|
||||||||
Pundits, Nick and Margaret just repeat Sir Allen's opinion |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 762
|
Pundits, Nick and Margaret just repeat Sir Allen's opinion
The You're Fired Pundits, Nick and Margaret just repeat Sir Allen's opinion and reasoning for firing, as if it was blatently obvious. Well it is obvious with hindsight, but before the board room it's impossible to call. You never know what barely significant detail Sir Allen will pick up on. Anyone can just agree with Sir Allen's final verdict. They can try to make themselves look clever by regurgitating Sir Allen's ill-informed counter-intuititive opinion, but it won't work on me.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 169
|
They don't always agree. Sometimes they say "it was Sir Alan's decision, he knows what he's looking for." Meaning they disagree, but they can't do anything about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 762
|
In addition, I think Sir Alan should fire/blame himself for not giving a detailed enough brief. If he wanted in-your-face un-subtle advertising that badly he should have said.
It wouldn't take much effort to reedit Raef's advert so that the box shot was there, and to make the product more prominant in the final frame. However, Alex's advert was crap. One of the people said that they "couldn't run it in its current state". If they were willing to grant changes to one advert, why couldn't they grant it for the other? |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: South Yorkshire
Posts: 3,332
|
It's Sir Alan
We don't see all their contributions and Nick disagreed last week with the firing I thought - his facial expression showed this pretty obvious. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 2,205
|
Quote:
In addition, I think Sir Allen should fire/blame himself for not giving a detailed enough brief. If he wanted in-your-face un-subtle advertising that badly he should have said.
It wouldn't take much effort to reedit Raef's advert so that the box shot was there, and to make the product more prominant in the final frame. However, Alex's advert was crap. One of the people said that they "couldn't run it in its current state". If they were willing to grant changes to one advert, why couldn't they grant it for the other? |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 762
|
D'Oh. I'd edit but I it won't let me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cardiff
Posts: 2,205
|
Quote:
D'Oh. I'd edit but I it won't let me.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 2,884
|
And Margaret, bless her, has called Michael a "waste of space" which is clearly against the party line...
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,629
|
U thought Nick looked rather shocked when SAS fired Raef ... I have heard them several times saying it is SAS's choice so I dont think they are just YES people
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:52.


