(06-07-2010 21:17 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote: [ -> ]So Chilly, just because i'm pro-bluebird and a member of their forum I must be desperate
. Fair enough Amanda has moved to Bluebird and I am a big fan of hers but so have about 80% of my other favourite girls and I don't think it is fair to post pics intended to insult the Bluebird girls in general. I really think that Bluebird will give the Babechannel a kick up the arse, which will benefit everyone. No Headspin, it was with regards to other posts.
You are indeed. Your Bluebird picture collection must be huge, I mean, I imagine it's much bigger than tsu's.
(06-07-2010 21:17 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it is fair to post pics intended to insult the Bluebird girls in general.
can someone explain this to me, i agree if true and there is lots of anti-bluebird posts but haven't seen any pictures aimed at any girls
(06-07-2010 22:06 )199lives Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2010 21:17 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it is fair to post pics intended to insult the Bluebird girls in general.
can someone explain this to me, i agree if true and there is lots of anti-bluebird posts but haven't seen any pictures aimed at any girls
Show me one comment that is slagging off any girl.
Delta and a few others i like are on there and i still wouldn't give them a flea to breed on. Must be where you and me differ i have principles and show some kind of loyalty and you......well go where there is the best chance to kiss a babes ass.
Nevermind am sure you would be made to feel very welcome if amanda's bluebird move goes tits up and you all of a sudden decide bluebird aren't the saviour's of planet babechannel and come crawling back here
(06-07-2010 21:17 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it is fair to post pics intended to insult the Bluebird girls in general.
Please tell me you don't mean the picture in this post. Surely no babe would take that as an "insult" i like to think most of them have a sense of humour
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...#pid562465
(06-07-2010 22:06 )199lives Wrote: [ -> ] (06-07-2010 21:17 )amandasnumerounofan Wrote: [ -> ]I don't think it is fair to post pics intended to insult the Bluebird girls in general.
can someone explain this to me, i agree if true and there is lots of anti-bluebird posts but haven't seen any pictures aimed at any girls
Post #73 i think is the the one he's reffering to...
http://www.babeshows.co.uk/showthread.ph...906&page=8 
(06-07-2010 14:34 )Freebird Wrote: [ -> ]the part i'm secretly looking forward to is seeing how many of the bluebird girls leave within 4 or 5 weeks of it starting. they may be under contract but i'd imagine in this business contracts are easy to get out of.
Not necessarily...
Have a look at this thread from BGAFD concerning Bluebird contract girls.
http://bgafd.co.uk/forum/read.php?f=5&i=85612&t=85612
*It relates to Bluebird porn contracts, it may well be that the contracts for Bluebird Babe Channels are completely different, that Girls may walk away at a moments notice.* I guess time will tell....
Have you ever seen those late night "WHEN...." shows on Bravo?: "When animals attack", "When good times go bad", "When senior citizens fight back" etc, this is
"When Lawyers make adult entertainment":
Selected comments from "Hiwatt" the Bluebird rep, taken from the above BGAFD thread on Bluebird contracts:
"Be aware that under their contracts, they are not allowed to shoot for anyone else for 1 year after their contract ends, without our prior permission. You can understand that when we have paid for boobjobs etc etc, we need to protect the rights in their name and image."
"BB has rights over the use of contract girl during and after the contract. The rights are protected by law. If a person breaches those rights, he is liable."
"But, as a serious point, if a former contract girl did breach her 'non-shoot' clause, then BB could require her to repay the cost of the surgery. Ouch !"
"OK: It's standard Clause 5:
EXCLUSIVITY: The Performer shall not for the duration of this Agreement plus 1 further year provide to any person other than the Company the Performer's services in respect of films and/or photographic productions and/or internet and/or newspaper or magazine or other publishable materials and/or dancing and/or any other public appearances whether for free or for payment without the prior written permission of the Company.
Aren't BB's lawyers clever little bunnies ?"
"You have been given the information. You can choose to believe that it is not true. You can then knowingly breach the contract terms and conditions. You can then explain to a judge that you had been given the information, but you had chosen to disregard it. Can you work out what happens next ?"
"The protection of business rights is not a matter of punter PR.
As to PR, It would be rather worse for BB if other producers believed they could rip our legal rights off - without penalty or liability. Now, nobody does."
"The test is not whether a Court had held a producer liable. The test is whether a producer willingly wants to take the risk."
"A post-CG girl can challenge the clause as much as she wants. If she wins, she loses her royalties and has to repay all her contractual advances on account of royalties. If she loses, then we don't have to pay royalties and we can have our advances back, since she has repudiated the contract."
"You see, we've been working out the law, and practice for 3 years on this. Whereas, it's all new to forumites. So you'd expect us to have the answers."
If a bigger and better studio comes along and wants an actress (why am I saying actress, they make the cast of hollyoaks look like thespians when I use that word lol), let's say models shall we, they will literally buy them out of their contracts, ie playboy etc (let's face it, bluebirds aren't big fish in the adult industry
) it happens all the time in television, bands with record labels, football players etc etc, so in short BB, none of those models are tied to you at all really are they, especially the top ones which will attract the big studios like I've mentioned before, also bear in mind they might not want to buy the contracts and they could afford bigger and better lawyers than BB I should imagine, so in short, you haven't got a stranglehold over any of your top girls at all have you
. And really, how much does a boob job cost nowadays, the money these girls are reportedly earning it shouldn't be that much of a dent to pay back for them......
P.s - very quick example, Plymouth argyle have a young brilliantly talented player under a 3yr contract, man utd want him to play for them, because they are a huge club with deep pockets they more or less dictate the terms of his transfer, the player ends up at man utd, end of story...... Plymouth argyle=BB, vivid/wicked=man utd, see where I'm coming from...... Anyway, I'm off to watch some more breaking bad,
(06-07-2010 20:31 )Rammyrascal Wrote: [ -> ]Freeblue starts this friday at 9pm on 908, 949,950,951 and 952. dont know who's on yet but anna lovato has posted on her fb she is back on friday
.........who's on??..how about:
SJ/TJ/EML/CASSIE/TAMMY/ANI/RACHEL/BROOK/CHARLIE/HONEY/DENNI/EVA etc
............with guest appearances from studio neighbours Juicy Lucy demonstrating her handthong/phonethong/truncheonthong/nothingatallthong techniques
+ Serena flashing the fluff
+ special bifunctional cabaret show from the Thailand ensemble....
SKY951 is the wild card to prove or disprove my theory of BB/CC coalition, currently owned by BB but showing CC night show; if BB is launching this week will presumably be where Anna fits in, hopefully with other defectors from the established babe shows such as LexiLowe & especially LisaO'Connor aka Jessica aka Cindy; roll on Friday, then we'll see what all the hype was about, personally I think I will be totally underwhelmed with excitement...........
(06-07-2010 22:49 )headspin Wrote: [ -> ]If a bigger and better studio comes along and wants an actress (why am I saying actress, they make the cast of hollyoaks look like thespians when I use that word lol), let's say models shall we, they will literally buy them out of their contracts, ie playboy etc (let's face it, bluebirds aren't big fish in the adult industry ) it happens all the time in television, bands with record labels, football players etc etc,
We are talking about the 900 channels, not football, record labels etc.
Would another channel want to spend money to buy out a contract belonging to a Babe channel performer who quit their channel, hire lawyers, mount a legal challenge, go to court, or would they hire someone new without a contract?