ithuriel Posted 16 December 2015 Posted 16 December 2015 Do not know, you can see in his eyes that he knows the app thing is a gamble but he wants to make a ton of cash and it might just do it. Otherwise Vana would have gone.
DB11 Posted 16 December 2015 Posted 16 December 2015 Getting rid of Charleine was the easiest decision he's had to make. I think Vana will win, but it's certainly a gamble.
Ian W LCFC Posted 16 December 2015 Posted 16 December 2015 Quite like Joseph. He's got something about him.
Mikey Posted 16 December 2015 Posted 16 December 2015 I like Joseph and want him to win. Can see Vana winning though. If it comes off, it'll be a hell of a lot of money. If it doesn't, 250k ain't really that much to him to be honest so he'll probably like the gamble.
Saxondale Posted 17 December 2015 Posted 17 December 2015 It's simple: Vana if he fancies taking a high risk / high reward punt, or Joseph if he wants to steadily build up a firm of plumbers. He could go either way, I'm 50/50. He took a punt on that plastic surgery nonsense the other year.
Len Finsbury Posted 17 December 2015 Posted 17 December 2015 I thought Tricky Dicky played it well, actually. Considering he was on a hiding to nothing in that last interview. By putting his hands up, he seemed to have rescued a bit of credibility. Shame his business plan was arseholes!
Captain... Posted 17 December 2015 Posted 17 December 2015 He will bottle it and go with low risk Joseph, the app will need a lot of development and she hasn't really thought it through, by adding games, sorry I mean the gamification of dating, it will increase the costs massively, either licensing existing games, like scrabble, or developing your own which is a massive risk. The idea isn't a bad one, but if the games are shit then it doesn't work, and if the dating side of it is shit then it doesn't work, and the return will take ages. I also don't get the impression she has the games already designed and set-up. Even if the app is actually any good she will have to get the volume of people to sign up and spend a fortune marketing. If I was her I would simplify, pick one game, like scrabble license it get it on facebook, call it scrab-u-date, make it free fill it with adverts and then develop more games, you can claim there is a complex algorithm, but just match singles on age and gender. Or develop one new game and have a dating mode, her description of the app is lots games, psychometric tests, etc it's just all bollocks, you need a fun interactive game where they have to communicate and see if they are compatible. In fact get rid of all the algorithms, random match, video call, but with the sound and camera blocked multiple choice questions, like what is your favourite pet: Dog Cat Spider Rabbit For each one you agree on a bit more of the profile is revealed, or the picture becomes clearer, or sound is enabled or you get a random facebook photo... ...Actually does anyone want to help me make this?
Len Finsbury Posted 17 December 2015 Posted 17 December 2015 He will bottle it and go with low risk Joseph, the app will need a lot of development and she hasn't really thought it through, by adding games, sorry I mean the gamification of dating, it will increase the costs massively, either licensing existing games, like scrabble, or developing your own which is a massive risk. The idea isn't a bad one, but if the games are shit then it doesn't work, and if the dating side of it is shit then it doesn't work, and the return will take ages. I also don't get the impression she has the games already designed and set-up. Even if the app is actually any good she will have to get the volume of people to sign up and spend a fortune marketing. If I was her I would simplify, pick one game, like scrabble license it get it on facebook, call it scrab-u-date, make it free fill it with adverts and then develop more games, you can claim there is a complex algorithm, but just match singles on age and gender. Or develop one new game and have a dating mode, her description of the app is lots games, psychometric tests, etc it's just all bollocks, you need a fun interactive game where they have to communicate and see if they are compatible. In fact get rid of all the algorithms, random match, video call, but with the sound and camera blocked multiple choice questions, like what is your favourite pet: Dog Cat Spider Rabbit For each one you agree on a bit more of the profile is revealed, or the picture becomes clearer, or sound is enabled or you get a random facebook photo... ...Actually does anyone want to help me make this? Are people really that interested in pissing about playing games just to get a date? I'm tired of this 'investment' format. Bring back the £100,000 a year job. At least the best person out of the lot will win rather than the one who has the best idea. Some, and I only mean some, of the previous candidates in the old format were at least respectable businessmen/women. They are literally contestants on a game show now. I mean... a plumbing business? WTF is that all about!
The Horse's Mouth Posted 17 December 2015 Posted 17 December 2015 If that ****ing **** wins I'm definitely not watching next year
Captain... Posted 17 December 2015 Posted 17 December 2015 Are people really that interested in pissing about playing games just to get a date? I'm tired of this 'investment' format. Bring back the £100,000 a year job. At least the best person out of the lot will win rather than the one who has the best idea. Some, and I only mean some, of the previous candidates in the old format were at least respectable businessmen/women. They are literally contestants on a game show now. I mean... a plumbing business? WTF is that all about! Plumbing? Whether people are interested I don't know, but dating is a huge market and so is gaming, Vana has a background in setting up niche dating websites, but this could be mass market, if done well. I agree though the investment format is bollocks, as they could have got rid of someone with a great investment opportunity because they couldn't host a good kids party. Either tailor the show to be more about the business plan, or if it is the interview from hell, then give them a bloody job. The final 5 ended up with a Hair Dressers, a plumbers, a mobile disco, the gamification of dating and a digital marketing company that was in competition with itself. The first investment one showed how dumb it was, when the winner only won because he already had a product out and his business plan was ignored with Sugar saying he will invest in his existing product.
Len Finsbury Posted 17 December 2015 Posted 17 December 2015 woods.png Wait.. so because he was born in the Amazonian rainforest, it was the reason he started his company in Surrey? Okay then..
stripeyfox Posted 17 December 2015 Posted 17 December 2015 Are people really that interested in pissing about playing games just to get a date? I'm tired of this 'investment' format. Bring back the £100,000 a year job. At least the best person out of the lot will win rather than the one who has the best idea. Some, and I only mean some, of the previous candidates in the old format were at least respectable businessmen/women. They are literally contestants on a game show now. I mean... a plumbing business? WTF is that all about! I agree with this. The show is billed as one long job interview. Richard, by general consent, has performed to a very high standard throughout the process but gets bombed out because his "idea" is shit.
MooseBreath Posted 17 December 2015 Posted 17 December 2015 Dickie was a proper slimy tosser though, the type of person I would love to punch in the face many times. I think he was sacked because he's a prime bullshitter and sugar isn't dumb enough to fall for it. Can't stand wankstains like him.
SystonFox Posted 18 December 2015 Posted 18 December 2015 Who would bang Vana one? Her face looks a bit rubbery
Dr The Singh Posted 18 December 2015 Posted 18 December 2015 Who would bang Vana one? Her face looks a bit rubberyMe
MooseBreath Posted 19 December 2015 Posted 19 December 2015 Why does she draw those thick borders around her eye balls? Must be hiding something. Apart from that she looked perfectly bangable and from some angles quite attractive during the interviews.
Len Finsbury Posted 19 December 2015 Posted 19 December 2015 Who would bang Vana one? Her face looks a bit rubbery All day long!
Bettsj2 Posted 19 December 2015 Posted 19 December 2015 You could almost see her flange in the back of the cab.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.