Yep, probably...but on this task, Natalie did everything she was asked to do. So shouldnt have got fired. Then again there is much logic to Sugars firings.

That's the point, though, isn't it? Natalie does what she's asked to do, but there's no real initiative or her actively stepping up to the plate, as Luisa and Neil both did on this task. She and Kurt cooked some beef stew which people didn't like - that's hardly a positive contribution. (I accept that she may have done stuff we didn't see, but her lack of contribution is a recurring theme pretty much every week.)

In fact, I can't easily remember one positive contribution Natalie has made to any task. She caved on the flat-pack task when she was PM. And the only times she has really come to life have been when she has been cornered in the boardroom.

In the first task, she sold some china cats or something to one of the shops. It was Sophie's pitch, but she messed it up and Natalie stepped in and saved it.

I think she would've brought back Natalie for doing nothing APU, and Alex in a delicious ironic twist for being a dissenting voice on the sub-team.

Now I wish it had happened because Alex telling her she shut him down like Zee did to her the week before would've been golden.

Probably because she was told about going with her instincts last week, so to admit that she agreed to the sumo suits even though she thought it was a bad idea would have been an example of her not going with her instincts again.

Yes, you're right - although from memory it's arguable whether Natalie stepped in or butted in. It's not much to hang a hat on for six weeks of tasks though, is it?

I think she stepped in, because Sophie was failing. I think Natalie was the reason they made that particular sale.

I'm probably a lone voice, but I actually think that she was a decent PM. Her big mistake was trying to go with everyone's ideas - but I like it that she at least tried, it shows that she was listening to people. The initial concept of the idea that was brought up wasn't so bad, and she recognised that and went with it. She also knew who the right people to pitch were, and she didn't insist on pitching herself like the PMs often do on that task. When asked if she was a good PM, before they found out the results, her team were generally positive. She wasn't the best PM, but I think she was at least decent.

I hope she survives at least long enough to be Project Manager a second time. If she fails at that it would be fair to fire her, but I'd like her to have one more shot at it.

We'll agree to disagree on Natalie's performance as PM. I understand what you're saying - she definitely wasn't the worst PM we've ever seen - but the end result was disastrous and the "designed by committee" criticisms she received were a direct consequence of her indecision - in much the same way Leah was criticised this week.

She looked that much worse for two reasons, I guess: firstly, the team's idea was so bad (not directly her fault) and secondly that Jordan's style as PM was so good and well-organised. The contrast between the two was painful.

(Also, during the recording of YF - this was the one I was at in person - Natalie was hammered much more than we saw in the broadcast show, which understandably focussed more on that week's firee Sophie. The industry expert, whose name I've forgotten, spoke very eloquently about the importance of having a clear vision in product innovation rather than multiple committee voices.)

I suspect that poster missed that big difference because it didn't really exist. Yes, Leah did slag Zee off, as did Neil and Alex (who got far less criticism for it). But there's nothing to suggest that the three of them weren't putting a lot of effort into the task as well.

...apart from the sub-team results, of course. Leah was criticised more because she seemed to be more focused on Zee than doing her job. she had shown promise early on so many of us were disappointed by her petulance getting in the way of her performance.

All can say is I am glad Leah is not my GP, with that immobile expressionless face, big lips and strange voice ... no thanks.

What I want to know is where did the Sumo suits come from?
We were told they were rejected, then hey presto it rains and 2 suits appear!

Didn't Leah say that they could get them as a last resort if they had no other activities but that they wouldn't be getting the clients to put them on and wrestle.

Hmm....think your right, so another spend that wasn't really needed.

Leah is still a contender. She has done nothing to make Lord Sugar (or any existing customers or potential investors) think she is a total numpty,

you will be accused of sexism soon

It's not just the kipstick - it is also the fact they have been tampered with by bodged plastic surgery - she is horrible looking and not a nice woman.

Agreed Luisa's personality takes a kicking on here but Leah just seems so unpleasant.

Yet to see her have a smile or a laugh about anything, you dont ever see any focus on her in the house before and after the tasks either

I think she'll be a finalist, but the edit ATM is justifying to the audience the reasons why she'll eventually lose.

This.

I don't think the sub-team results show that Leah's half of the team weren't trying, unless you believe that of Zee's half of the team too, as both sub-teams did equally badly, bringing back only two items each. Of course, one of Leah's sub-team's purchases was wrong, but I'm sure she didn't know that.

Her team certainly intended to show her to be a bad PM

And it's seems they fooled a lot of fools.

I see nothing unpleasant.
It's hard to be joyful when you are competing with people who are so unscrupulous.

This thread suggests that the thing people most dislike about Leah is her lips.

How meaningful.

This is the sort of thing that Claude Littner pulls to pieces in the interview stage.

Cannot see Sugar going for plastic surgery as a business venture - PIP implants scandal would put anyone off investing.

He dismissed Jade's plans for telemarketing in last year's final in seconds, as he did not like the image it would project.