Jump to content

Bodyrotic - General Discussion Thread


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Philbi said:

Don't forget the location was a full service venue before Bodyrotic moved from Five Dock in early 2011 so the full licence may still be valid. 

 

15 hours ago, PlayDohBalls said:

The premises has had Council approval to operate as a brothel for quite a while. The approval stays with the premises.

It is worth remembering that in NSW there is no legal distinction between a tug shop and a full service brothel. A brothel is defined in the Restricted Premises Act as a place where prostitution happens (there are a few more words around this, but this is the gist). Prostitution is defined in the Summary Offences Act as either sex or masturbation of one person by another for payment. So basically, as soon as they touch your dick, the place is a brothel under NSW law. As PDB says, the Council approval goes with the building, regardless of who is operating the business. There is no licencing for operators - the proposal for licencing was rejected in the wake of the 2015 Parliamentary Inquiry.

 

Bodyrotic left their Five Dock premises because they didn't have the Council Development approval to operate. The back story (as I understand it, I may be wrong in some of the details):

There was a "Naughty" massage shop operating in Garfield St since at least 1987, initially a business known as Touch and Tone and later Bodyrotic. I do not know if the two businesses were related. In about 2009, Council "became aware" that such a place was operating and issued a closure order. Bodyrotic responded by submitting a Development Application. Canada Bay Council refused this in part because of the proximity of the church in Garfield St. Bodyrotic then submitted a second DA to operate out of premises around the corner in Great North Road. This was also refused, in part because children might walk past it. Both applications went to the Land and Environment Court for appeal. The Court supported the Council decision in both cases. At about this time the business known as Q136 folded. This business had jumped through all the hoops and gained approval from Sydney City Council to operate as a brothel at 136 Parramatta Rd.  Bodyrotic was able to move into the premises vacated by Q136. After Bodyrotic left Garfield St, another business known as Touch Erotic opperated briefly there but they were also shut down by Council. That business has not been heard from again - at least not under that name.

 

That it took over 20 years for Council to "become aware" of the operation of the place would indicate that it was having very little (or no) impact on the surrounding area. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
On 27/10/2019 at 8:37 PM, Vitesse said:

the excuse last time was that she didn’t have any condoms but this time I am taking my own.

Is that the one you’ve kept in your wallet for the last 20 years in case of emergencies? (Only joking)

 

@Oldandbald Thanks for your comment. As always you are an impeccable source of information. 
I was in Five Dock last year and noticed the Garfield St building was having a major renovation to both the former BR rooms upstairs and the shops below. It was overdue as the rear wall fronting the laneway had a major crack in the brickwork. I imagine the upstairs will become residential or perhaps office space.

 

Another general comment for those interested is I’ve noticed there are generally less ladies on the evening shift compared to the day shift. No doubt this is because there are less clients in the evening. This could provide opportunities for canny punters to secure their lady of choice with less competition from other clients.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, Oldandbald said:

 

It is worth remembering that in NSW there is no legal distinction between a tug shop and a full service brothel. A brothel is defined in the Restricted Premises Act as a place where prostitution happens (there are a few more words around this, but this is the gist). Prostitution is defined in the Summary Offences Act as either sex or masturbation of one person by another for payment. So basically, as soon as they touch your dick, the place is a brothel under NSW law. As PDB says, the Council approval goes with the building, regardless of who is operating the business. There is no licencing for operators - the proposal for licencing was rejected in the wake of the 2015 Parliamentary Inquiry.

 

Bodyrotic left their Five Dock premises because they didn't have the Council Development approval to operate. The back story (as I understand it, I may be wrong in some of the details):

There was a "Naughty" massage shop operating in Garfield St since at least 1987, initially a business known as Touch and Tone and later Bodyrotic. I do not know if the two businesses were related. In about 2009, Council "became aware" that such a place was operating and issued a closure order. Bodyrotic responded by submitting a Development Application. Canada Bay Council refused this in part because of the proximity of the church in Garfield St. Bodyrotic then submitted a second DA to operate out of premises around the corner in Great North Road. This was also refused, in part because children might walk past it. Both applications went to the Land and Environment Court for appeal. The Court supported the Council decision in both cases. At about this time the business known as Q136 folded. This business had jumped through all the hoops and gained approval from Sydney City Council to operate as a brothel at 136 Parramatta Rd.  Bodyrotic was able to move into the premises vacated by Q136. After Bodyrotic left Garfield St, another business known as Touch Erotic opperated briefly there but they were also shut down by Council. That business has not been heard from again - at least not under that name.

 

That it took over 20 years for Council to "become aware" of the operation of the place would indicate that it was having very little (or no) impact on the surrounding area. 

Thanks for the additional background.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Oldandbald said:

That it took over 20 years for Council to "become aware" of the operation of the place would indicate that it was having very little (or no) impact on the surrounding area. 

 

I'm sure many such places during the 80s and 90s were paying off council and police officers. Several places today advertise their 'party rooms' and I'm astonished Nanny hasn't kicked in their doors yet. Can only assume the operators continue to have friends in high places (or dirt on them).

Link to comment
20 hours ago, PlayDohBalls said:

No doubt this is because there are less clients in the evening.

I think it’s time for the management to start offering clients with generous loyalty discounts like the other shops. 
 

I am also convinced that rude Lauren working nights is also a contributing factor - She has to go!

  • Like 2
Link to comment

Received some intel last night that the business is struggling at the moment and some of their unpopular girls spend their shifts watching Netflix and going home with almost zero dollars. The girls are crying because they are struggling to pay their rent.

 

Management needs to realise that the cost of plain RnT has become far too expensive for the regular punter. People just don’t have the disposable income anymore to afford $280 dollars an hour for a rub n wank when you could get FS for a few dollars more or even cheaper when taken into account the loyalty discounts offered.

 

They seriously have to rethink their discount structure and start offering better discounts instead of the short happy hour $10 printed voucher garbage or they will see their girls slowly disappear and move onto busier shops.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
35 minutes ago, Vitesse said:

some of their unpopular girls spend their shifts watching Netflix and going home with almost zero dollars.

It would be good if there was more promotion of the less booked girls. They all deserve a piece of the pie. Maybe the top 10 ranking could be abolished as I imagine most clients would focus on them to the detriment of others. Sure it might induce those outside the top 10 to strive to improve their service. However, without the ranking system then others might have a greater opportunity to be booked.

 

I hear what you are saying about less disposable income floating around right now. Costs have risen for most things while wages haven’t kept pace. Maybe if the management undercut the opposition, even by a paltry amount, they might sway more clients to come their way. 

 

It will also be interesting to see how the new extras policy works when it kicks up a gear with regards to attracting more clients. I wonder if the “extras” girls are getting plenty of work?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, PlayDohBalls said:

It would be good if there was more promotion of the less booked girls. They all deserve a piece of the pie. Maybe if the management undercut the opposition, even by a paltry amount, they might sway more clients to come their way. 

 

It will also be interesting to see how the new extras policy works when it kicks up a gear with regards to attracting more clients. I wonder if the “extras” girls are getting plenty of work?

Can't see them cutting prices but I suppose that depends how bad turn over is

Wouldn't a price war be a wonderful thing for punters

I don't think extras are going to attract many more customers when you've only got about $70 to play with till your level with top tier FS shops but the girls might pick up a bit extra from the same amount of clients and be encouraged to stick around

  • Like 2
Link to comment
2 hours ago, PlayDohBalls said:

Costs have risen for most things while wages haven’t kept pace.

That’s what the management is making punters and the girls believe but in reality they are a very very profitable business. You got to remember that they keep 50 percent out of the $280 hourly rate. 


 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
40 minutes ago, Vitesse said:

That’s what the management is making punters and the girls believe but in reality they are a very very profitable business. You got to remember that they keep 50 percent out of the $280 hourly rate. 


 

 

Still if turnover is down due to fewer punters, 50% of less coming in is still less coming in for management. I can't imagine that the rent on the place is all that cheap, plus then all the supplies, maintenance, power, website, receptionist etc etc still needs to be paid for.

So whilst probably still profitable, I would expect like any business they need to keep an eye on costs, look at what can attract more customers (expect reason for loosening the no extras policy) and look at pricing structure.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment

So do the sums.

So 2 shifts. Average of 16 girls a day.

Each girl sees 4 clients and I know for a fact that this is a good day for most. Some might see 6 but that's rare

So 64 clients a day X $140 = $8960 X7 = $62,720 per week.

The rent would be high? Laundry, security and insurance, receptionist cost would be around $4000. Workers comp ? They would have to have it. And public liability too.

Assuming there is just one owner/partner then perhaps he or she would be going ok I think

Link to comment

yeah true .... all I was getting at is that if you are use to that sort of income, and make commitments based on that, then your income drops by 10 or 20% you might start thinking how to get back up again .... certainly not going to be on the dole at that turnover. (never done the maths before)

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Villeroy26 said:

Still if turnover is down due to fewer punters, 50% of less coming in is still less coming in for management.

It’s not all about how much the owner’s are raking in.

 

It is about the poor girls who are struggling to pay rent and put food on the table.

Link to comment
7 minutes ago, Vitesse said:

It’s not all about how much the owner’s are raking in.

 

It is about the poor girls who are struggling to pay rent and put food on the table.

True

Factory workers have had the same problem for years now . and most put in long hours for very little pay . Sadly

Link to comment
10 minutes ago, Vitesse said:

 

It is about the poor girls who are struggling to pay rent and put food on the table.

^^^^That’s true.
If the price dropped then the girls’ cut would also drop and that might drive some away. How about if on randomly selected weeks the price dropped and the management carried the cost reduction, not the girls. That might keep clients keen to keep checking for price drop weeks and also keep the girls happy. Plus the influx of clients on those weeks would give the less booked girls a chance to make some money and show the punters just what they’ve been missing. 
 

None of this is likely to happen though. We’re only looking at things from the girls benefit. Overheads, maintenance, running costs etc no doubt are also high.

 

Some things they do have over other places are reputation, quality ladies and very classy facilities. One way to attract more clients is by building on your strengths and good advertising. I’ve noticed they don’t seem to advertise anymore. Perhaps it became too expensive to do so, but nevertheless you need to reach out to pull the clients.

Link to comment
17 minutes ago, amos said:

True

Factory workers have had the same problem for years now . and most put in long hours for very little pay . Sadly

This is why a 25% discount would help all parties. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Rae said:

Can't see them cutting prices but I suppose that depends how bad turn over is

Gateway down the road is now offering $50 dollars off day time bookings before 7pm. ▪️
 

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, lostlittleboy said:

The cash the girls make on extras is entirely tax free.

 

Just think about that for a minute.

If it wasn’t BR would be losing out on the room tax altogether because the girls would be negotiating private outcalls like the old days. 

Link to comment

Just to give you blokes a laugh, in all the many years I’ve been going to BR, and generally it’s on a weekly basis, I’ve never once been offered any extras. I must be extremely unappealing. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
4 hours ago, PlayDohBalls said:

I’ve never once been offered any extras. I must be extremely unappealing. 

No, that’s because you never asked and the girls were afraid of getting fired if they offered it to random clients. 

 

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Vitesse said:

No, that’s because you never asked and the girls were afraid of getting fired if they offered it to random clients. 

 

I’ve been offered.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
×
×
  • Create New...