(17-07-2015 19:49 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ] (17-07-2015 17:36 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Could this non payment of girls etc have a effect on their relationship with Ofcom ?, Ofcom can revoke a licence if they deem the company no longer fit and proper to hold a licence .
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.
However if they default in their payment of licence fees that is an entirely different matter.
As far as i know, financial details/company details etc, does concern Ofcom, licencee's have to provide Ofcom with financial updates, and various company detail updates etc.
Ofcom aren't just regulators, they provide licences, the company's that Ofcom grant licences to. have to have to be in Ofcom's eyes "fit and proper" to hold a licence , if Ofcom deem a company not fit and proper to hold a licence, they can revoke it or not grant it in the first place, a company doesn't have to break rules concerning tv broadcast to have their licence revoked.
Various channels in the past have had their licences revoked, not for breaking any rules concerning the TV broadcast, but for not supplying Ofcom with various company changes etc .
PS, i wasn't saying Ofcom would revoke their licence, i was more or less asking a question, bearing in mind licencee's do have to provide Ofcom with various financial records/company details etc .
(17-07-2015 19:24 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]Sin had the potential to be a great channel, they had good sets and when you look at the quality of babes they managed to get on board they should have been a success. Sadly the management were incompetent, I hope Beth gets paid what she is due because she definitely earned it during her 6 shifts.
Spot on tractor, sintv had the babes & sets to be a success but the "incompetent management" as you call them ultimately brought about their demise.
Hope everyone at sin (including Beth) gets what is owed to them and as many of the babes that were still at sin find new channels & those behind the scenes get work on other shows/channels too
(17-07-2015 17:36 )mr mystery Wrote: [ -> ]Could this non payment of girls etc have a effect on their relationship with Ofcom ?, Ofcom can revoke a licence if they deem the company no longer fit and proper to hold a licence .
In a word, no.
Ofcom have never revoked a broadcasting license for the reason you state. Many broadcasters have even gone bust without having their license revoked, and that includes previous babe channels. Satellite Entertainment Ltd were in administration for a long time when Bluebird were using their licences and didn't lose ever their licenses until they were actually liquidated.
If owing money was a reason for revoking a license, the number of licenses which would have been revoked by Ofcom would be sky high.
Talking of Sky, some MPs wanted Sky's broadcasting licence revoked because they are part of News International which has been responsible for criminal acts of phone hacking. Ofcom ruled that phone hacking did not make Sky to be not fit and proper persons to hold a broadcasting licence.
In fact in the entire history of Ofcom the only licences ever revoked for not being fit and proper persons were those of Bang Media/Bang Channels. This was because of serious and repeated breaches of their licences, which demonstrated a disregard for their licence obligations and for the regulatory regime as a whole.
^^ ok. But I would have thought that 'financial records' would translate to Company Accounts (a more detailed version than what is available from Companies House). Such info is produced on an annual basis and this lot have not been in existence one year yet.
All pretty irrelevant in my eyes. Expect 942 to disappear from the EPG (even temporarily) any time soon.
But even without accounts, it is evident that the channel has been severely under-funded. It is nothing short of criminal not to pay wages etc. and even more so to have the audacity to suggest that people continue to work in expectation.
Game over !
(17-07-2015 22:43 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]^^ ok. But I would have thought that 'financial records' would translate to Company Accounts (a more detailed version than what is available from Companies House).
Licensees don't have to provide Ofcom with 'financial records' and mr mystery's claim to that effect has no basis in fact.
Licensees do have to notify Ofcom of any changes in ownership or control, meaning changes in shareholders and/or directors, changes in contact details, changes of company name or address, or any change in the business which affects who owns and/or controls the licence.
No financial records or updates are required, except for the sole requirement to notify Ofcom of any resolution to go into administration or liquidation or other insolvency procedure.
(17-07-2015 19:24 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]Sin had the potential to be a great channel
No it didn't.
You fail to grasp business basics. I said at the start that they didn't have a viable business and would quickly find themselves under severe financial pressure. They simply didn't have a formula which could ever have been successful.
(17-07-2015 23:10 )bigglesworth Wrote: [ -> ] (17-07-2015 19:24 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]Sin had the potential to be a great channel
No it didn't.
You fail to grasp business basics. I said at the start that they didn't have a viable business and would quickly find themselves under severe financial pressure. They simply didn't have a formula which could ever have been successful.
How was their formula different from other babe channels ?
(17-07-2015 23:17 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]How was their formula different from other babe channels ?
They recruited staff by offering wages which were quite incredible and which they had no chance of being able to pay.
(17-07-2015 23:23 )bigglesworth Wrote: [ -> ] (17-07-2015 23:17 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]How was their formula different from other babe channels ?
They recruited staff by offering wages which were quite incredible and which they had no chance of being able to pay.
That's because the management had no business sense, the potential I was talking about was in the girls and the sets not the clowns running the show, they could probably ruin any business within six months.
(17-07-2015 23:39 )Tractor boy Wrote: [ -> ]the potential I was talking about was in the girls
Meaning the girls they couldn't afford to pay and who weren't willing to work for nothing.