Options
Who Would You Have Fired? Series 2
TXF0429
Posts: 2,161 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Well, having had an interesting discussion on Series 1, I've decided to create a thread for who you would have fired in Series 2. As ever, its just a bit of fun, you don't have to do them all and I just want to see what other people's opinions are like.
Here is what I wrote a while ago about Series 2:
Week 1
Who was fired? Ben
Who should have been fired? Samuel
Why? Its marginal, but I don’t think Ben’s leadership was that bad, as he only made one big mistake (not splitting the team) and, on a selling task, it was evident that Samuel was clearly the worst seller on the day. Syed may be egotistical, annoying and a jackass, but he didn’t cause the team to lose. Ben had more in him, I’m not sure that Samuel did.
Week 2
Who was fired? Nargis
Who should have been fired? Nargis
Why? For that task, Nargis was simply awful in virtually every way. She chose a flawed concept, opted for cats when they had no relevance to Great Ormond Street, practically ignored the Great Ormond Street link in every way, produced an impractical calendar and bumbled through a pitch even worse than when poor Angie McKnight squeaked through a horrific presentation to American Eagle on the US Apprentice. In the boardroom, she chose to target Jo, who pointed out the task flaws every step of the way and still supported the team. It was an easy decision.
Week 3
Who was fired? Karen
Who should have been fired? Jo
Why? Whilst Karen was responsible for finding the tyre (and failed to take responsibility for it) as well as hemming and hawing over several places in search for the dinner jacket, Jo hampered the team from start to finish. She couldn’t structure the chaos at the start, delayed the sub-team by asking them to ring her over every single purchase and oversaw the sub-team that got just two items. At the end of the day, with no leadership, Jo was ultimately culpable.
Week 4
Who was fired? Alexa
Who should have been fired? Alexa and Syed
Why? In a task that spelled disaster from start to finish, all three of them should have gone. However, Tuan couldn’t be held accountable for the weak management or the massive error in over-ordering stock, so I probably would have narrowly allowed him to stay. Both Alexa and Syed should have gone – Alexa because she was absolutely hopeless in leadership and made no attempt at all to take control, Syed because his stupid, stupid error cost them any slim hope of victory. If I had to fire just one, it would be Alexa as Syed had done a decent job of managing the same men last week.
Week 5
Who was fired? Mani
Who should have been fired? Mani
Why? Honestly, until the boardroom, I was leaning towards Ansell to go, but Mani didn’t exactly speak out against the concierge idea and his refusal to take any kind of responsibility in the boardroom was what got him fired. I think that, it is evident that Mani didn’t object to Ansell focusing on the concierge, even if he didn’t emphasise it as much and, since his observations came way too late in the day to matter, I think that he did deserve to go.
Week 6
Who was fired? Jo
Who should have been fired? Jo
Why? Ansell led pretty badly, as he didn’t have a leash on his team and he missed the crucial idea of selling the add-ons and didn’t take responsibility for the issue of the Car of the Day, which was both his and Jo’s fault. However, he did make a lot of sales and it was down to either Samuel or Jo, because of this. Ultimately, we knew that Samuel wasn’t much of a salesman and because it was Jo’s fourth time in the boardroom, I think that there was little choice but to fire her.
Week 7
Who was fired? Samuel
Who should have been fired? Michelle
Why? On this occasion, the entire task fault lay on the shoulders of Michelle. Samuel was pretty poor with his terrible attempts to get people through the door, but seeing as this would have affected both teams, he shouldn’t have been fired on the basis of the task. Michelle was responsible for ignoring the Topshop promotions and for arsing about getting pissed in the VIP room (which was a terrible idea). Had she stayed out of the VIP room or focused on promotion ideas beyond a bottle of water, Velocity would most probably have won.
Week 8
Who was fired? Sharon
Who should have been fired? Sharon
Why? Oh, because the arguments that Syed was responsible for the task were completely rubbish. Yes, if he wasn’t late, they would have won, but if he hadn’t gone to secure that deal, they would have lost by a much larger margin than they ultimately did. Tuan may not have shown much in the eight weeks, but since, by Syed’s own admission, he did well in the final huge deal and, meanwhile Sharon made only one sale (that should have been higher) meant that on the task basis, Sharon should have gone.
Week 9
Who was fired? Tuan
Who should have been fired? Tuan
Why? Because he was stupid enough to stay in the background the week after he promised to Sir Alan he would be more proactive. And also, because he made zero sales on a task that he needed to sell. I did like him, but he made the major, major error of sticking to his strengths of planning and organisation, which he just couldn't do on this task. He wasn't really a fit for Sir Alan as well, unlike the more brash and sales-type Syed. Syed isn't great, but for one sale, which was pretty creative and innovative, I would have narrowly allowed him to stay.
Week 10
Who was fired? Syed
Who should have been fired? Syed
Why? Don’t get me wrong, he was damn good in the boardroom and Ruth made many mistakes in the task also, but he was the PM and his idea was too complicated and too difficult to properly control. In addition, the dodgy suggestions that they don’t put people in the lottery draw because of a mistake they had made and the lack of understanding of whether the money was measured in profit or turnover (and the subsequent lying about the incident) meant that it was finally his time to go.
Week 11
Who was fired? Paul and Ansell
Who should have been fired? Paul and Michelle
Why? Because, being generous to your family shouldn’t be enough to guarantee you a final spot. Michelle may have been decent in the interviews, but she hadn’t done enough for me to ensure a spot in the Final Two. Paul meanwhile, had an absolutely atrocious performance in interviews and I don’t think he had been impressive enough in the past for this fact to be overlooked. And his Big Issue comment didn’t help his case. Ansell may not have the best PM record, but he had been a decent back-seat driver and had been pretty competent throughout and Ruth has, natually been the best performer overall.
Week 12
Who was hired? Michelle
Who should have been hired? Ruth
Why? Because, from start to finish, Ruth outperformed Michelle and whilst, her record was vastly inferior, this isn’t really fair when Ruth was the leading performer in Tasks 3, 6, 7 and 9 – all tasks that she lost. This isn’t even mentioning that Ruth picked a halfway competent team, came up with better ideas creatively, managed team members such as Jo well and made the most money overall. Michelle imploded, picked a volatile team and exploded to all three team members. Based on the final task and even based on the whole twelve weeks, the ultimate decision is, frankly ridiculous.
Here is what I wrote a while ago about Series 2:
Week 1
Who was fired? Ben
Who should have been fired? Samuel
Why? Its marginal, but I don’t think Ben’s leadership was that bad, as he only made one big mistake (not splitting the team) and, on a selling task, it was evident that Samuel was clearly the worst seller on the day. Syed may be egotistical, annoying and a jackass, but he didn’t cause the team to lose. Ben had more in him, I’m not sure that Samuel did.
Week 2
Who was fired? Nargis
Who should have been fired? Nargis
Why? For that task, Nargis was simply awful in virtually every way. She chose a flawed concept, opted for cats when they had no relevance to Great Ormond Street, practically ignored the Great Ormond Street link in every way, produced an impractical calendar and bumbled through a pitch even worse than when poor Angie McKnight squeaked through a horrific presentation to American Eagle on the US Apprentice. In the boardroom, she chose to target Jo, who pointed out the task flaws every step of the way and still supported the team. It was an easy decision.
Week 3
Who was fired? Karen
Who should have been fired? Jo
Why? Whilst Karen was responsible for finding the tyre (and failed to take responsibility for it) as well as hemming and hawing over several places in search for the dinner jacket, Jo hampered the team from start to finish. She couldn’t structure the chaos at the start, delayed the sub-team by asking them to ring her over every single purchase and oversaw the sub-team that got just two items. At the end of the day, with no leadership, Jo was ultimately culpable.
Week 4
Who was fired? Alexa
Who should have been fired? Alexa and Syed
Why? In a task that spelled disaster from start to finish, all three of them should have gone. However, Tuan couldn’t be held accountable for the weak management or the massive error in over-ordering stock, so I probably would have narrowly allowed him to stay. Both Alexa and Syed should have gone – Alexa because she was absolutely hopeless in leadership and made no attempt at all to take control, Syed because his stupid, stupid error cost them any slim hope of victory. If I had to fire just one, it would be Alexa as Syed had done a decent job of managing the same men last week.
Week 5
Who was fired? Mani
Who should have been fired? Mani
Why? Honestly, until the boardroom, I was leaning towards Ansell to go, but Mani didn’t exactly speak out against the concierge idea and his refusal to take any kind of responsibility in the boardroom was what got him fired. I think that, it is evident that Mani didn’t object to Ansell focusing on the concierge, even if he didn’t emphasise it as much and, since his observations came way too late in the day to matter, I think that he did deserve to go.
Week 6
Who was fired? Jo
Who should have been fired? Jo
Why? Ansell led pretty badly, as he didn’t have a leash on his team and he missed the crucial idea of selling the add-ons and didn’t take responsibility for the issue of the Car of the Day, which was both his and Jo’s fault. However, he did make a lot of sales and it was down to either Samuel or Jo, because of this. Ultimately, we knew that Samuel wasn’t much of a salesman and because it was Jo’s fourth time in the boardroom, I think that there was little choice but to fire her.
Week 7
Who was fired? Samuel
Who should have been fired? Michelle
Why? On this occasion, the entire task fault lay on the shoulders of Michelle. Samuel was pretty poor with his terrible attempts to get people through the door, but seeing as this would have affected both teams, he shouldn’t have been fired on the basis of the task. Michelle was responsible for ignoring the Topshop promotions and for arsing about getting pissed in the VIP room (which was a terrible idea). Had she stayed out of the VIP room or focused on promotion ideas beyond a bottle of water, Velocity would most probably have won.
Week 8
Who was fired? Sharon
Who should have been fired? Sharon
Why? Oh, because the arguments that Syed was responsible for the task were completely rubbish. Yes, if he wasn’t late, they would have won, but if he hadn’t gone to secure that deal, they would have lost by a much larger margin than they ultimately did. Tuan may not have shown much in the eight weeks, but since, by Syed’s own admission, he did well in the final huge deal and, meanwhile Sharon made only one sale (that should have been higher) meant that on the task basis, Sharon should have gone.
Week 9
Who was fired? Tuan
Who should have been fired? Tuan
Why? Because he was stupid enough to stay in the background the week after he promised to Sir Alan he would be more proactive. And also, because he made zero sales on a task that he needed to sell. I did like him, but he made the major, major error of sticking to his strengths of planning and organisation, which he just couldn't do on this task. He wasn't really a fit for Sir Alan as well, unlike the more brash and sales-type Syed. Syed isn't great, but for one sale, which was pretty creative and innovative, I would have narrowly allowed him to stay.
Week 10
Who was fired? Syed
Who should have been fired? Syed
Why? Don’t get me wrong, he was damn good in the boardroom and Ruth made many mistakes in the task also, but he was the PM and his idea was too complicated and too difficult to properly control. In addition, the dodgy suggestions that they don’t put people in the lottery draw because of a mistake they had made and the lack of understanding of whether the money was measured in profit or turnover (and the subsequent lying about the incident) meant that it was finally his time to go.
Week 11
Who was fired? Paul and Ansell
Who should have been fired? Paul and Michelle
Why? Because, being generous to your family shouldn’t be enough to guarantee you a final spot. Michelle may have been decent in the interviews, but she hadn’t done enough for me to ensure a spot in the Final Two. Paul meanwhile, had an absolutely atrocious performance in interviews and I don’t think he had been impressive enough in the past for this fact to be overlooked. And his Big Issue comment didn’t help his case. Ansell may not have the best PM record, but he had been a decent back-seat driver and had been pretty competent throughout and Ruth has, natually been the best performer overall.
Week 12
Who was hired? Michelle
Who should have been hired? Ruth
Why? Because, from start to finish, Ruth outperformed Michelle and whilst, her record was vastly inferior, this isn’t really fair when Ruth was the leading performer in Tasks 3, 6, 7 and 9 – all tasks that she lost. This isn’t even mentioning that Ruth picked a halfway competent team, came up with better ideas creatively, managed team members such as Jo well and made the most money overall. Michelle imploded, picked a volatile team and exploded to all three team members. Based on the final task and even based on the whole twelve weeks, the ultimate decision is, frankly ridiculous.
0
Comments
Thanks for starting this thread by the way! I will do mine later
Ouch, um I was a bit harsh on Michelle looking back wasn't I?
I think the thing was that I didn't really think she deserved to get as far as she did and she seemed to glide through the last few weeks without Sir Alan looking much at her competence on the tasks and she certainly only survived interviews (As far as I could see) because he liked her personally. I think part of the reason is that when I had written that I had rewatched that particular series and I had really come to rate both Samuel and Tuan more than I had previously. So, I was a bit annoyed by Samuel's firing, which came on a task where he had been right about the dress choices (Which BOTH Ruth and Michelle had got wrong) and where Velocity had blatantly lost because of Michelle spending half the task selling £30 to tourists in the VIP Room.
Erm, overall, though, it was just very difficult to see what she did in the last few weeks, bar being a decent PM on the House Letting task (And even there she arguably sandbagged Paul), whilst Ruth was shining every single week, at least in the second half of the series (Selling 6 cars in Week 6, Making significant sales in Week 7, Being an excellent PM imo in Week 8, Selling 5 out of 6 of her team's flats in Week 9 etc)
I would like to say that I am pretty conscious that Series 2 had loads and loads of selling tasks, which gave Ruth more of a decent opportunity to shine than Michelle.
As for being the least deserved winner ever? Possibly. I really didn't like the first three winners; I thought all of them were far from the top performers in their respective series and all three of them only won due to the fact that Sir Alan had a job in mind for them. I would say the least deserved (imo) would be either Michelle or Simon. Much like Michelle, I just don't see what Simon did to deserve the win overall. I think that Simon deserved the win more than Michelle on the fact that he was a decent fit for Sir Alan's company (Having been obsessed with him since he was young) and whilst I personally liked Michelle more than Simon, I think that she probably deserved it less, so yeah, I'll say Michelle was the least deserved ever, but that's just my opinion!
Task 2: Nargis. While everyone on the team bar Jo had advocated the cat calendar, Nargis was ultimately the one who authorized it, and her comically bad sales pitches were the icing on the cake.
Task 3: Jo. For me, Karen was the single most ridiculous, idiotic firing in the show's history. Jo had been a terrible leader, and the team only came as close as they did to beating the other team because the Ruth-Michelle-Sharon subteam were such good negotiators.
Task 4: Bearing in mind that only one person could be fired per week in this series, Alexa, for letting Syed and Tuan run riot and spending whatever the hell they wanted. On top of that, she spent the whole boardroom session just sitting there with a deer-in-the-headlights expression, and couldn't even seem to work out who was responsible for what.
Task 5: Of the people who were in the final boardroom, Mani for acting like an arsehole and refusing to accept any share of the blame. Ansell was the one most to blame for the loss, but he lucked out and didn't get brought back.
Task 6: Jo. Ansell had been a pretty bad leader, and Samuel had been useless, but it was clearly her time to go, not least because she seemed to scare off at least two sets of customers.
Task 7: Samuel, but only just. Michelle had done really poorly, but she'd been decent on the past few tasks, whereas Samuel... hadn't, to put it lightly. Had multiple firings been allowed in this season, there probably would have been a legitimate case for them to both go.
Task 8: Difficult one, but I'm going to say Sharon since she seemed the least effective overall. Syed managed to put together a massively lucrative deal, which Tuan helped out with, and Paul sold more than Tuan or Sharon did.
Task 9: Tuan. He didn't rent out a single thing, and even he admitted it was time for him to go.
Task 10: Syed, if for no other reason than the fact that he suggested rigging that raffle when they lost the tickets. Other than that he did a really poor job overall in leading the task, and Ruth's major mistake (buying too much champagne) wasn't really the reason why they lost.
Task 11: Michelle and Ansell. Ansell for failing to prove himself as a leader, and Michelle because despite his arrogance in the interviews, I actually think Paul did quite a bit better over the whole course of the series.
Task 12: Ruth deserved to win. End of.
When I first saw it I thought Syed, but I think that was more due to personality than anything. At this point I think I agree with you about Samuel. I think that Ben could have gone a bit further than he did. I think that what clinched it for Ben was because he tried to use the fact that he stepped up to be PM on Task 1 in his favour, when in fact he didn't - he was nominated by Ansell, but tried to avoid it by asking someone to be chosen at random, and then ended up being the person randomly chosen anyway. I did feel sorry for him though, because I don't think that there was any way that the boys could have won that, with the girls' tactics being what they were.
I agree that Nargis was the right person to be fired, but I don't entirely agree with your reasoning. I didn't think that her management of the team was actually as dreadful as people remember - she got the team behind her, she managed to remain very calm and not panic about things and she seemed quite organised. I also didn't think that the cat decision was necessarily a bad one - they went for that because the market research showed that cat calendars sold. They didn't have relevance to Great Ormond Street Hospital, but I disagree with Sir Alan when he says that by March you've forgotten why you've bought it - by that stage, the customer has already paid for it and the money has done its job, so it makes no difference if the customer remembers it afterwards. The really big issue with the calendar was not the cats, but the fact that you couldn't use it as a calendar - the dates were shoved into the bottom, and as Michelle said, you couldn't use it to remember when your grandma's birthday is or anything. I thought that the two big mistakes that Nargis made were not listening to Michelle's point about the dates, and obviously the appalling pitches, and for those things she did deserve to be fired. But overall, I didn't think that her management style was that bad, and the cat pictures were so much nicer than the boys' baby pictures. If the dates were laid out in a more conventional style, and if they'd had someone like Ruth doing the pitches, I think they would have had a very good chance of beating the boys.
I also have no issue with Nargis' boardroom choice. Jo made some good points, but didn't articulate them very well and her emotional manner slowed the team down. Whilst Nargis did the pitches, Karen was the one who wrote them. Neither Karen nor Jo deserved to go on that task, but I can't see any reason why Michelle, Ruth, Sharon or Alexa should have been in the boardroom in their place. I thought they were the right people to bring back.
This is a difficult one. Jo was the one who was responsible for the failure of the task, no doubt about it, and if it's just on task performance she did deserve to go. However, I think that Sir Alan could tell that Karen was just not the person for him. It's a job interview, and I think it's like that sometimes with interviewers - there can be someone in front on you who may not have many definable flaws, but for whatever reason you just know that they aren't right for you. The big mistake that Karen made was that she was so sure she was staying, she didn't bother to defend herself - this is boardroom suicide. Sir Alan likes people to speak up for themselves, and if you don't you're not going to do very well, even if your performance wasn't too bad. WIth Karen, it was particularly important for her to make a good impression, because she'd already annoyed him in Week 1 with her tactics, and she'd been in the boardroom the previous week. He wasn't especially happy with her already, so when Alexa and Jo spoke up for themselves and Karen didn't, that was just the final straw.
I agree that both Alexa and Syed should have gone, but if I had to pick only one, I would have fired Syed over Alexa. I feel that Alexa delegated Syed quite a bit of responsibility, and his decisions were the ones that really lost the task - not specifying the weight of the chickens, blowing their budget on cheese etc. By the time Alexa realised how badly they'd messed up, it was too late, so she just had to focus on getting the job done. I appreciate that she was a pretty weak PM, but I felt that she'd drawn the short straw a bit, she did the best that she could and I think that she would have learned from the experience more than Syed. But if it could have been a double-firing, it should have been both of them, I agree.
Also, on the point of Syed's performance being strong the previous week - well it was, but I thought that Alexa's was as well. She was in the boardroom for being on the half of the team that didn't do so much, but she was definitely the strongest on her sub team. Out of herself, Karen and Jo, she was the only one who managed to complete a negotiation on a product and she did it smoothly and professionally. Also, in the chaotic opening to the task in the office, Alexa was pretty much the only person who brought any form of organisation to it. It's not focussed on much in the edit because of how Alexa ended up, but re-watch Task 3 and concentrate on her performance. I think she's pretty impressive.
I tend to agree with you on this. In addition to this point, he'd had a PM win the week before, but I feel that that was down mostly to the hard work of the girls and to the catastrophes that occurred on the other team.
I agree with this, but I'm glad that she was at least given the chance to redeem herself a little. The thing I find interesting about Jo is that the first time you watch it she's insufferably annoying, but whenever you re-watch it you just find her loveable. I compare myself to her a little bit actually. I'm really bouncy and bubbly like her in real life, and I wind people up entirely unintentionally.
I don't think Samuel could have got much further, but I also believe that Michelle should have gone. She made terrible mistakes as a PM, alienated Ruth and Ansell and sold less than the rest of the team, minus Samuel. On the other hand, I think Samuel had pretty much reached the end of the road, so this could have been another week for a double-firing - but between the two of them, I would say Michelle.
I think it was unfair to fire Sharon - although as you know, I saw a lot more potential in Sharon than you did, so I probably view her differently. I feel that her one negotiation went a lot better than Paul's, and the reason she didn't do more was because Paul demanded all but one of the negotiations for himself. I'm always undecided over Syed and Tuan. I take your point about how they would have lost by more if Syed hadn't gone to get that deal, but what annoys me is that he was dishonest - I'd have respected him more if he'd said, 'Yes, I knew we'd be late, but overall I thought we'd make more money by making that deal and getting the fine', but he claimed that they were late because there was an accident on the road (that could have been true, but it didn't appear to be from the edit.) Also, in the real business world, being late could cost a deal even if the person does well on the rest of it - Sir Alan brought up the example of an occasion that he lost a deal simply because they sent a courier who arrived late. Tuan did well in the final deal, but as you said he hadn't shown himself much over all the weeks. I would have been happier with either of them being fired (if I had to choose one I'd go with Syed because he'd already had a few past scrapes) but not Sharon. I didn't think that one was fair.
Entirely agree with you, for every reason you've said.
It was definitely his time to go. It would have been a shambles if Ruth had gone, even worse than the Miriam decision. I didn't think that either of them were that brilliant in the boardroom though. They defended themselves well, but they talked over one another all the time, and I don't think that's the way. I prefer people who are able to defend themselves eloquently and leave no doubt in the other person's mind, but can also remain calm and in control of their emotions. As everyone here knows, I took a particular liking to Zara right from the off, and the reason for this was because there are certain personality traits that I very much admire in people - which include emotional control, level-headedness and eloquence with speech - and she managed to incorporate all those things utterly down to a tee. Being like Syed and Ruth is better than being like Karen and not defending oneself at all, but there is a way that I prefer. But that's just personal opinion.
I agree with this. I would have actually fired Michelle first and then Paul, because Paul at least had been an extremely strong task performer.
Entirely unfair that Ruth did not win. But I think that Sir Alan learned his lesson with Michelle (and to an extent with Syed) and he has never listened to sob stories again.
Thank you, George!
It's not a firing I feel strongly about in any case - Samuel saying he wasn't a salesman that early meant he wasn't going to win by any stretch of the imagination and I will admit I didn't actively think he caused the team to lose (They didn't do much wrong altogether - it was more the women's strategy that killed their chances) At this stage, I thought that he hadn't shown anything, whilst Ben hadn't been an appalling manager and I thought he had done well enough to deserve a second chance. With the benefit of hindsight, I may actually change my mind, because, as you'll see later, I rated Samuel a lot more on a second viewing.
(I had to shorten the quote due to the word limit!)
I was aware you quite liked Nargis as we've brushed over this firing in the past. I will certainly accept the point that as a manager of people she didn't seem that bad, but she messed up the task in so many ways, I don't think there was any question of anyone else going. I agree that the main problem with the calendar was the practicality of it, but I do think the cats also made a difference. A major problem was that it was a charity task and the whole point of the task was to raise money for Great Ormond Street. The problem with the calendar is that it had no reference to Great Ormond Street whatsoever. It completely missed the point of the task. Going for cats was a huge part of missing the Great Ormond Street mark.
Actually, in hindsight, I didn't think that Nargis did THAT poorly at PMing. As you say, most of the girls were behind her and she did have a vision (One that was didn't really come off at all) that she stuck to and pulled off. However, I thought her management of Jo was poor; she didn't stamp her authority well enough, she didn't control her enough in the early stages and she didn't stop and think if Jo might have had a point.
As for the pitches, well, I thought she deserved to go for that alone. There is no way she should have headed up the pitches when she had had no experience in that area. Yes, if Ruth or Karen had done the pitches, the result may have been different, but... they didn't. And that decision was in Nargis's hands. I think, in terms of her boardroom choices, Karen was the right choice (For the poor copy writing) but for being right all task and getting on well with the task, I don't think Jo deserved to be there.
I think we should be judging on the task basis, though. By that logic, there is no question that Jo should have gone. She cost her team victory in the first two hours by waffling on and wasting time. Plus, her sub-team only got two items! Neither of which Jo negotiated for. Karen should have spoken up and she should have recognised that Jo wasn't just going to get automatically fired, but I do think there was an element of Lord Sugar asking Jo and Alexa's opinion and not Karen's. This isn't to say I overly liked Karen, but on this occasion, I found her firing pretty harsh.
But Alexa was an economics student and the PM on this task. I agree that Syed was the one who completely sunk the task for them, but I don't even think it occurred to Alexa to keep an eye on the budget or the purchasing of stock. Plus, iirc, Alexa was in the car when Syed made the order and her economic instincts should have had the alarm bells ringing. I disagree quite strongly that Alexa deserved to survive in any circumstance. She had just been through 3 weeks of doing almost nothing (I think the only exception was the negotiation in Week 3) and had a make or break week and she failed dismally. Syed had actually been a decent contributor thus far and I thought he had been a very decent PM (And even better performer) in Week 3. Alexa, by contrast had no leadership skills whatsoever. Honestly, I think she's a lovely person; one of the nicest ever to appear on the show, but she was just not cut out for business and especially not this show.
As for Week 3, I know she did complete a negotiation, but she tried for ages to not actually do that one and (With a complete awareness that it looks like I'm being a bit unfair here) I thought she had a very easy and flexible person to negotiate with. Far more than Syed, who pulled off two excellent deals in that task (With the lobsters) I didn't notice Alexa trying to make the girls more structured in the start, but next time I watch the episode, I'll keep an eye out. I am conscious, though that you saw a lot more in Alexa than I did and I saw a lot more in Syed than you did, so I don't think we'll ever agree on this one!
I had actually not really taken into account the poor PM performance, but that's a good point actually, he was a really weak candidate overall. Incidentally, this is the main task where I was hugely impressed with Samuel. He was the main driver of the execution of the concept and I thought his pitch was impressive.
I agree she deserved to go on the task and, actually I agree on Jo as a whole. I see people refer to her as one of the most incompetent candidates ever, but I think that's grossly unfair. She had some business sense and did generally quite well on a few tasks (Week 5 and returning for the final probably the best examples).
100% agree on Michelle. But, as I've indicated quite a few times, I don't think Samuel should have been fired at this point. There were two main elements to the task, imo. Marketing offers and dress choices. I think that most other elements to the task were pretty irrelevant, particularly selling as if people like the dresses, they'll buy them. Michelle got BOTH sections of the task horribly wrong. She didn't even think about marketing beyond a bottle of water and, of course, she cut her selling force by 25% by wasting half the day in the VIP Room (The Worst marketing idea on the entire task). As for the dress choices, well Samuel got them completely right and neither Ruth, nor Michelle listened. She performed terribly on task and deserved to go and, for my money, as I really rated him, I thought Sam deserved one more chance.
We've discussed this one to death, I think, so I don't think I'll say much as you know my opinion by know. However, what I will say is that Sharon was always complaining about how she was under-utilized throughout the entire process and I just thought she had no initiative. She'd try to perform in the task if she "felt she was being utilized" Otherwise, she just wasn't interested. Look at how she sulks in response to Tuan not going for her dress choices in Week 7, for example or how she unprofessionally walked out on the meeting in Week 4. She SHOULD have realised that she needed to take more of a lead on the sales and she should have taken them for herself or at least to split them 50:50. To just accept Paul taking them and then complain after the task that she didn't get the opportunity just isn't good enough for me.
As for Syed, he used up a lot of time chasing this one big deal, which I actually really admire him for. It was an innovative strategy that really paid off. I know he lied, which I wasn't impressed with, but it isn't an automatic firing for me. For the way he essentially pretty well won the task for Invicta, on this occasion, I don't think he did a poor job and certainly not a fire-worthy one. In regards to Tuan, Syed is the type of person who usually hogs the credit for himself, so when he says Tuan did well on the deal, I'm inclined to believe him. I thought Tuan was better than the edit showed, but I'll go into it in more detail on the next week.
It was Tuan's time to go; no doubt about it. He needed to prove he could sell quite well and he just didn't do that at all. However, I do think he was a better candidate than he gets credit for. I think that he has great skills in planning and organisation. On BOTH occasions he PMed, I think that as a PM, he did a good job. He planned out the task well on each occasion and executed it effectively (Certainly PMed better than Michelle the first time around) I personally found the poor salesman arguments a loss leader as he had done well on several tasks (He actually sold REALLY well on the Car task, but the edit gave him NO credit at all) I thought his planning skills were unmatched in the series. Sadly, watching him in the boardroom, he was completely incompatible with Sir Alan. Sir Alan doesn't appreciate the planners as much and he likes articulate straight-talkers (Syed and Ruth are perfect examples) A lot of the time, I thought Tuan made quite a few good points in the boardroom, but he just articulated them horrifically. However, I thought he deserved better than the edit made him out to be.
I don't think it would have been worse than Miriam as I don't think this was Ruth's best task by a long shot. I think she hid herself in sales for much of it and she didn't do any of the organisation parts of the task. In addition, she did make the issue of buying too much stuff and not keeping an eye on costs and, regardless of what she said to Syed, she wasn't confident enough about the rules and she should have checked. However, I agree that she shouldn't have been fired; at the very least because she outperformed him at every turn prior to this one.
As for Syed's performance, I only say this because it was the only occasion all series that Ruth got rattled by anyone in the boardroom. It was the only occasion she came across worse and looked like she was hiding something. Yes, it was partly because of Syed being rude, but they were all a part of a decent boardroom strategy that very nearly paid off. I think he was close to surviving that episode and I agreed with him when he said that had it been head to head between him and any other candidate remaining, bar Ruth, he would have survived.
I would have fired Paul first, because his interview performance was truly atrocious (Only worse one in the first six series was Alex Wotherspoon imo) and the ugly side of his personality really came out that day. Michelle shouldn't have been anywhere near the final though and she only got through, as I've argued earlier, because Sir Alan liked her personally and saw himself in her! Ruth was an obvious one and the only qualm with Ansell was the fact that he had an 0-1 PM record, but as he had done decently enough as a sub-team leader in other tasks, a final appearance would have been fair, imo.
Entirely agree on BOTH performance up to date and final task performance. Ruth was so superior in that final task (With an arguably worse team, don't forget), it wasn't even funny.
Personally, as someone from the first hour, I actually thought that Michelle was a very deserving winner. For me she was a more competent version of Stella English (for the younger viewers amongst us).
I mean when people are rooting instead for Ansell to be in the final (the original Lohit...........and yes, I did have to look up his name
Looking back at it, this was probably one of the weakest series in terms of candidates (besides the ones I mentioned, none of them would survive very far in the later series on BBC 1).
Personally, I found both Lohit and Ansell to be very strong - stronger, indeed, than the winners of that series. However, I do appreciate that you saw something in Sharon, because I actually did rate her. In fact, I'd say she was the third strongest in that series, after Ruth and Ansell.
I seem to have a habit of rating certain individuals who the majority of viewers don't see anything in...
I don't think there is that much point in discussing this one, as it's an episode I can never make up my mind on. I knew from the first episode that Samuel wasn't going to win, I was very unlikely to grow to like Syed, and that I felt sorry for Ben but he didn't exactly deserve to stay either.
I didn't suggest that anyone other than Nargis should have gone, I just didn't think she was as bad as you were making out - she wasn't 'virtually awful in every way', as you said. And as I said, I thought that the cats were actually quite a good idea. They weren't relevant to Great Ormond Street, but when selling something for charity I don't think that the thing itself necessarily has to be relevant. Overall, so long as it doesn't actively contradict the cause, the idea should be about raising the most money. I thought that the girls' cat pictures looked really fantastic, and the calendar didn't have the 'desktop publishing' contradiction that the boys' one was criticised for. Remember that the boys only won because Gary Beck at Calendar Club liked it and ordered loads. Neither of the other retailers were at all interested in that one, though they ordered the girls' one. A lot of people buy things because it appeals to them and not because of the money going to charity, and overall I think that the girls' calendar was more appealing to the average consumer, therefore more likely to make money in less time for GOSH.
Also, Jo may have made a reasonable point (though as I said, I don't necessarily agree with what she said) but I felt that her manner slowed the team down. If she'd raised her concerns and left it at that I'd have respected her for it, but she went on and on about it after the decision had been made. This meant that Nargis had to spend more time on her than everything else, which was time that she could have spent improving other things, such as the style of the dates, for example.
I see your point, and I suppose there is an argument that we should be judging on task basis. But at the same time, I can also see it from Sir Alan's perspective. He liked Jo - she'd messed up that task, but he likes people who have a bit of spirit like that, and she'd done well on the previous task. He hadn't entirely made up his mind about Alexa yet, but she'd made a good point that she hadn't really shown him that much yet, and she wanted to be a PM. At that time, either of them seemed like that could potentially be a prospect for him. Faced with two people who he wanted to see more of, I can understand why he chose to lose Karen, who he'd basically already decided he wasn't going to employ.
I didn't think Alexa was a good team leader - she made some big mistakes that you have highlighted, and for that she did undoubtedly deserve to go. The only thing is that I think Syed deserved to go even more than she did. Whilst Alexa was a very poor PM for that task, she had a forthrightness and honesty to her that Syed didn't have, and as I said, I think she'd have learned from it more than he would. Which isn't to say that I think that she deserved to stay - if it could have been a double-firing I'd absolutely support losing both of them, but on balance I think Syed had shown by this point that he couldn't be trusted, and I think it was unfair for him to stay, even over Alexa. Alexa could easily have been fired at the next opportunity unless she vastly improved. But I appreciate that it's a very grey area - I just think he was more at fault than her.
It's interesting how much you rated Samuel. I never did really. He was reasonably efficient, but I just saw him as Raj or Sebastian mark II - not a direct hindrance, but not a particular asset either. Having said that, I would have fired Michelle over him because she was a direct hindrance - but she defended herself well enough in the boardroom, and Samuel didn't really have a leg to stand on. I don't think he was ever going to win. His repeated assertions that he wasn't a salesman really didn't endear him. On You're Fired!, Adrian Chiles joked that he could imagine Samuel going to become a footballer and saying, 'I'm not that good at kicking the ball...'
You're right, there isn't that much point us debating this one. All I can say is that I actually really rated Sharon - I won't deny that she did complain a lot, but overall I don't think that got in the way of the workload. In Task 7 for example, she was the one who the Topshop people were the most impressed by. I think it's a shame that she didn't get a better PM job. If she'd been PM on Tasks 5 or 7 (both of which the PMs were chosen for) I think she'd have proven herself a lot more. I suppose it's a similar thing to you rating Samuel - I didn't see much in him, but there have always been people who don't show much in the edit that as viewers we actually really respect.
I think it would have been worse than Miriam not so much because of this task, but because of how strong Ruth was generally and how many close shaves Syed had had already. In general, I slightly rate Ruth over Miriam and Syed less than Paul Torrisi, because Ruth is one of the best performers ever in the whole history of the show, and whilst I think Syed and Paul are quite similar, Paul did have some degree of honesty to him that Syed didn't have. Overall, I think keeping him over Ruth would have been even worse than keeping Paul over Miriam, but more across the whole process than just that task.
Paul's interview was atrocious, but he was a good task performer, and I think it would have been nice to fire him second just out of respect for that, and for the fact that at that time he was the only person to get through all the tasks and never be in the final boardroom (he's still one of only two people who can say that). You have to have respect for good task performance even if someone isn't right for you - with the exception of Jordan Poulton, because he knowingly broke the rules when applying for the show, so anything else was irrelevant.
I wouldn't say that Ruth had a worse team. Michelle had people who were arguably good on an individual basis, but she chose pretty much the worst combination possible, as that group of individuals really did not gel. (Michelle later said that this hadn't occurred to her - she chose her team on an individual basis, and it was only afterwards that she thought, 'Oh dear, this group doesn't really like each other, does it?') But no doubt, Ruth should have won.
Well, I am an Apprentice fan of the first hour but while I can remember how they (Lohit and Ansell) looked like, I couldn't put a name to them (and I remember Noorul, Alex Epstein, Dan, Geri or even Anita).
Yes, I did like Sharon, but not that much (she was clearly weaker then Michelle, for starters). Not helped by her temper at times.
Lohit was consistently strong, but was given a horrible edit - he barely featured. I think the only person who got a worse edit deal in the show's history was Patrick from YA3 (who I think had a lot of talent actually, but the show entirely glossed over anything good he did, while really playing up any flaws he had.) I think Ansell was pretty consistently strong though, apart from a few bad weeks, like his one attempt at PMship. Right from Episode 1, he came across as the strongest male.