Hello Baggsy .... you were pure entertainment throughout. The Button house loved you and think the manner of your firing was disgraceful.
You conducted yourself with dignity with Dara also. Best of luck for the future mate...... I have been a big fan of SirLordAlan for years but he dropped a bollock with you.
interesting thread, good to find a measured discussion about this on the internet. i have a few things to add:
8. What's all the fuss about Liz, honestly. She's just a bright girl with a business degree. She'll make a good business woman for a big corporation one day (wait, who am i kidding, she'll end up doing a crap TV show), but she's hardly set the world alight so far. yeah she got a big order for the baby vest thing, but to be honest Louise Woodward could have got a big order for that particular product. She had common sense and the energy to get things moving and a pleasant personality but demonstrated absolutely zero business insight. The pricing cockup on the bus episode, the blame was shared with Stewart but he HAD made some impressive business decisions/deals up to that point, Liz had just coasted by on general competence and now she'd made a fatal error the first time she was really tested (actually she had made a few errors on numbers before but managed to shift the blame). Don't get me wrong, good candidate, but she's not Jesus.
The point is Liz was the strongest candidate he had. Its all relative. No one has shown themselves to be a brilliant prospect - largely due to the tasks selected and the workings of the show and partly because the comic no hopers cast tend to get in the way of success and make winning tasks even more random.
Stuart was essentially pretending to play big business men and ended up even at the interview sounding like a hyperbolic pre-teen playing and pitching his ability to make billions with imaginary toy technology. Joanna showed more basic business understanding and selling and presentational skill than Chris or Stella, but her lack of training showed. Chris was shown at the interviews as a floater whose determination was suspect, he has virtually no experience of snything and his show record doesn't really contain any highs- apart from the very dubious claim to have been shrewd in tours week. Stella has done well but has all sorts of questions over her and, most significantly, there's doubt after Trufflegate whether she has the weakest basic business instincts of anyone in the last 7. The others all would have realised (or did realise ) that buying Truffles from Knightsbridge restaurants was not a good idea and 5 would have got that 2000/1000 times 50 is not 200.
Liz by way of contrast, managed to do well at selling and presenting and leading teams and she had a pretty good record compared to anyone of spotting what was wrong or right in basic business terms and finding a solution and spotting what might go wrong before it did. Her list of howlers was shorter than anyone in the top 5s. There's no comparison with Stuart who made things up from nothing as he went along, was exceedingly difficult to work with and, as you would by making random decisions, very occassionally got something right by accident amidst the carnage.
Possibly Liz is a better candidate than Stuart, Stella and Chris (to be honest I don't see what she's got on Jamie), but it seemed like she had nothing more to show - good performer, hardly an entrepreneurial genius. The jury was still out on the others. The negotiation task killed her.
Chris comes across as more discerning than the others. All his comments on the other candidates and the tasks were spot on. That sort of intelligence is very valuable, too many candidates don't seem to really grasp the whole situation (and also have poor academic records). Stella is very formidable, nobody has managed to knock her out her stride, including those interviewers. The thing is, a lot of the skills on display during the tasks are donkey's work. Liz is a good presenter, but is that what Sugar needs? The show is just for entertainment, in reality Stella is the strongest professional, it'd be silly to hire Liz over someone like that.
No one has shown themselves to be a brilliant prospect - largely due to the tasks selected and the workings of the show and partly because the comic no hopers cast tend to get in the way of success and make winning tasks even more random.
This I would agree with.
But I didn't see any real evidence that Liz was better than Stella and Joanna.
Her list of howlers was shorter than anyone in the top 5s.
Liz had the very basic 'howler' of not spotting the bagginator's absurd tour pricing and not realising the importance of getting the agency deal.
Stella had a major howler in the location she chose to try and find truffles.
Joanna didn't really make any actual howlers at all.
The only thing people could really find to bash her with was nagging Jamie.
Chris was in the boardroom so often he should have been called Houdini.
Baggs was a joke.
I would be unable to pick one out of the first three above on the basis of what we have been shown.
I think we can safely say that either The Brando isn't Stuart, or that Stuart is so feeble-minded that he doesn't know how to spell his own name. I think the former is more likely.
That said, I spent every week up to now thinking the guy is a cock, but from what we saw the other night, Stuart came out completely untarnished and the interviewers generally came out as complete numpties.
I agree totally with Brando.
On previous series I had rather liked Bordan. The programme may have tried to portray him as a detail person, but he emerged as a total prat from this weeks show (at least for anybody with a professional interest in ICT)
I think the way both Viggy and LordSirAlan refused to let Stuart offer any explanation was pretty weak.
Who knows what was going on, but I find it hard to square the statement 'I can't believe a bleddy word you say' with what Viggy got out of him. I don't know anything about telecoms so maybe it was a massive faux pas, but, not understanding the ins and outs of what Stuart was accused of, it did come acroess as incredibly technical and picky.
Also, he didn't look particularly caught out - he was trying to offer an explanation but just was not allowed to get a word in edgeways (unless that was edited out.)
I found LS's self disgust that he had fired Liz instead of Stu particularly ridiculous - he knew at the time he was choosing the person who made the best appeal rather than the person who had shown the most ability in the task.
But Stuart's CV was not for telecoms professionals.
He has a licence that allows him to provide telecoms services. So to a layman - as those dealing with this process are - he is a licenced telecoms provider. The qualifier 'fully' is just meaningless spin.
There must have been more deception in his CV that for some reason the BBC didn't want to reveal.
There was nothing else on my CV. I am 21 (and as such don't have a string of previous employers) and my CV included details of my education and my company only. It was a single sheet of A4.
There was nothing else on my CV. I am 21 (and as such don't have a string of previous employers) and my CV included details of my education and my company only. It was a single sheet of A4.
There was nothing else on my CV. I am 21 (and as such don't have a string of previous employers) and my CV included details of my education and my company only. It was a single sheet of A4.
...only on YBF "you" said you were a year older and were 22. You can't be both 21 AND 22 .
Chris was shown at the interviews as a floater whose determination was suspect, he has virtually no experience of snything and his show record doesn't really contain any highs- apart from the very dubious claim to have been shrewd in tours week.
He was PM when his team got a boardroom record of sales - which was mainly down to selecting the right product, which was mainly down to the PM. That's a high.
Stella has done well but has all sorts of questions over her and, most significantly, there's doubt after Trufflegate whether she has the weakest basic business instincts of anyone in the last 7.
Other than the truffles, what kind of questions?
Liz by way of contrast, managed to do well at selling and presenting and leading teams and she had a pretty good record compared to anyone of spotting what was wrong or right
Actually, she doesn't have a good record of leading teams. She won once as PM and lost once. When she lost, she lost because she misunderstood the task and concentrated on getting all the items rather than on the cost of the items. And when she won she won because of squealing girlily over sequinned dresses, while the other team chose silly recycled clothes. She actually managed the team poorly, to the extent of being told off by the mall manager for opening an hour late. The only actual quality she displayed that week was that she liked fashion.
Have you paid as much attention to everyone else's credentials?
If you're going to troll and impersonate someone, at least have the good grace to do your research first! I'm not going to give anyone any leeway for being lazy.
Liz had the very basic 'howler' of not spotting the bagginator's absurd tour pricing and not realising the importance of getting the agency deal.
I'd say her mistake was leaving it up to her PM. Which I'm not going to judge her too harshly for because really it was the PM's role. Stuart likes to pluck figures out the air, derides people for taking notes, etc. If he wants to run the team like that, while he's in charge, he can. So with no advance discussion, he comes out with his strategy in the actual meeting with the agent. That's the first time Liz hears it and I'm not surprised if she chooses not to attempt to override him in the middle of a negotiation, in front of the agent. I doubt any of the other final 7 would have done any better than Liz there.
Actually, she doesn't have a good record of leading teams. She won once as PM and lost once. When she lost, she lost because she misunderstood the task and concentrated on getting all the items rather than on the cost of the items.
She lost because Stella and Laura agreed a stupidly high price for truffles. If it hadn't been for that, they'd have won. Liz had understood the importance of price, and had told them to phone her before making the deal, but they didn't.
Apart from that, she led well, was better organised than I've seen any other team be on that task, and her own negotiations were acceptable (not as impressive as Stuart and Christopher, but a lot of us are uncomfortable with how those two got their deals).
And when she won she won because of squealing girlily over sequinned dresses, while the other team chose silly recycled clothes.
It wasn't a great win, but she was a better PM than Paloma. Securing the better products was a part of that. As was negotiating a large last-minute discount from the designers - she was pro-active.
Show was filmed a year ago when he was 21 - he is now 22 when they filmed YBF last Monday!!
Simples really....
Yes, but the poster yesterday said "I am 21" not "I was 21". I may now sometimes forget how old I am, but I'm sure I didn't when I was in my early twenties.
Yes, but the poster yesterday said "I am 21" not "I was 21". I may now sometimes forget how old I am, but I'm sure I didn't when I was in my early twenties.
Well, he could have been trying to write in the context of the programmes.
I wouldn't like to have to bet one way or the other, though.
There was nothing else on my CV. I am 21 (and as such don't have a string of previous employers) and my CV included details of my education and my company only. It was a single sheet of A4.
Show was filmed a year ago when he was 21 - he is now 22 when they filmed YBF last Monday!!
Simples really....
I was referring to this post, 'allegedly' from Stuart telling us that he (present tense) is 21.
ETA: Meaning that either, as Jepson posted, he was doing it in context of the programme, in which case he made a horrendously bad grammatical error, or it's a troll who hasn't done their research.
Yes, but the poster yesterday said "I am 21" not "I was 21". I may now sometimes forget how old I am, but I'm sure I didn't when I was in my early twenties.
He was explaining why there wasn't much on his CV, namely, that since he was 21 at the time, he didn't have much of a career history. His mistake was writing "I am" instead of "I was", not getting his own age wrong. His age on the CV was 21.
Comments
sorry, wrong link
http://www.gov.im/lib/docs/government/provisionofbroadbandandprivatec.pdf
You conducted yourself with dignity with Dara also. Best of luck for the future mate...... I have been a big fan of SirLordAlan for years but he dropped a bollock with you.
The point is Liz was the strongest candidate he had. Its all relative. No one has shown themselves to be a brilliant prospect - largely due to the tasks selected and the workings of the show and partly because the comic no hopers cast tend to get in the way of success and make winning tasks even more random.
Stuart was essentially pretending to play big business men and ended up even at the interview sounding like a hyperbolic pre-teen playing and pitching his ability to make billions with imaginary toy technology. Joanna showed more basic business understanding and selling and presentational skill than Chris or Stella, but her lack of training showed. Chris was shown at the interviews as a floater whose determination was suspect, he has virtually no experience of snything and his show record doesn't really contain any highs- apart from the very dubious claim to have been shrewd in tours week. Stella has done well but has all sorts of questions over her and, most significantly, there's doubt after Trufflegate whether she has the weakest basic business instincts of anyone in the last 7. The others all would have realised (or did realise ) that buying Truffles from Knightsbridge restaurants was not a good idea and 5 would have got that 2000/1000 times 50 is not 200.
Liz by way of contrast, managed to do well at selling and presenting and leading teams and she had a pretty good record compared to anyone of spotting what was wrong or right in basic business terms and finding a solution and spotting what might go wrong before it did. Her list of howlers was shorter than anyone in the top 5s. There's no comparison with Stuart who made things up from nothing as he went along, was exceedingly difficult to work with and, as you would by making random decisions, very occassionally got something right by accident amidst the carnage.
Chris comes across as more discerning than the others. All his comments on the other candidates and the tasks were spot on. That sort of intelligence is very valuable, too many candidates don't seem to really grasp the whole situation (and also have poor academic records). Stella is very formidable, nobody has managed to knock her out her stride, including those interviewers. The thing is, a lot of the skills on display during the tasks are donkey's work. Liz is a good presenter, but is that what Sugar needs? The show is just for entertainment, in reality Stella is the strongest professional, it'd be silly to hire Liz over someone like that.
I noticed that too and took it to mean they were two separate companies - but this was never picked up on in what we saw on TV.
But I didn't see any real evidence that Liz was better than Stella and Joanna.
Liz had the very basic 'howler' of not spotting the bagginator's absurd tour pricing and not realising the importance of getting the agency deal.
Stella had a major howler in the location she chose to try and find truffles.
Joanna didn't really make any actual howlers at all.
The only thing people could really find to bash her with was nagging Jamie.
Chris was in the boardroom so often he should have been called Houdini.
Baggs was a joke.
I would be unable to pick one out of the first three above on the basis of what we have been shown.
That said, I spent every week up to now thinking the guy is a cock, but from what we saw the other night, Stuart came out completely untarnished and the interviewers generally came out as complete numpties.
I agree totally with Brando.
On previous series I had rather liked Bordan. The programme may have tried to portray him as a detail person, but he emerged as a total prat from this weeks show (at least for anybody with a professional interest in ICT)
Who knows what was going on, but I find it hard to square the statement 'I can't believe a bleddy word you say' with what Viggy got out of him. I don't know anything about telecoms so maybe it was a massive faux pas, but, not understanding the ins and outs of what Stuart was accused of, it did come acroess as incredibly technical and picky.
Also, he didn't look particularly caught out - he was trying to offer an explanation but just was not allowed to get a word in edgeways (unless that was edited out.)
I found LS's self disgust that he had fired Liz instead of Stu particularly ridiculous - he knew at the time he was choosing the person who made the best appeal rather than the person who had shown the most ability in the task.
There was nothing else on my CV. I am 21 (and as such don't have a string of previous employers) and my CV included details of my education and my company only. It was a single sheet of A4.
Stuart....open your own thread. :cool:
Erm - why should he?
If someone is actually being discussed on a thread it seems like a pretty good reason for posting on it!
Fine, I don't care other than that it would be credibility for him, that's all. :rolleyes:
...only on YBF "you" said you were a year older and were 22. You can't be both 21 AND 22
Hang him, why don't you?
Have you paid as much attention to everyone else's credentials?
He was PM when his team got a boardroom record of sales - which was mainly down to selecting the right product, which was mainly down to the PM. That's a high.
Other than the truffles, what kind of questions?
Actually, she doesn't have a good record of leading teams. She won once as PM and lost once. When she lost, she lost because she misunderstood the task and concentrated on getting all the items rather than on the cost of the items. And when she won she won because of squealing girlily over sequinned dresses, while the other team chose silly recycled clothes. She actually managed the team poorly, to the extent of being told off by the mall manager for opening an hour late. The only actual quality she displayed that week was that she liked fashion.
If you're going to troll and impersonate someone, at least have the good grace to do your research first! I'm not going to give anyone any leeway for being lazy.
She lost because Stella and Laura agreed a stupidly high price for truffles. If it hadn't been for that, they'd have won. Liz had understood the importance of price, and had told them to phone her before making the deal, but they didn't.
Apart from that, she led well, was better organised than I've seen any other team be on that task, and her own negotiations were acceptable (not as impressive as Stuart and Christopher, but a lot of us are uncomfortable with how those two got their deals).
It wasn't a great win, but she was a better PM than Paloma. Securing the better products was a part of that. As was negotiating a large last-minute discount from the designers - she was pro-active.
Show was filmed a year ago when he was 21 - he is now 22 when they filmed YBF last Monday!!
Simples really....
Yes, but the poster yesterday said "I am 21" not "I was 21". I may now sometimes forget how old I am, but I'm sure I didn't when I was in my early twenties.
Well, he could have been trying to write in the context of the programmes.
I wouldn't like to have to bet one way or the other, though.
I was referring to this post, 'allegedly' from Stuart telling us that he (present tense) is 21.
ETA: Meaning that either, as Jepson posted, he was doing it in context of the programme, in which case he made a horrendously bad grammatical error, or it's a troll who hasn't done their research.