|
||||||||
Was this the episode The Apprentice became a farce? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#51 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 752
|
Quote:
Even if the skeleton was a piss take, was it worth such a whopping fine?
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#52 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 1,885
|
Quote:
I see were your coming from but have to disagree because the whole point of the task was to buy each article as CHEAP as possible, there is nothing in the brief about quality whatsoever, just get it at the lowest price possible
in my opinion, i think LS was just annoyed that felipe, a lawyer, outsmarted him!! |
|
|
|
|
|
#53 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: I like to singy singy singy...
Posts: 17,646
|
Quote:
The fine was only that big because skeletons are expensive items to begin with. Had they gotten a rotting, expired kosher chicken from that Jewish butchers for free - since I'm pretty sure the brief said nothing about the chicken being edible - they'd also have gotten fined, but probably not by more than a tenner or so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#54 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Up the creak without a paddle
Posts: 5,542
|
Delete
|
|
|
|
|
|
#55 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,410
|
Quote:
His idea was something to do with disabled children. so Lord Alan ran a mile.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#56 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
The fine was only that big because skeletons are expensive items to begin with. Had they gotten a rotting, expired kosher chicken from that Jewish butchers for free - since I'm pretty sure the brief said nothing about the chicken being edible - they'd also have gotten fined, but probably not by more than a tenner or so.
Summit incurred £161 in fines. It's not broken down in the episode, but it's likely that it was £100 for being late back to the boardroom and £61 for failing to buy the chicken (£50 fine on top of £11 guide price?) |
|
|
|
|
#57 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,080
|
Quote:
No one's disputing the objective of the task. The point is whether, if you had asked someone to go out and buy a skeleton, you would be happy when they came back with a paper kit. I know I wouldn't. I'm with auron87. Felipe rolled the dice knowing it was a risky strategy - it blew up in his face. I think Sugar would have looked sillier if he had accepted the paper skeleton. The semantics of what the instructions did or didn't say should have given way to common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#58 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,530
|
It actually got me riled up, completely out of order.
|
|
|
|
|
#59 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Up the creak without a paddle
Posts: 5,542
|
Quote:
Fair point but I guess the show sets the parameters and the conceit that the tasks are vital, then Sugar plays fast and loose with them. Even if the skeleton was a piss take, was it worth such a whopping fine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#60 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,530
|
Felipe showed some initiative and outsmarted Lord Sugar, he wasn't happy about it and stuck an unreasonable fine on so that the other team would win.
|
|
|
|
|
#61 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
But common sense dictates that the customer could just cut the rope themselves, if all it takes is a pair of scissors. The problem is that Sugar applied common sense with one item, and ignored it with another.
I know it's a trivial and petty thing, but given that it was written in black and white why didn't they just have it cut when they had the chance? It was an unnecessary risk to take, in my view. |
|
|
|
|
#62 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
Felipe showed some initiative and outsmarted Lord Sugar, he wasn't happy about it and stuck an unreasonable fine on so that the other team would win.
|
|
|
|
|
#63 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,663
|
Quote:
Agree.
I Felipe had actually made the paper Skeleton then I would disagree but to leave it in a box was just unfair on the other team IMO and against the spirit of the task. So should both teams have plumbed in the sink then to show it was in full working order ? Same principle don't you think ? |
|
|
|
|
|
#64 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Nottinghamshire
Posts: 2,403
|
Quote:
Fair point but I guess the show sets the parameters and the conceit that the tasks are vital, then Sugar plays fast and loose with them. Even if the skeleton was a piss take, was it worth such a whopping fine?
I'm more interested in the 'fines' from a business point of view and how they're supposed to be relevant (if they're not just used for effect). First up, they're not fines, they're penalty charges (like what your credit card company do if you miss payment or something). Only a court can impose a fine. Secondly, for the large part they're also unenforceable in the court room. Say for instance I ask you to get me the items and then tried to impose a penalty charge for each item you didn't get, then took you to court I'd end up with problems. Even if the possibility of a penalty charge was mentioned in the contract, it could be shot down as an unfair term or condition. Then there's also the issue of whether I suffered any loss due to your failure to get them. I can't just say buy me a skeleton and if you don't you owe me a million quid because I say so. I have to show that I've suffered a loss due to your failure to fulfil a contract. I also can't use things such as general day to day business expenses as an excuse either, as they'd have to be paid regardless. Is this an example of shady business practices? |
|
|
|
|
|
#65 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 65,903
|
Quote:
It was a farce. A farce for not accepting it and a farce for the price.
Quote:
It wasn't a proper skeleton though! if a paper skeleton is acceptable why not go to a toy store and buy a plastic diamond!
Quote:
But then why isn't the rope acceptable? If it's just a matter of taking some scissors to it, the customer could quite easily do that.
I really wondered what would have happened if Daniel had ONLY brought felipe back into the boardroom, on the very reasonable grounds that the task was lost by two people and no more. Would LS have admired a certain courage and ethics, or would he have seen it as just rule-breaking? |
|
|
|
|
|
#66 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
Actually, I thought he'd have been applauded and maybe he'd possibly twigged on something that had been missed before.
I'm more interested in the 'fines' from a business point of view and how they're supposed to be relevant (if they're not just used for effect). First up, they're not fines, they're penalty charges (like what your credit card company do if you miss payment or something). Only a court can impose a fine. Secondly, for the large part they're also unenforceable in the court room. Say for instance I ask you to get me the items and then tried to impose a penalty charge for each item you didn't get, then took you to court I'd end up with problems. Even if the possibility of a penalty charge was mentioned in the contract, it could be shot down as an unfair term or condition. Then there's also the issue of whether I suffered any loss due to your failure to get them. I can't just say buy me a skeleton and if you don't you owe me a million quid because I say so. I have to show that I've suffered a loss due to your failure to fulfil a contract. I also can't use things such as general day to day business expenses as an excuse either, as they'd have to be paid regardless. Is this an example of shady business practices? |
|
|
|
|
#67 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,663
|
Quote:
The fine was only that big because skeletons are expensive items to begin with. Had they gotten a rotting, expired kosher chicken from that Jewish butchers for free - since I'm pretty sure the brief said nothing about the chicken being edible - they'd also have gotten fined, but probably not by more than a tenner or so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#68 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
I never thought for a minute he would accept it. I think they had taken leave of their senses. They totally misjudged the nature of the task, which was entirely round sourcing and then negotiating for things, not round trying to find a clever way round the rules. There is always a big slice of luck in Apprentice: no one could have predicted that a diamond dealer would turn to mush just because a pretty blonde fluttered her eyelashes at him. But if I had been team leader I would not have listened to the paper skeleton kit idea for and instant. Who honestly thought LS was the kind of person who enjoys his tasks being turned into a kind of amusing prank?
Well exactly. Of the kosher butcher who couldn't supply a chicken probably had plenty of chicken parts and some sellotape. Again, you are confusing an Apprentice task with real life. In real life, of course you could give people a bit of extra rope. But the task was specific: he wanted them to find a piece of old rope, exactly a meter long. It was quite funny hearing Felipe's anguished, "I would have cut it with my teeth!" I really wondered what would have happened if Daniel had ONLY brought felipe back into the boardroom, on the very reasonable grounds that the task was lost by two people and no more. Would LS have admired a certain courage and ethics, or would he have seen it as just rule-breaking? As I've said elsewhere, I suspect there wouldn't be half the uproar if it had been Daniel or Mark rather than Felipe who had pulled this stunt and gotten themselves fired. I know Sugar wouldn't have allowed it, but it would have made sense for Daniel to either bring back Felipe only or bring in the entire team. (Felipe only makes more sense, though!) |
|
|
|
|
#69 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,226
|
Quote:
I don't think it's ever been stated explicitly, but I believe the fine for not obtaining an item (or getting it wrong) is the guide price of the item (as defined in the task rules) plus £50.
Summit incurred £161 in fines. It's not broken down in the episode, but it's likely that it was £100 for being late back to the boardroom and £61 for failing to buy the chicken (£50 fine on top of £11 guide price?) |
|
|
|
|
|
#70 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: I like to singy singy singy...
Posts: 17,646
|
Quote:
I agree with you 100%. It's an artificial tasks with artificial rules intended to decide which team is the winner. And it's a game that isn't always played on a level playing field, as no two negotiations are ever identical (or, in the case of the diamonds, even remotely comparable!)
As I've said elsewhere, I suspect there wouldn't be half the uproar if it had been Daniel or Mark rather than Felipe who had pulled this stunt and gotten themselves fired. I know Sugar wouldn't have allowed it, but it would have made sense for Daniel to either bring back Felipe only or bring in the entire team. (Felipe only makes more sense, though!) |
|
|
|
|
|
#71 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 4,283
|
Think that allowing the skeleton would have created a loophole for future series, as why not just buy a poster with the item on it?
Personally, I am a bit shocked that people are making such a big issue out of it. Surely, if you are asked to buy a skeleton, you would know what that means?? The Nigella seeds and the oud oil are obviously misleading, but a skeleton? Honestly? |
|
|
|
|
|
#72 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
Which in itself is odd because £100 for both sub teams being late is an incentive to carry on and on if you are mssing a big item. It needs to be a sliding scale, more money and per subteam.
|
|
|
|
|
#73 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
Think that allowing the skeleton would have created a loophole for future series, as why not just buy a poster with the item on it?
Personally, I am a bit shocked that people are making such a big issue out of it. Surely, if you are asked to buy a skeleton, you would know what that means?? The Nigella seeds and the oud oil are obviously misleading, but a skeleton? Honestly? |
|
|
|
|
#74 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,080
|
Quote:
Again, you are confusing an Apprentice task with real life. In real life, of course you could give people a bit of extra rope. But the task was specific: he wanted them to find a piece of old rope, exactly a meter long. It was quite funny hearing Felipe's anguished, "I would have cut it with my teeth!"
This is the crux of it - Sugar should either treat this as a simulation of real life or he shouldn't. If the point of the task is "sourcing and negotiating things", as you say, then that was entirely fulfilled with the rope. The fact that they didn't cut it - which, in real life, the customer could just as easily do themselves - should be neither here nor there. I just can't see a consistent way for them to be penalised for both the rope and the skeleton. |
|
|
|
|
|
#75 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,231
|
Quote:
I never thought for a minute he would accept it. I think they had taken leave of their senses. They totally misjudged the nature of the task, which was entirely round sourcing and then negotiating for things, not round trying to find a clever way round the rules. There is always a big slice of luck in Apprentice: no one could have predicted that a diamond dealer would turn to mush just because a pretty blonde fluttered her eyelashes at him. But if I had been team leader I would not have listened to the paper skeleton kit idea for and instant. Who honestly thought LS was the kind of person who enjoys his tasks being turned into a kind of amusing prank?
|
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49.




