Only reason he's still there. (unless he has an amazing business model - which is really the big flaw of the current apprentice series).
Stephen is perfect interview material
Or he could still be there because Jenna was responsible for the failure of the task. Just putting it out there.
I think it is a bit both. Although Stephen constantly seems to be having bad days at the office and always being slightly off kilter with his approach, this was Jenna's third time in the boardroom as opposed to Stephen's first. They were both equally responsible for not understanding the meaning of class and quality on the last task.
Stepen would be good value in the interview episode if he makes it, though I do think LAS has lined him up for a sacking next week by making him PM, if the others just give him enough rope it will surely happen.
Stepen would be good value in the interview episode if he makes it, though I do think LAS has lined him up for a sacking next week by making him PM, if the others just give him enough rope it will surely happen.
I think they were both at fault, but I am surprised Stephen didn't go. He has consistently proven himself during the process to be the master of bad ideas, and his name suggestions were cringeworthy - although I would also point the finger at the rest of the team for not coming up with better alternatives.
He would be ideal interview material, as he wouldn't get away with any of the tricks he tries in the boardroom. As Lucy pointed out on YF, he is doesn't listen to what people says - he merely says "good point" and disappears off in a different direction. You can just see Claude or Margaret nailing him for being evasive.
It would be comedy, but the thought of Stephen in the final round would be monumentally unfair. He already has a big enough opinion of his abilities as it is.
He would be ideal interview material, as he wouldn't get away with any of the tricks he tries in the boardroom. As Lucy pointed out on YF, he is doesn't listen to what people says - he merely says "good point" and disappears off in a different direction. You can just see Claude or Margaret nailing him for being evasive.
It would be comedy, but the thought of Stephen in the final round would be monumentally unfair. He already has a big enough opinion of his abilities as it is.
Haven't really got into this series as I have previous ones. Have only watched the boardroom last week and the whole of this weeks', plus 'You're fired' on both occasions. But from what I saw of Stephen last night he'd be disastrous interview material. The gurning, talking over people, repeating the same question over and over (and over) again, speaking to the woman on his left (Gabrielle?) as if he were a lecturer annotating the margins of a student's essay ('Substantiation, please. Substantiaton, please.')
None of these behaviours will impress the interviewers. Nor, I suspect, are they likely to make LS think 'there's somebody I could tolerate being in partnership with'.
None of these behaviours will impress the interviewers. Nor, I suspect, are they likely to make LS think 'there's somebody I could tolerate being in partnership with'.
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“I think they were both at fault, but I am surprised Stephen didn't go. He has consistently proven himself during the process to be the master of bad ideas, and his name suggestions were cringeworthy - although I would also point the finger at the rest of the team for not coming up with better alternatives.
He would be ideal interview material, as he wouldn't get away with any of the tricks he tries in the boardroom. As Lucy pointed out on YF, he is doesn't listen to what people says - he merely says "good point" and disappears off in a different direction. You can just see Claude or Margaret nailing him for being evasive.
It would be comedy, but the thought of Stephen in the final round would be monumentally unfair. He already has a big enough opinion of his abilities as it is.”
“I think they were both at fault, but I am surprised Stephen didn't go. He has consistently proven himself during the process to be the master of bad ideas, and his name suggestions were cringeworthy - although I would also point the finger at the rest of the team for not coming up with better alternatives.
He would be ideal interview material, as he wouldn't get away with any of the tricks he tries in the boardroom. As Lucy pointed out on YF, he is doesn't listen to what people says - he merely says "good point" and disappears off in a different direction. You can just see Claude or Margaret nailing him for being evasive.
It would be comedy, but the thought of Stephen in the final round would be monumentally unfair. He already has a big enough opinion of his abilities as it is.”
Or, more to the point, for not saying 'this task isn't about naming a wine at all. Have you not understood the brief?'
Originally Posted by norbitonite:
“Or, more to the point, for not saying 'this task isn't about naming a wine at all. Have you not understood the brief?'”
“Or, more to the point, for not saying 'this task isn't about naming a wine at all. Have you not understood the brief?'”
From the fact that both teams deliberately focussed on it early in the task, I think coming up with a name WAS part of the brief. We're not privy to it, but most of the tasks are quite rigidly structured as to what the teams must or must not do.
Your point about Stephen banging on randomly about the same (usually irrelevant) thing - "specifics, please" - is spot on. He would only make good interview material because he is so bad - NOT because he is a good candidate. He clearly isn't. As well as the name thing, the whole episode in Tesco was appallingly naive,
Originally Posted by RealityReal31:
“Only reason he's still there. (unless he has an amazing business model - which is really the big flaw of the current apprentice series).”
“Only reason he's still there. (unless he has an amazing business model - which is really the big flaw of the current apprentice series).”
Do you mean because he's the prime candidate for a dressing down from Claude and friends?
Originally Posted by norbitonite:
“Haven't really got into this series as I have previous ones. Have only watched the boardroom last week and the whole of this weeks', plus 'You're fired' on both occasions. But from what I saw of Stephen last night he'd be disastrous interview material. The gurning, talking over people, repeating the same question over and over (and over) again, speaking to the woman on his left (Gabrielle?) as if he were a lecturer annotating the margins of a student's essay ('Substantiation, please. Substantiaton, please.')
None of these behaviours will impress the interviewers. Nor, I suspect, are they likely to make LS think 'there's somebody I could tolerate being in partnership with'.”
“Haven't really got into this series as I have previous ones. Have only watched the boardroom last week and the whole of this weeks', plus 'You're fired' on both occasions. But from what I saw of Stephen last night he'd be disastrous interview material. The gurning, talking over people, repeating the same question over and over (and over) again, speaking to the woman on his left (Gabrielle?) as if he were a lecturer annotating the margins of a student's essay ('Substantiation, please. Substantiaton, please.')
None of these behaviours will impress the interviewers. Nor, I suspect, are they likely to make LS think 'there's somebody I could tolerate being in partnership with'.”
You misunderstood me. He's perfect interview material for TV Gold. He will be destroyed by by the interviewers if he makes it that far
It would be so satisfying to watch.
Originally Posted by Layzeegoat:
“Do you mean because he's the prime candidate for a dressing down from Claude and friends?”
“Do you mean because he's the prime candidate for a dressing down from Claude and friends?
”
Exactly.
Originally Posted by slouchingthatch:
“From the fact that both teams deliberately focussed on it early in the task, I think coming up with a name WAS part of the brief. We're not privy to it, but most of the tasks are quite rigidly structured as to what the teams must or must not do.
Your point about Stephen banging on randomly about the same (usually irrelevant) thing - "specifics, please" - is spot on. He would only make good interview material because he is so bad - NOT because he is a good candidate. He clearly isn't. As well as the name thing, the whole episode in Tesco was appallingly naive,”
“From the fact that both teams deliberately focussed on it early in the task, I think coming up with a name WAS part of the brief. We're not privy to it, but most of the tasks are quite rigidly structured as to what the teams must or must not do.
Your point about Stephen banging on randomly about the same (usually irrelevant) thing - "specifics, please" - is spot on. He would only make good interview material because he is so bad - NOT because he is a good candidate. He clearly isn't. As well as the name thing, the whole episode in Tesco was appallingly naive,”
I thought the other team just came up with a name for the entity - the English Sparkling Wine equivalent of the Milk Marketing Board. 'Grandeur' was treated as a brand of sparkling wine, appearing on the label.
My understanding of the task was that it was to raise awareness of English Sparkling wine in a brand-neutral way to help give a platform for all the labels that already exist. Admittedly, the full brief wasn't shared with the viewer, but from the nuggets that were, this is what I gleaned. I'm a brand communications consultant, so answering these kinds of briefs is what I do for a living, and it made absolutely no sense to me that creating a new brand of wine would be part of solution to raise awareness of English sparkling wine as a segment.
That doesn't mean it wasn't part of the brief, of course, but if it was then not only was the brief off target, but the other team failed to fulfil that part of it.
Originally Posted by RealityReal31:
“You misunderstood me. He's perfect interview material for TV Gold. He will be destroyed by by the interviewers if he makes it that far
It would be so satisfying to watch.
Exactly.”
“You misunderstood me. He's perfect interview material for TV Gold. He will be destroyed by by the interviewers if he makes it that far
It would be so satisfying to watch.
Exactly.
”
You're so right. Watching him crumble under Margaret's interrogation would make great TV.
