|
||||||||
Unfair to fire 3 people |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Location: St Albans, UK
Posts: 1,383
|
Quote:
It was 2011. Tom showed good business sense throughout the series. He often identified what was going wrong in a task but was usually ignored. In the losing side for the first five weeks but never brought back to the boardroom, so Sugar couldn't fire him even if he'd wanted to.
It doesn't matter how good a business idea they have, if they aren't good enough to see it through it will fail. It's in Sugar's interest to pick a good candidate as well as a good plan. After that, though, it's seemed that Sugar regretted how that series worked out and he *has* seen the business plans from the start. Thus, he now has more of an idea in who he wants to keep in the process and who he wants to let go. That's not to say that there won't be some people who do well in the process and then are proven to have a poor plan (such as the chap last year who was sent out of his interview by Claude because his plan was so badly produced). But I think that the business plans are now taken into consideration when Sugar is doing his firings earlier on in the series - unlike that 2011 series. I think, anyway. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
|
Quote:
I always thought that Sugar *didn't* see the business plans in 2011 (which was the first series of the new prize) until the interview finale and ended up with four dud plans. The only saving grace was Tom's previous product (remember, he pitched a totally different business plan at the actual interview process). So Tom won by default, almost. Not that I'm complaining - he was a likeable chap, showed good sense throughout the process (as you said) and nice to see an inventor do well rather than the usual type of person who won under the old format.
After that, though, it's seemed that Sugar regretted how that series worked out and he *has* seen the business plans from the start. Thus, he now has more of an idea in who he wants to keep in the process and who he wants to let go. That's not to say that there won't be some people who do well in the process and then are proven to have a poor plan (such as the chap last year who was sent out of his interview by Claude because his plan was so badly produced). But I think that the business plans are now taken into consideration when Sugar is doing his firings earlier on in the series - unlike that 2011 series. I think, anyway. There is no real evidence that business plans are taken into account early on. It seems to me there is a change around midway through the series, however: early firings are strictly task-based but mid-series (ie round about now) Lord Sugar starts looking back over all of the tasks and asking himself, "can I work with this muppet?" It does look to be person-based rather than plan-based though. Most of the business plans, and certainly none of the winners', have been innovative; they've been about entering existing sectors, often where the candidate is already working. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 7,604
|
Unless somebody really messes up, he can only fire those on the losing team. That means if he has people in mind to fire, he has to take the chance when he can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
I see no reason to think he fires on business plans, and plenty of reason to think he doesn't. Every firing he's made has been at least plausible based on candidate performance, and we always end up with at least a few duff business plans at the interview stage. He does have his biases, and one of them is that if the task happens to be in (what he thinks is) your comfort zone, you get judged more harshly. Hence Ruth gets fired for being rubbish at sales when she claimed to be so good at sales that she trained other sales staff. This week's task seemed tailored for Elle but she was useless at it. Quote:
April's £10 per hour for three people was silly in reality, but labour costs are never counted in this show so it was still £10 an hour profit. They only had to think about materials costs so that will affect how they price things.
Quote:
I think April should have been kept on. She clearly has good presentational skills and is decisive. Better to be decisive and sometimes wrong than to be indecisive and never right.
April would have been fired in week one, had it not been for another of Lord Sugar's biases, that he prefers to keep team leaders. She's been on borrowed time since: remember how she hired only young models to make an advert aimed at older women? She's made enough terrible decisions to be a liability. She had no chance of winning, so she might as well go now. Otherwise she might, by chance, be on the winning team and so untouchable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 752
|
Quote:
I see no reason to think he fires on business plans, and plenty of reason to think he doesn't.
In any case, blaming the business plan for a seemingly unfair firing is nothing new. In Series 1-6, it was "he just doesn't like lawyers," "he just doesn't like posh people" or even "he just doesn't like women." |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 01:49.


