@Odd Socks, I agree to be honest. Just doesn't make sense as shown last year; the person who lost all but one task won overall because his idea for a buisness was better compared to the person who won all but one task... what was the point of the tasks if it was just going to come down to buisness ideas!?
But that's not how the game works. You can be in the losing team every week and still be the best individual. Tom was never out of that board room, but he never got fired for valid reasons: he was ultra keen, always the one brimming over with ideas, a good team player, didn't pick fights with people.
I didn't feel that any of the losing team deserved to go really. I think the wrong team won. I can't believe the horrible spacehopper rubbish got takers.
Given who was in the boardroom, though, Duane was probably the right one to go. The feedback from the gyms had obviously been that they didn't like the video; that they felt it didn't show the mix of dance and martial arts claimed. Duane had directed the video, he had clearly decided to take out some moves (how crucial this was I'm not sure) and he edited the final version. Clearly, in spite of their disagreements, Laura had done what was asked of her in demonstrating the routine otherwise he'd have said something. The failings of the video were down to him.
It's a shame, though. He was a nice guy, and had looked really good in the other tasks.
I agree with every word of that. It seemed wildly wrong that those three were in the board room at all, just because a fitness chain saw something in the other team's pitch that they had never even thought of themselves.
Ricky didn't "do good", that is something that altruists, saints and do-gooders do, the phrase you were looking for was "Ricky did well".
.
Your description of Duane was fair enough, but this isn't. 'Did good' is just a colloquialism and conveys its meaning perfectly well. I'm pretty sure none of us mistook Ricky for St Francis of Assisi.
I thought Ricky was a good PM and definitely didn't deserve to be fired. His pitches were excellent if you consider the absolute tranwrecks that a lot of the candidates come out with. He might be kind of cocky but I find him entertaining TV and not absolutely unbearable like Baggs.
That said, I love Duane and don't reckon based on overall performance he deserved to go. Sadly neither did Laura although I'd have loved it if she really cocked up as I found her so abrasive and passive aggressive in the last two episodes. I reckon if Jenna had been brought in she'd have been out.
On YF Duane admitted that he had made mistakes, that he was too aggressive and did not listen and did not work well in a team and said that he had learned from them.
Your description of Duane was fair enough, but this isn't. 'Did good' is just a colloquialism and conveys its meaning perfectly well. I'm pretty sure none of us mistook Ricky for St Francis of Assisi.
It is semantically incorrect, why not use the correct word? Why use some street-style phrase that would be more appropriate for an LA gang member describing a successful stabbing.
It is semantically incorrect, why not use the correct word? Why use some street-style phrase that would be more appropriate for an LA gang member describing a successful stabbing.
I didn't use the grammatical error as the basis of my argument, I just cited it as an indicator of why the poster may be prone to falling for inept delusional candidates whose only positive feature is their relentless and misplaced optimism.
Sugar doesn't seem to have a grip on the English language either, hence he failed to get into the top league of the business world and presided over numerous business failures.
It's against DS rules to criticise other poster's grammar. You should read them.
Duane annoys me because he is an example of the type of personality that seems to garner feeble-minded viewers as supporters who would be better off watching the X-factor or something, they are unable to appreciate the intellectual merits or business acumen of a candidate and instead evaluate merits entirely on personality traits they deem desirable. So, if a candidate has the following traits: prominent; noisy; effusive; relentlessly positive no matter the reality; constantly smiles inanely; game for a laugh; constantly showers others with inane upbeat drivel; is desperate to grab the lead role; is delusionally upbeat in his assessment of his abilities, then the candidate can be assured of supporters but alas who are confused by decision-making, numbers, logic and business and the early downfall of their hero.
Ricky didn't "do good", that is something that altruists, saints and do-gooders do, the phrase you were looking for was "Ricky did well".
All of your comments about Ricky's performance in the task are valid, he did have a remarkable coherent idea that was compatible with the market and he gave excellent pitches which projected his marketing ideas well in a concise and upbeat style with a grasp of English that shamed others.
Oh my goodness - so anyone supporting the opinion that Duane left too early is;
feeble minded,
unable to appreciate the intellectual merits or business acumen of a candidate,
assured of supporters but alas who are confused by decision-making, numbers, logic and business and the early downfall of their hero.
In other words, those who don't share your opinion show a deficiency in the ability to assess a candidate's suitability for a role.
Now strange as it may seem, many of us are very experienced interviewers and furthermore we have been very successful in the avoidance of placing a square peg in a round hole.
How do we do this? We probe beneath the surface to seek out strengths and weaknesses: we're not duped or befooled by a bright smile, effusion and/or a loud voice. We've learnt through experience to spot the skills needed to further develop the careers of the applicants.
There are times when over confidence masks inadequancy and diffidence hides ability and potential; it is the job of the interviewer to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I suspect my wheat is your chaff - but be assured my record proves that I am more often right than wrong.
I have no alternative but to dismiss your self congratulationary analysis as flawed.
On YF Duane admitted that he had made mistakes, that he was too aggressive and did not listen and did not work well in a team and said that he had learned from them.
But from what we were shown this is not what he was fired for. Nothing in the tasks or boardroom this series stack up.
The dynamics have really changed since the prize changed. The tasks are meaningless now, it's just an extended and more boring version of Dragon's Den. If it wasn't for You're Fired I probably wouldn't bother with the main show at all.
Not necessarily. He could have 6 viable projects there that interest him - unlike last year when he had 2 or 3.There could be a real competition later on. Until he's down to that 6 or whatever, he can get rid of everyone else who he doesn't want to work with , or who has a plan thats not interesting to him or which would cost too much. I can see why he would not want to work with everyone who has gone so far so they may have all failed at stage one.
The dynamics have changed, but it doesn't matter as long as he's not decided on his winner at the start - as he may have last year. its always been the case that the job largely determined who won - Simon couldn't do Lee's job or vice versa. All thats changed is that some quieter people may last longer, and some people there for entertainment value may have to go earlier to preserve some with viable ideas.
This week, i don't think it mattered. He didn't seem to like Duane. Duane was solely responsible for the area with biggest problems . Laura hadn't done anything wrong. No one else had been made responsible for anything that went wrong. Ricky's basic idea was seen as being a good one (and better than the opposing one which won by sheer luck and dodgy figures and might have lost if costs were counted)
Still think Ricky Martin should have been told to shake his bon bon out of the boardroom. He looks a bit like Chucky from the horror movie with those creepy eyes.
Still think Ricky Martin should have been told to shake his bon bon out of the boardroom. He looks a bit like Chucky from the horror movie with those creepy eyes.
It is semantically incorrect, why not use the correct word? Why use some street-style phrase that would be more appropriate for an LA gang member describing a successful stabbing.
I'm slangy! Can't fault your logic. Perfectly fair shout, and looking stupid is the risk I run in writing conversationally, so more power to you... but I'm not gonna get into too much of a tizz about it. Sorry!
WRT personality v. talent, I think it's a mixture. If I like a candidate as a person, I want them to impress with their talents - but more crucially, it's a team game. Management, motivation, and sales are all personality-led traits; it's all very well to work out your targets, but to achieve those targets a good salesperson will need rapport, charisma, and a team who are willing to support them to the hilt. All the talent in the world can mean nothing at all if you don't inspire confidence in your colleagues and your buyers alike.
I'd actually argue that once all the preparation's been done, there'll still be a little bit of margin-watching involved as far as haggling goes, but the actual act of selling has a lot more to do with personality than it does to do with mathematics.
Duane annoys me because he is an example of the type of personality that seems to garner feeble-minded viewers as supporters who would be better off watching the X-factor or something, they are unable to appreciate the intellectual merits or business acumen of a candidate and instead evaluate merits entirely on personality traits they deem desirable. So, if a candidate has the following traits: prominent; noisy; effusive; relentlessly positive no matter the reality; constantly smiles inanely; game for a laugh; constantly showers others with inane upbeat drivel; is desperate to grab the lead role; is delusionally upbeat in his assessment of his abilities, then the candidate can be assured of supporters but alas who are confused by decision-making, numbers, logic and business and the early downfall of their hero.
Ricky didn't "do good", that is something that altruists, saints and do-gooders do, the phrase you were looking for was "Ricky did well".
All of your comments about Ricky's performance in the task are valid, he did have a remarkable coherent idea that was compatible with the market and he gave excellent pitches which projected his marketing ideas well in a concise and upbeat style with a grasp of English that shamed others.
Well said, Flossie. Couldn't understand why people were going overboard on Duane. A likeable with a pleasing personality and...absolutely nothing else.
Actually, he was never in the final boardroom until task 8, when there were 3 or fewer people in the team so he had to be there.
You can be in the losing team every week and still be the best individual.
Agreed. This week was remarkable in that all the final three were strong. Ricky was lucky not to get fired for that reason (ie for not identifying the weaker candidates).
Oh my goodness - so anyone supporting the opinion that Duane left too early is;
feeble minded,
unable to appreciate the intellectual merits or business acumen of a candidate,
assured of supporters but alas who are confused by decision-making, numbers, logic and business and the early downfall of their hero.
In other words, those who don't share your opinion show a deficiency in the ability to assess a candidate's suitability for a role.
Now strange as it may seem, many of us are very experienced interviewers and furthermore we have been very successful in the avoidance of placing a square peg in a round hole.
How do we do this? We probe beneath the surface to seek out strengths and weaknesses: we're not duped or befooled by a bright smile, effusion and/or a loud voice. We've learnt through experience to spot the skills needed to further develop the careers of the applicants.
There are times when over confidence masks inadequancy and diffidence hides ability and potential; it is the job of the interviewer to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I suspect my wheat is your chaff - but be assured my record proves that I am more often right than wrong.
I have no alternative but to dismiss your self congratulationary analysis as flawed.
And I have no alternative to dismiss your analysis as content-free as Duane's inane spoutings.
Obviously I have no idea what you interview for, but I suspect it is not for a professional or technical post, because any experienced interviewer for such a post can see that Duane lacks necessary basic skills. For instance, his lack of analytical skills and logical approach to problems was highlighted by his attempts to defy reality and pronounce a chutney as tasting wonderful, just as it started to tear at his insides, because he thought delusional positivism was more important than objective analysis. He was only stopped from venting more drivel because the chutney deprived him of the power of speech. He is barely numerate and he is linguistically challenged and doesn't seem to have a single worthwhile skill.
If you were employing Duane in some undemanding, non-decision making role, or in hard selling then his inane drivel spouting tendencies and relentless delusional positivism might be advantageous for a happy existence.
Feeble-minded people are taken in by his noisy, positive, thrusting personality delivered with big smiles, and can't see the skill shortage at his core.
Actually, he was never in the final boardroom until task 8, when there were 3 or fewer people in the team so he had to be there.
I agree with the broader point, but he was in the Boardroom on task 8 as PM of a team of four, and on task 9 he was brought back by Zoe over Susan as part of another team of four.
I thought he got it spot on. Duane took being sub-team leader to mean he was sub-team dictator, noone was allowed an opinion, if they did they were being "disruptive"
Let's not forget he wanted to cut some of the moves out of the video but Laura got them all in.
He's been arrogant, irritating and a long way ahead of himself for a couple of weeks now.
The only problem was the fact they clearly didn't take out the cost of the equipment from the other teams sales income to give a true result, £17.50 a month, would have rightfully handed Ricky's team the win, they came up with a concept 2 out of 3 clubs were willing to pay for whilst the others came up with an idea which 2 clubs hated, 1 club wanted to change to a family class, and they somehow won? Seemed very unjust.
Comments
Your description of Duane was fair enough, but this isn't. 'Did good' is just a colloquialism and conveys its meaning perfectly well. I'm pretty sure none of us mistook Ricky for St Francis of Assisi.
That said, I love Duane and don't reckon based on overall performance he deserved to go. Sadly neither did Laura although I'd have loved it if she really cocked up as I found her so abrasive and passive aggressive in the last two episodes. I reckon if Jenna had been brought in she'd have been out.
I must be the last to know that Duane has a famous brother.
It is semantically incorrect, why not use the correct word? Why use some street-style phrase that would be more appropriate for an LA gang member describing a successful stabbing.
yawn. language evolves.
I did good there.
No one needs an excuse or your permission, you don't own the english language.
Some might say there's no excuse for utterly patronising rudeness.
It's against DS rules to criticise other poster's grammar. You should read them.
In other words, those who don't share your opinion show a deficiency in the ability to assess a candidate's suitability for a role.
Now strange as it may seem, many of us are very experienced interviewers and furthermore we have been very successful in the avoidance of placing a square peg in a round hole.
How do we do this? We probe beneath the surface to seek out strengths and weaknesses: we're not duped or befooled by a bright smile, effusion and/or a loud voice. We've learnt through experience to spot the skills needed to further develop the careers of the applicants.
There are times when over confidence masks inadequancy and diffidence hides ability and potential; it is the job of the interviewer to separate the wheat from the chaff.
I suspect my wheat is your chaff - but be assured my record proves that I am more often right than wrong.
I have no alternative but to dismiss your self congratulationary analysis as flawed.
But from what we were shown this is not what he was fired for. Nothing in the tasks or boardroom this series stack up.
Not necessarily. He could have 6 viable projects there that interest him - unlike last year when he had 2 or 3.There could be a real competition later on. Until he's down to that 6 or whatever, he can get rid of everyone else who he doesn't want to work with , or who has a plan thats not interesting to him or which would cost too much. I can see why he would not want to work with everyone who has gone so far so they may have all failed at stage one.
The dynamics have changed, but it doesn't matter as long as he's not decided on his winner at the start - as he may have last year. its always been the case that the job largely determined who won - Simon couldn't do Lee's job or vice versa. All thats changed is that some quieter people may last longer, and some people there for entertainment value may have to go earlier to preserve some with viable ideas.
This week, i don't think it mattered. He didn't seem to like Duane. Duane was solely responsible for the area with biggest problems . Laura hadn't done anything wrong. No one else had been made responsible for anything that went wrong. Ricky's basic idea was seen as being a good one (and better than the opposing one which won by sheer luck and dodgy figures and might have lost if costs were counted)
Exactly....
I'm slangy! Can't fault your logic. Perfectly fair shout, and looking stupid is the risk I run in writing conversationally, so more power to you... but I'm not gonna get into too much of a tizz about it. Sorry!
WRT personality v. talent, I think it's a mixture. If I like a candidate as a person, I want them to impress with their talents - but more crucially, it's a team game. Management, motivation, and sales are all personality-led traits; it's all very well to work out your targets, but to achieve those targets a good salesperson will need rapport, charisma, and a team who are willing to support them to the hilt. All the talent in the world can mean nothing at all if you don't inspire confidence in your colleagues and your buyers alike.
I'd actually argue that once all the preparation's been done, there'll still be a little bit of margin-watching involved as far as haggling goes, but the actual act of selling has a lot more to do with personality than it does to do with mathematics.
Well said, Flossie. Couldn't understand why people were going overboard on Duane. A likeable with a pleasing personality and...absolutely nothing else.
Agreed. This week was remarkable in that all the final three were strong. Ricky was lucky not to get fired for that reason (ie for not identifying the weaker candidates).
And I have no alternative to dismiss your analysis as content-free as Duane's inane spoutings.
Obviously I have no idea what you interview for, but I suspect it is not for a professional or technical post, because any experienced interviewer for such a post can see that Duane lacks necessary basic skills. For instance, his lack of analytical skills and logical approach to problems was highlighted by his attempts to defy reality and pronounce a chutney as tasting wonderful, just as it started to tear at his insides, because he thought delusional positivism was more important than objective analysis. He was only stopped from venting more drivel because the chutney deprived him of the power of speech. He is barely numerate and he is linguistically challenged and doesn't seem to have a single worthwhile skill.
If you were employing Duane in some undemanding, non-decision making role, or in hard selling then his inane drivel spouting tendencies and relentless delusional positivism might be advantageous for a happy existence.
Feeble-minded people are taken in by his noisy, positive, thrusting personality delivered with big smiles, and can't see the skill shortage at his core.
I agree with the broader point, but he was in the Boardroom on task 8 as PM of a team of four, and on task 9 he was brought back by Zoe over Susan as part of another team of four.
Let's not forget he wanted to cut some of the moves out of the video but Laura got them all in.
He's been arrogant, irritating and a long way ahead of himself for a couple of weeks now.
The only problem was the fact they clearly didn't take out the cost of the equipment from the other teams sales income to give a true result, £17.50 a month, would have rightfully handed Ricky's team the win, they came up with a concept 2 out of 3 clubs were willing to pay for whilst the others came up with an idea which 2 clubs hated, 1 club wanted to change to a family class, and they somehow won? Seemed very unjust.