DS Forums

 
 

Week eight: Who should have been fired?


View Poll Results: Who should have been fired?
Charleine 43 29.66%
David 45 31.03%
Gary 86 59.31%
Joseph 11 7.59%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 145. You can't vote on this poll right now - are you signed in?

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 25-11-2015, 21:55
P_P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 1,197

Did you agree with Lord Sugar's decision?

Poll up soon
P_P is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 25-11-2015, 22:01
ShotDownInFlame
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Kingston Upon Thames
Posts: 1,863
Charleine was the one person who was safe

And then, she went "Full Charleine" in the boardroom, when she cut off David again, specifically after Sugar had just told her not to, I wanted Sugar to fire her on the spot.

David put it too well in the taxi, "Charleine is an irritant"
ShotDownInFlame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2015, 22:06
Tracy_Klein
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 170
Definitely yes. David was dreadful this week. I would have added Charleine too because she's a hysterical unpolished woman that loves drama.
Tracy_Klein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2015, 22:12
JavarnJohnson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2,092
In terms of actual performance, it has to be David.

On a personal note though, I'd have fired Charlene. I can't stand her shrieking and wailing at every damn opportunity with that foghorn voice of hers. She's been like this for weeks now.
JavarnJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2015, 23:02
gilesb
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 8,419
Gary was a moron especially his line "it left a sour taste in his eye"
gilesb is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-11-2015, 23:13
djfunnyman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Nottingham
Posts: 4,430
Gary was a poor PM again. Both Gary and David being fired would have been fair
djfunnyman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 00:09
meglosmurmurs
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Titan Uranus
Posts: 31,964
Would have considered all of them, but think Gary has shown the least potential.
I'm not sure if it's unfair editing but he was invisible for so many weeks and hasn't really shone when he's been shown, he's just a clumsy corporate guy.

At least David has some spark about him.
While Charleine kind of let herself down by stirring the pot between teammates that are supposed to work together and not being able to stop interrupting in the boardroom. I thought she was talking herself into getting fired.
Though I don't blame her for taking off at light speed when she thought she was safe (I'd have probably done the same). Plus I appreciated her rather mumsy goodbye hug to David.

Not much to say about Joseph, at all really. That voice sends me to sleep.
meglosmurmurs is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 01:53
mary patricia
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 11,412
Gary was a poor PM again. Both Gary and David being fired would have been fair
I agree. David for not being very good and Gary for being indecisive. I really though Lord Sugar would've fired him after he couldn't make a decision between Charlene and Joseph. He's very weak as a leader and not someone I'd feel confident going into business with.
mary patricia is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 04:59
chrono88
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Dream
Posts: 2,797
Gary and David.
chrono88 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 09:01
Venetian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,281
Would have considered all of them, but think Gary has shown the least potential.
I'm not sure if it's unfair editing but he was invisible for so many weeks and hasn't really shone when he's been shown, he's just a clumsy corporate guy.

At least David has some spark about him.
While Charleine kind of let herself down by stirring the pot between teammates that are supposed to work together and not being able to stop interrupting in the boardroom. I thought she was talking herself into getting fired.
Though I don't blame her for taking off at light speed when she thought she was safe (I'd have probably done the same). Plus I appreciated her rather mumsy goodbye hug to David.

Not much to say about Joseph,
at all really. That voice sends me to sleep.
I really thought Charlene would be fired after not buttoning it in after repeating warnings from LAS, the fact that he sent her back to the house makes me wonder if she has a really good business plan?
What to say about Joseph .. emm, he does put me in mind of an after-the-war style spiv, certainly would not be out of place in a Graham Greene novel from that era
Venetian is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 09:10
Aslan52
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,858
I have to say, I think half the people on the winning team equally deserved to be fired as well.
The whole thing was a bit of a shambles on all sides.

From the losing team I think Gary should have gone -possibly even INSTEAD of David.

Gary was in charge, he's supposed to want to start an event-planning business while showing absolutely no special aptitude for it, and it's no good promising people personalised t-shirts unless you're actually capable of producing them.
Aslan52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 09:27
Matt_Harbinson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 180
I think Gary and David were responsible equally as all the deductions were based on their mistakes. Charlene and Joseph seemed to get better enthusiasm and a party spirit with the games and barbecue. It was all down to Gary's miscommunication on the cake and party bags that made the issues. On another point, how on earth did both teams spend so much money? They spent about £1,000 each; to me, it looked like that kind of party could be done for £400- £500? It was just a venue/activity rental for about £200 and then barbecue food and some stupid accessories and party games. No idea how that money was spent. I was expecting both teams to make a lot more profit based on £2,000 price.
Matt_Harbinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 09:37
Aslan52
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,858
On another point, how on earth did both teams spend so much money? They spent about £1,000 each; to me, it looked like that kind of party could be done for £400- £500? It was just a venue/activity rental for about £200 and then barbecue food and some stupid accessories and party games. No idea how that money was spent. I was expecting both teams to make a lot more profit based on £2,000 price.
A fair point.

basically, they both spent around £250 on the venue and, to be generous, probably spent another £200 on food and then maybe another £100 on odds and sods.
Added to that, Gary spent whatever it cost for the t-shirts and printing kit.

I wonder if, perhaps, they include a nominal cost for the "wages" of the candidates?
If you've got 4 or 5 people being paid around £10 an hour for an all-day event that'd add on another £400-odd and take the costs up to what they were quoted as.
Aslan52 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 09:49
puffin1962
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 432
Gary was responsible for the poor running of the task - he failed to take charge of any problem areas in a decisive way.

The cake? Why let the subteam use chocolate spread at all that "may contain nuts" - why not make a cake with cocoa poder or melted chocolate or water/butter icing? Ironic really that the mother for Gary's party would have been safer eating Richard's cake!

Then I think it was pretty poor project management to give the important - £175 ironing task - to the guy that learned to iron last week. Who approved the text/font? You need a reverse font to make these iron T-shirts.

It seemed like Gary (and some of the others) were looking for deniability/easy targets by allocating jobs knowing they would be done poorly.
puffin1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 09:50
puffin1962
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 432
A fair point.

basically, they both spent around £250 on the venue and, to be generous, probably spent another £200 on food and then maybe another £100 on odds and sods.
Added to that, Gary spent whatever it cost for the t-shirts and printing kit.

I wonder if, perhaps, they include a nominal cost for the "wages" of the candidates?
If you've got 4 or 5 people being paid around £10 an hour for an all-day event that'd add on another £400-odd and take the costs up to what they were quoted as.
I guess that the teams had to pay for the bus-hire and probably for the venue hire/kitchen use at the places where the food was served
puffin1962 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 09:56
spursguy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 148
Had to be Gary to be fired this week. Utterly incompetent.

I've supported David over previous weeks when people have criticised him for not being good at manual labour tasks, tasks that could be utterly irrelevant to his business plan, and I will again.

Gary handed him that task, knowing he wasn't an expert in the field of ironing T-Shirt prints. The likelihood of making a mistake was fairly high for a first timer so common sense would dictate that you'd order 2 or 3 more t-shirts to cover wastage losses. That's basic stuff and the stuff that Gary falls down on every week. He didn't even think about the entertainment on the bus and provided little of value during either of the fun sections of the day. He then put the doubt into the mind of the parents that meant they couldn;t enjoy the day.

An absolute buffoon, and how everyone turned their attentions to ganging up on David in the boardroom was frankly pathetic and made me question their judgement of character.
spursguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 12:37
Matt_Harbinson
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 180
The party bus and second venue must have cost a huge amount on both teams because that is the only way that the expenses make any sense. It was a shame that Selina won this task as it was her second time to win as manager flukily due to other team mess ups. Given she is in the event industry, she didn't show much strategy or understanding of clients requests. I thought Richard was only one focusing on the key point of keeping costs low; he didn't do well with organising the barbecue though so that was maybe one of the reasons they were underpaid on agreed price.
Matt_Harbinson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 12:45
Tallywacker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Posts: 1,228
Gary - surely there are products you can buy that state No Nuts, there must be a market for these. Should have made sure one was sourced rather than the constant doubt and loss of confidence it caused.
Tallywacker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 12:58
clm2071
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 4,274
I would have fired Gary and David based on the task itself and I would have fired Charlene for her behaviour in the boardroom
clm2071 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 13:13
tuppencehapenny
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 2,770
Gary was a moron especially his line "it left a sour taste in his eye"
And 'I'm not going to dance about the bush'.
tuppencehapenny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 13:20
lammtarra
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 900
And 'I'm not going to dance about the bush'.
And "There's no two ways about it. The whole tee-shirt fiasco was a disaster."
lammtarra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 13:29
The Rhydler
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
In terms of actual performance, it has to be David.

On a personal note though, I'd have fired Charlene. I can't stand her shrieking and wailing at every damn opportunity with that foghorn voice of hers. She's been like this for weeks now.
Why does it have to be David - he performed better than Gary and the other two bought crap party bags, least he put himself forward as a ropes instructor (albeit a rather straightlaced one) and saved the team money.
The Rhydler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 15:00
LaceyLouelle3
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 6,104
Gary - surely there are products you can buy that state No Nuts, there must be a market for these. Should have made sure one was sourced rather than the constant doubt and loss of confidence it caused.
Absolutely this.
LaceyLouelle3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 15:07
constantino_chr
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 668
David deserved to be fired for being a weasel who adding nothing positive to the task. I couldn't stomach his accent either.

Gary should've also been fired for being dull.
constantino_chr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26-11-2015, 15:12
Venetian
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Central London
Posts: 8,281
Gary - surely there are products you can buy that state No Nuts, there must be a market for these. Should have made sure one was sourced rather than the constant doubt and loss of confidence it caused.
There certainly is and they could have always used a cocoa based product if there was any element of doubt. It was crazy to even risk it with something marked "may have trace of nuts", way too obscure.
Venetian is online now   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13.