Roman Abramovich at Chelsea as he didn't buy Chelsea in order to make a profit in the first place . Man U making a loss is a different matter as it's been mentioned that it is a concern for them i believe .

Only time will tell if it matters to Cellcast or whether they are happy with their turnover being sufficient to cover their debts .
Like you say some company's are set up to make a loss to help with their tax circumstances , or the losses are down to investment and their long term goal is to make a profit . If Cellcast's long term goal is to make a profit and they keep failing to do so i can't see them sticking around the babe channels in the future , the babe channel part of the company is just a small part of a large Cellcast's empire , so can't see them sticking with loss making babe channels IF their aim is to make a profit , they could make more profit from selling the babe channels to other company's .

(19-06-2011 21:13 )mr mystery Wrote:  If Cellcast's long term goal is to make a profit and they keep failing to do so i can't see them sticking around the babe channels in the future , the babe channel part of the company is just a small part of Cellcast's empire , so can't see them sticking with loss making channels IF their aim is to make a profit , they could make more profit from selling the babe channels to other company's .

I'm not really up on all this and, maybe I've not been reading all the posts properly, but if it's Cellcast as a whole that's in the red and the babeshows are only a small part of it why do you assume the babeshows themselves are making a loss. For all we really know about it, it could be the babeshows that's keeping the rest of the company afloat.

That aside, profits are not always so important if you aren't heavily borrowed and don't have jittery investors to keep happy.

Big profits = Big tax bill and, unless they really need to show a big profit for some reason, it's in their interests to keep them low or even show a small loss.

I wouldn't be surprised if they were having money issues. We have Ofcom ruining everything by not allowing vaginas to be shown because they will end the world, as well as Cellcast's ridiculous picture scams, OSG's, interruptions where the screen goes to a message, and also Geri and the other interrupters taking up time by stating the obvious. Geri was just asking "Come on guys, where are you?" in regards to the lack of calls tonight, so maybe someone should tell her it's partially due to her interruptions.

If cellcast are in the red it will be the poundsigns THEY WILL NEED TO get them out of it; the callers also who buys these video and photos of the girls i'm sure we all would love to help them out

Is this not what we've been telling BS for the past several months and from what i've seen whilst flicking through the channels on the last two nights, they seem to have Lolly on for several hours at a time. So, I think Cellcast are clearly struggling because they are probably only just making enough money to clear their over-heads.