|
||||||||
The Apprentice Series 9 Premiere - 'Container/Beer' 7th, 8th May - 9pm, BBC One |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1776 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Back after a much-needed break
Posts: 6,406
|
Quote:
I can see the problem with selling to the trade - thats why I raised it - , but its obviously not at all clear to the candidates or both teams would have ignored the trade buys and sold the lot to the public for more. There's only two possibilities. Either both teams made the same mistake, and selling it better counted against the girls team - or there was something in the rules that suggested they target the trade or told them to do so. Given there's two subteams, going to different places, it looks as if one was told to sell to trade. If its crucial, Lord Sugar never mentions it - which suggests either he doesn't know its a crucial factor, or he does, and he's not saying so for some reason. If its an error he can't see, its a bit much to ask the candiates to spot it, and if its an error induced by the instructions, it distorts things too much to admit.
What we saw didn't support the male team winning. We saw them failing to sell retail at first, because their prices were too high. we saw them selling kegs at less than the girls did. We finally saw them selling on the South Bank at low prices . We never got any figures on how many pints each team sold, or whether the girls sold all what they had - all we see is the contrast between Richmond and the South Bank and we see nothing of the girls selling to the public in the last couple of hours. . The boys can only win because they sell less to trade, because any sales at the high initial price count more ,and because they manage to sell an awful lot at low prices levels. The girls have less to sell and higher costs per unit as they wasted some, and less left to sell retail. Even then, the figures are not that clear - even if the girls selll none of the 100 bottles they say they have left to sell when they start their last sales push at Richmond, and you allow for 198 lost pints, and costs lost to waste, it doesn't add up to the scale of the boys win. If the difference is the trade sales, and the girls suffer from doing better doing what they were told to , there's something wrong with the task. However, there were one or two clues that the guys were doing fairly well with sales to the public. At the first venue, they were deciding whether or not to move on when one of them suggested they "do another cask... give it about an hour". That clearly indicated they'd sold at least one cask at £4.00 a pint, but suggested they'd sold more than that if they reckoned it was worth opening another cask for an hour of sales. If we assume they'd probably sold a minimum of two casks, that would have netted them £560 which was more than the girls sold to the public in total. At the South Bank they were selling at £2.50 a pint, and Nick made the comment that because of the low price, the beer was "selling like hot cakes". However, even at that "low" price, each cask was netting them around £175. We only saw the guys selling at rock bottom prices (£1 per pint) for the final five minutes of the allotted time. However, even at £1 a pint, that was only the equivalent of £8 per cask less than Rebecca's sub-team got from their first trade sale! One interesting bit was when Tim's sub-team moved on from their pub beer festival, and Rebecca gave them a ring. She proudly announced they'd sold four kegs and looked disappointed to hear that Tim's group had only sold one and a half in the same time. However, the four kegs to the trade netted £312, but the one and a half to the public would have netted them around £367 (assuming 70 pints per keg at £3.50 per pint). It's a shame nobody did the maths ... but then again, maths wasn't exactly their strongpoint! ![]() In the same conversation, Tim also mentioned that he had two unopened kegs. That meant they'd only allocated four kegs for sale to the public. At 70 pints per keg and £3.50 a pint, the maximum they could make would be £980. Even if they'd sold every drop, they'd have still lost the task!! The key was selling to the public. Tim's team failed to do that so they lost. Bearing in mind that Tim was also in charge of that sub-team, I'm not too surprised that he got the boot. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#1777 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
I can see the problem with selling to the trade - thats why I raised it - , but its obviously not at all clear to the candidates or both teams would have ignored the trade buys and sold the lot to the public for more. There's only two possibilities. Either both teams made the same mistake, and selling it better counted against the girls team - or there was something in the rules that suggested they target the trade or told them to do so. Given there's two subteams, going to different places, it looks as if one was told to sell to trade. If its crucial, Lord Sugar never mentions it - which suggests either he doesn't know its a crucial factor, or he does, and he's not saying so for some reason. If its an error he can't see, its a bit much to ask the candiates to spot it, and if its an error induced by the instructions, it distorts things too much to admit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1778 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dream
Posts: 2,797
|
Tim looks good and hot on Matt Edmonson's clip. Yummy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1779 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
The boys won because their retail selling was significantly better than the girls' and retail selling means higher profit margins as trade buyers are going to add their own mark-up so can't buy for the same price.
Team: Women Men Trade: £492.00 £284.98 Public: £555.69 £1147.98 Costs: -£648.67 -£601.40 Total: £399.02 £831.56 So the costs weren't much different. If losing two barrels mattered at all, it was through having less to sell. The men's team made nearly all their money from the public. Quote:
Tim fails at correcting either error - but then how was he meant to know more himself?
Nor do I blame him for making the same initial mistake about the venue that Rebecca did. Both were just going from the brochure. However, when he arrived, they could see what it was like and that was a point I think he could have cut his losses. He knew more than Rebecca then (Rebecca was off selling to trade). Even if some unstated task rule only permitted two locations, he could have switched earlier rather than later. And then picking a wine-bar to sell beer just seems brain-dead. Quote:
Tim deserved to get fired because he was an ineffectual leader, and when it comes to the crunch, someone has to have screwed up big-time before Lord Sugar will get rid of them before he gets rid of the Team Leader.
Tim got fired partly because he really was that bad, and partly because the task was in what should have been his area of expertise. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:34.



