[quote=Jepson;51251467]Well defined? Yes - except that the definition meant that to get the best score you might need to disregard one of the stated aims of the task.

Judged accordingly? Yes - except that they weren't. Sugar introduced a completely new rule out of nowhere when he threw a tantrum because the scoring system utilised didn't make the result reflect what he wanted it to reflect.



Except that it wasn't.

It was scored on the basis of the cash in hand and the value of the goods remaining.



That does not follow at all. A team with goods left over could just be useless at selling.



Then he should have designed the scoring system to reflect this. Not used a duff scoring system and then thrown his toys out of the pram when it didn't yield the result he wanted.



You are entirely missing the point.

On the basis of the scoring system employed, a PM has to decide whether they will make more money utilising their assets selling or replenishing stock.

If it turns out to be selling, then that is what they need to do to win the task - assuming Sugar does not invent new rules to apply retrospectively.[/QUOTE]

I kind of understand what you are saying, but I think it is a fair point on Alan Sugar's part that if a team "plays it safe" by not re-investing, then they are missing the point of the task. For example, Jim mid-way on the second day said that stocks were dwindling and suggested a re-investment of assets. He may have lost a bit of time to go to the wholesalers, but the rate at which he was selling the items would suggest he could sell a whole lot more. However, if he didn't, the only thing he would have lost is a bit of selling time - the value of the items he would have bought would still have had a value equal to the outlay... Seems a pretty simple concept to understand.

At the end of the day, I would suggest Alan Sugar wants a partnership with a risk-taker, as the bigger the risk, the better the potential return. By sitting on your profits and not pushing for the next sale, next deal, you expose yourself as being low-risk, and you may as well just stick your money in the bank.

As do my comments pointing out their invalidity.

Except that Natasha completely missed the point behind this task. It wasnt a usual 'Sell all this stuff for monies' task but instead was more around a buy/sell/buy/sell mechanism to try and generate a bigger profit which matches buisness a lot more (I mean in buisness you dont sell some stuff, make some cash then sit down. You re-invest the cash to make more cash)

So yeah it was completely understandable why Sugar was more than a bit irritated by the result given the team that won ignored the whole reason why the task was being done in the first place.

The task was similar in many ways to the cleaning task of series 5 (ep 1). The teams had a budget of £200 to buy/hire cleaning materials to start a cleaning business. The girls didn't use all the money - kept some cash back and got slated for it when they lost. Anita (who controlled the budget and was pleased they underspent) - got fired. I also recall that some of LAS critisms on that task we're again re-iterated (in greater fashion) last night.

The problem with the task is that, as a PM, you can end with a dilemma: Do you maximise the score according to the rules you are given or do you demonstrate that you have 'got' the task by re-investing, even though it might lose you money (in that you may spend time buying good you do not need instead of selling)?

If they are given a set of rules, the honourable thing for Sugar to do would have been to abide by the rules they were given and learn from his mistake. If he, in future, wants the teams to restock, then score the task to take account of that.

Not change the rules half way through and throw a tantrum because a tea won using the rules they were given.


It really is a simple concept to understand.

The PM should do a risk/benefit analysis to decide if it is worth taking the risk that the selling time lost will be more than made up for by having the extra goods available.

In this instance the outcome appears to have been the same in either case as Jim ran out of goods but took exactly as long to go and get more as he had time available with no good to sell.

Had he gone earlier he might well have lost more productive selling time as the place he ended up look pretty empty. (Shepherd's Bush Market is pretty deserted by 5 so he would have had to move elsewhere.



You need to evaluate the risk and potential returns. You don't just want to blindly take risks.

True, but you don't want to avoid risk altogether. It is not about only selling, its not about continually re-stocking - its about getting the balance right to yield the maximum return. Jim and others understood that, because what is the point of trying to off-load slow burners if you know there is a product selling really well, but you just need to get stock.

It may well be that Natasha 'missed the point of the task'.

The fact remains that he (and his crew) had all the time they needed to devise the task and the scoring system and if the scoring system did not match what they said the task was about that was his fault.

Changing the rules retrospectively to cover up his own incompetence was not an honourable way to behave.

Again, all that's as may be but it does not alter the fact that Sugar designed the task and scoring system in a certain way and if he fouled it up he should have had the decency to accept that, learn from his mistake, and improve the task next time.

Not throw a massive tantrum and change the rules retrospectively by allowing himself to impose a fine and cancelling the mini prize that the team won. (According to the rules they were given.)

That is a dishonourable way to behave. More typical of a spiv or barrow boy that someone who is supposed to be setting an example to future business people.

This is probably a little bit off topic Sir Alan chose Lee McQueen as his Apprentice after being aware that he had lied on his CV what kind of an example of fairness was that ?? I lost respect for AS then

the problem with the task was that they were supposed to be restocking frequently ( in his intro Lord Alan mentioned 2-3 times a day) and yet there seemed to be a massive time cost involved in restocking so that in a time pressured task such as this it didn't make sense to do so.

Perhaps the failure in the task was where the teams decided to sell. If they could of found a market/tourist pitch very close to a wholesaler they could have gone backwards and forwards plenty of times without losing too much time selling.

I disagree that Lord Alan changes the rules. On the phone Jim says to Natasha " I would rather try and fail than get fined and ridiculed by Lord Sugar because he gave us one directive and we haven't stuck to it"

Jim mentioned getting a fine, so he must have read or been told about it at some point and it wasn't just invented by LA in the boardroom.

Original Post completely wrong.

It was so frustrating to hear the candidates talking about "gambles" on replenishing stock.

What gamble?

Spend the profits on stock, and if you don't sell, it's still counted. Where is the gamble?

Losing 1-2 hours or selling time would be the main risk if there was stock remaining.

I agree. Natasha could leave Susan to the stall, go to the wholesale warehouse herself and cart the new stock to Jim, and bring the remaining stock back to the stall. With Susan and Jim on both sides, no selling time would be lost while Natasha was on the move.

I have a feeling that one of the unsaid rules is that there can only be two subgroups, due to filming crews and also possibly having someone to keep an eye on things. So at least two team members had to be in the vicinity of each other throughout the task.

They should have been fined based on the cost of the original pallet of goods.

Say the pallet cost £200

If Team A only reinvest £100 they get fined £100

If Team B only reinvest £20 they get fined £180

And if any team reinvest more than the original £200, they get a bonus.

they are not allowed to split the teams beyond the two sub-teams, another of the unspoken rules in The Apprentice, otherwise this would have been perfect strategy.

The problem for Natasha was that she had two strong sellers so it seemed crazy to effectively pull either of them 'off the shop floor' to go shopping. She still had plenty of stock, including I notice numerous nodding dogs which were apparently such a strong seller so it's not as if she was just trying to offload the junk stock.

Playing the task the way Lord Alan wanted, ie returning to the warehouses through london traffic 2-3 times a day, makes absolutely no business sense whatsoever. Lord Alan got it wrong, and if he can't see that then I wouldn't want to go into partnership with him!

The task may have worked better if the candidates were given a much more limited budget, ie say only £60 worth of stuff so they would of had to keep flipping stock/cash to build up. As it was I think they had too much stuff to begin with (the retail value was over £1k irrc) so it didn't seem worthwhile to spend the time restocking when they had plenty of goods to convert into profit.

In the "buying task" the candidates usually get berated for just going off the name of the task and treating it like a treasure hunt where they have to collect all the items at any cost.

In this "restocking" the candidates get berated for using their business sense and not just following the name of the task. What did Lord Alan want? Jim selling brollys and Natasha and Susan hanging out at the wholesalers buying another 10 brollys every time he sold one?!

Can't win!!

Why is he so obsessed with them restocking when it flys in the face of making a profit and good business sense.

Natasha did reinvest over £300 I think (the original pallet was £250) so and the other team didn't reinvest that much more. it was just because she did it at the beginning of the day (or the end of the previous day I don't recall which) and not in middle of the day that she got so much flack. If the task had been over 3 days I'm certain she would have restocked again before trading on day three.

Although it is never mentioned, the teams must have pitches set up for them.You can't just go and start selling anywhere yo feel like it.


IF there was such a rule then the blame shifts from AS to the producers.

When people are watching a game they expect to be apprised of all the main rules. Certainly the scoring.

If they had a set of fines in the rules and these were not made known to the audience even when that rule was invoked then that was a monumental failing on the part of the producer.

Although, I don't doubt that some numpty will claim it doesn't matter.

Yes, that is really most of the point of this thread.

Success in business is about making a profit!

Not about how often you restock. No matter what bee Sugar has in his bonnet this week.

This is supposed to be a business game and yet people are potentially being penalised for using good business skills.

Can't remember things exactly on the edit but surely the strategy of reinvesting all money at a time when no selling is being done is correct, as it helps maximise the opportunity to sell.

Can't see Natasha winning but I have a faint hope that she doesn't suck up to Sir Alun on being fired.

I forgot that rule.

The underlined part is what is important.

You need to balance the likely sales from the goods you buy with the selling time lost to make the purchases.

With three people: If you are two hours from deadline and have enough stock to keep selling profitably and it would take an hour to restock, then it would be bad business sense to do so.

If, on the other hand, you are in the same position but will run out of stock in an hour, and it will take one person an hour to get the new stock, then it would be good business sense to do so.

In this case, by a weird coincidence, it took Jim exactly as long to get replacement stock as the amount of time he had with no stock to sell.

And yet Sugar still threw a tantrum even though the restocking made no difference to the performance of the business.

Sure, but presumably they had a choice of different pitches so the one nearest to the 'general warehouse' would have been best.


I think showing Jim saying 'I don't want to get a fine' was them putting this across to the viewer, obviously not ideal but they can't explain all the rules in detail.

Because businesses tend to want to stay trading for more than two days. If you want your business to grow and last you must reinvest.