|
||||||||
Why Did He Fire Navdeep? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,197
|
Why Did He Fire Navdeep?
I know I'm a bit behind but I'm struggling to realise how Navdeep was fired over Andrew. I know that she had done better pitches but it was hardly terrible.
And Andrew definitely turned on Steven in the BR didn't he? I was almost certain that he'd bring back Lucy instead. Do you think it may be that he thought Lucy could fight more for her position or am I missing something? This could be a little impartial as Navdeep, Lucy and Steven were my top 3.
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
It wasn't really fair that Navdeep was fired over Andrew as she is clearly a better performer, but I think at the end of the day, Lord Sugar thought that Andrew's background and personality would suit him better than Navdeep's would. We've seen it loads of times - Karen being fired over Jo and Sharon and Tuan over Syed in Series 2, Adam over Katie in Series 3, Paula over Ben in Series 5, Hibah over Adam in Junior Apprentice Series 1, Katie over Adam in Series 8, to name but a few... Many times, a candidate has proven to be a better performer than another, but has lost out in favour of them just because Lord Sugar is basing it on gut instinct more than on common sense. He has occasionally admitted to making mistakes (with Miriam and Liz, specifically) but I think on the whole his instincts have served him well.
As for Andrew's motives for not bringing back Lucy... I wouldn't say she'd be able to defend herself better than Navdeep as I think Navdeep defended herself very well, but I think he thought Lord Sugar was more likely to favour her. As Lucy had not been in the boardroom yet, she was an unknown quantity and I don't think Andrew was prepared to take that risk. Navdeep had been in there before, and on that occasion Sugar said that he was thinking that she might not be right for him (Andrew wasn't there on that occasion, but we don't know how much Navdeep and Maria told the others afterwards.) I don't think Navdeep would ever have won, even if he had let her go. I'm pretty sure Sugar had already made up his mind about her, for reasons I explained above. |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 359
|
It was possibly the least defensible sacking I've ever seen on the show. I've said why over many posts, so you can find them in recent threads. Basically I think either Sugar has gone insane or Navdeep had a rubbish business plan and Andrews is good (good for tv that is, like Sugar cares.) And it's hardened my stance that I either watch this accepting its completely mental and unfair - even to 16 year olds - or that Sugar should be replaced by someone who doesn't keep making ludicrous decisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 359
|
I agree Sugar bases his decisions on gut instinct. Like he had a gut instinct in all those winners who have gone on to do nothing much, or that stupid email telephone thing he launched that sank without trace. His gut instincts are worth sweet diddly.
Maybe get one of the Dragons from Dragons Den in to replace him, I don't even like them much but I think they understand business better than that lucky chancer Sugar. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
I take issue with calling it 'firing'. Norrin_Radd says it was an indefensible sacking. Well, it wasn't a sacking at all, because Navdeep didn't technically work for Sugar. If she had worked for him and he had sacked her based on her performance, that would indeed be unfair dismissal, but when it comes down to it, Sugar is an interviewer. How many times have interviewers come across people that don't appear to have anything wrong with them, but at the same time they can see are not right in some way? It's exactly the same on the programme, Sugar was well within his rights not to go into business with her, if he didn't want to.
I think they have to keep calling it 'firing' because that comes from the original US edition and is the show's classic catchphrase. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,018
|
As an Andrew supporter, I accept that he probably should have been fired last Thursday, but I will say two things.
Firstly, we don't see everything that goes on in the task. It wouldn't surprise me if Karren or LS had seen something in Andrew that we just didn't see. Secondly, Sugar is at liberty to hire and fire anyone he wants on the show. If he doesn't feel as though Navdeep is right for him and Andrew is, that's his decision to make, regardless of what the public feel. So, I do feel as though she was unlucky, but I don't think we can say with any certainty whether the firing was justifiable or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 359
|
Not 'regardless of what the public think' really though... if enough people start to question his decisions - I'm not saying they will - then his position is not set in stone. He doesn't own the show. If people think he keeps making barmy decisions, but they like the concept of the show, then he'll be the one who's fired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
Not 'regardless of what the public think' really though... if enough people start to question his decisions - I'm not saying they will - then his position is not set in stone. He doesn't own the show. If people think he keeps making barmy decisions, but they like the concept of the show, then he'll be the one who's fired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 359
|
Standing by your instincts = of questionable worth or admiribility - instinct not being that reliable.
Sugar's instincts = more and more questionable to the point of ridiculousness. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
It was possibly the least defensible sacking I've ever seen on the show. I've said why over many posts, so you can find them in recent threads. Basically I think either Sugar has gone insane or Navdeep had a rubbish business plan and Andrews is good (good for tv that is, like Sugar cares.) And it's hardened my stance that I either watch this accepting its completely mental and unfair - even to 16 year olds - or that Sugar should be replaced by someone who doesn't keep making ludicrous decisions.
There have been more indefensible firings than this. The firing of Shazia in the laundry task in series 4 probably takes the prize; she was the only person ever to get 100% green "Hired" cards from the audience on You're Fired. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Liverpool
Posts: 3,157
|
He prefers white contestants? He wanted to make the ending more of a shock?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 359
|
One possible mistake from Navdeep regarding costings, while bearing in mind how articulately and precisely against she was all of Andrew's disastrous decisons in this task, versus all the terrible business decisions Andrew made in just one show, decisions he still continued to defend after they failed him the task, and lets face it, was about to cry like a baby, while bearing in mind he has not displayed much business nous elsewhere in the series makes Sugar's decision the wrong one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 11,473
|
Didn't Navdeep want to be a lawyer? Sugar certainly has form for kicking them out asap
|
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Titan Uranus
Posts: 31,964
|
I think Navdeep came across as a moaner too often, whereas Andrew seemed much more hands-on. I think Sugar prefers someone who makes mistakes due to trying too hard and going overboard over someone cold, reserved and too technical.
On a personal level, keeping Andrew seems justified to me after the overly harsh critique he received last week where Sugar made it sound like he didn't like Andrew as a person. Talk about crushing his spirit, glad things have been balanced out. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
One possible mistake from Navdeep regarding costings, while bearing in mind how articulately and precisely against she was all of Andrew's disastrous decisons in this task, versus all the terrible business decisions Andrew made in just one show, decisions he still continued to defend after they failed him the task, and lets face it, was about to cry like a baby, while bearing in mind he has not displayed much business nous elsewhere in the series makes Sugar's decision the wrong one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
I think Navdeep came across as a moaner too often, whereas Andrew seemed much more hands-on. I think Sugar prefers someone who makes mistakes due to trying too hard and going overboard over someone cold, reserved and too technical.
On a personal level, keeping Andrew seems justified to me after the overly harsh critique he received last week where Sugar made it sound like he didn't like Andrew as a person. Talk about crushing his spirit, glad things have been balanced out. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think Andrew should have been the one to go. But I don't think it's quite the travesty you're saying - not when you compare it to Shazia Wahab, Karen Bremner or how far he let Michael Sophocles get.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
Ironically, I think that both Jo and Alexa have become more successful than Karen in the years since The Apprentice. Jo and Alexa have both been pretty successful in their respective careers. Karen, on the other hand, is a military wife, so finds it hard to get a permanent job as her family have to move around a lot because of her husband's profession. I read that somewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
I'm glad to hear Alexa's done well; I liked her, and I thought her career might have suffered as a result of the car-crash task she left on.
I think Karen is an interesting character, because everyone thought it was grossly unfair that she was fired so early - I suppose I thought that as well -, but before she was fired, I didn't like her that much. I thought she possibly appeared to be a bit of a schemer, and it's interesting that Nargis had a big problem with her. She really wanted to get Karen fired in the second week because she didn't think she was honest, and she said on the You're Fired! programme that she thinks Karen set her up by sticking up for Jo in the boardroom. She also said that while they were waiting to go into the boardroom, Karen came up to her and said, 'Just so you know, I've been saying some quite negative things about you on camera', which she thinks was just to wind her up before they went in. I'm not saying that she was a schemer, but I think it's interesting that I had that perception of her before she was fired... I wonder what I would have thought of her if she'd stayed a bit longer? |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
I know, I liked her as well. There was no way that she should have been fired over Syed; she would have learnt from the experience much more than Syed would. There were a couple of people from that series I thought were better than they were made out to be. Ben and Nargis, the first two people to go, were fairly likeable, and neither of them really made drastic decisions on the tasks they project managed. I'd have been interested to see how they would have done as the series went on. I also thought Sharon was better than she appeared to be - she did moan a lot, but I think she was ganged up on by the others.
I think Karen is an interesting character, because everyone thought it was grossly unfair that she was fired so early - I suppose I thought that as well -, but before she was fired, I didn't like her that much. I thought she possibly appeared to be a bit of a schemer, and it's interesting that Nargis had a big problem with her. She really wanted to get Karen fired in the second week because she didn't think she was honest, and she said on the You're Fired! programme that she thinks Karen set her up by sticking up for Jo in the boardroom. She also said that while they were waiting to go into the boardroom, Karen came up to her and said, 'Just so you know, I've been saying some quite negative things about you on camera', which she thinks was just to wind her up before they went in. I'm not saying that she was a schemer, but I think it's interesting that I had that perception of her before she was fired... I wonder what I would have thought of her if she'd stayed a bit longer? Karen may have been sneaky, but she really hadn't done anything wrong. I too think Syed should have been fired over Alexa; his bungle over the chickens was so big a mistake that it left the task beyond salvage, much like the sandalwood error in series five. But Alexa really did manage the task badly. Again, not really a travesty. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,018
|
Quote:
I know, I liked her as well. There was no way that she should have been fired over Syed; she would have learnt from the experience much more than Syed would. There were a couple of people from that series I thought were better than they were made out to be. Ben and Nargis, the first two people to go, were fairly likeable, and neither of them really made drastic decisions on the tasks they project managed. I'd have been interested to see how they would have done as the series went on. I also thought Sharon was better than she appeared to be - she did moan a lot, but I think she was ganged up on by the others.
I think Karen is an interesting character, because everyone thought it was grossly unfair that she was fired so early - I suppose I thought that as well -, but before she was fired, I didn't like her that much. I thought she possibly appeared to be a bit of a schemer, and it's interesting that Nargis had a big problem with her. She really wanted to get Karen fired in the second week because she didn't think she was honest, and she said on the You're Fired! programme that she thinks Karen set her up by sticking up for Jo in the boardroom. She also said that while they were waiting to go into the boardroom, Karen came up to her and said, 'Just so you know, I've been saying some quite negative things about you on camera', which she thinks was just to wind her up before they went in. I'm not saying that she was a schemer, but I think it's interesting that I had that perception of her before she was fired... I wonder what I would have thought of her if she'd stayed a bit longer? Syed did go on to enjoy three successive wins after this task (It could have been four if he'd planned his time better on the selling to trade task) and did prove to have some skills, whilst Alexa had shown nothing in the previous three weeks and bombed as PM on the task. Don't forget that Syed had won as PM the previous week, so he'd shown something. Alexa - not so much. Nargis was bad, though better than some people who PMed that series, but I never forgave her for ganging up on Jo in the boardroom when Jo did say that they shouldn't be doing cats. Also, her pitches are amongst the worse bits of television history! Karen was robbed in my opinion, against Jo who was a terrible leader. Ben was a bit unlucky (as most candidates who get fired first are - just look at Bilyana) but he was owned by Syed in the boardroom. I don't know if you've picked up on it, but my favourite candidates tend to be those who lead well (My favourite all-time candidate is Lucinda from Series 4!) so I didn't like Sharon who fell apart on that car task, but won because her team were clever enough to sell the add-ons which contributed 100% to their profit, as opposed to cars, which they only got a commission on. I think the disappointment about Karen is that there weren't that many good candidates that year, Badger aside, so it was frustrating that someone with that much potential went that early. Agree with the general consensus that Shazia was robbed, still can't watch that episode today without wanting to express unhealthy pent-up rage towards Jenny Celerier!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,171
|
Ah, poor pitches, what about the girl who kicked her shoes off and did a wee dance during? Or was that Nargis? I don't remember her..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
Quote:
I can't remember Ben well enough now to comment on him, but Nargis was an epic failure as PM. Her idea of a cat calendar wasn't great, but I think it was her pitches that got her fired; I don't think anyone has ever pitched worse in the whole history of the show (well, except possibly Kevin pitching his doomed eco-card in series four). The guy she was pitching to asked a reasonable question and she all but snarled at him "I haven't finished! I haven't finished!" then, when he invited her to continue, failed to say another word! You can't possibly dodge the bullet after that. Nice she might have been, but she was absolutely the right one to fire.
Quote:
Nargis was bad, though better than some people who PMed that series, but I never forgave her for ganging up on Jo in the boardroom when Jo did say that they shouldn't be doing cats. Also, her pitches are amongst the worse bits of television history!
Quote:
I don't know if you've picked up on it, but my favourite candidates tend to be those who lead well (My favourite all-time candidate is Lucinda from Series 4!) so I didn't like Sharon who fell apart on that car task, but won because her team were clever enough to sell the add-ons which contributed 100% to their profit, as opposed to cars, which they only got a commission on.
Quote:
Ah, poor pitches, what about the girl who kicked her shoes off and did a wee dance during? Or was that Nargis? I don't remember her..
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
|
Navdeep told her local paper that she does not want to go into business but intends to become a doctor, so perhaps Lord Sugar was right to doubt her business nous after all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
Quote:
Navdeep told her local paper that she does not want to go into business but intends to become a doctor, so perhaps Lord Sugar was right to doubt her business nous after all.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:14.


