|
||||||||
Bringing the wrong people to the boardroom.... |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,041
|
Bringing the wrong people to the boardroom....
That's twice in a row now! It seemed so obvious to me that she would bring in Jamie, I was just trying to work out who the second person would be. Not Liz, who saved them by getting the car, not Christopher because he'd been doing his job making the films, so for me it had to be Chris and Jamie.
And just like Alex before her, she fails to bring in the one person it was obvious Lord Sugar was gunning for! That's not to say he would definitely have gone, but ffs, she would at least have had more chance to stay. Mind you, I think Chris had better watch his step a bit too, he was a disaster last week, and Lord Sugar has already hinted that he thinks Chris might be resting on his laurels a bit. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Staffs
Posts: 10,373
|
I was surprised Suralan wanted Jamie back. I hadn't previously noticed any vitriol towards him.
Personally I think he's a total twunt, but was surprised to find Lord Alan of Sugar thought so too. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,041
|
Well, I'm sure Karen informed Lord Sugar that it was Jamie who pushed for the skiing which then completely bombed, and she definitely mentioned his constant whining
Plus, Lord Sugar could hardly have failed to notice all the eye rolling which occured every time Jamie mentioned how wonderful he is at selling
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Earth dumbarse
Posts: 4,394
|
For this task Jamie and Liz should of been in the boardroom,
Liz because she wasent taken note on the spending and she ended up buying a car at the end which cost them more money. |
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,243
|
I was convinced that Stuart (The Brand) would go when Siralan made PM. His team won in spite of him though. Shame Sandeesh went but she doesn`t have the killer instinct for this programme. I would never have taken Liz into the boardroom. Usually PMs who lose the task take in the candidates who Siralan quite obviously has issues with but Sandeesh wasn`t a backstabber. I would have taken Jamie & Chris in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,041
|
Quote:
For this task Jamie and Liz should of been in the boardroom,
Liz because she wasent taken note on the spending and she ended up buying a car at the end which cost them more money. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somewhere in the UK
Posts: 6,493
|
Liz didn't save them. They lost to Stubaggs. How did she save them exactly? Didn't she recommend they purchase double the number of DVDs they could actually process and shift? How clever is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,714
|
Isn't the real problem that, as she admitted, she didn't consider who she was going to bring back in before he asked her to make the decision, so it was an unplanned, ill-considered decision? FFS, how can a person with reasonable intelligence not have been thinking about this from the moment she knew her team had lost. Says it all about her planning really.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 11,478
|
Sandeesh made the mistake of judging it all on the day in the shopping centre, whereas I'd say the crucial mistake happened the day before - skiing rather than something more child friendly.
Skiing was Jamie's idea and he bulldozed it through... |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somewhere in the UK
Posts: 6,493
|
Jamie was an obvious candidate as he did nowt. Judging by the editing. But Sandeesh was not the acutest of candidates so why expect her to make a good decision about this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
Liz didn't save them. They lost to Stubaggs. How did she save them exactly? Didn't she recommend they purchase double the number of DVDs they could actually process and shift? How clever is that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 11,478
|
Quote:
Liz didn't save them. They lost to Stubaggs. How did she save them exactly? Didn't she recommend they purchase double the number of DVDs they could actually process and shift? How clever is that?
The problem is that then Sandeesh wanted even more redundancy so taking it to 110 - Liz had forgotten that her initial 88 was the very best that could be achieved and realistically they already had as much redundancy as they would need. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Somewhere in the UK
Posts: 6,493
|
If you over-order then you do it on sale/return and don't pay up-front. You don't carry the cost of potential duds. You buy the stock you need and ensure there's a penalty on the supplier for the rejects. No way were they going to do 88 DVDs in the time considering the quality of the 'experience' they were offering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,714
|
Quote:
If you over-order then you do it on sale/return and don't pay up-front. You don't carry the cost of potential duds. You buy the stock you need and ensure there's a penalty on the supplier for the rejects. No way were they going to do 88 DVDs in the time considering the quality of the 'experience' they were offering.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 7,041
|
Exactly. Liz planned accurately for the best possible outcome, ie, selling the maximum number they could burn in the time allotted. She was not helped by Sandeesh then opting to open an hour late so she could train Christopher on burning the DVD's, or by the fact that they sold nothing at all for some time after that. It's far better imo, to have too many than not enough, something I'm sure could have gotten her fired.
I know the team still lost the task even with the car, but Liz saved them from having to go to the boardroom with nothing, a fate worse than death I would imagine And they didn't lose it by much, opening on time and not dropping the price too soon could easily have made the difference. And neither of those decisions were made by Liz
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 22,354
|
It was obvious Sandeesh was going from the moments those two names left her lips. Liz has been brilliant all series, and Chris, despite his faults, is very good in boardroom.
It should have been Jamie in there instead of Liz, but I think the result would have been the same regardless. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
If I were Sandeesh, I'd have brought back in Jamie and Liz. Jamie because he pushed for the skiing background (which for me was the main reason they lost) and Liz because of her screw-up over the number of DVDs they needed.
Of course, they would have countered that Sandeesh agreed to both. That was the problem for her; everything that went wrong on the task had her fingerprints all over it. Realistically, I think she'd have gone regardless of who she brought in. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:21.


Plus, Lord Sugar could hardly have failed to notice all the eye rolling which occured every time Jamie mentioned how wonderful he is at selling 