DS Forums

 
 

I predict Tom will win.


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-05-2012, 14:26
slouchingthatch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
Nah, I think Tom is peaking too early.

And LS's question about Tom's motives for being in the show reminds me of James Max who was fired at the interview stage in series 1.
Tom and James also have the same director/partner in an investment company background.

Nick is still my favourite. I get the feeling that they are deliberately keeping him under the radar so that he can really shine at the later stages.
Nick's certainly a very strong candidate. Tom and James had very different jobs. James worked for an investment bank, I believe. Tom runs his own wine investment company. Very different beasts - one was a corporate animal, the other is an entrepreneur.
slouchingthatch is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 10-05-2012, 14:27
meglosmurmurs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Titan Uranus
Posts: 31,966
Yeah what was that about Tom being there for the right reasons? I seemed to miss the general point Sugar was making.
I suppose he had the same doubts about Yasmina, so it doesn't totally rule him out.

Overall though Tom is just a dried up piece of fruit to me, just stale and bland, and he demonstrates little passion and has no real connection with people when it comes to selling.
When he didn't get the artist he wanted he had right a strop. Was funny. lol
meglosmurmurs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 14:54
frally
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 954
Nick's certainly a very strong candidate. Tom and James had very different jobs. James worked for an investment bank, I believe. Tom runs his own wine investment company. Very different beasts - one was a corporate animal, the other is an entrepreneur.
James was the principal partner/director in a private equity firm (same as an investment company) for 3 years immediately before he joined the Apprentice.
frally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 14:55
slouchingthatch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
James was the principal partner/ director in a private equity firm (same as an investment company) for 3 years immediately before he joined the Apprentice.
Ah, thanks. In which case James was more the poacher, whereas Tom is the gamekeeper. Or is it the other way round? It's one of those expressions that always confuses me.
slouchingthatch is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 15:02
frally
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 954
Ah, thanks. In which case James was more the poacher, whereas Tom is the gamekeeper. Or is it the other way round? It's one of those expressions that always confuses me.
A private equity firm and an investment company are essentially the same, just different ownership transfer procedures, tax benefits and profit sharing structures.
frally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 15:20
slouchingthatch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
A private equity firm and an investment company are essentially the same, just different ownership transfer procedures, tax benefits and profit sharing structures.
You're right, but when Tom says he runs a "wine investment company" that sounds like a different kettle of fish to me?
slouchingthatch is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 16:59
frally
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 954
You're right, but when Tom says he runs a "wine investment company" that sounds like a different kettle of fish to me?
Private equity funds tend to manage the businesses they invest in while investment companies don't.
So Tom's investment company would be investing and trading in fine wines while a private equity company would more likely invest in the vineyard and run it.
frally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 20:31
Styker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 28,296
Nah, I think Tom is peaking too early.

And LS's questions about Tom's motives for being in the show remind me of James Max who was fired at the interview stage in series 1.
Tom and James also have the same director/partner in an investment company background.

Nick is still my favourite. I get the feeling that they are deliberately keeping him under the radar so that he can really shine at the later stages.

Thats what it reminded me of too. Sugar often doesn't pick the best one either as I think he doesn't want to risk being upstaged and justifies it on that their supposed to be "an apprentice" rather than the finnished article.

I think that contradicts what he expects from them in the tasks and takes them to task if they don't meet those expectations etc.
Styker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 21:17
Kyle_Johansen
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: St Albans
Posts: 83
Turnover* is vanity anyway. I think the James Max charge might be leveled against him in the interviews but he'd be able to defend himself against it.

*which is the only thing he ever talks with regards to his company.
Kyle_Johansen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2012, 23:41
frally
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 954
Turnover* is vanity anyway. I think the James Max charge might be leveled against him in the interviews but he'd be able to defend himself against it.

*which is the only thing he ever talks with regards to his company.
I thought it was strange for Tom to be boasting about turnover when he's supposed to be running an investment company. An investment company can have high turnover just by trading/churning its investment stock. Instead, Tom should be talking about the amount of money his company currently has invested for clients and the returns on these wine investments.

So I did some research and found some rather interesting articles about Tom's company Cult Wines Ltd:

http://investdrinks-blog.blogspot.co...companies.html

http://investdrinks-blog.blogspot.co...h?q=cult+wines
frally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 00:06
Carlisle156
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 16,438
I thought it was strange for Tom to be boasting about turnover when he's supposed to be running an investment company. An investment company can have high turnover just by trading/churning its investment stock. Instead, Tom should be talking about the amount of money his company currently has invested for clients and the returns on these wine investments.

So I did some research and found some rather interesting articles about Tom's company Cult Wines Ltd:

http://investdrinks-blog.blogspot.co...companies.html

http://investdrinks-blog.blogspot.co...h?q=cult+wines
These are also from 2 years ago and 99% of the blogposts are in regards to Oliver Gearing, who, according to their official website, is no longer part of the company team.

The only part which actually mentions Tom is the two/three (lol) requests bit. So, I don't really get your point?
Carlisle156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:46
boab34
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 1,387
I thought it was strange for Tom to be boasting about turnover when he's supposed to be running an investment company. An investment company can have high turnover just by trading/churning its investment stock. Instead, Tom should be talking about the amount of money his company currently has invested for clients and the returns on these wine investments.

So I did some research and found some rather interesting articles about Tom's company Cult Wines Ltd:

http://investdrinks-blog.blogspot.co...companies.html

http://investdrinks-blog.blogspot.co...h?q=cult+wines
lol always thought his story was too good. he looks posh but isnt posh. don't think sugar will invest with him.
boab34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:25
RealityReal31
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 3,308
Unless the edit is going for a bait and switch, it's pretty obvious he's going to win.
RealityReal31 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:45
Number-Cruncher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 58

Incredible young man - if I think to myself how immature I was at his age....simply incredible!
Number-Cruncher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:49
Number-Cruncher
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 58
my favourite, and along with gabriella I think the only one im fond of so I hope youre predictions right
really think sir alan likes adam though
He likes Adam because of his humble roots and because he has improved a lot during the show and taken Sugar's advice on board.
While that's nice to see, he's still a much weaker candidate than Tom and Nick and has probably peaked now.
Number-Cruncher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 14:41
frally
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 954
These are also from 2 years ago and 99% of the blogposts are in regards to Oliver Gearing, who, according to their official website, is no longer part of the company team.

The only part which actually mentions Tom is the two/three (lol) requests bit. So, I don't really get your point?
The blacklist was updated on 4 May 2012 and Cult Wines is still on it.

Tom was a director/shareholder from Sept 2009 so he would have been accountable when the complaints arose.

I don't think Lord Sugar will be rushing to go into business with him based on the info available to us so far.
frally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 14:52
aria28
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 76
The blacklist is dated 4 May 2012 and Cult Wines is on it.

Tom was a director/shareholder from Sept 2009 so he would have been accountable when the complaints arose.

I don't think Lord Sugar will be rushing to go into business with him based on the info available to us so far.
I don't seem to be able to open the full list, so I couldn't see Cult Wines on it nor the reasons why it is listed there
aria28 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 15:02
frally
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 954
I don't seem to be able to open the full list, so I couldn't see Cult Wines on it nor the reasons why it is listed there
The blacklist says Cult Wines charges upfront commissions, misleadingly claims it's free from capital gains tax and Oliver Gearing CEO suggested that the blogger/author was stalking his girlfriend after the blogger had been asking a series of questions about the company.
frally is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 15:25
aria28
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 76
The blacklist says Cult Wines charges upfront commissions, misleadingly claims it's free from capital gains tax and Oliver Gearing CEO suggested that the blogger/author was stalking his girlfriend after the blogger had been asking a series of questions about the company.
Sorry, but that just made me LOL - sounds like the national football team or something

The upfront commission issue doesn't shock me, although I agree that I wouldn't invest money with a company that does that

As for the tax issue, I never checked Cult Wines Ltd' website, but on wineinvestment.org (which is the site Tom links from his Twitter account), it's made pretty clear that it's not "black and white" and quotes the HM revenues & customs, so they don't appear to be misleading on that front (of course, it could be a fairly recent edit if they had received complaints/ bad reviews in the past)
aria28 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2012, 21:51
apprentices
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 24
I think there is zero chance of Tom winning now, 1) because LS has questioned his motives for being on the show, 2) because LS has said on twitter that Tom was 'blagging' during the last task, and to hire him would be a bad look, 3) he has been in the bottom 3 on a few occasions, 4) he's a losing PM.

If he doesn't win the wine challenge as PM, he is definitely gone this week. If he wins, he'll stick around to the finale, as LS, Nick and Karren seem to think overall he is a great candidate.

Nick, being a two time winning PM, and in the winning team most weeks, is almost guaranteed to win. In fact, I'd bet my house on it.
apprentices is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2012, 21:59
Carlisle156
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Berkshire
Posts: 16,438
I think there is zero chance of Tom winning now, 1) because LS has questioned his motives for being on the show, 2) because LS has said on twitter that Tom was 'blagging' during the last task, and to hire him would be a bad look, 3) he has been in the bottom 3 on a few occasions, 4) he's a losing PM.

If he doesn't win the wine challenge as PM, he is definitely gone this week. If he wins, he'll stick around to the finale, as LS, Nick and Karren seem to think overall he is a great candidate.

Nick, being a two time winning PM, and in the winning team most weeks, is almost guaranteed to win. In fact, I'd bet my house on it.
1) LS also did the same to good old Yasmina back in the day; she still won.
2) He wouldn't give away a result on twitter - he's smarter than that.
3) He's only been there twice? Once when he lost as PM and the other time it was agreed that he should not have been there - with LAS saying as much himself.
4) He's also won as PM, and if he wins this task he'll be 2-1.

I agree with you if he loses as PM tomorrow night he is definitely going, though.
Carlisle156 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-05-2012, 22:39
apprentices
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 24
Oh yeah I don't think any single one of those necessarily indicates he won't win, but combining all together, I doubt very much he will. Especially when candidates like Nick are there.

Look I'm a Tom fan myself, but I think you're finding too many ways out for him. After being pulled through the last boardroom by LS, and LS defending him the week before, it would be too obvious if Tom won now.
apprentices is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:41.