The UK Babe Channels Forum

Things looking up for tonight Kimmy haze on

(12-07-2015 21:38 )winsaw Wrote: [ -> ]What they have done is wrong but if they do close that's a lot of girls and others out of work and out of pocket, not everyone can just walk into another channel, so I would say doing what they are doing is the best thing for the majority

spot on winsaw, it's wrong what sin have done but it's the best thing for the majority and keeps sin on the air. if sin keep going as they are doing since they've come back then I am very hopeful they will survive. Beth must think they will, otherwise she would not have joined sin

as for if there is a nightshow tonight....yes there is at the moment it's just Kimmy Haze

You can believe some of the girls because I had met a babeshow girl at the start of Sin Tv who told me that she had turned down their offer of £800 a night because she did not like the people running this channel and had doubts about the longevity of the channel . I was was the first person to post details of these high wages. The girls talk among themselves in person and on their private phones and she advised me that this was the going rate offered to all of the girls when they signed up such an array of top girls when Sin TV started
Winsaw has also posted something similar from his contacts with the girls
On a brighter note yes Sin/Sky TV has improved since they got rid of the 3 girls at a time on the sardine TV screen
They need to sign up more girls albeit on reduced wages as it is boring with the same few girls night after night
However with Sin TV`s previous track record of not paying their wages in full they may well find it difficult in signing new girls
Perhaps they should concentrate on signing up fresh talent that has not previously been seen on any of the babeshows as they will be looking for their big break in the Glamour/Sex industry

The problems hit them around quarter end. May be a coincidence but commercial property rents are usually payable then. If they do rent and are on quarterly terms the next big crunch time will be end of September. The girls are probably self employed so don't I believe get covered by employment law protection and if they want unpaid fees will have to issue legal proceedings. If I were them I would. I doubt any supplier is giving them credit terms now so its going to be a tightrope they have to tread if they are to rebuild and survive

will agree with you here turniphead. sintv now rather than concentrate on veteran babeshow babes need to start concentrating on unknown/fresh talent who as you say are looking for their break in the glamour/adult industry. they would be cheaper than the veteran babes they have signed, but do need to keep veteran babes as they can bring in the calls whilst the unknown babes get established and start building up a fan base.

also agree about believing some of the babes too as I was told about what was going on behind the scenes by someone conncected to sin which tallied with what was posted on here

(12-07-2015 22:38 )TURNIPHEAD Wrote: [ -> ]I was was the first person to post details of these high wages.

I flagged their high wagebill as being a problem as early as March, even if I didn't mention any specific figure.

New & unknown girls won't justify the high call charges they are currently asking.
They started out looking like a luxury outfit, but their sheen has been well washed away by their inept handling of no-shows, pretend web-site maintenance problems (so they don't need to justify not using the x-streams or let us see what a mismatch there is between their roster page and who is actually on any more), and silence on their usually busy twitter account when they want to brush things under the carpet.
Any girl going there now does so at her own risk,

(12-07-2015 23:37 )bigglesworth Wrote: [ -> ]

(12-07-2015 22:38 )TURNIPHEAD Wrote: [ -> ]I was was the first person to post details of these high wages.

I flagged their high wagebill as being a problem as early as March, even if I didn't mention any specific figure.

Was that because you did not know they were being offered (not paid ) £800 a night

(12-07-2015 23:40 )TURNIPHEAD Wrote: [ -> ]Was that because you did not know they were being offered (not paid ) £800 a night

Yes. I had been told it was "a giddy amount" but didn't know the specific figure.

What the fuck is up with the system tonight as I have had to delete 2 posts as it keeps changing Rampant to Rampart