No. That's the card she played, but in both this and most previous tasks she contributed little other than a particularly nasty and aggressive attitude in the boardroom.

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.

No, I was overjoyed

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.

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.

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.

Agreed. Jordan was arguably the strongest candidate through the first five weeks, although he has been cast in a more negative light in the past two tasks. I had him down as a definite finalist at least early on, but if the negative edits continue this is starting to look less likely. But to say he has contributed little or nothing certainly unfairly discounts several good weeks earlier in the process.

Not tonight, she was rightfully fired.

In that dress, and in those heels, she needed to stay

She looked hot on You're Fired too

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.

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.

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.

Leah has no bedside manner. The bike lady wasn‘t impressed so if LAS wants a surly partner he’ll have it in Leah.

I may be in a minority but I thought she deserved to be in the boardroom for this task actually. She, arguably even more than Leah, messed up the pitches for the lower-end products which was critical in the task defeat as Kurt went for the high-end caravan based on that product loss. In addition she only sold £100 worth of low-end products which was the lowest of the sub-team that was selling the easy products (far far easier to sell than caravans) and was the third worst seller overall. By those numbers alone she should have been in the boardroom. And also, she didn't know enough about the product (calling the boat seat a table for example). This incident and her bumbling in the boardroom about how she could have sold loads of caravans highlighted the fact that, in my view, she was the weakest left by far and for those reasons (combined with the fact that she has done very little of worth in the past seven weeks, or at least less than everyone else remaining in the process) I felt she fully deserved her place in the boardroom last night.


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. However, Leah sold well and almost sealed a caravan deal (The fact that she didn't wasn't anything to do with her) so I would definitely have brought back Myles and Natalie in Kurt's position.

My overwhelming impression was that Myles, Leah and Natalie were not working as a team, and looked as if they'd only just been introduced to each other.

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.

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 )

Of course it depends what you're used to because, as Cressida points out below, countless young women are destroying the shapes of their feet by wearing ridiculously shaped shoes in assimilate into a fashion fad. There is no way on God's green earth that the skyscrapers most of the female contestants have worn throughout this series could be a) comfortable or b) good for your feet.


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.

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.

I'd have quite liked to feel Natalie, yes.

Why does that make her a fool? If she genuinely finds them more comfortable, which is likely if she's more used to wearing them, then fair enough.

That's true but Kurt still panicked when he didn't need to, not helped by Alex's insistence on going for the camper van. He should have realised that the key to this task was all about getting the right high-value product. Although the choice wasn't as clear-cut as the episode made it out to be, Kurt seemed to be edging towards the collapsible tent but allowed himself to be convinced otherwise. Bad move.

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.

There are no rules. Using a shoulder bag heavy with contents or a back pack slung over one shoulder isn’t ideal either but it doesn’t stop anyone from doing it.

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.

I'd forgive her the crying to a certain extent, but her repeated use of the tactics card was annoying - and wrong. Sugar said in the boardroom he wondered whether she had been brought back for tactical reasons, but he still decided to use the opportunity to play his double firing joker anyway. That clearly indicated that, despite his concerns about tactics, he still felt she should go - which surely indicates how weak she was?

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.

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.