(17-07-2015 19:49 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]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.
In theory the 'fit and proper' rule could be used by Ofcom in any way they wanted, as it is a 'catch all' that they could do anything with.
However, you're right, nobody has ever lost their license due to financial ineptitude. A company could even be insolvent and go into administration or receivership and still keep its licence. They would just need to make sure they informed Ofcom of what was happening.
(18-07-2015 02:03 )admiral decker Wrote: [ -> ] (18-07-2015 00:26 )De La Red Wrote: [ -> ]alleged questionable ethics/intentions
They didn't have any questionable ethics/intentions. That kind of talk is nonsense. They simply didn't know what they were doing.
As bigglesworth posted, Sin TV had just the one EPG slot and a low one at that, so how could they ever have managed to pay such a high wagebill? The answer must be that they thought the x-streams would bring calls rolling in, and that was obviously a horrendous error of judgement.
I think you are being far too generous in your analysis of the owners' motives.
As for the girls - well, the rinse and repeat was on them for once it seems.
(18-07-2015 00:19 )ShandyHand Wrote: [ -> ]Does anyone think that Sin set out with the intention not to pay people?!
Obviously not. Quite the opposite actually. They had really grandiose plans and regarded themselves as in it for the long haul.
(03-07-2015 22:55 )general drago Wrote: [ -> ] (03-07-2015 21:14 )HEX!T Wrote: [ -> ]3 girls in the room could work if the production was willing to put another cam in there. preferably manned so it can get more than just static shots.
Well that's never gonna happen, this is sin TV after all. I think there's more chance of Rammy and scottishbloke agreeing about something 
Glad we agree on that.
The way some have spoken on here has implied Sin bosses set out with criminal intent.
All this discussion that a low EPG slot has influence in the success (or failure) of a channel puzzles me.
So you are then inferring that you can only succeed if you have a high one. s66 seem to do ok languishing at 940-1 . So what about the mid-tablers 912,914 etc. ? What actual evidence exists rather than just another wild theory ?
If any business deliberately set out to recruit without the intention to remunerate that is fraud pure and simple. So that, however inept they have been, should be discounted. This failure is more down to cause and effect. The effect that expected take-up did not reach anticipated levels with resultant cash flow issues. The effect of trying to do too much too quickly - 5 HD streams !!. The effect of under-funding or simply wasting money on stupid sets. Or both (more likely)
(18-07-2015 11:07 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]So you are then inferring that you can only succeed if you have a high one.
Nobody's inferring that and nobody will because it isn't true.
What several people are trying to explain is that you can't have an extremely high wagebill with a low EPG slot and expect to succeed. Take Club Paradiso/Storm for example, who were right at the bottom of the EPG to start with and are still pretty low on it now. They are still around after all these years, but they have a wagebill that's realistic for the number of channels they have and the EPG slot they have. In other words, a low EPG slot is fine, and no barrier to success, so long as you are realistic about the level of calls such a slot will generate.
(18-07-2015 11:07 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]All this discussion that a low EPG slot has influence in the success (or failure) of a channel puzzles me.
So you are then inferring that you can only succeed if you have a high one. s66 seem to do ok languishing at 940-1 . So what about the mid-tablers 912,914 etc. ? What actual evidence exists rather than just another wild theory ?
its a well know face and applies to all sky channels in every section of the epg,
it's been found that most people when going through the channels only do a few channels before finding something they like and sticking with it, the casual viewer just never gets to the top end of the epg,
thats why sky charges so much more of a low epg slot and why as a channels grows they are always trying to move to a lower epg slot,
you can make money at the top end but have to run your channel cheaper
(18-07-2015 11:07 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]The effect that expected take-up did not reach anticipated levels with resultant cash flow issues.
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
If this is the case -- and I suspect that it is -- then Sin TV fell into a trap that has ensnared far smarter people in far worthier businesses. It is probably the single biggest cause of bankruptcy.
A large profit will make you rich ... IF the cashflow doesn't kill you first!
(18-07-2015 11:30 )Goodfella3041 Wrote: [ -> ] (18-07-2015 11:07 )DB83 Wrote: [ -> ]The effect that expected take-up did not reach anticipated levels with resultant cash flow issues.
The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Exactly guys. Ignore the conspiracy theorists in this thread. DB83's comment summed it up perfectly, and yes the simplest explanation is usually the best. I would add some further explanation, but it's not necessary as DB83 couldn't have been more correct in his assessment.
A lot of people are claiming that Sin TV is finished and about to fold, but I don't think that's certain (not yet anyway). If they could find additional investment they could still pull through and survive couldn't they (with a new realistic wagebill of course)? I don't now how easy it would be find new investment, but maybe it's premature to say they are certain to be gone.