mark.s.. > 01/02/2019, 05:17
(01/02/2019, 05:15)mark.s.. Wrote:makes sense duke.(31/01/2019, 10:11)GrandDuke Wrote: Much of what you say is true Mark. However, you ask why would they go to all that trouble if they do not own the channel. The answer may be because they are paid to do so by the actual owner under the terms of a Service Level Agreement where they are obliged to do x, y and z for a regular fee. My understanding is that the channel is owned by a local person in Thailand still but who could not afford to invest in improved technology themselves. BS do the marketing, technology and day to day administration and the owner pays for this out of whatever profits he makes. He also has to pay BS for the channel he rents from them on Sky.
So it is a nice little earner for BS but gives them little incentive to allow it to become so successful, it starts to erode the business of the channels they do own. Suddenly, everything that makes no sense starts to do so if this theory (which is all it is of course, as the truth is a closely guarded secret) is correct. Just my opinion but it does allow me to see some sense in the madness that seems to surround the management of the channel.
tony2907 > 02/02/2019, 13:13
GrandDuke > 02/02/2019, 16:22
mikey99 > 02/02/2019, 18:55
GrandDuke > 02/02/2019, 20:07
GrandDuke > 06/02/2019, 13:11
tony2907 > 06/02/2019, 15:49
Bellissimo89 > 06/02/2019, 16:00
mikey99 > 06/02/2019, 16:28
Bellissimo89 > 06/02/2019, 16:39