Stuart's firing was a DISGRACE!

9 of 9

Jepson

19-12-2010

Originally Posted by trollface:
“Look, if we get the information that we're missing and it does genuinely shine a good light on Stubag's business acumen then I'll believe that he has good business acumen. What I'm not going to do is take the limited information that we currently have and draw conclusions from them which aren't warranted - whether those conclusions be that he's got good business acumen or that he's not. All we can say at the moment is that we don't know because the information that we've got doesn't actually tell us anything.”

Spot on!

Bobby-Dazzler

19-12-2010

There are a lot of trolls here and they all sound like Stuart Baggs.:yawn:

NeilPost

19-12-2010

Originally Posted by The Brando:
“Turnover tells you the scale of the operation. Profit is more of a red herring here because a young company will reinvest its cash rather than build reserves or pay dividends. If you went by profit, there'd be no telling a graphic designer from an ISP.”

Or profit might be very relevant.

It might never make a profit, and eventually tank.

At some point, you have to turn a profit.

Even legendary unable to make a profit companies have to, by some means

- NTL/Telewest basically junked all it's debts and emerged from restructuring as the profitable Virgin Media
- Amazon took years to eventually get there
- Facebook, nah
- Ocado, nah

etc...

Not much point in doing business, if you don't turn a profit....................

Slashfan

19-12-2010

Stuart was obviously kept in the programme for the entertainment value. It was obvious from the start that Stuart wasn't going to win it, but although Alan Sugar is looking for someone to employ, the show has also got to entertain us and whether we liked him or not, Stuart kept us entertained.

I do have to admit that I felt embarrassed on Stuart's behalf when he was fired, because I'm willing to bet that not one of the candidate's CV's are 100% the truth. Him lying in his CV was used because Alan had to have a reason to fire him. He could hardly say 'You are no longer needed for the entertainment value, goodbye.

' Could he?!

Muzski

19-12-2010

Originally Posted by jenco:
“Stuart's firing was disgraceful. What he wrote on his CV was possibly stretching the truth but I am certain there was the same on the others' CVs. This seemed a complete setup to try and justify having a go at Stuart and 'cutting him down to size'. There was no mention of his claim of £3million turnover which suggests that that is true or they'd have nit-picked that. Or him being Company Director. I know he's outrageous with his cockiness but give him credit in that he's doing a lot at a very young age.”

There was no way lord sugars reaction was based on the license alone. I think the 3mil would have been picked up as bs but as stuart was only a director it would have been edited out. I'm sure his father probably would not want his business finances aired in public. He lied to get through and cost another candidate a place in the interviews.

9 of 9