|
||||||||
One thing about Claire....... |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#1 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
One thing about Claire.......
I believe she was on the losing team 6 times out of 8, but always survived as she was clearly the best salesperson.
Time after time I got the impression she was quite happy, if not eager, for her team to lose so long as another member of the team could be reliably pinpointed as the fall guy to take the bullet. If hired I think one day Claire could do major harm to the company, just so she can use a preventable disaster to get a colleague she disliked bumped off. In a crisis Claire will not save the team, she will save herself. |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
|
Ah, lets not single Claire out for doing that. They're all at it. With the exception of Rafe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Button Moon
Posts: 7,251
|
Quote:
[...] In a crisis Claire will not save the team, she will save herself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
The others sleepwalked into defeat, the outcome taking them by surprise. Claire could see it coming.
More than once, perhaps more than three times, I saw Claire licking her chops, almost rubbing her hands when it became obvious to her the team was going to lose, and her leader was going to take the bullet. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
Quote:
Anyone remember Suralan's "as sure as there's a hole in my bloody arse" speech from series 2? He was banging on about how the team needed to stop the camraderie (or pretence thereof) and think of themselves instead.
But can she switch off such instinctive lone wolf behaviour once hired? Internal warfare among staff can be very expensive for a company. |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
|
I don't think Claire has been THAT clever. She very could have been fired a couple of times, and Sir al simply took pity on her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
Time after time I got the impression she was quite happy, if not eager, for her team to lose so long as another member of the team could be reliably pinpointed as the fall guy to take the bullet.
The nearest I can think of to what you say is later in the card task when Kevin tried to get out of doing the pitch at the last minute. She then thought Jenny C would be better at it, but Jenny turned it down, and Claire could have changed her position and agreed to do it herself but didn't. Partly because Kevin didn't go back to her again but decided to do it himself after all, and the moment just sort-of passed. For me that is classed more as not throwing herself onto the live grenade than as being eager for the whole team to go down. If she'd been given the pitch when she'd asked, the previous day, she'd have spent many hours preparing it (as we saw Raef doing) and done a good job. She knew what was involved, and she also knew under 2 hours wasn't enough for her. |
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
Quote:
on the photo task she told Simon about the production problems.
I would not like to be on a firefighters' team where very survival depends on team-mate Claire being forthcoming and forceful when she knew something the others did not. In my profession of IT cheerfully smirking and keeping info from your colleagues is a no-no -- the team will collapse in disaster, period. In real business if your boss or your team is headed for disaster you personally will share in the fallout, e.g. closure of business or job losses -- indiscriminate punishment rather than in The Apprentice where only one person will be fired. A different scenario. But if the same habit carries on..... Not trying hard enough to save your team, or sabotaging your team. A difference of degree. |
|
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: The-Village-Hall
Posts: 3,839
|
I had the same impression - she saw where the fault points were, but didn't do enough to prevent failure; and yes, I did think that was intended to see her rivals off, secure in the knowledge failure could not be attributed to her.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#10 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 554
|
I'm sure she'd be taken seriously in business by S'Alan's rivals when the pictures of her dancing on table with her threepenny bits out come up again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#11 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
Claire was the only one walking between the 2 locations taking 10 minutes for each trip. She was the only one to see in living colour what was happening, how badly the two sites were out of sync. She was the one who assured the team leader they were WINNING.
In fact, there were new problems. These were not uncovered until the photos were given back to the customers and the customers complained. We see Simon fretting about it, but we also see that he doesn't seem to be doing anything about it. We never see him talk to Claire about it, nor do we see Claire around when the customers are complaining. (I think she spent minimal time at the photo end and most of her time at the production end, or walking between the two.) Later in the boardroom she and Alex deny they knew about the new problems. From what we see, this is plausible. So I don't see this as Claire knowing something the others didn't. If anything, it's Simon - he definitely knew because he was getting the complaints from the customers and he said on camera he knew. And of course, as leader he was most responsible for finding out and fixing it. But by then he seems to have given up. Quote:
I would not like to be on a firefighters' team where very survival depends on team-mate Claire being forthcoming and forceful when she knew something the others did not.
Part of her problem was that she was too forceful, and not tactful, when she saw something wrong. She got heavily criticised in that episode for speaking up without respect. Quote:
In real business if your boss or your team is headed for disaster you personally will share in the fallout, e.g. closure of business or job losses -- indiscriminate punishment rather than in The Apprentice where only one person will be fired.
Every Apprentice candidate wants to be on the winning team, and failure does tarnish every team member. I think it was mentioned of Alex in the boardroom, for example, that he had failed many times. And said in praise of Lucinda that she had many successes.As I wrote before, there are any number of occasions where Claire has spoken up because she saw something going wrong. I don't think it's fair to say she doesn't. |
|
|
|
|
|
#12 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
I had the same impression - she saw where the fault points were, but didn't do enough to prevent failure; and yes, I did think that was intended to see her rivals off, secure in the knowledge failure could not be attributed to her.
On the photo task, I think she tried to sort out the production problems but failed because she just wasn't good enough. She's not perfect. It's easy to imagine someone like Shazia doing a better job of tracking the photos, as she did with tracking the laundry. Where-as Claire arguably did not do a great job of organising when she was team leader on the ice-cream task. She's good, but she's not that good, and her failure was similar to her failure there. I suppose it comes down to whether you'd rather blame malice or incompetence. |
|
|
|
|
|
#13 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
An employee would be worth her weight in gold, if she could see when the boss was short of information or was making the wrong decision, and she could find a way to articulate, persuade and cajole the boss to see the light and save the team.
If she did not have the ability to influence events, or had no intention so to do (smirking at the forthcoming disaster, showing contempt for the boss), then neither interpretation would enhance her value as an employee. It is not the sin of commission, rather the sin of omission. If she were passively allowing her teammates to walk into potholes only within the game-play of The Apprentice then fair enough. But if she does it in her real job as well, then I would take care not to be her colleague. Six times out of eight her team bit the dust, after which she was safe and promoted. |
|
|
|
|
|
#14 |
|
Posts: n/a
|
Ultimately, I don't like Claire because she cannot be trusted. She will put herself before a company or team, judging on her performances to date. Also, she is in it for the fame, not the job. Sir Alan probably doesn't want a similar embarrassment to last year's winner (on that basis, I think Lee will get the job).
The problem with this year, is that all the four finalists are all fairly crap and are all willing to back-stab. It wouldn't surprise me if Sir Alan re-opened up the competition to some of the previously fired contestants. |
|
|
|
#15 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 554
|
None of the Apprentices can be trusted. Sadly S'Alan doesn't realise that a show like the Apprentice encourages and promotes backstabbing, conniving, sneaky snakes.
I wouldn't hire any of them, with the possible exception of last years winner (Simon?). |
|
|
|
|
|
#16 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
I would have had Michelle, but for a different purpose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#17 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Nottingham, UK
Posts: 11,878
|
Quote:
An employee would be worth her weight in gold, if she could see when the boss was short of information or was making the wrong decision, and she could find a way to articulate, persuade and cajole the boss to see the light and save the team.
A good example is Raef. She told him while he was filming he needed to get shots of the product, and again while he was editing, and he decided that the aesthetics of the advert would be better served by cutting them out. He was wrong, and he was fired. Having told him twice I don't see what more she could do. Sometimes in a team you have to knuckle down and do what the leader says, even if you think it is wrong. Otherwise they aren't really the leader. I think with a reasonable boss she'd be fine. She seemed to get on OK with Lucinda, for example. It looked like she argued against Raef's choice of dresses, but then supported the team choice and did a sterling job of selling them. |
|
|
|
|
|
#18 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
|
Quote:
A good example is Raef. She told him while he was filming he needed to get shots of the product, and again while he was editing, and he decided that the aesthetics of the advert would be better served by cutting them out. He was wrong, and he was fired. Having told him twice I don't see what more she could do. Sometimes in a team you have to knuckle down and do what the leader says, even if you think it is wrong. Otherwise they aren't really the leader.
Rubbish. Michael pushed for editing out the product. And Claire's awful box design and awful product name lent a lot to the loss. She shouldn't have been fired though, Michael should have for persistant incompetance over the last month.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#19 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
I cannot suggest to Claire how she could have presented a persuasive case, and persevered with a second pitch when the first pitched failed. That was her job and what she was paid to do.
If she had succeeding doing so then all credit to her, but she had not. Six times her team failed, and no, not once was it anything to do with her. Maybe so, but certainly no thanks to her either. It's about what a candidate can do, not about all the reason why she could not do it. Trying to understand why something failed six times is one thing, to quietly recognize it failed six time without explanation is another. |
|
|
|
|
|
#20 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,220
|
I sometimes think these stats are a bit misleading anyway. Lee's never been in the boardroom but are you seriously telling me he's the best one there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#21 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
I infer from your stats that by the luck of the draw Lee missed out from being on Claire's teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#22 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,517
|
Quote:
But can she switch off such instinctive lone wolf behaviour once hired? Internal warfare among staff can be very expensive for a company.
I think the case that she deliberately caused the team to fail, is wishful thinking. They failed because they either had a numpty running it or there was the likes of Michael, Kevin or Lindi in the team - check out this to see why they failed. Twice she won as PM, with two wins with other PM's; so by your reckoning she pulled the team down on 6 other occasions while doing her own job brilliantly. If she did all that, then I would hire her in a second, because she is better then Super Girl. |
|
|
|
|
|
#23 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 3,334
|
Quote:
None of the Apprentices can be trusted. Sadly S'Alan doesn't realise that a show like the Apprentice encourages and promotes backstabbing, conniving, sneaky snakes.
I wouldn't hire any of them, with the possible exception of last years winner (Simon?). |
|
|
|
|
|
#24 |
|
Guest
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 6,073
|
Quote:
..... you hardly pay someone that kind of money; if they were as vicious, nasty and back stabbing as people make out.
I think the case that she deliberately caused the team to fail, is wishful thinking. They failed because they either had a numpty running it or there was the likes of Michael, Kevin or Lindi in the team She did not deliberately cause the team to fail. She did not deliberately cause the team to win. She made sure her own performance was seen as blameless. Quote:
As I wrote before, there are any number of occasions where Claire has spoken up because she saw something going wrong. I don't think it's fair to say she doesn't.
Probably true. If so, her interventions were either unpersuasive or half-hearted. For whatever intention or reason they were ineffective. Last year was a long time ago. If I remember right Simon the winner stood up and made his weight count, he influenced his team whether as leader or follower, for the better I think. He seized the moment and was proactive.Quote:
I suppose it comes down to whether you'd rather blame malice or incompetence.
Lucinda has since gone on VT to say she thinks Claire is “very capable” but she would prefer Lee to be The Apprentice. Quote:
The nearest I can think of to what you say is later in the card task when Kevin tried to get out of doing the pitch at the last minute. She then thought Jenny C would be better at it, but Jenny turned it down, and Claire could have changed her position and agreed to do it herself but didn't. Partly because Kevin didn't go back to her again but decided to do it himself after all, and the moment just sort-of passed.
This was probably the most telling incident, instantly pounced on by the ever-alert SAS. Sales presentation was Claire’s day job and she would so obviously be in a different league to Kevin, who went down in flames taking the company’s credibility to rock bottom. Claire did not cause her team to lose. She did not cause her team to win. No I have no doubt Claire is the obvious bookies favourite. Just that like Lucinda I would rather hire someone else. Good luck to all candidates for their big break. Let see what SAS decides tomorrow. This would have to be my last contribution on the subject, thanks for the many interesting views, most especially the dissenting ones. |
|
|
|
|
|
#25 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,325
|
Claire has been canny, making the right observations but not so strongly as to have them followed.
it depends whether she was just 'playing the game' for the show, or whether she would put her own interests above everybody else if in a real job. I'm not sure that I would trust her, but I wouldn't ignore her. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03.

