After measuring the rope and finding it too long why did they not cut it to the correct length when the assistant offered them a scissors .

So that deal cost the team a fine of £52 .

I just don't understand the lack of attention to accuracy and detail .

Because, like all the viewers, they didn't believe that Sugah could be such an utter a*se as to reject them for having it slightly over the odds, lengthwise.

You know as well as I do that if they had, the conversation would probably have gone something like this:

"Yes, Lord Sugah, we got the rope for free! In fact, we got it even larger but we cut the difference off to make it exactly as per your requirements!"

"Effin' toadies! Stupid sheep! Why couldn't you have shown a bit of initiative and brought it back to me with that extra bit on?! I could have used the extra bit of rope for something to make money with, don't you effin know what a money-grubbin' worm I am?" I could have got 50p for it as a nose-picker or somethin' ? I'm fining you for that... !"

Indeed - the only reason Lord Sid rejected the over length rope was because he already had a mardy on over the skellington.

What is have done is cut the rope to exactly 1m but still brought back the spare rope. That way I'd have got the rope for free exactly as specified but also brought back some extra that I also got for free. Hard to argue with that.

I like that. Meets the exact specification AND shows initiative. We can have the argument all day, but fundamentally the spec said 1 metre. Solomon ensured he followed it. Mark and Katie passed up the garden centre lady's offer of scissors on the spot. It was an unnecessary and risky omission. (And, as I've pointed out ad nauseam elsewhere, the £52 fine did not change the outcome of the task - they lost by a little over £64.)

I was a little baffled because at one point Katie obviously realised she'd made a mistake and was trying to tie the thing up in knots, to shorten it. So what happened there. Technically the rope was shorter, but still retained it's longer length. In the real world surely it's better to have to much rope, than not enough!! But she was very quite on that whole rope episode and seemed to try to shift the blame onto Daniel and Felipe over the skeleton.

I got the feeling, these two just were not trying that hard to win. They thought if they lost, they would be rid of Daniel. When haggling for the sink, they only asked for £5 off the price, which is poor. They knew the size was an issue, as they tied the ends into a knot, to make the length a metre.

If they could have got £15 off, not impossible, and cut the rope to the right size then they would have won the task regardless of the skeleton.

I think with the sink they just took a view that it was a good price and it wasn't worth spending a lot of time trying to get a bit more off. I've learnt that during haggling you get a good whack off in the first few minutes, but you rapidly reach the point where its just not worth arguing over progressively small percentages off.
The rope was an oversight, though I still maintain it was only because Sugar was pissed off that it became an issue. Again they may have not wanted to waste time whilst the vendor faffed around trying to find some scissors.

Sorry, that's ridiculous. Of course they would have been trying to win. I get that they would have tried to put Daniel into a position where, if things went south, they had something to pin on him individually, but no candidate - particularly at this late stage where they know they are just two tasks from making the interviews - is going to do anything other than try to win when two task victories guarantees you a place in interviews.

The sink haggle *was* pathetic. The rope seemed to be an oversight where they realised their error later, but let's not lose sight of the fact that the £52 fine they incurred for it made no difference to the task result as the margin of defeat was nearly £65.

I agree that them having one eye on the clock may have been an influencing factor in their haste. Poor decision, though, for the sake of a couple of minutes relative to the cost of their rope error in particular.

I found it hilarious in the boardroom when they were sitting there patting themselves on the back for getting the rope for free, when the other team had got there's free too and paid less for the seeds.

They knew they had a problem with the length, but had already sussed out there was a potentially bigger problem on the other side of their team, and their oud oil transaction was going to make them look golden, so I think they were just lazy.

^^ The rope wasn't an oversight, twice they had the opportunity to make it right and failed both times.

True, although to be fair the difference between the two teams was a fairly trivial 28p (£7 vs £6.72).

^^you must sit there with a notepad, or at least wear out your skybox with all the pausing.

Should have told Sugarbabe it was a buy one get one free offer.

Heh. It gets added to my personal page on the BBC previews website and I then stream it, usually on a Friday evening. I then write up my reviews (one for my blog, one for the Metro website) over the weekend.

It means I do generally have a different experience of the show than most people here. For starters, I have the luxury of rewatching key moments in advance, which means I don't miss any (well, many) details. I then watch it again live on the Wednesday night, where I live-tweet as I go (as @SlouchingTV).

So by the time everyone starts discussing the episode, I've seen it at least twice and had five days to mull over the key incidents, so my view is likely to be a bit more considered and dispassionate than most. (As you'll know by now, I'm a pretty rational person anyway, who's always happy to have a reasoned debate about the rights and wrongs of a task as long as it's not of the "I'm right"/"No, I'm right" variety.)

That doesn't make me right, by any means, but I like to think it makes me more likely to be right than the average viewer, especially given that I have a fair amount of business experience under my belt to boot.

And, yes, I do sit there with a notepad and make copious notes! Knowing the way this particular task has worked in the past, I did make a point of jotting down every price/fine and mapping it out on a spreadsheet for my review. Now *that's* added value.

Crikey, you should apply. You probably have all the permutations and pitfalls sussed with all that analysis! You could probably walk it.

WOW impressed, yes you should enter, but then again you don't appear to have a ego the size of a small Island, and seem quite level headed

Not sure how you can say its ridiculous, especially when you agree the haggle over the sink was pathetic. If you ask me they werent trying to win, they were more worried about covering their arse. They though if we get all the things assigned to us, then its going to be difficult to fire us. Hence why they just went from item to item buying them without much haggling. This also explains why they didnt bother wasting time cutting the rope. For them it was all about get the items and get back to the boardroom on time. If they won fine, if they lost they would say, well we got all of our items.

Their main aim (every week) is to not get fired...not win the task. Of course by winning you increase your chances of not getting fired. However the best strategy has always been to make sure you are not the worst player on your team. If you think the candidates are all about winning, then you are sadly mistaken. Its all about not being the worst player on your team.

That's exactly why I wouldn't apply! TBH, I'd be rubbish. Unlike the candidates I'm (a) not desperate to be on TV (I ticked that box years ago, when I was a kid) and (b) self-aware enough to know I'd be terrible on the show, on account of not being good-looking enough, not one to big myself up and nowhere near as articulate vocally as I am in writing.

Oh, and I'm well paid for the job I do already, have no desire to start my own business and am much happier writing about TA than I would ever be on the show itself.

I'd be one of those quiet candidates who can't make themselves heard even if I was talking sense, and consequently gets fired in week two or three because "I can't see what you do".

Other than that, I'd be the perfect candidate.

You may have a point, of the items they got at least 3 were very dodgy. The sink was pathetic, the rope, a complete balls up and the Oil again pretty pathetic negotiations. And with those 2 you can see them doing it. I don't think Daniel has the brains to be that sneaky plus he was PM, and Felipe is too much of a nice guy to contemplate it.

Yes. The best strategy is to combine the two, which means you try to win as well as making the best contribution you can. Doing one without the other is an inferior strategy. Basic rational logic.

As for being sadly mistaken, what makes you so sure that you're right?

What you should always try and do is your very best. If you win, your safe, you loose, you don't have reason to be brought back in.

I wouldn't be surprised if Mark and Katie had bargained that if brought back in they would get through and Daniel would be fired. I said a few weeks back I didn't like the way Katie always waits till mark picks his target, then she herself jumps in too. Those 2 are as thick as thieves.

You cant always combine the two. If you try to combine the two, you may end up doing neither. Sometimes you may have to take a hit for the team. However no player in their right mind would be the one to volunteer to be the one that takes the hit.

Your top priority must always be to make sure there is always someone worse than you.

Why do I think I am right? Simple, look at the past winners, which one of them did what was best for the team? They all did what was best for them. Can you name me one winner that did what was best for the team, on a regular basis?

Why do some people call a skeleton a skellington? Muppets.