ccfcrob
Well-Known Member
i would though
i would thoughWhy is that woman wearing those trampy piercings and trying to sell stuff? She may as well have a spider web tatooed on the side of her head.
Clear fix really.
The previous week they got a right rollicking for not catering for the corporate client . This week they got a right rollicking for concentrating on the corporate client.
They did absolutely nothing wrong there. They knew the client had 4 grand to spend. They might have sold nothing at all to the general public. Pure guesswork as to whether they would have been interested or not.
I didn't find her that stuck up to be honest. Just very, very professional.
No idea why Tom is still there. Totally buggered up on the gardening task when it was a perfect match for him and he sold nothing in this task and was also telling the public that the art was bland. Way to get a sale there!
Was convinced the other side had lost, as their corporate client bought nothing.
It's what I don't like with this format. By this stage it's pretty irrelevant how you do, as long as you don't have a shocker.Tom mentioned his business was paying for his whole family and more. Sugar listened and kept him in which proves the 12 weeks of tasks are pretty much pointless as he already knows who has a decent business plan and who doesn't. Right?
Tom mentioned his business was paying for his whole family and more. Sugar listened and kept him in which proves the 12 weeks of tasks are pretty much pointless as he already knows who has a decent business plan and who doesn't. Right?
But last week they were told they should have focused on the corporate client and this week they were told off for doing so.It’s all about balancing off the best course of action. If a client has a budget of £4k but you only identify art worth £1.6k that they may be interested in, then you have to consider whether you can make up that shortfall with other income streams. If they’d had something worth £3.5k earmarked it may make more sense. Sometimes you have to let the big client down in order to make the bigger picture more successful. They didn’t consider that.
If not very nice!Really?
I found her highly intelligent.
I bet you did !Really?
I found her highly intelligent.
She was a lot cleverer than many of them in there for sure.I bet you did !
Didn't like her comment at the end about sincerity.If not very nice!
...irony there !Didn't like her comment at the end about sincerity.
Because they need the loud American (yeah, I know, Canadian).The girl they let go because she's already doing quite well in her business, why have her on the show in the first place if that's going to rule against them?
I like to Canadian, she is mint!Because they need the loud American (yeah, I know, Canadian).
Can't say I liked her much at all. Definitely seemed to have a bit of a vicious streak in her.
Am now rooting for Sabrina and that's simply based upon her seemingly being the nicest one left.
I'd be staggered if she won though. Money for me is on Sian. No nonsense, very few mistakes, focused and determined.
Their first choice was takenAh, I take all that back.
Just looked at her brand and her milk is spelled mylk.
It's a winner.
About us · MYLKPLUS
It was cringeworthyWell, surely that was the most obvious 'they're going to lose' from the off, ever.
Clear as day and if this has been say 2 or 3 weeks earlier, surely all 3 would have been sacked.
I was wondering if they knew in advance that they’d have to pitch to the Co-op.
They were never going to order the stuff more suited to Ann Summers!
Thought Sabrina looked best in the pyjama scene with Lord S at the start....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?