Wasn't that what Sir Alan said before he fired Lucinda? Something along those lines, I think.

So, if one cannot argue with the facts, why was Lucinda fired when she:
[LIST][*]Won 8 tasks out of 10, more than any of the other candidates;[*]Won once as team leader and on both occasions she was team leader, received praise from the other candidates, even from the likes of Helene;[*]Won 7 out of her 8 tasks when she was NOT team leader, surely this gives the argument that she is a poor team member less credibility?[/LIST]
The pure facts show that Lucinda is the best candidate. So I thought it was silly of Sir Alan to say that you can't argue with the facts, before firing the best performing candidate according to the facts.

Yeah at the time I was very confused as to why he said that. Just looking at the facts shows Lucinda to be the best candidate.

Yes but clearly she didn't care about getting the job or not, out of the 5 i would say she and helene are the worst, so it was ok for her to go, helen should have gone to though!

Lucinda was bad away from the business life.

In the business aspects she was excellent as a team member and as a team leader.

It was laughable and they were looking for faults.

I agree. She was going tonight no matter what, but surely Sir Alan could have found much better reasons for firing her?

I'm beginning to wonder whether the tasks are utterly pointless given that the candidate with the best record was sent packing.

He even said a few weeks ago that she'd 'blossomed'

He's fired her over Helene even though she defeated Helene when they were both PM's.

POOR!

And the interviews are probably pointless too since the worst performing candidates in the interviews are still there. :sleep:

I think it's become Big Brother in a boardroom where the chavs of the UK enter the boardroom with their glorified exploits of office life and think they're wicked.

If you looked at facts of last ten weeks also you would fine Sir Alan

- Helene to have done veyr little
- Alex to have lost most of his tasks (6 in a row)
- Lucinda to have won most and been best leader
- Alex to be devious and shifting blame and getting away from responsibility (to a lesser extent, Lee)

Pretty much adding to the current long list of inconsistencies when firing someone.

No, that's the point, he couldn't find a better reason for firing her other than he didn't actually like her taste in hats.

It's been micking Big Brother since early in the series, I'm afraid. I think the programme has lost any credibility it had and become just another bitchfest circus.

Shame on you, Sir Alan!

Lets be honest, if you were in the boardroom fighting it out in the final after 10 weeks of working your nuts ( sorry claire & Helene ) & heard that your rival said that she was not right for the job, then what would you think?
I dame well say 'sorry love but what the hell are you doing here'.
The sad thing is for most of the series I liked her but slowly drifted for some reason.

Sir Alan talks sh1t advised by those who know nothing.

I would think somebody is wondering if they are right for the job. That's what.

What do you expect me to think? Like Alex that she hasn't got any character, is demon spawn and pathetic.

Nope, I'm not Alex. Got more morals than that.

From the get go i could see what the outcome would be. Every interview that lucinda had was a battle for her. As soon as she sat down for her interview she was attaked by the interviewer for her dress sense,the way she spoke,her wage and many more reason's,while the likes of claire for example got an easy ride.

imo Sir Alan had already chosen a winner and the rest of the show was just a gimmick to keep viewers watching and justify sacking Lucinda by trying to pick faults with her.

She didn't "win" 8 out of ten tasks she was on the wining team, there's a difference. She was belligerent on some, disruptive on others and spat her dummy out if she didn't get her own way. It is often said in business that those who are a success working for themselves are "unemployable" because they can't take instruction of work as a team


That must be it! Although he did also say that he would be the boss not Lucinda.

Frankly, if I was worth £800m, plus whatever his no nothing advisors are worth ( a further £600m combined) you could accuse me of anything, including talking shit and I'd laugh all the way to the Roller and Yacht on the south of France.

The same applies to the other candidate's wins then - they were all on the winning team as opposed to "winning".

But Lucinda was on the winning team more than any other candidate, that's a fact, and looking at the solid facts, on paper, and excluding any personal opinions of Lucinda and how she behaved in each task, it would suggest she was more valuable as a team member than any of the others.

Sir Alan himself said that you can't argue with the facts - so that's where I'm at a loss. Why did he fire the best candidate, according to solid facts, if he doesn't believe one can argue with facts? He completely contradicted himself.

And it's not the only time he has contradicted himself. For example, giving Michael so many chances because he is young, but firing Lindi the first time she was brought into the boardroom.

Apart from being a good PM, how many times did Lucinda do something that was an integral reason for the team winning? For example in the photo, advertising and car tasks, her team may have won but the success was nothing to do with her - just because she was on the winning team didn't mean she'd done a good job on those tasks.