Lucy and Ashleigh have to win!

P_PP_P Posts: 18,497
Forum Member
✭✭
Or we'll have Patrick and Maria as the final two :eek: :sleep:
«1

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 304
    Forum Member
    Yep. I'm hoping that was tactical of Alan to get rid of the two most annoying contestants.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 6,076
    Forum Member
    Ashleigh annoys me every bit as much as Maria does really. She's not as abrasive in her approach but the kids club task proved she's every bit as stubborn.
    As for Patrick he'll either be hopeless or stun us with brilliance this week. (I'm thinking the former)
    Lucy has shown some promise.
    To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't want to part with my money for any of them this year, they've not been the best bunch. I think LS got rid of some promising candidates too early on.
  • circlebro2019circlebro2019 Posts: 17,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    ashleigh is not a worthy competitot imo

    should be lucy vs maria with lucy winning

    edit-oh i see what you mean
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    Yep. I'm hoping that was tactical of Alan to get rid of the two most annoying contestants.

    If it is, it could hugely backfire, if Patrick and Maria win.
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Um, guys, you do realise that this Thursday's episode is the final? It's not just about which team wins - we will discover the winner this week. I'm guessing it's been set up so that we have a final two in the boardroom of Lucy and Ashleigh. It's easy enough to manipulate the outcome of this final task - just as it always has been, as there is no quantifiable result, it's just a matter of opinion and the episode can be episode accordingly.
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    Um, guys, you do realise that this Thursday's episode is the final? It's not just about which team wins - we will discover the winner this week. I'm guessing it's been set up so that we have a final two in the boardroom of Lucy and Ashleigh. It's easy enough to manipulate the outcome of this final task - just as it always has been, as there is no quantifiable result, it's just a matter of opinion and the episode can be episode accordingly.

    I don't think that's fair. Why make two people believe that they're in with a chance if they are actually not? If they don't want them to win fair enough, but why let them leave their families and put everything into the tasks if it's already decided that they're not going to?
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I don't think that's fair. Why make two people believe that they're in with a chance if they are actually not? If they don't want them to win fair enough, but why let them leave their families and put everything into the tasks if it's already decided that they're not going to?
    I agree it's not fair - but that's life. But at the same time you have to figure that by now Sugar has formed a view of who he thinks the strongest candidate is. The final task MAY have some influence on his final decision, but his mind is surely 90% made up by now?
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    I agree it's not fair - but that's life. But at the same time you have to figure that by now Sugar has formed a view of who he thinks the strongest candidate is. The final task MAY have some influence on his final decision, but his mind is surely 90% made up by now?

    It's fine if his mind is 90% made up if there are only two candidates on the final task, because when that happens, the final task doesn't necessarily have any bearing on who wins. If there are four people in the final task, the losing team is fired and from the winning team, a winner is chosen from the two. What we're effectively saying is that if he's chosen one person he wants to win out of the four, the final task might be rigged so that the team with the person he wants to give the prize to wins. If that's the case, that makes me really angry. It is grossly unfair to let two people (presumably Patrick and Maria) think that they're in with a chance if they're not... why not just fire them in the semi-final, and have a Lucy v Ashleigh final?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 304
    Forum Member
    It's fine if his mind is 90% made up if there are only two candidates on the final task, because when that happens, the final task doesn't necessarily have any bearing on who wins. If there are four people in the final task, the losing team is fired and from the winning team, a winner is chosen from the two. What we're effectively saying is that if he's chosen one person he wants to win out of the four, the final task might be rigged so that the team with the person he wants to give the prize to wins. If that's the case, that makes me really angry. It is grossly unfair to let two people (presumably Patrick and Maria) think that they're in with a chance if they're not... why not just fire them in the semi-final, and have a Lucy v Ashleigh final?

    Because it's a T.V programme.
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    Because it's a T.V programme.

    What difference does that make? They've had the final task featuring two people before, why does having four make a TV show better?
  • thenetworkbabethenetworkbabe Posts: 45,554
    Forum Member
    It's fine if his mind is 90% made up if there are only two candidates on the final task, because when that happens, the final task doesn't necessarily have any bearing on who wins. If there are four people in the final task, the losing team is fired and from the winning team, a winner is chosen from the two. What we're effectively saying is that if he's chosen one person he wants to win out of the four, the final task might be rigged so that the team with the person he wants to give the prize to wins. If that's the case, that makes me really angry. It is grossly unfair to let two people (presumably Patrick and Maria) think that they're in with a chance if they're not... why not just fire them in the semi-final, and have a Lucy v Ashleigh final?

    But thats what he did last year. He just got the numbers down to 2 in the SF - with a task that was pretty arbitary who won. This year that SF is stage one of the final.

    We don't know what he's thinking. The last task looks like a test of Maria and Patrick's ability to design/pick and market fashion items. But if its to test them and pick one of them to win , how did they know who would be in the last task in time to prepare it ?

    There's also the problem that we don't know what Lucy and Ashleigh are offering. Is it cakes from Lucy. Does he like cakes? We have been given no idea what Ashleigh has on offer. Is it fashion too? He wouldn't want a final where he ended up with two James's begging for money for their university fees, or one where both business proposals were silly - so how important is that? Has everyone got a proposal he can live with, and if not, how can he fix who gets to the final 2 anyway ?
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's fine if his mind is 90% made up if there are only two candidates on the final task, because when that happens, the final task doesn't necessarily have any bearing on who wins. If there are four people in the final task, the losing team is fired and from the winning team, a winner is chosen from the two. What we're effectively saying is that if he's chosen one person he wants to win out of the four, the final task might be rigged so that the team with the person he wants to give the prize to wins. If that's the case, that makes me really angry. It is grossly unfair to let two people (presumably Patrick and Maria) think that they're in with a chance if they're not... why not just fire them in the semi-final, and have a Lucy v Ashleigh final?
    There are a lot of unknowns and at this stage we're just speculating. But the fact it *is* a TV programme does make a difference. Last year there was a lot of complaining that six became two so abruptly in the semi, so I guess this was a response to that. And as is pointed out above, it makes more sense if you view the final two episodes as a two-part final.

    But the reality is the final is always "riggable". In both young and adult versions, the final is always judged in a subjective way - it is not about sales or profit or orders - which has always given Sugar the latitude to justify his own choice of winner. (And the programme is then edited in such a way as to justify his choice.) At least this way Sugar ends up with a winner he believes he can invest in, rather than who wins an arbitrary task.

    It's the same as with any job interview process. You can put candidates through psychometric tests and scoring matrices and all other sort of stuff, but in the end it is still a subjective decision, albeit one informed by data. Is that "fair"? You can argue it both ways, I think.
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    But thats what he did last year. He just got the numbers down to 2 in the SF - with a task that was pretty arbitary who won. This year that SF is stage one of the final.
    There are a lot of unknowns and at this stage we're just speculating. But the fact it *is* a TV programme does make a difference. Last year there was a lot of complaining that six became two so abruptly in the semi, so I guess this was a response to that. And as is pointed out above, it makes more sense if you view the final two episodes as a two-part final.

    I didn't actually have a problem with six candidates becoming two last year, and I don't think that was what annoyed so many people. What annoyed me was the way that they were chosen. He should have just told them from the start that however well each team did, all six of them would be in the final, where four of them would be fired. That would have given him the choice of who to fire. It made no sense for three out of the four to be chosen based purely on one task. But if he wanted to fire four, that's not a problem to me.
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I didn't actually have a problem with six candidates becoming two last year, and I don't think that was what annoyed so many people. What annoyed me was the way that they were chosen. He should have just told them from the start that however well each team did, all six of them would be in the final, where four of them would be fired. That would have given him the choice of who to fire. It made no sense for three out of the four to be chosen based purely on one task. But if he wanted to fire four, that's not a problem to me.
    Agreed. It was not so much the "what" as the "how" that was most annoying.
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    Agreed. It was not so much the "what" as the "how" that was most annoying.

    Although having said that, I don't think changing the format would have made that much difference to the overall result. I still think Harry M, Haya and Lizzie would have been fired. Harry H might have got into the final over James, but I still reckon Zara would have won, she just had something about her...
  • TXF0429TXF0429 Posts: 2,161
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    It's fine if his mind is 90% made up if there are only two candidates on the final task, because when that happens, the final task doesn't necessarily have any bearing on who wins. If there are four people in the final task, the losing team is fired and from the winning team, a winner is chosen from the two. What we're effectively saying is that if he's chosen one person he wants to win out of the four, the final task might be rigged so that the team with the person he wants to give the prize to wins. If that's the case, that makes me really angry. It is grossly unfair to let two people (presumably Patrick and Maria) think that they're in with a chance

    The final task never had any bearing on who won until Series 7. That's why I prefer the business plan grilling, as the final task actually means something. I'm sure someone who watches the Apprentice as closely as you is aware that in the first two years, the candidate who made the least amount of money in the final was ultimately hired.

    This year, LS clearly dislikes Patrick. As a result, I'll be staggered if they win the task on Thursday. Business Plans are brilliant because a candidate that has been amazing up until then (e.g. Nick Holzherr) can crash and burn, whilst it can make other candidates (e.g. Ricky Martin)
    if they're not... why not just fire them in the semi-final, and have a Lucy v Ashleigh final?

    Because they were on different teams and it would have looked horribly like favoritism from LS.
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Although having said that, I don't think changing the format would have made that much difference to the overall result. I still think Harry M, Haya and Lizzie would have been fired. Harry H might have got into the final over James, but I still reckon Zara would have won, she just had something about her...
    I admit I underestimated Zara last year, but no question she was an impressive, determined and focussed young lady who had a clear plan how she would invest Sugar's £25k. A worthy winner.

    Oddly, I was one of the few people who thought Harry M had something about him. Yes, he rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way and committed some howlers, but he had tremendous perseverance when selling and wasn't afraid to go for big ideas. He had much more entrepreneurial spirit than, say, Haya, although she was certainly a stronger all-round candidate.

    It's for similar reasons I don't rate Ashleigh. She can certainly manage to a budget very effectively - and that in itself is a valuable management skill - but she is just as abrupt as Maria is and I have yet to see her have any actual ideas yet beyond "keep it cheap". Cost-cutting is not really part of the entrepreneur's mantra ...

    Having said that, she'll probably win now, so what do I know? :o
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    I admit I underestimated Zara last year, but no question she was an impressive, determined and focussed young lady who had a clear plan how she would invest Sugar's £25k. A worthy winner.

    Oddly, I was one of the few people who thought Harry M had something about him. Yes, he rubbed a lot of people up the wrong way and committed some howlers, but he had tremendous perseverance when selling and wasn't afraid to go for big ideas. He had much more entrepreneurial spirit than, say, Haya, although she was certainly a stronger all-round candidate.

    It's for similar reasons I don't rate Ashleigh. She can certainly manage to a budget very effectively - and that in itself is a valuable management skill - but she is just as abrupt as Maria is and I have yet to see her have any actual ideas yet beyond "keep it cheap". Cost-cutting is not really part of the entrepreneur's mantra ...

    Having said that, she'll probably win now, so what do I know? :o

    Harry M was bright, but I really didn't like him. I thought he was very smug, and was very convinced his ideas were right. I've read a couple of his blogs on this series, but I don't like them, he just really annoys me and rubs me up the wrong way. He didn't deserve not to have a win, but I also don't think he deserved to get as far as Week 7.

    I really liked both Haya and Lizzie, but I don't think either were impressive enough to have won the show.
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Harry M was bright, but I really didn't like him. I thought he was very smug, and was very convinced his ideas were right. I've read a couple of his blogs on this series, but I don't like them, he just really annoys me and rubs me up the wrong way. He didn't deserve not to have a win, but I also don't think he deserved to get as far as Week 7.

    I really liked both Haya and Lizzie, but I don't think either were impressive enough to have won the show.
    That's fair enough. As I said, he certainly rubbed people up the wrong way but I thought there was a spark of entrepreneurial talent there - albeit one with a lot of rough edges that needed knocking off.

    I liked Haya and Lizzie too. They may not have made the final, but I thought they were both good role models for other kids to aspire to. This year there just don't seem to be as many positive role models.
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    That's fair enough. As I said, he certainly rubbed people up the wrong way but I thought there was a spark of entrepreneurial talent there - albeit one with a lot of rough edges that needed knocking off.

    I liked Haya and Lizzie too. They may not have made the final, but I thought they were both good role models for other kids to aspire to. This year there just don't seem to be as many positive role models.

    That's exactly what I thought! Last year, I thought Harry H, James, Zara, Haya, Lizzie and even Hayley were really strong, and would have made great winners. This year there doesn't seem to be that. If Andrew, Patrick and Maria had gone earlier, and Sean, Alice and Navdeep had stayed longer, we would have had a much better final six.

    Having said that, I think Patrick is better than we give him credit for, I think he may impress next week.
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Having said that, I think Patrick is better than we give him credit for, I think he may impress next week.
    Agreed, although I am assuming that because he had *such* a bad edit in the first two weeks that there is no way he can possibly win. Even more so than in the grown-up version - no doubt partly because it is a shorter series so you can't allow a longer narrative to unfold - the winner has always had a favourable edit all the way through, with nothing more than minor wobbles. Arjun and Zara were never made to look weak at any point.

    On that basis, Lucy looks to be the strongest in terms of the way the candidates have been presented thus far - I've been backing her since week three - although I will also say that, while she has had some consistently good showings, she hasn't really had a *wow* moment yet. None of them have, really - I think that's why I've been relatively disappointed with this year's candidates. The focus has been much more on their academic and general knowledge deficiencies, which seems very odd to me given that one of the aims of the show is to showcase and promote the role young people can play in business.
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    Agreed, although I am assuming that because he had *such* a bad edit in the first two weeks that there is no way he can possibly win. Even more so than in the grown-up version - no doubt partly because it is a shorter series so you can't allow a longer narrative to unfold - the winner has always had a favourable edit all the way through, with nothing more than minor wobbles. Arjun and Zara were never made to look weak at any point.

    On that basis, Lucy looks to be the strongest in terms of the way the candidates have been presented thus far - I've been backing her since week three - although I will also say that, while she has had some consistently good showings, she hasn't really had a *wow* moment yet. None of them have, really - I think that's why I've been relatively disappointed with this year's candidates. The focus has been much more on their academic and general knowledge deficiencies, which seems very odd to me given that one of the aims of the show is to showcase and promote the role young people can play in business.

    A longer narrative can play out in the Young series... what about James last year? He may not have won, but came very close. In Week 1 he appeared to be incredibly annoying and not very clever, and by the end he was amazing and a credible finalist. The same goes for Susan in Series 7... I thought in the early weeks she had quite a bad edit, but gradually became pretty strong. And in that series, Helen had the best edit out of everyone, and yet didn't win.

    I suppose you're right about none of the finalists having a 'wow' moment yet... maybe someone will in the next task, which will clinch the winner.
  • slouchingthatchslouchingthatch Posts: 2,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    A longer narrative can play out in the Young series... what about James last year? He may not have won, but came very close. In Week 1 he appeared to be incredibly annoying and not very clever, and by the end he was amazing and a credible finalist. The same goes for Susan in Series 7... I thought in the early weeks she had quite a bad edit, but gradually became pretty strong. And in that series, Helen had the best edit out of everyone, and yet didn't win.

    I suppose you're right about none of the finalists having a 'wow' moment yet... maybe someone will in the next task, which will clinch the winner.
    James made one error in the first task (pricing too low) and had a bit of a set-to with Mahamed (arguably a good thing), but although he was still quite outspoken he improved quite rapidly after that, didn't he? He certainly made several positive contributions en route to the final, including two wins as PM. But yes, I think it's fair to say he had something of a turnaround.

    Patrick seems to have had a much more negative edit and hasn't really done anything (that we've been shown) to turn things around, other than nod quite a lot and avoid the spotlight. (Okay, he was PM last week, but even though he won it was hardly a roaring success.)

    Susan wasn't the most amenable personality and had a habit of putting her foot in her mouth - "do the French love their children?" - but she was also clearly hugely determined and had an interesting business in a market which Sugar has operated in himself. I thought she was very investable, but a bit too rough round the edges to be the winner of the show.

    Oddly enough, I didn't think Helen's edit was the most favourable - although it was fair. She was clearly a very capable organiser and that came through strongly, but I never warmed to her. I think she would always have been portrayed as a good project person, simply because she clearly was.

    On the other hand, Tom's edit WAS favourable. It would have been all too easy not to show any of his wise observations about what would/wouldn't work in a task, or to show him as being unable to make himself heard or generally being a bit ineffectual as a leader. But all his failings were gently glossed over, and the fact that the producers made sure they showed a little favourable snippet of him every week flagged him up as a potential winner from day 1, although it took a lot of people a long time to realise it. Knowing he was an inventor (and therefore highly investable), I had him tagged as my winner as early as the opening week, week two at latest. But if he had been excluded early on, he would have been presented very differently.

    Mind you, I guess you can say the same for any candidate who goes in the first 2-3 weeks. The producers have to focus on the reasons they get fired rather than any positive contributions, so they always end up being portrayed as utter muppets. (Of course, one suspects that many of the early casualties are actually utter muppets anyway ...)
  • george.millmangeorge.millman Posts: 8,628
    Forum Member
    James made one error in the first task (pricing too low) and had a bit of a set-to with Mahamed (arguably a good thing), but although he was still quite outspoken he improved quite rapidly after that, didn't he? He certainly made several positive contributions en route to the final, including two wins as PM. But yes, I think it's fair to say he had something of a turnaround.

    Patrick seems to have had a much more negative edit and hasn't really done anything (that we've been shown) to turn things around, other than nod quite a lot and avoid the spotlight. (Okay, he was PM last week, but even though he won it was hardly a roaring success.)

    Susan wasn't the most amenable personality and had a habit of putting her foot in her mouth - "do the French love their children?" - but she was also clearly hugely determined and had an interesting business in a market which Sugar has operated in himself. I thought she was very investable, but a bit too rough round the edges to be the winner of the show.

    Oddly enough, I didn't think Helen's edit was the most favourable - although it was fair. She was clearly a very capable organiser and that came through strongly, but I never warmed to her. I think she would always have been portrayed as a good project person, simply because she clearly was.

    On the other hand, Tom's edit WAS favourable. It would have been all too easy not to show any of his wise observations about what would/wouldn't work in a task, or to show him as being unable to make himself heard or generally being a bit ineffectual as a leader. But all his failings were gently glossed over, and the fact that the producers made sure they showed a little favourable snippet of him every week flagged him up as a potential winner from day 1, although it took a lot of people a long time to realise it. Knowing he was an inventor (and therefore highly investable), I had him tagged as my winner as early as the opening week, week two at latest. But if he had been excluded early on, he would have been presented very differently.

    Mind you, I guess you can say the same for any candidate who goes in the first 2-3 weeks. The producers have to focus on the reasons they get fired rather than any positive contributions, so they always end up being portrayed as utter muppets. (Of course, one suspects that many of the early casualties are actually utter muppets anyway ...)

    It's interesting, I had Helen as my winner from Week 2, even though we hadn't seen so much of her from that stage. I looked out for her specifically, because she had a very distinctive picture on the website, and I thought she'd be a big character and someone I would hate, so I looked out for her. Then, every time they showed her, she appeared pleasant, personable and a very hard worker, and I thought she was great!

    I don't think Patrick has done anything overtly bad since the second week actually. We haven't seen much good from him either, but that could just be the edit. I think he could be a bit of a dark horse. I always have a bet with some friends on who will win the final of The Apprentice - a tenner each way - and I must be mad, but I think I will actually go for Patrick.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,543
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Agreed, although I am assuming that because he had *such* a bad edit in the first two weeks that there is no way he can possibly win. Even more so than in the grown-up version - no doubt partly because it is a shorter series so you can't allow a longer narrative to unfold - the winner has always had a favourable edit all the way through, with nothing more than minor wobbles. Arjun and Zara were never made to look weak at any point.

    On that basis, Lucy looks to be the strongest in terms of the way the candidates have been presented thus far - I've been backing her since week three - although I will also say that, while she has had some consistently good showings, she hasn't really had a *wow* moment yet. None of them have, really - I think that's why I've been relatively disappointed with this year's candidates. The focus has been much more on their academic and general knowledge deficiencies, which seems very odd to me given that one of the aims of the show is to showcase and promote the role young people can play in business.

    I know the shows are edited to produce a story line from hours of footage, however I don't buy this 'bad edit' business, at least definitely not regarding Patrick's first two weeks. There was no editing to make him look bad, he did it all himself. :p
Sign In or Register to comment.