|
||||||||
What's the point of keeping people in the show if you don't like their business plan? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,516
|
What's the point of keeping people in the show if you don't like their business plan?
Last episode totally undermined the whole process of the show. He fired Sanjay not because he didn't do well in the task but because he didn't believe in his business plan. So why has he strung him along all this time and kept him in the process if he didn't like his business plan? He was doomed from the start. If he didn't think his business plan stood a chance and hadn't got a hope in hell of winning then why was he even chosen to be in the competition? He could have told him this at the start and saved him 10 weeks of being strung along and humiliated for absolutely nothing.
What a total joke this show has become. It's all about making money for Alan Sugar and blowing smoke up his arse. Was far better when they were competing for a straight forward salary and the candidates weren't forced to bow down to the Lord Almighty. All this "Yes Lord Sugar" business is SO pretentious. This guy is so far up his own arse now he's blinded by his own ego. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: London
Posts: 295
|
Totally agree. There was literally zero point of that task on Wednesday night when they were fired entirely on their business plan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,516
|
Quote:
Totally agree. There was literally zero point of that task on Wednesday night when they were fired entirely on their business plan.
Does the CEO of Wetherspoons know how to brew beer? No, but he knows people who do and can source it at the right price. I'm pretty certain Alan Sugar couldn't build an Amstrad computer all by himself either. |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,982
|
I agree, Wednesdays episode has turned me right off, the program has become pointless.
The losing team, the worst performing was Mark and yet he stays. Katie and Sanjay are fired not because of the task but because of a business plan. I assume Sugar looked at the plans before the series started so why have them as candidates. I also think the Daniel/Sanjay swap was deliberate so that Sugar had 2 candidates from each team to fire regardless of how the candidates performed. Sugar has needed to go for a while now and if the show is to continue he should leave at the end if this series. It's time for a change at the top. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 21,729
|
In a nutshell this is why the Apprentice is a bit of a waste of time. Sugar decides who he wants to win at the start and sticks with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,694
|
It hasn't undermined anything, it's just made overt what was once less overt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
It's quite simple. Sugar has to fire people each week, if he can't find a rationale to fire them within the context of the episode, he'll go to the BP's.
He wanted to keep Mark, but he was the weakest performer in the episode, so he had to use the BP's to get rid of the other two. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,516
|
Quote:
I agree, Wednesdays episode has turned me right off, the program has become pointless.
The losing team, the worst performing was Mark and yet he stays. Katie and Sanjay are fired not because of the task but because of a business plan. I assume Sugar looked at the plans before the series started so why have them as candidates. I also think the Daniel/Sanjay swap was deliberate so that Sugar had 2 candidates from each team to fire regardless of how the candidates performed. Sugar has needed to go for a while now and if the show is to continue he should leave at the end if this series. It's time for a change at the top. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 10,516
|
Quote:
It's quite simple. Sugar has to fire people each week, if he can't find a rationale to fire them within the context of the episode, he'll go to the BP's.
He wanted to keep Mark, but he was the weakest performer in the episode, so he had to use the BP's to get rid of the other two. We're not just talking about a 2 hour job interview here. This is a 3 month process where they have to work their backsides off to win tasks each week before they even stand a chance at getting an interview. What's the point if he's already decided who he doesn't want? It just makes a total mockery of the whole process. |
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 752
|
How many times has Sugar actually fired someone just because he doesn't like their business plan? Off the top of my head I can only think of three - Katie and Sanjay this year, and Myles last year. And most people seem to agree that Sanjay and Myles deserved to be fired anyway for their performance and/or general track record.
Heck, Series 7 seems to be Exhibit A whenever one of these "the show is rigged for a certain candidate to win" discussions comes up, and that was the year when Sugar didn't actually have access to the business plans until the very end. |
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
Why have people in the competition if they have zero chance of winning because he's already predetermined that he doesn't like their business plan? That to me is a total waste of people's time.
We're not just talking about a 2 hour job interview here. This is a 3 month process where they have to work their backsides off to win tasks each week before they even stand a chance at getting an interview. What's the point if he's already decided who he doesn't want? It just makes a total mockery of the whole process. I'm sure Sugar has some opinions at the outset on who the likely winner might be - don't we all? - but is anyone seriously suggesting he's so stupid that he wouldn't take the evidence of ten weeks of tasks and then the interviews into account before making a final decision? Of course he does, just as the business plans and their CVs provide evidence on which to base an initial assessment. |
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 752
|
Quote:
I'm sure Sugar has some opinions at the outset on who the likely winner might be - don't we all? - but is anyone seriously suggesting he's so stupid that he wouldn't take the evidence of ten weeks of tasks and then the interviews into account before making a final decision? Of course he does, just as the business plans and their CVs provide evidence on which to base an initial assessment.
People seem to fall into the fallacy of thinking that if Sugar isn't basing his decisions 100% on their performances and nothing else, then he must be basing it purely on the business plans and nothing else. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
If he didn't pay any attention to the performances, then last year Neil would have been fired just as quickly and as dismissively as Jordan was. Instead, Sugar gave him the chance to suggest a second idea, and only got shot of him when he refused to offer one. And granted, Karren said somewhere that she'd have raised an almighty stink if Neil wasn't fired that week when all three women did so well with their interviews and business plans, but Sugar's always been the type of person who does what he wants.
People seem to fall into the fallacy of thinking that if Sugar isn't basing his decisions 100% on their performances and nothing else, then he must be basing it purely on the business plans and nothing else. 1. Is the business plan good? (This includes consideration of how much risk is involved - Sugar has traditionally had a preference for lower risk investments.) 2. Is the candidate someone I believe is credible and can trust? 3. Related to (2), has the candidate shown evidence during the tasks that they have good business skills that are relevant to their plan? As I've said many times before, the first two questions are what any investor would ask when considering a business proposition. A good idea is nothing without someone you believe will make it happen. And a good, credible person is nothing without a workable idea. Not one or the other, but elements of both. Your example, Neil Clough, was someone who Sugar came to believe was credible as a candidate, but he just didn't believe his business plan. Tom Pellereau was another example - the plan he presented was rubbish, but Sugar knew he had his existing nail file business and proven sales to back it up. |
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Quote:
Why have people in the competition if they have zero chance of winning because he's already predetermined that he doesn't like their business plan? That to me is a total waste of people's time.
We're not just talking about a 2 hour job interview here. This is a 3 month process where they have to work their backsides off to win tasks each week before they even stand a chance at getting an interview. What's the point if he's already decided who he doesn't want? It just makes a total mockery of the whole process. Two words - Stella English. It's her actions and behaviour that led to Sugar changing the format and making a nonsense of the show. |
|
|
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
Well yes, and in reverse, being crap in the tasks (Tom the inventor) but having a brilliant BP keeps you in.
Two words - Stella English. It's her actions and behaviour that led to Sugar changing the format and making a nonsense of the show. |
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 752
|
Quote:
Well yes, and in reverse, being crap in the tasks (Tom the inventor) but having a brilliant BP keeps you in.
As for Tom not getting fired, he was only in the boardroom three times. On the first occasion he had done badly, but Leon was worse; on the second occasion he would probably have gotten the chop if not for the slight fact of Zoe leading her team to the show's worst-ever defeat; and on the third occasion he did a legitimately good job in the task, it was Melody and Helen that messed up. Quote:
Two words - Stella English. Not possible. Stella didn't quit her job (and may not have even started it) until well after filming on Series 7 had begun. If anything, Sugar probably got the inspiration for the new format from Junior/Young Apprentice, which for obvious reasons had a prize fund instead of a job.
It's her actions and behaviour that led to Sugar changing the format and making a nonsense of the show. |
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Up the creak without a paddle
Posts: 5,542
|
Quote:
How many times has Sugar actually fired someone just because he doesn't like their business plan? Off the top of my head I can only think of three - Katie and Sanjay this year, and Myles last year. And most people seem to agree that Sanjay and Myles deserved to be fired anyway for their performance and/or general track record.
Heck, Series 7 seems to be Exhibit A whenever one of these "the show is rigged for a certain candidate to win" discussions comes up, and that was the year when Sugar didn't actually have access to the business plans until the very end. LS is investing £250.000 of his own money, so want's a good return, which is why he's looking at what business plans that look likely to succeed |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 752
|
Quote:
Neil Clough "the right man with the wrong plan" who would have won had it been the old format.
Still, I wonder exactly how much information Sugar gets about each candidate's plan. Neil would probably have gotten fired after his first stint as project manager had Sugar known just how awful his business plan was, and back in Series 8 many were predicting that Jade was the "chosen one" thanks to how often she kept getting saved, yet her business plan turned out to be just as bad as Neil's. |
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,221
|
Quote:
Except that Sugar didn't have access to the business plans until that year's final episode. It was probably because Helen bombed it so badly in her own business plan that Sugar changed it to having them made known up-front.
As for Tom not getting fired, he was only in the boardroom three times. On the first occasion he had done badly, but Leon was worse; on the second occasion he would probably have gotten the chop if not for the slight fact of Zoe leading her team to the show's worst-ever defeat; and on the third occasion he did a legitimately good job in the task, it was Melody and Helen that messed up. Not possible. Stella didn't quit her job (and may not have even started it) until well after filming on Series 7 had begun. If anything, Sugar probably got the inspiration for the new format from Junior/Young Apprentice, which for obvious reasons had a prize fund instead of a job. It's too much of a co-incidence that the job with Sugar goes after all the shit with Stella. Mind you, so many of the winners before had not stuck it out with him either, but she had to have been the last straw. I'd like to see the filming schedules of Stella's victory and the filming of the following series, remember it doesn't have to been of the point of Stella suing Sugar, only at the point when things started to go awry in the job and Sugar said to himself 'that's it, no more jobs!' Also, to do a Millman, I'll bring up Young Apprentice, and say, in contradiction to myself, that he may have gotten the idea of business partners by the way he gave the kids money for a business. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,654
|
They've always, since Series 1, to my mind, cast four types of people :
a) obvious flaming incompetents, nut-cases and "characters" who are never going to win and are just there to "make good tv" (Sarah/Steven/James) b) "day outers" (as I remember one reality tv production staff member telling me they called them) - people who may be reasonably competent enough or not, who just want to go on the show "for the experience" or for a bit of fame or for a laugh, and who would run a mile if you actually expected them to follow through on the commitments involved in winning (following his appearance on YF I'd say Sanjay is a classic example of this) c) competent people who some in the audience will get invested in, but who can't win due to not fitting the job/what Lordalan likes to invest in at the end d) potential winners. I think people who expect them to be able to find 16 people who fit category d who would be willing to put themselves through The Apprentice (and the attendant circus) in any given year are kidding themselves. Of course there will be inevitable bleed between categories c and d, as what the producers think is a good business plan and what Lordalan does won't overlap entirely. |
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 2,345
|
Quote:
They've always, since Series 1, to my mind, cast four types of people :
a) obvious flaming incompetents, nut-cases and "characters" who are never going to win and are just there to "make good tv" (Sarah/Steven/James) b) "day outers" (as I remember one reality tv production staff member telling me they called them) - people who may be reasonably competent enough or not, who just want to go on the show "for the experience" or for a bit of fame or for a laugh, and who would run a mile if you actually expected them to follow through on the commitments involved in winning (following his appearance on YF I'd say Sanjay is a classic example of this) c) competent people who some in the audience will get invested in, but who can't win due to not fitting the job/what Lordalan likes to invest in at the end d) potential winners. I think people who expect them to be able to find 16 people who fit category d who would be willing to put themselves through The Apprentice (and the attendant circus) in any given year are kidding themselves. Of course there will be inevitable bleed between categories c and d, as what the producers think is a good business plan and what Lordalan does won't overlap entirely. |
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 752
|
Quote:
Sugar probably had decided that series that it was to be the last 'job' series, probably didn't want to hire Stella as he disliked her personally, but her record in the show didn't leave him much choice, Bates was nowhere near her.
It's too much of a co-incidence that the job with Sugar goes after all the shit with Stella. Mind you, so many of the winners before had not stuck it out with him either, but she had to have been the last straw. I'd like to see the filming schedules of Stella's victory and the filming of the following series, remember it doesn't have to been of the point of Stella suing Sugar, only at the point when things started to go awry in the job and Sugar said to himself 'that's it, no more jobs!' Granted, the two finalists in Series 1-6 worked for Sugar for a few months before he made his official decision, but if Stella was already proving to be such a gigantic pain in the arse, Sugar would have just given the job to Chris instead (remember that they film two endings). And, you know, sometimes a coincidence is just that. A coincidence. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,052
|
Quote:
Well yes, and in reverse, being crap in the tasks (Tom the inventor) but having a brilliant BP keeps you in.
Two words - Stella English. It's her actions and behaviour that led to Sugar changing the format and making a nonsense of the show. The problem was no one listened to him. He was always sidelined. I remember it being discussed at one time in the BR that Tom had identified an issue but no one listened. That probably made him look weak, but as he was going into partnership with LS did it really matter if people he was in competition with sidelined him? No because on his own with LS's backing he would be making the decisions. |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 12,694
|
Quote:
This is a 3 month process where they have to work their backsides off to win tasks each week before they even stand a chance at getting an interview.
Quote:
What's the point if he's already decided who he doesn't want? It just makes a total mockery of the whole process.
You're mistake is in thinking that there was ever a point where the process wasn't a total mockery.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,226
|
Quote:
I don't believe that's the case, although I stand to be corrected. I thought the decision to change the format was made before it all went sour with Stella. Also, Sugar was struggling to really create jobs that were worth the £100,000 salary given his now limited business interests. (DI know he had a very specific job in mind in Amsprop that Simon Ambrose took, but didn't Lee, Yasmina and Stella basically end up as glorified project managers for Amscreen, which is a pretty small business in the greater scheme of things?)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...ord-Sugar.html Lee (4 months catering course Thames Valley) I seem to recall got to sell amscreen initially to London Transport. Yasmina (LSE graduate) got the healthcare market. In contrast, Michelle got a new company/concept to research and set up - but soon found it was a dud idea. I imagine there would be issues too, if the next Apprentice kept on getting the same job as the last two, had to look right to sell to the same or a similar customer base, and past winners were still in post. .They needed a new idea after series 5. According to Stella, there wasn't much of one. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:54.



