He was explaining why there wasn't much on his CV, namely, that since he was 21 at the time, he didn't have much of a career history. His mistake was writing "I am" instead of "I was", not getting his own age wrong. His age on the CV was 21.

And if you watch You're Fired - he says that he is 22 now... more than once.... and how much he has grown up in the intervening year (and Ed Byrne and Dara extracted the urine from him because of it

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_PEjBL--5g&NR=1

Steven Baggs interview, best place to start around 4:35

That's one of the reasons they lost. But that is actually a rather good example. Jamie had a pricing strategy - which was the most important thing in that task. Two people on Liz's team had picked up on the idea that they had to get all the items to such a degree that they actually bought an item at a price so inflated that they'd have been £50 better off had they not bought it at all and incurred the fine.

Yes, that's down to Laura and Stella, but it's also down to Liz for not realising and emphasising to her team that the task was about pricing, not about buying all the items.


She might have been a better PM than Paloma. What she wasn't was demonstrating that she was a good leader in her own right.

I was responding to the assertion that she had a good record at being a team leader. She doesn't.

That's odd, you're profile says you're 22, yet you still say you're 21?

They knew they needed the lowest prices. Laura actually reduced the asking price from £270. The mistake was entirely down to them.


I've pointed out several things she did right. She was as good or better than any of the other final 7.


She has a deserved win, and a loss that wasn't her fault. It's a good record.

That's a matter of opinion.

Some will say she failed to correctly identify the importance of price whereas Jamie recognised that. (Assuming she didn't say something to her team about that which was edited out.)

I'm neutral because I still believe that that task had far too many random elements to make it meaningful.

Jamie had a pricing strategy from the outset, as well as setting out how his team should negotiate. Liz spent 2 hours finding the objects and planning a route which meant they could get them all in the time they had. In a task that was about pricing, it's not a surprise that Jamie's strategy won the day.


You pointed out 2, actually, one of which I had already mentioned and which wasn't down to her managerial skills. And I pointed out things she did wrong. Doing 2 things right does not make her a good leader.


Stella's 2 for 2 as PM. Just saying.


The loss of the treasure hunt was her fault as much as anybody else's. And her win would have been more deserved had it been more down to her good leadership rather than, as it was, being down to liking sequins.

The task was not just about pricing. It was about getting the items and pricing.

Had it just been about pricing there would have been no need for the £50 penalties.


Just another random aspect of the task.

It was serendipity that they found a supplier who was more interested in an off the cuff reaction than a more businesslike approach.

Had the person in question taken the view that they wanted someone who was looking at things from a professional POV (as, indeed, Liz may have been at the same time as expressing her personal opinion) then the other team might have got the deal.

I think Lord Sugar fired him in that way because he was angry that Stuart had made a fool of him. He fell for everything Stuart said & then fired Liz. Liz & Joanna should have been in the final.

I`ve been disappointed in the last 2 weeks of The Apprentice. I`ll watch tonight`s episode but I`m definitely unhappy with the final two. Lord Sugar has lost the plot.

Jaimie's pricing strategy though seems not to have been followed - even by Jaimie - if you look at the clips at where he starts his negotiation. Its not followed through because bidding 30% of what the person has just said is a pointless waste of time as they will either stay where they are or reduce by a small amount and you will end up meeting much higher anyway.

Its difficult to see how Liz could have made the point much more clearly that price was key than by telling her team that price was key and to get everything as cheaply as possible. It shouldn't have needed an arbitary unobtainable target to make the point. With the truffles Liz identified it as a key costly item, she confirmed a price with the team and asked for a final say on any deal. Its not her fault that her subteam found an obviously expensive supplier, bought at twice the price and ignored her instruction to confirma price before buying.

Only one person failed to get the point. Liz and Joanna got it and did pretty well. Laura pointed out the error in choosing the truffles supplier straight away, but ended up in a conversation about how low she could drive a request for £270. Picking the suppier, ignoring Laura, insisting on that sale and not consulting her PM, seems all to have been Stella's work.

The task that Liz won as team leader, their performance outside landing the best brand of dresses was poor. The other team ran a better operation in almost every respect. The task she lost, basically nobody in her team managed to negotiate anything particularly well, including Liz. Even that old guy at the end just felt sorry for her - 'how can you negotiate a better price if you have to rush off?' she basically told him she had no alternatives - contrast with Jamie 'if I don't get my price I'm going to salfords'. Her one other stroke of brilliance was copying Stuarts team in the DVD task.

Well, and the pitch for the baby vest, but like I said Louise Woodward could have pitched that.

She had a lot of qualities but I just don't see any indications that she could operate/strategise at a higher level. (ie entrepreneur not projct manager)

I think it might have been 'Southall'.

If LS thinks Stuart has potential then I'd say it's true, as I checked into LS holdings yesterday, and he could buy into Stuart's business easily. All Stuart has to do is fix the missing part of his Licence and he's in business.

Hi, wanted Liz and Joanna in the final too, but when I checked Lord Sugar's companies, discovered that Joanna wouldn't have fit in that well, as her basic knowledge wouldn't be good enough. Pity she didn't research what exactly his businesses are all about, then she could have sold herself into them, or into one of them if she wanted to stay with Cleaning, as he could advertise her very well across the whole country.

reply to the OP, as I can't seem to do it another way. humph!










Rivalry between Viglen and Stuart's company. Stuart ought to look at the small print to see what part is missing off his licence, as it has to do with the Licence, and why he got a grilling over it. Also if LS was going to buy into Stuart's business, then the Licence had to be complete, which also explains why LS cut up rough.

personally i think the BBC owe Stuart an apology. they tore shreads off him in those interviews, totally unfair and totally unjust IMO. This guy is only 21/22, yes he may have over embelished on his CV, you telling me no one does that?? 3/4 quarters of Britain may as well rip their CV's up right now.

I personally feel Lord Sugar went into that final 5 knowing his final two. watch the interviews again and regardless about what you feel about Stuart....you tell me there was no venom attached, One guy wouldn't even shake his hand, personally i would have walked out there and then, remember this is all staged, they would have had nothing to film. He was over familiar with Margaret. i'd put that down to the fact he was possibly nervous, he must have been briefed who he was going to be interviewd by and completely lost it in an instant, in his words, "i haven't had many interviews'.

it doesn't change my view though, the right two got to the final, mainly because of there actions and friendly attitude towards others, there is no substitute for being decent in this world

i still say though Stuart was unfairly treated

just had a quick dig, cos i am nosey like that. from this 20 minute read up, i would point my finger at him being a mere reseller os ISP services. no big investment needed.

I think he misspoke there, because the pricing strategy he and the rest of the group were following was starting in at 70% of what they were asked for, not 70% off.


She could have not concentrated on getting everything as much as she did and had an actual pricing strategy. Setting out the strategy is the team leader's job. Liz set out the strategy of getting all the objects. Jamie set out the strategy of getting everything as cheaply as possible. Jamie won. This is not a coincidence.

I think they both had a strategy to get everything and to pay as little as possible. I didnt see Jamie or any of his team walk away from a purchase because of the asking price.
Jamie and his team failed to get all the items and although Liz and her team did get everything they might have been better not getting the truffles as they paid over the odds, way over in fact. Liz did ask her team to phone her before they committed to the purchase. The fact they didnt is not something you can blame to Liz for.

If that were true, they'd never get a discount more than 30%, and sometimes they did. They got over 50% sometimes.

Basically, his advice was largely ignored, by him as much by anyone.

The pricing strategy is another Sugar piece of logic. Jaimie doesn't say 30% off. He says 70% . It would be odd if he did say 30 because there's always a possibility of getting more off - so an arbitary 30% is worse than Liz's approach of reading the situation and bidding as low as seems fit. A strategy might have been to identify sellers who might be expected to be cheap - but we don't know if the boys had one or just lucked out turning up to people ,or in areas ,where the sellers were desperate, gullible or could be browbeaten.

The boys get 7 items - i think its 2 the girls get cheaper. Buy the Truffles for 100 and the boys don't win and its nearly equal who bargained better. The boys might also have paid more or less for the three they don't get. They would also have been under massive time pressure to get all 10 - which would have reduced their negotiating time and might have meant going places where they wouldn't have found the sellers they did.

It turns out the way it does, because the penalties for failure are set where they are and support failing to get the goods, and because some girls buy one item at twice the price they knew was realistic. There's no way of judging that not getting goods is a winning strategy - and neither team discover that it is till the end. The boys try and get everything too, and its very difficult to see what else more Liz could possibly do to stop her subteam buying those truffles at too high a price - apart from leaving Stella at the house.

Steven Baggs interview, best place to start around 4:35[/quote]

Thanks interesting to see Brand senior. He doesnt seem that obnoxious in this clip

Thanks interesting to see Brand senior. He doesnt seem that obnoxious in this clip though

As I said at the time, the outcome of the task was all but random. It is a shoddily designed task.

In reality, if it is important to get something for the lowest possible prices (and whether that is important is dependent on the price of the article, the maximum difference in price between suppliers, the costs of purchasing and the cost of employment of the people doing the buying) then you contact all the suppliers and see what deals are available.

They would only have had a chance to contact a small subset of the possible suppliers and seemed to only try and negotiate in person so, as you say it was all down to luck as to whether you happened across the cheapest/most amenable to discounting.