Fair enough, I still think it is woeful- so bad it's actually hilarious

I mean, isn’t a title supposed to be something quick and bold you see from a distance; not something you have to spend time figuring out, and all to get to some sort of embryo of a joke?

It’s like Glenn the other week with his “see their light” catchphrase that had to be explained for several minutes, and even then it wasn’t remotely clever or funny- ok, it was funny, but only in the laughing at him sort of way

Well, if Susan was a trifle more forward, she could have really nailed Jim to his seat, because as it was, the comment on him not having the initiative to work on his own seemed to sting him a tad.

But, I am now coming round to the idea that Susan really should be trying to expand her own business rather than trying to get on Sugars coat tails. It would be more suited to her attitude.

I noticed how Susan sideswerved the photographs after they had been taken by positioning Glenn for any blame if there was anything wrong with them.

Pathetic.

Susan was right about the advertising rates. Jim screwed that one up.

Overall Susan's dumb whiny brat factor for this episode would be a 7.

She certainly hid at a couple of key moments and her defence of herself in the boardroom was okay but the "it's so unfair" is really rather immature and she throws her age into it. Irrelevant. She was also very very reluctant to pitch so hid a little there.

However she was right on the money about Jim's failure to negotiate on the price.

That was the key failure.

She does make some valid points but usually afterwards; either when its too late in the task or in the boardroom. And I still think she wouldn't be there without Nick speaking up for her the last two weeks - she CANNOT stand up for herself and needs someone else to defend her, which isn't fair or right.

Im annoyed with her 'Im only 21' and her 'Wel no-one listens to me' routine.

Its business ...... if no-one listens to you, you get run over ......... so that in itself is a business flaw.

She defended herself well in the boardroom though - the "mouse that roared!"

Jim's face was a picture - and especially so when Nick pointed out that Susan had repeatedly told him to offer discounts

And yet the Wotherspoon person played the age card over and over and over again. He got away with it for some time before people started getting bored. And there is a big difference in confidence between being 21 and being 24. Far more than, say between 24 and 30.

I think Susan would actually be a lot more annoying if she was some kind of overconfident wunderkind.


Well, yes, but real business is not run on a peer-peer basis (with a different person playing at being ;'in charge' every so often).

So any half decent manager will spot someone like Susan who shows enormous potential and slap down people who try and bully or ignore her.

Uh huh ........ well bit late when the task is over and they've failed to start 'roaring' ..........Lets say I was the captain of the Titanic and after I hit the iceberg I tried to turn the wheel as much as possible to get away but we still sunk ....... would you still praise me, or would you have a go at me because I didnt take action BEFOREHAND to prevent the disaster?

Its ridiculous to praise someone in the boardroom......... bit late by then isnt it??

Actually no, she took over the directing of the photographs. If they had come out wrong she would have been totally to blame.

Glen would have just said "Susan took charge of the photos, I just selected from what I was given."

Glen was in the no-blame position: Someone else directed the photos, he sent a selection and someone else chose the final one.

So a half decent manager will slap down anyone that tries to bully her ......... errrrr........ do you understand the concept of this years Apprentice? She will be running the show, she won't have a 'manager' to protect her. She IS the manager ....... and Ive seen plenty of meek managers get undermined by people underneath them. And if she isnt confident enough to stamp it out, she'll get lost in the stampede.

What exactly do people expect her to do if the others will not take any notice of her good ideas and excellent understanding of the tasks in hand?

It's all very well to say 'she should make sure she's heard' but it isn't that easy if people with whom you are operating on a peer-peer basis ignore you.

I can remember past series where candidates (usually female) were accused of being 'whiny' because they made greater efforts to have their voices heard. The haters would say they should have made their point once and then shut up. When Susan does that the haters say she should be making more noise.

Quite, so she can simply fire anyone who attempts to ignore her.


LOL, do you not understand the dynamic of the manager/managed?

When she was PM she showed no sign whatsoever of not being able to control her group and brought in a win.

It's only when she has to operate peer-peer that she has problems.

She's got quite enough presence and authority to take control when she is in charge - which would be the situation if she won the series.

and youve completely missed my point. Ive seen plenty of managers being 'bullied' by junior staff because they couldnt stand up to them. If she had the confidence to fire someone who undermined her, then she would have the confidence to be able to stand up for herself in the tasks in the first place. Thats the point!

Nope - when you are in the final three you are fighting for your life - its EXACTLY the time when you need to come out blazing to show Lord Sugar why he shouldn't fire you.

Those boardroom battles have been the making (and breaking) of many candidates. Witness Paloma going because she tried to assassinate Alex - or Baggsy being saved with his "field of ponies" speech when up againast the far more talented Liz.....

Glenn went because he DIDN'T put up as good a fight for survival as Susan did (although Jim really should have gone).

Susan is small, quiet and younger than all the other candidates and they all (without exception) seem to dismiss or ignore anything she says.

She said quite clearly that she didn't like the Hip Replacement title - but her lone dissenting voice was ignored - even though Glenn actually said - Susan doesn't like that (or words to that effect) to Jim when they were on the phone after the focus group.

She also told Glenn clearly that she didn't agree with his choice of the photographs he was sending through - but ignored again - and from the photos I saw Glenn dismissing out of hand - she was absolutely right again!

And she also tried to tell Jim (several times) that he needed to offer discounts - and was supported on that one by Nick.

She does need to stand up for herself more - but the others really should be listening to her much more than they have done.

Nope.


Wrong.

The dynamics of a stable working relationship are quite different to what is happening here. Susan demonstrated quite clearly that when she is in charge she can handle it very well.

What she cannot do - and no one else can do it either - is force peers to take on her views over the very short periods of time that these tasks operate.

every week I just wait for her to say 'thats so unfair' - every single week she says it

she cannot handle any criticism at all and sits in a massive strop

the reason she didnt like the magazine name was because Zoe suggested it, as soon as Jim said it was Zoes suggestion she put her pouty strop face on

she annoys me greatly

and yes, we all know shes 21 - she tells us enough times

Can I ask you, honestly, is there some personal reason you dislike Susan so much?

None of your 'business' arguments against her have made any sense, and you seem to interpret everything she does in a negative way, purely because you dislike her.

Question is, why? Is there some personal issue involved?

ROFLMAO!

That would be mainly because almost every week someone either denies that she has made a contribution that we have all seen her make or accuses her of doing something that she didn't. (A classic case being last night where Jim showed himself up as a shameless liar trying to make out Susan had not told him, several times, that his pricing was wrong. Thank goodness for Nick's copious notes!)

The sole exception was when they ganged up on her for her poor selling performance which may not have been unfair but was unnecessary.

I expect that if someone punched you on the nose every week you would say ouch each time.

Yes, she really does. I think last night she should have really stuck her neck on the line regarding the name, and said "Sorry, I really don't like it, and I want it on record that I don't like it". Instead, she said that she didn't like it but that she was happy to support it, which sadly just makes her seem wishy-washy.

I actually really like Susan - much more so than Zoe - but I think if she wants to be heard more she has to get off the fence.

...and also very unprofessional; giving her a rollocking in the middle of the shopping centre, with colleagues lined up to join in.

This is something I'd like to know.

And it's not just Susan/aussie.

Every series there seem to be threads dedicated to each of the female candidates where haters gather together to hate. (There have been a few for some male candidates but nowhere near as many - or as long).

There seems to be a strong misogynistic presence that delight in continually attacking female candidates which actually makes those doing it look a little sad and pathetic. It would be interesting to understand the basis of this effect.

But we've seen candidates in other seasons be labelled as disruptive when they protest too much about the direction the task is going. There's not much else she can do when the others agree except say that she'll support it - Zoe's already shown that she'll be accused of 'sabotaging' the task if she protests too much.

This is an area where candidates have to be very careful.

If they make too much noise about not liking an idea they can get accused - usually unfairly - of not 'supporting' the task. If they don't make much noise they are accused of not making their point adequately.