I'm not particularly a fan of Ricky but I think Sugar was way off the mark with what he blamed Ricky for. He wasted a long time at that restaurant who wouldn't give them any discount, but we clearly saw him trying to discuss the business aspects before being dragged around the site. The owner just would not listen, and short of being rude and demanding they sit down and talk, Ricky could do nothing.

Then based on that experience he was reluctant to spend another 3 hours going to one place which may or may not have given them a great deal. If he had gone there and got nothing or got deals which were not accepted by the site, Sugar would have told him it was a mistake to go, especially since he knew from the morning that it was easy to waste a lot of time.

Then he was forced into a tight corner by the restaurant who weren't sure how many vouchers to offer. Ricky doesn't work for a daily deals site and wasn't given any guidance before the task as to how many they could expect to sell, so he pulled a number out of the air. If he had said "I have no idea how many we can sell for you" he would have been told off for being unprofessional.

I think Sugar tries to make himself look like an expert businessman who would never make any mistakes. The way he talks is like the "mistakes" should have been absolutely obvious and the candidates are fools. Actually, a lot of his products have failed and he is clearly just as susceptible to mistakes as anyone else.

I felt he was really reaching yesterday to find reasons to criticise Ricky. It was so clear that he was more successful than his colleagues in that task and he should have been sent back to the house much earlier. It's stuff like that which shows that they do sacrifice fairness in order to make good TV, which just fuels all the conspiracy theories that the winner is pre chosen.

I agree. It's always easy for Sugar to pronounce judgement when he already knows the final result.

Yes, Ricky made an error at the first restaurant. But I rather suspect there was an element of set-up about this to deliberately give him the run-around (and coincidentally make for good TV). But he learned from it.

As for him underestimating the number of dinners to offer, so what? How many deals did Jade and Nick offer at Marcus Wareing's restaurant? We don't know. With limited information, he took a punt and he was slightly out. I'm willing to bet that even if he had offered 200 dinners Sterling would have still lost the task.

Also, although they ultimately sold nothing, I thought it was a bit rich of Sugar to criticise Adam & Tom for only getting 35% off (plus tea & coffee) at their restaurant. But didn't Jade and Nick only secure 30% discount at what turned out to be quite a lucrative offer at Marcus Wareing's? I didn't see Sugar criticising them for that. Of course not - because it made them lots of money!

I take everything Sugar says with a pinch of salt. Often what he says is quite sensible, as you would expect from a successful businessman. But a lot of what he says is skewed to make him look good, and often contradicts what he has said in previous episodes/series. He says whatever he wants to say to support his position as a 'business guru' and to provide good entertainment.

Ultimately, though, no mattter how you look at it, Stephen had to go. But I did feel sorry for Gabrielle.

Here's a link to my recap of the episode, if anyone's interested: http://slouchingtowardsthatcham.com/...count-dealing/

Yeah but LS had to create a bit of tension to keep them guessing. Makes for better telly.

I agree with you. I think the big problem yesterday was that the team was down to three (so there was no tension about who to bring to the boardroom) and LS had already really promised to fire Steve. So he tried to manufacture some tension by suggesting that both Gabrielle and Ricky were in grave danger. Gabrielle was, of course, but I don't think he really had anything against ricky; as you say, he did nothing wrong with suggesting a deal of 100 meals; it was a sensible guess - it's not as if he said 5 meals or 5000 meals.

I rather warmed to him yesterday - he seemed to be extremely committed and determined.

Yes, me too. Having disliked him initially, he has recently come across as cool, professional, fairly clear-thinking and also genuinely willing to own up to his mistakes. A lot of candidates underestimate that final quality, but I think it's important in helping to convince Sugar that you are the sort of person he can trust and will want to work with. You wouldn't trust Stephen to look after your baby without worrying about him trying to sell it, would you?

Ha ha.

I liked it when Ricky told Stephen to stop patronising Gabrielle in the boardroom.

Maybe Sugar himself would have just gone to that restaurant stepped into the room and said outright "give us a deal on discounts" but I am pretty sure that manager would not have signed any contract to Lord Sugar either.
There is nothing wrong with good manners and Ricky showed that he has some. Poor guy got slated by Sugar for it.

I thought it was for tension and also to make it look as if the 3 candidates were in danger.

I know it's not a reason not to be fired but what I like about Ricky is that he admits when he makes a mistake. Gabrielle was also pretty honest. On the other hand, Stephen was a bullsh*tter and not particulary pleasant to the others in the boardroom. I note on You're Fired when it was his turn hardly anyone voted HIRED. I think he came across as an unpleasant individual. He's the sort of person who would make an awful boss.

I think Sugar's main problem with Ricky was his reluctance to go up north to the Health Spa which would have secured big deals and could, you never know, have won them the task. Ricky did sow the seeds of doubt in Stephen's mind. Stephen wanted Ricky to go to the spa place.

LS has always done this though - for good Tv or because he just doesn't get it right.. Some of his arguments make no sense at all. He's also not been very good this series at adding past success and current issues to reach an overall result - people with a better record overall go home in weak weeks whilst people with no good weeks, or serial errors, stay.

Ricky's issue is a bit more difficult to define. He usually gets the big picture and he's effective doing whats required - but something always goes wrong with the result. This time its not asking for 150 more meals, last week it was losing control of his video. You could argue its inevitable that you don't know what a good figure would be to bid for -- and that some other team members will muck up as you can't be everywhere at once. Or you might think its happening to him too often to be coincidence and , at least, Ricky has no luck.

Even then, you probably should get more points for getting the strategy and much of the execution right than people who get the strategy consistently wrong.

BUT...the thing about Champneys was that it really was all or nothing. If he had got nothing except a load of teasing (as with the first restaurant) he would have been more or less finished with the task, as he would have been in Tring at teatime with nothing else fixed. You can see why he didn't like the idea. It was all very well for LS to go on about how well known it is. I actually think Champneys may have been prepped to give him something - the Covent Garden spa rolled over suspiciously easily for a cold call with no thinking time, so I thought the same there - but Ricky had no way of knowing that.

Ricky was the best one last night, and I agree with the OP that LS was really reaching for some reason to criticise him. I can understand why, after already wasting time at the restaurant, he was reluctant to spend 3 hours on one place that might not have agreed to do a deal anyway (and if that had happened you can be sure LS would have slated the whole team for being daft enough to think driving all that way was a good idea). As for the number of meals to offer, he made his best guess - he guessed too low, but if it was a real job and not just a one off task he'd have learned from that.

Funny, until last night I didn't particularly like Ricky, but I really warmed to him - he worked hard, he was extremely professional (the most professional of the lot of them last night), he was charming without being smarmy and he was funny when the restaurants kept giving him scallops (which I hope he shared with the crew!). But best of all was when he told Stephen to stop being condescending and let Gabrielle speak, about time someone told Stephen to shut the hell up!

While it was a mistake to decide to that the country resort wasn't 'worth' the trip, I do think that he made some valid points as to why he shouldn't go there.

They (or better Stephen) should have found an alternative that was closer to London and all would have been fine. Saying that, I'm glad they didn't, can't stand Steven.

Must check out the Urban Golf some time soon!

W

Considering the time-scale they were working to and the fact that Champneys already does it's own deals I do think it was a long-shot and (under normal circumstances) would not have been something they are interested in.
These deals tend to be to get customers through the door in the hope that there will be some repeat business. Often it is new businesses or they do these promotions to keep staff busy at quiet times. They don't make much money but it creates turnover.
I think Ricky was quite sensible to insist on NOT going to Tring.

Seemed, to me, that the hotel manager was really only interested in giving a BBC film crew a tour of his premises in the hope that it'd showcase the place when the programme was broadcast.
Either that or he was deliberately told to be obtuse as a means to test whether anybody'd have the bottle to reign him in.

Course, if Ricky had just said "look, stow all the bullshit. Are you interested in offering a discount or not?" I'm sure he would have been criticised for failing to humour the manager.

As for the health spa, it's always good for "employees" to offer their opinions but its up to management to make decisions.
Often a decision that's right in the employees eyes isn't what the manager needs and it's purely up the the manager to choose what happens.

About the only thing you could pin on Ricky was the thing about suggesting they only offer 100 dinners although, to be fair, unless Ricky had some kind of info' pack which contained background about how these deals are usually done I dunno how anybody would be supposed to know a ballpark figure off the top of their head.

That was my favourite moment of the entire episode. From Stephen's reaction you could see how annoyed he was by it as well.

I've often wondered whether some potential clients are set up like that to be deliberately difficult in the hope of creating some good TV. Similarly, I wonder if the whole scallops thing was a set-up to create a running joke for the episode.

Of course, I doubt any reality TV show producer would ever attempt to manipulate the narrative of a programme in that way ...

My opinion of Ricky has risen to new heights since that comment - it was exactly what was needed in that situation!

That's exactly the point - as if there was GUARANTEED deal waiting there for him at the Health Spa!!!
He had the option: Visit one place and put all his eggs in one basket, or visit 3 and have a higher chance of getting at least one good deal (which he did get)
Can you imagine how LS would have DESTROYED him, had he gone to the Health Spa and not come back with a decent deal, or even if he did, if they then lost the task LS would have had the audacity to say he should have gone to the 3 places nearer by.
Whichever way you look at it, if you lose the task, all of a sudden all your decisions were wrong and you get criticised for them.

Exactly, it's all real

Quite. I believe everything that TV tells me ...

I agree it's all for good TV, it just seems more blatant in this series than in others. Or perhaps I'm just noticing it more because of all the people saying it's fixed.


I think they all made scallops because it only takes about 5 minutes to cook the whole dish, but it was really funny anyway

I'm all for the funny ...

But how was he supposed to know that Health Spas were a hot item in that particular market when he had zero prior experience? In light of the lack of guidance and info given beforehand, his reasoning was entirely sensible. If Sugar had explained the market and then sent them out in order to examine their research, mamagement, organisational and negotiating skills then Sugar's criticisms might have been justified. As it was they came across as artificial.

This is the problem with a lot of Sugar's comments - they relate to mistakes that were specific to the field, which were not explained beforehand and which were the result of arguably counter-intuitive facts about the market they were involved in.

If he had gone to the health spa, may Ricky have missed out on the restaurant deals, which were the only ones that really pulled in money for his team?