DS Forums

 
 

The winning team shouldn't have won?


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 30-04-2009, 14:04
floopy123
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,843

Both teams made a loss so the winning team (the one that made less loss ) shouldn't have got a treat? Perhaps Sugar should have said

"Seeing as both teams made a loss, the winning team won't get anything as a reward. Winning team, go back to the apartment."

It must be the first time both teams did poorly and yet one team got rewarded!
floopy123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 30-04-2009, 14:10
lexi22
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,426
Yes but these things are already set up and it's a business boost for whatever company is providing the treat. Of course they didn't deserve anything (except ridicule) but the treats are a nice plug for the contracted companies and have been agreed in advance. It's all business.
lexi22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2009, 14:21
floopy123
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,843
Was this the first episode/task when both teams failed? It might be. It might have been more appropriate not to reward the 'better' losing team!

It's like saying:

"Both teams were rubbish but team 'A' was less rubbish than team 'B' so team 'A' gets the treat."

In hindsight, I think Sugar or whoever has final say over the content of the show should have the decision: "no treat for the winning team as you still made a loss. Sir Alan doesn't reward failure."

Anyway, it's more of an observation than a criticism.
floopy123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2009, 14:40
Mizzused
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 686
Am sure both teams losing has happened before.
Mizzused is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2009, 14:48
Willie Wontie
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,847
It must be the first time both teams did poorly and yet one team got rewarded!
The QVC round from series 3? Both teams lost tens of thousands of pounds for QVC, yet Kristina, Katie and Lohit were rewarded for being less shit than Simon, Tre and Naomi.
Willie Wontie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2009, 15:45
Kris
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hitchin, Herts.
Posts: 384
Originally Posted by Siralan
We did have a nice treat lined up for you, but as you're all as useless as each other, me Nick and Margaret are having the treat instead.
Kris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2009, 18:50
isopap
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,480
Or perhaps he should have said "you may have technically won but you still lost me money, have a treat but I'm going to send you the bill"
isopap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-04-2009, 20:12
smartie 33
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,492
I agree with this thread. Why should you be rewarded if you were less rubbish than the other team. Maybe the team mates should go on the reward, but since the leader (Phil) was so awful he should have been forced to stay at home. Now that would have been interesting.
smartie 33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2009, 15:05
Monkseal
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
The way "losses" and "profits" were measured on this task were clearly very different to the way they were usually measured, to a far more exacting degree, therefore I don't think you can apply the same set of standards as you would to a loss on, say the Olympic task. It was a loss comparative to retail prices, not real terms.

I'd say it was rather like they'd done a normal task, but bought inappropriate niche things far too expensively. Only in this case, it was Siralan doing the buying, not a member of the team.

Phillip's team, aside from Phillip, did fairly well to bring in the amount of money they did. We just didn't see most of it, in favour of the rug drama - literally all of their profit making was done off-screen. I think they definitely deserved a treat.
Monkseal is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:35.