|
||||||||
Week Ten: Who should have been fired? |
| View Poll Results: Who should have been fired? | |||
| Brett |
|
17 | 13.71% |
| Charleine |
|
38 | 30.65% |
| Gary |
|
24 | 19.35% |
| Joseph |
|
12 | 9.68% |
| Richard |
|
13 | 10.48% |
| Vana |
|
20 | 16.13% |
| Voters: 124. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in? | |||
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 180
|
In my opinion, Brett and Charleine were culpable for the losses; they messed every aspect up from creating products in kitchen to leading really disorganised and unclear pitches. Charleine fell apart completely in the task and I think she was saved from a lot of criticism due to her getting upset. I did think that snack bar team was worse as they couldn't support any sufficient nutrition or health claims at all; classic moment when Lord sugar asked if its healthy and Charliene says I'm not sure. The branding was also the worst I think I've ever seen on the show including young apprentice. With the crisps, even though the branding was weak and the product not right, I think it was slightly better meaning that I think as one person went, it should have been Charliene.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,655
|
Yep the branding was very bad, the wrapper looked like it had a feminine hygiene product in it, not what you normally look for in an energy bar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,287
|
Quote:
Richard didn't understand the significance of raw so couldn't see how to use the word. It could have been worse to use it out of context. It was an error but Charleine's performance throughout the task was terrible. She was clearly the worst performer on the worst team of the two.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,228
|
How on earth is small time girl Charliene still here? Her intelligence is negligible! 'Health cautious' instead of health conscious. 'Britain's superfood' when it should have been Natures superfood. She just rambles on like the hairdresser she is. Going anywhere on holiday this year?
Crumbles under pressure, both when making the cereal bar and in the boardroom. Is it acceptable to have a 5 minute moment during a boardroom meeting? This isn't the x factor. You can't just cry your way through it. Bloody Claude saying she's a fighter or words to that effect. Do fighters cry when the going gets tough?! Should have been a double firing of Brett and Charliene. Richard worked hard and agree 'raw' means raw as in uncooked, not dehydrated so he was right to leave it out. Joseph always seems professional, Vana talks the talk and backs it up and Gary... well he's not a bad person. |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
Richard made an arbitrary decision to leave out the word raw from the packaging. He was not the project manager (and yes Brett was a lousy one). Claude called him out for not admitting to his "mistake" - it wasn't a mistake, it was Richard being Richard. I think they might have got some orders with the inclusion of this word, and yes of course there was way too oil, but perhaps could have been rectified?
He wasn't PM but he was in charge of branding the product, so it was his call. The branding was otherwise excellent, he's clearly very good at that. The retailers understood the crisp's USP so should have seen that with "raw" added customer's would too. If the pitches had been better I think they might have got orders, with the proviso that the oil and packaging would be sorted out. Charleine's product was clearly worse in every respect. It would have been better is Lord Sugar had decided which was the least worst, then proceeded with a boardroom with Charleine, Gary and Joseph. That way someone more deserving would have been fired. |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 2,055
|
In the clip for next weeks episode three are fired leaving just two. I think next week they must be arguing their individual business plans.
This week Vana and Charlene should have been fired. Vana for turning the dehydrated crisp into soggy oily strips of raw vegetable - eating a raw carrot would have been better than that. She did this against the wishes of the project manager. Brett was extremely stupid in the boardroom for failing to recognise this key failure and then choosing Richard which he then defended rather than himself. Charlene should have been fired for dreadful project manager. She needed two people on the product development and she totally messed it up on her own - not giving the ingredients to the package development team, not putting enough anti-oxidant in the product, producing a rubbish product that no-one could eat (too dry) and which fell apart into granules. |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 8,210
|
Gary!
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:50.


