DS Forums

 
 

Week 11 afterthoughts!


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 17-12-2016, 11:35
davejc64
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 3,981
Neither of them are worthy of £250k investment, but I don't suppose Lord Sugar is fussed as no doubt he can claim it back and more in some tax loophole or other.
davejc64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 17-12-2016, 11:51
francie
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 20,672
He did rip into him - he said he had no passion and drive and asked him what he was doing there. He also criticised his CV and the fact that his company wasn't making a huge profit.

There's so much anti-Courtney sentiment on here because he's not a brilliant public speaker but his business plan wasn't really shredded by the experts.
Just different opinions/likes/dislikes to yours and some see more than just his poor performances at public speaking.
francie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 12:12
meglosmurmurs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Titan Uranus
Posts: 31,964
I thought Claude was way too tough on Courtney, at least at first. He turned it around later so it didn't look too suspect.

I try to imagine Claude mimicking one of the girls with the way they speak and their demeanour and just can't picture it coming over too well.
Poor Courtney seems to be fair game however.
meglosmurmurs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 12:25
Sherlock_Holmes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
He did rip into him - he said he had no passion and drive and asked him what he was doing there. He also criticised his CV and the fact that his company wasn't making a huge profit.

There's so much anti-Courtney sentiment on here because he's not a brilliant public speaker but his business plan wasn't really shredded by the experts.
Come on now, Claude was basically telling him what to say on camera. One of the most embarassing interview clips of all time on the apprentice.
Sherlock_Holmes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 12:48
ShotDownInFlame
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
Yeah Claude was one step off LITERALLY spoon feeding Courtney through the interview, it was a bit weird that we didn't see him go harder on him, Claude clearly likes Courtney
ShotDownInFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 13:09
tim123
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 381
33 in 3 years iirc, so 11 "inventions" per year, not many really. .
and it's not like each of them is "different"

The Emoji Mug, the Emoji Cup, the Emoji Saucepan, the Emoji Doormat, the Emoji Potty etc etc gets you from 1 idea to 11 products in 10 minutes.

tim
tim123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 14:38
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
Yes, and distribution will be a nightmare too: getting cakes to independent shops all over the country, especially from Wales.

The interviewer was unfair to condemn Alana's way of estimating the number of delis by extrapolating from the number in her own town -- it's not a robust calculation but it's probably not bad to within an order of magnitude. Whether Alana asked Google, or looked at the circulation of trade magazines is unclear.

What the interviewers did not mention -- though it may have ended up on the cutting room floor -- is that Alana's margins would be cut to ribbons in the wholesale market, simply because the retailer needs to make a healthy profit as well (not to mention rocketing costs for the reasons Steve9214 mentioned),

Lord Sugar mentioned the problems in the boardroom. Independent food microbusinesses are ten a penny but rarely do they scale.

There may be scope for organic growth in Alana's existing business by extending it locally, but she'd not need Lord Sugar for that -- she could dip into her house fund, as Claude and even Courtney suggested, or ask the bank for a loan. Alana should seek the sweet spot where she maximises sales but retains her current low costs and high margins.
The complicating factor is that Alana doesn't need to sell to big retailers to do as well as the current winners. Not allowing for economies of scale she's just got to sell 6 times as many cakes. Going beyond that depends on how big her ambition is. She would be foolish to risk her house fund - houses can provide income, capital growth and a roof over your head - something pretty essential if you end up selling a luxury food in a depression. His question is how greedy is he, and if he gets too focused on even bigger returns.

Courthey fits Sugar's own model - supplying novel tat to people at minimum cost ,and then moving to something new. Courtneys product though is useless and hardly something to be proud of. But Courtney has been as indecisive, and as poor at key presentations, as Grainee and as chauvanist, self centred , and big headed, as Sofiane. He's also lacked imagination, and management abiliy- which doesn't fit the needs of his proposal. He's also not managed to make enough to pay himself minimum wage. Sugar hasn't got much to build on there.


But Courtney does meet many of his his usual criteria - ignore the show performance, pick the one who will work from the Essex office - because he lives nearby, pick someone already doing what they propose, usually pick a male, and don't worry if the product is socially useful.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 14:50
thehordeoftrav
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 162
I was watching "Why I fired them?" earlier and Alan said something ridiculous.
He said Something like I fired Trishna because of the colour of the gin, that was a mistake and he didn't like to see those mistake late in the series.

The most stupid reason. She never strongly pushed the colour of gin, Grainne just agreed with her. She was a fairly good candidate throughout the series and firing her on that basis is ridiculous. She even said she didn't know much about gin or drank it much.

What I found annoying is how Alan has a go at a team for the branding/product even though they still had orders.
thehordeoftrav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 15:10
ShotDownInFlame
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
I was watching "Why I fired them?" earlier and Alan said something ridiculous.
He said Something like I fired Trishna because of the colour of the gin, that was a mistake and he didn't like to see those mistake late in the series.

The most stupid reason. She never strongly pushed the colour of gin, Grainne just agreed with her. She was a fairly good candidate throughout the series and firing her on that basis is ridiculous. She even said she didn't know much about gin or drank it much.

What I found annoying is how Alan has a go at a team for the branding/product even though they still had orders.
Tbf I have never drunk gin and know next to nothing about it and yet even I know that gin shouldnt be coloured orange, and the fact that she suggested it alone makes her more culpable than Grainne who simply went with it (though i admit that wasnt good either), both of them were total pants on that task anyway, just getting drunk and then Trishna making all that racket during Frances' pitch. She deserved to go regardless.
ShotDownInFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 15:32
Captain Stable
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,099
I also watched the "Why I fired them" and one thing stuck out for me.

During the interviews, Granine (sp?) was "told off" for saying she wanted to do make up, with the comments somewhere along the lines of "MD's don't do make up".
Basically meaning "The MD - who is running the company - has other people to do that for them"

In the boat show episode, Karthick(sp?) was grilled about not selling as much. He explained that he was PM and was watching from afar and motivating the others to sell - which he sort of was (ie: He was front and centre demonstrating the goods).

Why was he told off for doing what the interviewer told Granine off for wanting to do? Where's the difference?


This is a continuing problem with the show. One year someone is told off for doing something - I seem to remember an earlier series with a sandwich shop task where someone had to do the cleaning (to comply with food standards) meaning they didn't sell as much, and got fired for it, yet other times Sugar is like "And you had no one cleaning up after you - the whole work area looked a mess. Why didn't one of you tidy up?"
Captain Stable is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 15:36
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
Tbf I have never drunk gin and know next to nothing about it and yet even I know that gin shouldnt be coloured orange, and the fact that she suggested it alone makes her more culpable than Grainne who simply went with it (though i admit that wasnt good either), both of them were total pants on that task anyway, just getting drunk and then Trishna making all that racket during Frances' pitch. She deserved to go regardless.
Knowing that most gin isn't usually coloured is a fact - you either know or don't know. its like knowing where to lay a soup and dessert spoon. If you hang around with gin fans, or work in an off licence, or bar , you will know, - if you never touched the stuff, and your friends don't either, and you haven't worked behind a bar , there's no reason at all to know. In this case its not often coloured, so there was no absolute, and the question of what colour people would like, or not, couldn't be settled by market research. Nor did anyone tell them at the distillery not to do it - Alana may have had firmer direction.

Sugar either confuses not knowing something many people don't, with making a mistake, or he's desperate to find a reason for sacking her .Not knowing is not a mistake . Most people don't know most things.

Grainee on the other hand claimed to be well acquainted with gin - she should have known the problem .But she said and did nothing - just drank it.

The noise in the pitch was generated by the producers - needlessly wrapping everything in tape and not supplying any means, or time beforehand, to dispose of it . Noise was inevitable , and they controlled what the viewers heard - by controlling the mike output. Being noisy opening packages is hardly a criteria to decide who wins anyway.


it was pretty clear that Grainee should have gone - for fouling up the product, the tasting, communications collapse, and her presentations, and displaying no managerial ability - by accepting whatever idea was floated by her. The interview confirmed all that - her inability to prioritise, develop a workable plan ,and spot what was a good idea. and a bad one.

The question is why Sugar kept Grainee, and there's two options- he had a TV reason - possibly a hopeless interview to come, or he didn't want Trishna there - for some reason connected to her plan, or some other reason he has. . Trishna would almost certainly have had something better worked up - that she could remember the figures for - and its more difficult to reject something at that stage, when its well presented, more so when 4 others were poorly prsented.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 15:57
thenetworkbabe
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,217
I also watched the "Why I fired them" and one thing stuck out for me.

During the interviews, Granine (sp?) was "told off" for saying she wanted to do make up, with the comments somewhere along the lines of "MD's don't do make up".
Basically meaning "The MD - who is running the company - has other people to do that for them"

In the boat show episode, Karthick(sp?) was grilled about not selling as much. He explained that he was PM and was watching from afar and motivating the others to sell - which he sort of was (ie: He was front and centre demonstrating the goods).

Why was he told off for doing what the interviewer told Granine off for wanting to do? Where's the difference?


This is a continuing problem with the show. One year someone is told off for doing something - I seem to remember an earlier series with a sandwich shop task where someone had to do the cleaning (to comply with food standards) meaning they didn't sell as much, and got fired for it, yet other times Sugar is like "And you had no one cleaning up after you - the whole work area looked a mess. Why didn't one of you tidy up?"
Where's the imagination ? versus -who came up with this idea that didn't work?

That one is often largely luck - because there was no other idea at all, and there's no market testing of the ideas, at a point when the idea could be changed.

There's also - You should have gone and looked for a lower price somewhere else,
but we had nowhere else to go to, and no time to find one, and get there........

Which leads to its close cousin - where was the plan? , and its close anti- argument - you spent too long planning, and not getting out there selling.


There's also You were hopeless which often means
you fell in every trap the producers set for you.
or, the team was hopeless - because I didn't fire the two disruptive characters who tuined everything ,when I had the chance in previous weeks.

And you were late - which often means the car got stuck in traffic.

And finally -it was all about product selection versus don't tell me you couldn't sell it because it was a rubbish product.
thenetworkbabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 16:05
Galaxy266
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,763
Courtney is only in the final so that Alana can win!

Lord Sugar has already decided that she will be his new business partner. It's quite obvious.
Galaxy266 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 18:31
Cats_Eyes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,546
Originally Posted by rhumble;84892612 [B
That would be the same as asking Sugar to buy her house for her though, if she's got enough to buy a house then she has enough to invest in her own business , its a bit of a cheek to ask someone to invest in her business so she can buy a house with the money she saved from the profits, what if she buys the house, Sugar invests and the business goes bust,

I very much doubt the £250,000 investment doesn't come with any clauses for this type of thing , i can't see Sugar throwing £250,000 a year at businesses for the sake of a TV program , unless its the BBC paying for it , Sugar wants some return on his investment so why should he fork out money if the business goes bust and yet Alana is sitting in her new house.
bib - With respect that's ludicrous - and she has, and does, already invest in her business.
Cats_Eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 18:55
rhumble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 91,214
bib - With respect that's ludicrous - and she has, and does, already invest in her business.
So would you put up your own money into a small business and all the risks its comes with , knowing the person wanting you to invest is sitting on a nice little nest egg, and that if the business comes to nothing you lose your money, but that person doesnt as they now have a nice new house ?

All i'm saying is Sugar is quite within his rights to question her savings, if he is investing in her business, and i think anyone doing due diligence would do the same.
rhumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 19:31
Cats_Eyes
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 2,546
So would you put up your own money into a small business and all the risks its comes with , knowing the person wanting you to invest is sitting on a nice little nest egg, and that if the business comes to nothing you lose your money, but that person doesnt as they now have a nice new house ?

All i'm saying is Sugar is quite within his rights to question her savings, if he is investing in her business, and i think anyone doing due diligence would do the same.
In that event then Sugar will still lose his money - but at least the other person will be homeless so everything is fine.

Courtney may be happy to be spunging of his parents but Alana has a bit more about her .

As I said I don't follow this logic and as far as I am concerned she is showing much maturity.
Cats_Eyes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 19:45
rhumble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 91,214
In that event then Sugar will still lose his money - but at least the other person will be homeless so everything is fine.

Courtney may be happy to spunge of his parents but Alana has a bit more about her .

As I said I don't follow this logic and as far as I am concerned she is showing maturity.
i admire her for saving money and i want her to win tbh ,

all i'm saying is from a business point of view Sugar is only interested in how he gets money back off his investment and he wont want to lose his money knowing that the money she used for a house could have gone into the business to help making it a success , he won't throw good money after bad, and once his £250 k has gone if the business fails it fails , but if he thinks she wouldnt be willing to use her saved money as well, i think it could count against her.

Business is cut throat , unless this really is all just for TV and the beeb pay the £250k then it doesnt matter and she can keep her savings and get a house.
rhumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 19:58
DUNDEEBOY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 56,270
There was no way Alan Sugar was ever going to invest in a business called Lust and Lies which is based on paying reality TV "stars" to endorse the product. It's just not his style, even if Jessica's business plan had been superduper, which it wasn't.
I don't think she will care as she will make money over the next year than the other 4 put together
DUNDEEBOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 20:05
trebanos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 504
First off come on Claude who turns down free cake!
A diabetic
trebanos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 20:07
rhumble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 91,214
delete ,, wrong thread
rhumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 20:18
trebanos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 504
Lord Suggs has never gone into a food product before, it is not his comfort zone.
All his products don't go out of date and get thrown in the bin if a lorry breaks down.
Sugar has never sold anything with the massive markups of her cakes. Even out of date cakes have value, as my council know when they collect my food scraps. And Sugar has thrown away £millions - look up his computer business and the failed hard drives.
trebanos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 20:21
trebanos
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 504
i admire her for saving money and i want her to win tbh ,

all i'm saying is from a business point of view Sugar is only interested in how he gets money back off his investment and he wont want to lose his money knowing that the money she used for a house could have gone into the business to help making it a success , he won't throw good money after bad, and once his £250 k has gone if the business fails it fails , but if he thinks she wouldnt be willing to use her saved money as well, i think it could count against her.

Business is cut throat , unless this really is all just for TV and the beeb pay the £250k then it doesnt matter and she can keep her savings and get a house.

You need to pop down the library and get Sugar's latest book which fully explains how **his** £250k is used by the winner. You also look up any of the winner's companies and you will see Sugar is an equal shareholder/partner in the business.
trebanos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 20:24
rhumble
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Birmingham
Posts: 91,214
You need to pop down the library and get Sugar's latest book which fully explains how **his** £250k is used by the winner. You also look up any of the winner's companies and you will see Sugar is an equal shareholder/partner in the business.
Do they still exist

it would be interesting to know how it works tbh , is it a normal business arrangement or is it softened for TV purposes ,, are his other partnerships still going or has anyone gone bust ?
rhumble is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 22:59
sarahcs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,406
Sugar was so desperate to put Courtney up that he pretended that the grey import/end of line trade had no way of expanding. I mean, who has even heard of TK Maxx or Sports Direct?
sarahcs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2016, 23:09
Steve9214
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
Sugar has never sold anything with the massive markups of her cakes. Even out of date cakes have value, as my council know when they collect my food scraps. And Sugar has thrown away £millions - look up his computer business and the failed hard drives.
Alana has a massive markup only because she has NO OVERHEADS at the moment.

She makes cakes in a converted outhouse at her parents - seemingly - Mansion, on her own with no staff.

She then sells them at festivals where people are paying £20 for an ostrich burger.

She needs to build up selling to more festivals - not to go for retail.
Retail is the death of small food companies.

Her business is a good living for her - there is no money in it for an investor.

I have been in the Baking Industry for over 35 years, and believe me when i tell you that most cake companies selling to "trade" are lucky to get 10-20% margin on what they make.

She has a good living at the moment - which she could blow in an instant.
Steve9214 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:03.