DS Forums

 
 

Did the Baggs factor mean Edward had to go early


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 10-05-2011, 23:25
DUNDEEBOY
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 56,295

Just wondered that, he probably would have been good tv, but LAS mistake in keeping Baggs meant he may take a harder attitude to so called entertainers this year
DUNDEEBOY is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 10-05-2011, 23:33
Shrike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 11,478
Not sure Sugar could reasonably have fired anyone else at this stage. The only other 'mistake' seemed to be Leon burning out the juicers - but as was mentioned on You're fired it was Edward who made Leon force the oranges into them.
Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-2011, 23:36
-Sid-
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 28,896
I think it would have been deeply unfair for Leon to have been sent home just because the juicers packed up. There was no option BUT to fire Edward. And I'm glad because I usually find the so-called "entertainers" very prattish and annoying.
-Sid- is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 01:02
DavetheScot
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
Thing is, Baggs never really deserved to be fired until pretty late on. He should really have gone the week before he did, but by that stage Sugar had probably virtually decided on Stella anyway and could afford to keep him on a little as an entertainer.

There was no way anyone but Edward could have gone this week.
DavetheScot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 01:12
DrFlowDemand
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,035
Agree, no choice but to fire Edward. He was amusing enough in just one episode, that's enough entertaining me thinks.
DrFlowDemand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 01:12
Wallasey Saint
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Up the creak without a paddle
Posts: 5,542
Thing is, Baggs never really deserved to be fired until pretty late on. He should really have gone the week before he did, but by that stage Sugar had probably virtually decided on Stella anyway and could afford to keep him on a little as an entertainer.

There was no way anyone but Edward could have gone this week.
I agree Ed made himself look completely stupid in the task & in the boardroom. How can you have a plan of action for the task & not tell your teammates, plus Eds performance in the boardroom was the final nail in his coffin.

Baggs, it was only near the end that he deserved to get fired & should have gone before he did.
Wallasey Saint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 02:47
James Martin 2
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,192
Right man went tonight. You could tell 30 minutes in that he was going to be toast if the boys lost. To me, it drew a lot of similarities with the first episode of Series 6 - another bolshy, arrogant team leader who went on the first hurdle.

He had to know he was going down when he was in the boardroom.
James Martin 2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 08:07
Caramel Crunch
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,559
Edward had to go.
Caramel Crunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 10:20
Venetian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,287
Yes, he just had to go. I didn't take to him much on Your Fired either. Usually it is then that we see the really good side of the dismissed candidate but Edward seemed pretty humourless to me. Is Your Fired edited?
Venetian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 10:34
Miles_T
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bracknell
Posts: 2,269
Yes, he just had to go. I didn't take to him much on Your Fired either. Usually it is then that we see the really good side of the dismissed candidate but Edward seemed pretty humourless to me. Is Your Fired edited?
Disagree, thought he was entertaining on Your fired.
Miles_T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 11:11
Venetian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,287
Disagree, thought he was entertaining on Your fired.
Folks are bound to disagree and I have seen other posts which agree with you. I wanted to like him, I felt for him, but just didn't get him. Anyway he's gone, possibility a casualty of trying to be different from who he really is?
Venetian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 11:24
Agent Krycek
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stalking David and Neal
Posts: 38,045
Yes, he just had to go. I didn't take to him much on Your Fired either. Usually it is then that we see the really good side of the dismissed candidate but Edward seemed pretty humourless to me. Is Your Fired edited?
I had a similar feeling, couldn't really tell if he was still taking himself very seriously, or just had a very deadpan style of humour.

There really was noone else but Edward to go last night, potential comedy goldmine that he was, never mind Vincent and inventor bloke look potentially as entertaining
Agent Krycek is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 11:57
regandron
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 276
Stuart's merits grew on me over time. Maybe Edward's would have as well, but thankfully we won't have the chance to find out.
regandron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 12:29
Caltonfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Greenock
Posts: 6,055
there was no other option but to sack edward as soon as he bought the oranges i knew he was a goner.

dont think it has anything to do with "the brand" as baggs was entertaining this guy was not
Caltonfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 13:14
starsailor
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 10,991
As annoying as Baggs was he did show some skill and ability, especially on that selling DVD task (I think it was that). So he deserved the ability to at least content and stand up for those things in the boardroom.

Edward had no chance. None of the other men had made a howler, and so on the first week, chances are its the project manager going.
starsailor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 15:55
Miriam_R
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,320
Right man went tonight. You could tell 30 minutes in that he was going to be toast if the boys lost. To me, it drew a lot of similarities with the first episode of Series 6 - another bolshy, arrogant team leader who went on the first hurdle.

He had to know he was going down when he was in the boardroom.
Thank you, you jogged my memory. That guy last year was probably worse (in that first task) as Edward was in his first task as PM but, yeah, similar approaches = not a good result.
Miriam_R is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 16:12
Shrike
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 11,478
Thank you, you jogged my memory. That guy last year was probably worse (in that first task) as Edward was in his first task as PM but, yeah, similar approaches = not a good result.
At least Edward didn't slouch in his chair
Shrike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 16:15
Button62
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,839
At least Edward didn't slouch in his chair
Or yell " Who's doing the fcucking juicing "

Ed was a gonner as soon as he bought those oranges. Mildly entertaining but not in the league of Stubaggs.
Button62 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 17:24
stash22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: A true B Blocker!
Posts: 4,990
Thank you, you jogged my memory. That guy last year was probably worse (in that first task) as Edward was in his first task as PM but, yeah, similar approaches = not a good result.
Perharps it's an indication of the type of character that wants to put himself forward for the very first task -it's a pretty bold move. It seems highly likely that the loosing PM is going to get fired, from watching previous years, so most of them tactically shy away from it but there's always one that seems to want to make an big impression week1 through being PM- unfortuntly it tends to be the wrong sort of impression. The PM last year, slammed his fist on the table and boomed 'right I'll do it!!!' and then preceded to holler his way through the task in an unorganised way, with bad planning (if im thinking of the right guy). Edward was a little better in the way he treated his team members but he, also, was a bit cocky and bold about the way he was going to handle things, as if everything would just magically full into place without thinking it through first.
stash22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 17:27
I, Candy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 2,973
Although Baggs was full of s**t and was never going to win, the producers could at least justify keeping him in on the basis that he had some amount of entrepreneurial potential, however small. With Edward there was absolutely no chance; they would have looked stupid if he hadn't been fired since it would be obvious it was down to his entertainment value alone.
I, Candy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 18:02
Jepson
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,089
Thank you, you jogged my memory. That guy last year was probably worse (in that first task)
It was shameful.
Jepson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2011, 19:40
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
Perharps it's an indication of the type of character that wants to put himself forward for the very first task -it's a pretty bold move. It seems highly likely that the loosing PM is going to get fired, from watching previous years, so most of them tactically shy away from it but there's always one that seems to want to make an big impression week1 through being PM- unfortuntly it tends to be the wrong sort of impression.
Historically, only half the losing team leaders got fired in the first tasks, which is about the same proportional for any task, so it's not any more risky in the first week.

People who lead in the first week are more likely to reach the final four or better. For example, in the first series, the first two team leaders went on to become the two finalists. In series 4, they both reached the final four. The idea that it's a poisoned chalice is a myth.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 01:05
stash22
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: A true B Blocker!
Posts: 4,990
Historically, only half the losing team leaders got fired in the first tasks, which is about the same proportional for any task, so it's not any more risky in the first week.

People who lead in the first week are more likely to reach the final four or better. For example, in the first series, the first two team leaders went on to become the two finalists. In series 4, they both reached the final four. The idea that it's a poisoned chalice is a myth.
Ok... sorry. I only started watching last year and have been watching all the old series back-to-back online. I think Ive seen all apart from series1 now, and I could only think of one time the loosing PM avoided being fired, clearly I am wrong. Ive also been watching some of the US version and although loosing PMs havent always got fired, week1 - just seemed to get it spectacully wrong and not give a good first impression at all.
stash22 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-05-2011, 01:19
Styker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 28,296
No not because of Baggs, because the PM is the one Sugar often sacks the most these days which I don't agree with a lot of the times.

I think he was more like James, was he on the series before last? In any case, looks like we've lost this years funnyman and that isn't good!
Styker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-05-2011, 20:55
brangdon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
Ive also been watching some of the US version and although loosing PMs havent always got fired, week1 - just seemed to get it spectacully wrong and not give a good first impression at all.
I don't have figures on the US version, but I think Trump fires the loser more often than Sugar does. Generally Trump fires whoever the team gangs up on, and the team leader is the natural target, unless someone else has really drawn attention to themselves or else pushed one of Trump's buttons.

It's my belief that Sugar rarely fires the team leader if he has any choice, but a lot of the time the leader gets it so very wrong that he has to.
brangdon is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:01.