I think what's most important is that you get caps of those icy glares in your blog Monkseal. I'm salivating at the thought of your recap already

Additionally, Stuart really had been a knob to Stella all through that task, sneering at her for writing things down and at her age. Her bitching back was human and likeable. Stella had never treated Liz in such a fashion during the task and only made criticisms directly relating to her performance in the boardroom.

Excellent post completely agree!

I thought monotone Chris (he of the lovely furry chest) was pretty foul about Stellla- gloating about taking her down a peg or two.

And love the bit where Liz declares about Laura- "She will be missed"

The same Laura who on the night of her miracle escape moaned "I know you all thought I should have gone thanks!"

Mean girl Liz.

I thought it was funny when Laura brought it up in the boardroom about how Stella didn't encourage Stubags. Stella said you didn't have to put up with him all day and that Stuart is Stuart - then you saw Lord Alan grin - he's not daft and could understand where Stella was coming from.

She could have laughed the whole matter away, but she took offence instead. Just like Liz.

Personally, I don't see why people make an excuse for Stella's behaviour. Personality wise they are equally bad (though at least Liz smiles once in a while), but for me Liz is a better candidate (though I can totally understand that people can't separate personality and talent).

Hate to say this, but Stubaggs probably has the best personality of all the candidates left in this process.

I watched it again and I have to say it does look that way too. You see Liz glance over at the camera to see if it is still rolling and then stares back at Stella, but with a cheeky little smirk at Stella as if to say we can relax and be buddies when the camera turns off.

It's not so much making excuses for Stella's behaviour as recognising that there's nothing whatsover wrong with Stella's behaviour that would need excuses made for it.

And frankly, she was pretty much laughing at Stuart sometimes - her comment at the champagne tasting, for instance.

Look, Stuart was offensive and rude to Stella for no reason and she responded to that with a little light bitching. Stella made fair and truthful criticisms of Liz's performance in a task in the boardroom (where these are necessary, legitimate and to be expected), and Liz responded with a spiteful attempt to humiliate her and set other contestants against her. To compare the two is delusional, nearly as delusional as thinking Stuart has the best personality of the remaining candidates.

I thought that was fair comment. Stella had been doing very well statistically, with 7 out of 8 wins including 2 as PM, and I don't think her talent reflects that. Indeed, she was probably better off to meet Lord Sugar now than at any later stage.

Exactly. If anything, Stella had more right to be aggrieved from what was said in the boardroom - both Liz and Laura were criticising her personally, saying she was too "wooden", etc. Stella merely made comments on Liz's management style.

Itself a fairly stupid comment.

Having a bunch of people behaving like overexcited teenagers makes good TV (and is excusable given the various pressures they are under) but in the real world, particularly at the level these people want to operate, calm professionalism is the order of the day.

This is why Joanna and Stella are the standout candidates in this forum's ranking. Calm heads with no really stupid mistakes.

It came across to me as bearing a grudge (not being able to let go of the age comment in the boardroom, who does that remind you of?).



Truthful She could only have truthfully criticised Liz´s haggling performance, except she wasn´t with her on the subteam to notice (so she had to attack her PM skills, which most people are not bringing into question on this task).

So, Liz was out to set people like Chris and Stuart against her Chronologically that doesn´t make sense, perhaps if they had shown the episodes out of sequence.



Sure, if you like to think that (though calling one delusional, does suggest that better arguments are far and away).

So, who has the best personality of the remaining candidates then?

I did think that Stella had far more cause to be huffy coming out of that Boardroom than Liz (and to be fair, she was quite huffy when she returned). Combined, Liz and Laura accused her of being cold, negative, "corporate" (as a negative), bullying Stubags and taking credit she didn't deserve. In turn, she said that Liz was a poor Project Manager on this task.

Liz lost my support after what she said , I'm hoping Stella wins!

It doesn't offhand remind me of anyone. Who does it remind you of?


Stella can make deductions from the overall performance of the team as to how Liz's sub-team performed. She might have got them wrong; we've seen she can make mistakes like that under pressure. But that isn't untruthful, and we saw ourselves that Liz didn't really bargain very well, though not as badly as Laura and Stella. Also, as PM, she failed to give the team any guidance as to what kind of discounts she expected them to get; a contrast to Jamie who did that, though he showed other flaws that Liz didn't.


Makes perfect sense. Why do you think it doesn't?


If you want specific criticisms of Stuart, he's rude, dictatorial and vain.

I'd say Stella to be honest. She was rude to Stuart, admittedly, but as a direct response to his own rudeness to her. We've never seen her treat anyone else at all badly.

We've also never seen Joanna behave badly, but my assessment of her as a person is coloured by knowledge of her criminal conviction.

Liz



Surely the subteam (with salesperson Laura) would be able to decide it for themselves (or contact their PM if they hadn´t got a clue)?

And I was talking about the PM style, as that was what the whole argument was about (not about the haggling).

Also, I was again reminded that this series the candidates are easily willing to let their teammates make mistakes which will get them fired (Joanna speaking to camera about Liz´s bargaining technique, yet saying nothing to her face about it and thus keeping the flaws alive and well).



Uhhmmm....because Stuart and Chris already disliked Stella

Also very interesting is the fact that Chris is rarely on Stella´s team,so his dislike must come from something else (unless he was still angry about the speech in task 2).




In that case you might as well say Liz (who has also been rude to one person in the house). Honestly, it is a bit stunning that Stella seems to alienate almost the whole house, yet according to people this is because they think she is a rival for the title


Well, she did shout to Melissa during task 1 in front of a big customer. But that is probably Melissa´s fault for being irritating (like Stubaggs).

How very fortunate for you that we have the gutter press to root around and inform everyone of spent convictions.

She didn't. Melissa was being very loud with her, but Joanna was not at all shouting back.

This argument is going in circles. You're comparing a delicate little jibe provoked by quite unnecessary rudeness to someone trying to embarrass someone by repeating perfectly reasonably framed arguments made when fighting for survival in the boardroom. And it's a comparison I can'see.


The sub-team, of course, can do that, but surely a good PM will give a general idea of what they want from them.

Some candidates have done that in every series - though we don't in fairness know everything that Joanna might have raised with Liz on the task.

[quote=Sherlock_Holmes;46259110]Uhhmmm....because Stuart and Chris already disliked Stella

Also very interesting is the fact that Chris is rarely on Stella´s team,so his dislike must come from something else (unless he was still angry about the speech in task 2)./QUOTE]

OK, then Liz wanted them to dislike her more.


I think Liz was spiteful, more than rude.

I wouldn't make any deductions from other people in the house not liking Stella. It could be because she's a pain, or it could be that they are. And based on what I've seen, I know which I feel is best supported by evidence.


As someone has pointed out, it was Melissa who started shouting. It was partly Joanna's fault for butting in on a sale, but I'd put that down to being over-keen rather than anything.

Why fortunate for me? I wasn't looking for things to bring up against Joanna, but now that I know about it, I can't un-know it, and it does affect the way I see her, spent or not.

No different at all and Stuart hadn't just targetted Stella for sacking in the boardroom. There's also the missing phone call issue which is extremely suspicious and where both sides can't be right, Laura had just gone too when Stella had made the biggest errors and Laura seemed popular.

I don't think Jaimie's great strategy was better. He set an arbitary percentage reduction target to start at - Liz told them to get everything for as little as possible. She shouldn't have had to point out what that meant and she did point out that price was key and ask for confirmation before anyone commited on a price to the most expensive item. The problem with percentages is that you might have done better than any percentage, the problem with not setting one is that some people forgot the importance of prices. Not sure his team used his figure either though. Their bigger problem was that none of them knew either the cost price or the buying average price of anything so they didn't know what to aim or settle for . The only really bad mistake we saw was buying truffles at twice the one price they had - with no real effort to buy below what the price was at all.

Can't stand Liz now, she reminds me of my boss too which doesn't help, just find her nasty and full of herself, hope she goes next.

If you're in the boardroom you have to target someone for firing. Sugar will specifically ask that question. To take it personally is silly. To take personally your PM sneering at you and belittling you during the task itself is another matter.

The question of the phone call is an odd one. It's clear though that Laura supported Stella's statement that they tried to call Liz. If the phone call hadn't been made, then this was surely something they both decided not to do, otherwise surely one would have dropped the other in it?

Overall I think Liz actually had a better strategy as PM than Jamie. Jamie was right IMO to give Chris and Stuart an idea of the kind of discounts he was looking for, but this was negated by his failing to take some time to plan at the start. As a result, the boys wasted lots of time chasing down false trails, whereas the girls, when they started their search, knew exactly what they were looking for.

I think one can become too obsessed with the truffle; there were failures on other items, notably the tartan. As a matter of fact, I think the big failure on the truffle was where they went for it rather than failure to negotiate on it. Laura was in fact right; a posh restuarant was not the right place to buy. Stella however became too bewitched by the supposed rarity of the item.