Guest Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 2 minutes ago, Amy3 said: Cause I have reason to distrust the managers who are getting the first cut of the 50%. It’s been a proven point of corruption on the part of the managers. When was that? if you are referring to the compound then it wasn't the managers who was taking the lion share but the sub managers which is always going to be a bad idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miscvoyeur Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, zoifan said: I feel bad for the Yoga guy. He is there like a spare tire. Why would they invite him if Serena is so crazy for the Manager? I was going to bring this up also. Being the 3rd wheel at the party is always a bad and awkward feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy3 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 If VH insists on having managers, then VH should pay the tenants first, and the manager should get the remainer based on an previously agreed amount. As it stands now, the manager gets the full 50% up front and then they are supposed to pay the tenants accordingly. I don’t trust the managers to be honest about the amount of money the tenant has earned. I don’t think it’s transparent enough and I don’t think VH has enough oversight over the managers payments to the tenants. I think this sets up a senario where a tenant could be taken advantage of and even forced to do things they may not really want to do. I would prefer a model where the tenant makes a direct deal with VH and gets paid based on an agreed scheme. #nomanagers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mic351 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, Amy3 said: Cause I have reason to distrust the managers who are getting the first cut of the 50%. It’s been a proven point of corruption on the part of the managers. I to distrust managers who take the 1st 50% with little or no accountability. I also dislike and distrust managers who are not participants yet wind up having sex with the participants. That's called sticking your dick in the cash register and every businessman knows better than to do that. Tells me they are nothing more than "Johns" or "Tricks". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy3 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, Just In said: When was that? if you are referring to the compound then it wasn't the managers who was taking the lion share but the sub managers which is always going to be a bad idea. The idea of a sub-manager took everyone off guard. To think that VH would allow another level of management to come between them and the tenant is absurd to me. As was proven, ends in complete corruption at the expense of the tenant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martyen Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 can be an explanation to the presence of yoga man to make a show (strip tease or a performance without sex relationship) or to participate in an orgy, but on this point I have a doubt, second alternative all girls will go out with George and leave Alan with yoga man to manage the character of Alan (yoga lesson) not good for us but funny to watch third hypothesis yoga man leaves the apartment and leaves the evening with hopeful of fucking at 6. obviously this message seems farfetched but possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfer06 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 12 minutes ago, zoifan said: Amy, are you referring to this video? https://voyeur-house.tv/moments/realm14/cam15/n-a-guests-fuck-hard-sept-3 Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabbath1987 Posted September 23, 2017 Author Share Posted September 23, 2017 4 minutes ago, Amy3 said: If VH insists on having managers, then VH should pay the tenants first, and the manager should get the remainer based on an previously agreed amount. As it stands now, the manager gets the full 50% up front and then they are supposed to pay the tenants accordingly. I don’t trust the managers to be honest about the amount of money the tenant has earned. I don’t think it’s transparent enough and I don’t think VH has enough oversight over the managers payments to the tenants. I think this sets up a senario where a tenant could be taken advantage of and even forced to do things they may not really want to do. I would prefer a model where the tenant makes a direct deal with VH and gets paid based on an agreed scheme. #nomanagers We don't know exactly how it is with the managers. When it was that bad nobody would work with managers. So I personally don't care as long as we get nice sexy interesting people... #dontcareifmanagers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amy3 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 1 minute ago, mic351 said: I to distrust managers who take the 1st 50% with little or no accountability. I also dislike and distrust managers who are not participants yet wind up having sex with the participants. That's called sticking your dick in the cash register and every businessman knows better than to do that. Tells me they are nothing more than "Johns" or "Tricks". Agree completely! This is above all else a business. It’s another example of poor oversight on the part of a VH and can only create avenues of corruption and potentially coercion. This is supposed to be a view into the lives of real people in their real homes, not whore-house.tv set up by a manager. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golfer06 Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 5 minutes ago, Amy3 said: If VH insists on having managers, then VH should pay the tenants first, and the manager should get the remainer based on an previously agreed amount. As it stands now, the manager gets the full 50% up front and then they are supposed to pay the tenants accordingly. I don’t trust the managers to be honest about the amount of money the tenant has earned. I don’t think it’s transparent enough and I don’t think VH has enough oversight over the managers payments to the tenants. I think this sets up a senario where a tenant could be taken advantage of and even forced to do things they may not really want to do. I would prefer a model where the tenant makes a direct deal with VH and gets paid based on an agreed scheme. #nomanagers The 50% that goes to mngrs. This is where the sub mngrs $ should come from not the tenants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 At between 01:28:00 & 01:29:00 did George say he has a girlfriend? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 1 minute ago, Amy3 said: Agree completely! This is above all else a business. It’s another example of poor oversight on the part of a VH and can only create avenues of corruption and potentially coercion. This is supposed to be a view into the lives of real people in their real homes, not whore-house.tv set up by a manager. We seem to be going back on this big old ferris wheel that will go no where and may get you more annoyed by talking it over and over and over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts