|
||||||||
Richard vs Tom Pellerau - Lordsralan the hypocrite |
![]() |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Edinburgh
Posts: 2,605
|
Quote:
Absolutely agree with you about about Tom. I'm getting fed up reading posts saying he was useless but won because of his invention. He was good in tasks and never at fault for the losses he was in.
As for Joseph, his original plan was found wanting in the interviews (as were all of them) but he reshaped it sufficiently to get a place in the final. He ended up with a believable and solid plan for growth in a business he knows very well. Above all he listened to the advice he got, something Vana really didn't do (she only listened to things that gave the answer she wanted). He wasn't the most polished candidate, but then a lot of them fail over stupid things on the show. It was partly bad luck to end up losing so often, and he was a different personalty type to the rest, so even the bottom three can be partially explained by them trying to pick on someone they think is weak. You can bring people in to sort out admin etc... He did have some genuine business sense though re Walmart, and was creative, in that he had the best chance of producing a credible business plan even if his chair idea wasn't up to much. You can learn to be organised to an extent, but you can't magic up that drive, which I think is why Helen didn't succeed. (I'm not belittling her achievements and capabilities but I think its easier to learn good admin practices, than the other way round). |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,152
|
There is no comparison between Richard and Tom Pellarau, nor their existing businesses.
There can only ever be one winner, Richard did very well indeed. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 15,052
|
Quote:
Absolutely agree with you about about Tom. I'm getting fed up reading posts saying he was useless but won because of his invention. He was good in tasks and never at fault for the losses he was in.
As for Joseph, his original plan was found wanting in the interviews (as were all of them) but he reshaped it sufficiently to get a place in the final. He ended up with a believable and solid plan for growth in a business he knows very well. Above all he listened to the advice he got, something Vana really didn't do (she only listened to things that gave the answer she wanted). I admit that if it was the apprentice job he was going for rather than investment, he possibly wouldn't have got all the way to the end as Sugar may have had misgivings about his ability to influence others, but had his teammates listened to him more, they probably wouldn't have lost so often. |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 6,547
|
Quote:
You can learn to be organised to an extent, but you can't magic up that drive, which I think is why Helen didn't succeed. (I'm not belittling her achievements and capabilities but I think its easier to learn good admin practices, than the other way round).
Problem is the Bakery Industry has been all but obliterated due to supermarkets loss-leading. Unless you are Greggs (where she worked) there is no opportunity to make big money unless you have HUGE backers like Krispy Kreme. 250K would go nowhere, and be burnt up faster than Vana's App development |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,853
|
I would go Richard since I never got the hang of Tom, even his appearance looked weird
|
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 180
|
There's a lot of contradictions on the Apprentice; it all depends on the outcome; whenever the task fails, everything they did was wrong ie. They didn't listen to market research, they listened to it too much, they kept prices too high, they lowered too quickly ; I guess it's important to remember it is just a reality program and doesn't really portray real business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 5,853
|
Quote:
There's a lot of contradictions on the Apprentice; it all depends on the outcome; whenever the task fails, everything they did was wrong ie. They didn't listen to market research, they listened to it too much, they kept prices too high, they lowered too quickly ; I guess it's important to remember it is just a reality program and doesn't really portray real business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 34,226
|
Quote:
Even Lord Sugar said something along those lines. Helen, who he was up against, won 10 out of 11 tasks and broke sales records for program. Tom was on the losing team in 8 out of 11 tasks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 650
|
Quote:
I also remember a task in a previous series when he absolutely blasted a losing team for producing a shampoo in a black bottle, saying it looked like something you'd find on the shelf in Halfords. Yet in this series he was full of praise for the winning team in a task who produced... shampoo in a black bottle. Hypocritical or just a very short memory? That's funny! Sugar can be both - a hypocrite with a lousy memory. And Tom - the inventor - was the worst Apprentice winner of all time based on stats. He was never project manager (I think) and was in the losing team the most times. But he won cos Sugar wanted him from the start of the show!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sussex by the Sea
Posts: 19,193
|
Quote:
That's funny! Sugar can be both - a hypocrite with a lousy memory. And Tom - the inventor - was the worst Apprentice winner of all time based on stats. He was never project manager (I think) and was in the losing team the most times. But he won cos Sugar wanted him from the start of the show!It's a team effort so being on the winning team is not necessarily proof of a good individual performance. Just as being on the losing side is not proof everyone on the team failed. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 00:40.



That's funny! Sugar can be both - a hypocrite with a lousy memory.
And Tom - the inventor - was the worst Apprentice winner of all time based on stats. He was never project manager (I think) and was in the losing team the most times. But he won cos Sugar wanted him from the start of the show!