|
||||||||
did anyone else feel for Natalie? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
She wass clearly a scapegoat
Other than one intervention in a deal that was going south in Chinatown in week one, what did she do that really helped her team? She suddenly became very wise after the fact in the boardroom, but wisdom is easy when you have the benefit of hindsight. As for her constant bleating about having an eye for fashion, she was still the PM who presided over the Tidy-Sidey. |
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,387
|
No, I was overjoyed
|
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 16,500
|
I did feel for her to an extent, though she isn't a strong contestant and I didn't really like her much. I don't think she deserved to go on this task.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 3,051
|
Not really. I don't think she should have been in the boardroom on this task but the edits haven't shown her making much of a contribution on any of them. Leah and Myles were lucky to have a PM stupid enough not to take them in, and Francesca and that beardie glasses guy were lucky to be on the winning team because I haven't seen either of them contribute anything positive throughout the process. But the mere fact that others have dodged a bullet doesn't make me feel sorry for Natalie. She was always going to go and could arguably have been sacked 3 or 4 episodes ago, nice as she is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,018
|
Quote:
Leah and Myles were lucky to have a PM stupid enough not to take them in, and Francesca and that beardie glasses guy were lucky to be on the winning team because I haven't seen either of them contribute anything positive throughout the process. But the mere fact that others have dodged a bullet doesn't make me feel sorry for Natalie. She was always going to go and could arguably have been sacked 3 or 4 episodes ago, nice as she is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
This is the problem I have with many posters on the forums - short term memory loss. As the PM of the Flat-pack task (The second biggest victory so far) as well as strong selling on the beer task, a winning idea on the Farm task and the best deal of the day in Dubai, to suggest Jordan hasn't, and I quote, "contributed anything positive throughout the process" is factually incorrect. He was rubbish this week, but not so in the past and to make bold statements like this when you clearly don't remember everything that happened in the past is unfair.
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dream
Posts: 2,797
|
Not tonight, she was rightfully fired.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,226
|
In that dress, and in those heels, she needed to stay
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,226
|
She looked hot on You're Fired too
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,587
|
I liked Natalie actually; I think she had more than she was given credit for. She made a few slip-ups on tasks, but overall I'd say she was a more solid performer than someone like Jason, who performed well last night but not on any other tasks, yet for some reason is a lot more popular than Natalie. I actually thought she was a decent PM; the reason they lost was that she made the mistake of trying to incorporate too many people's ideas, and while that was a big mistake, I admire her trying to involve everyone. If that had worked, she would have been praised for that. She also recognised that the initial idea on that task was good (which it was, at the start) and didn't insist on doing the pitches herself, as so many do; she recognised who the best people to pitch were, and the pitches themselves were praised by the clients.
She has also done some other good things on the tasks - like in Task 1, when Sophie was screwing up trying to sell china cats, Natalie stepped in and managed to close that deal. Sure, she was on her last chance, but Kurt blatantly brought her in because of that, and he would have done so regardless of how she personally performed. If I had been Lord Sugar, I would have done what he did with Stephen last year - given her one more chance to prove herself by making her PM again next week, and if she messed that up I wouldn't object to her firing. |
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: I'm a she not a he.
Posts: 3,192
|
I think she'd outstayed her welcome, really. She should have gone weeks ago when she was team leader and she hasn't done anything to redeem herself since. She also seems to be easily lead by Luisa as opposed to having a mind of her own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Glasgow
Posts: 3,824
|
Quote:
I think Leah can consider herself very luck this ep, she survived by being 'eye candy' - in the eyes of Kurt at least.
They lost the task because they failed to get the products they wanted - the main responsibility for that was down to Leah. |
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Westish
Posts: 3,157
|
Quote:
They lost this task because they picked the wrong high-value product. That had nothing to do with Leah. Even if Leah had been more positive about the children's box, and they had that to sell, they would have still lost the task. Plus she had the highest sales on the team. It would have been stupid for Kurt to bring her into the boardroom - she was less culpable than both Natalie and Alex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 2,018
|
Quote:
She has also done some other good things on the tasks - like in Task 1, when Sophie was screwing up trying to sell china cats, Natalie stepped in and managed to close that deal. Sure, she was on her last chance, but Kurt blatantly brought her in because of that, and he would have done so regardless of how she personally performed. If I had been Lord Sugar, I would have done what he did with Stephen last year - given her one more chance to prove herself by making her PM again next week, and if she messed that up I wouldn't object to her firing.
Quote:
They lost this task because they picked the wrong high-value product. That had nothing to do with Leah. Even if Leah had been more positive about the children's box, and they had that to sell, they would have still lost the task. Plus she had the highest sales on the team. It would have been stupid for Kurt to bring her into the boardroom - she was less culpable than both Natalie and Alex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
She [Natalie], arguably even more than Leah, messed up the pitches for the lower-end products
Perhaps it was a deliberate strategy that Myles would schmooze the customer and then the women would ask the commercial questions about discounts and so on. If so, it backfired. Myles's approach was described by Nick as nauseating, and already seemed to have raised the suspicions of the vendors, even before the women piled in to suggest their wares were unsellable, overpriced tat that would need huge discounts. |
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 9,275
|
I have softened a bit towards Natalie, but her card was marked by losing control by screaming like a banshee in the boardroom in front of LAS and also allowing herself to be dominated/ sidelined by the likes of Neil on certain tasks.
She isn't the worst candidate I've ever seen, but she's also far from the best. She came across nicely enough on Your Fired I agree, and seems like a nice enough person overall. The only time I felt a bit sorry for her was when Leah was picked over her as eye candy. The schadenfreude part of me was half hoping that in the boardroom when she asked why they asked for Leah instead of her, Kurt and Myles would have admitted it was because Leah was better looking. Actually I take that back. That would have been a little too mean (but accurate )
|
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 18,700
|
Quote:
I disagree, plenty of women find heels more comfortable. Depends what you are used to/like.
Quote:
Flat shoes are out if you’re used to wearing high heels. The muscle and tendon are stretched beyond their normal range of movement and the foot needs the lift of a heel to compensate. Natalie was correct.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,366
|
I don't like how Natalie went after Uzma and Zee in the boardroom, as much as I think they were lousy candidates she put up a pretty good show in the boardroom while her own contributions where nothing to gloat about either.
She deserved to be fired IMO. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: In the real world
Posts: 1,163
|
did anyone else feel for Natalie?
I'd have quite liked to feel Natalie, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 21,530
|
Quote:
She just told Dara on the spin off show that she wears high heels for 'comfort' ... she's making a bit of a fool of herself all-round really
|
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
Oh but it did! Kurt only went for that caravan because they had lost the two low-end products that they had chosen. This meant that, in my view, Leah and Natalie were both partially culpable for that.
Okay. they might still have lost out to Evolve if the vendor had had to choose between them, but really the errors made by the sub-team shouldn't have put Kurt off making the right decision. |
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: South Westish
Posts: 3,157
|
Quote:
She wasn't correct, really; she was over-simplifying the damage she's doing to her feet. You can, as pointed out earlier, wear a low, stacked heel if you've already banjaxed your feet too much by wearing high heels earlier in life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
She played the 'sexism' card and succeed, she played the 'tactics' card and nearly succeeded, she played the 'crying' card and that did for her.
I sense she is quite the bitch, just from the way she scornfully responded to some of the questions put to her last night. She contributed very little to the show and had to go. |
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
She played the 'sexism' card and succeed, she played the 'tactics' card and nearly succeeded, she played the 'crying' card and that did for her.
I sense she is quite the bitch, just from the way she scornfully responded to some of the questions put to her last night. She contributed very little to the show and had to go. Scenario 1: I think you were crap - you're fired. Scenario 2: I think you were ganged up on, but do you know what? I'm SO unimpressed by you I'm going to fire you anyway. Which is worse? 2, clearly. Keep playing the tactics card, Natalie. It makes you look worse, not better. |
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
There's always one double firing per series, there's too many candidates in ratio to weeks in the series run, the only other option is having more in the final than usual.
LS obviously made her look vulnerable by saying that she'd be out the next time she was in the final boardroom, but Leah must have told everyone about that as she was her co-survivor. Unless Nat told everyone herself, which was idiotic if she did, obviously, she'd be brought in by anyone so she'd be fired ahead of them - but Kurt's ploy backfired as he's out too. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:38.





)