Originally Posted by lumpbottom:
“She was right.
The boys took in far more money, partly because they didn't b***s up the lunchtime opening.”
“She was right.
The boys took in far more money, partly because they didn't b***s up the lunchtime opening.”
They took £50 more, which is only 6%. It's not a lot, given that the girls didn't, in fact, do lunch. Presumably the girls took more money in the evening.
Quote:
“If they'd have decided on menus, and bought the food first they'd have walked it.”
“If they'd have decided on menus, and bought the food first they'd have walked it.”
Well, no. They over-spent on marketing, too. In fact if they'd got all the food for free they'd still have lost, so it hardly mattered where they bought it from.
(In the boardroom someone says the boys marketing spend was £272, which is roughly half of their £543 total spend, and they lost by over £300. So with free food they'd have lost by £30.)
Quote:
“That mistake was down to Kevin. He jumped in wanting to be head chef, then didn't like what it entailed and didn't do the job.”
“That mistake was down to Kevin. He jumped in wanting to be head chef, then didn't like what it entailed and didn't do the job.”
I wouldn't say he jumped in. He and Simon both offered to be cooks, which wouldn't have been a big deal as it was just cooking. Simon said Kevin should be head chef - I suspect he was trying to be nice and just make Kevin the more senior of those two, rather than trying to stitch Kevin up. Kevin agreed, and then Ian laid the heavy trip on him about being responsible for the menu, hence ingredients list, hence pricing, which was clearly not what he thought he'd agreed to do. He probably should have backed down, but by then it was too late. After that I thought Kevin did the best he could in a role he wasn't really suited for.
Ian should have been more careful about how he assigned the role, given it's importance. (Sara recognised the importance and took it on herself, which was risky but arguably paid off.)







called smilies?