The Apprentice (UK) 2008

Pigman II

Bond-007 wrote: »

Nope. All persons regardless of nationality must call him Sir.

Knights that are not UK nationals are not called sir. Bob Geldof KBE is not entitled to be called sir but the British media often give him this title incorrectly.

Well I'd call him just plain "Alan". I wouldn't care less if pointed his stubby little finger and went "You're ..... a very rude young man and I don't like you. "

ojewriej

I know what you are all saying, and thought the same, but then i though that he actuallly deserves the title. Plus I like him, he cracks me up.

Quality

ojewriej wrote: »

I know what you are all saying, and thought the same, but then i though that he actuallly deserves the title. Plus I like him, he cracks me up.

+1

What height is he? I'd say he has to hop up onto that chair!

Our man in Havana

Pigman II wrote: »

Well I'd call him just plain "Alan". I wouldn't care less if pointed his stubby little finger and went "You're ..... a very rude young man and I don't like you. "

From what I have read about him, he dislikes the term "Sir" and all his close friends and associates call him Alan.

OPENROAD

Pigman II wrote: »

Is it only British people who have to call him "Sir" Alan? Would the Irish girl get away with calling him Alan (or "Al" perhaps if she's into the whole brevity thing).

As she is in England out of respect she should call him Sir Alan.

OPENROAD

Absolutely brilliant so far, looking forward to seeing Simon as leader of the group. Irish Jenny seems to be keeping her head down at the moment, keeping a low profile. As good as this series is, my favourite was the first series.

ojewriej

OPENROAD wrote: »

Absolutely brilliant so far, looking forward to seeing Simon as leader of the group. Irish Jenny seems to be keeping her head down at the moment, keeping a low profile. As good as this series is, my favourite was the first series.

Never seen it. Is it actually available on DVD?

OPENROAD

ojewriej wrote: »

Never seen it. Is it actually available on DVD?

No they have yet to release the uk version on dvd which is a shame.

redspider

ojewriej wrote: »

You think it's pathetic, and yet you watch it.

I don't think anyone is looking for any business tips in this show, it is a reality show made for entertainment purposes. Obviously some decisons are made with ratings in mind. So what? It's far better than most of the stuff you see on telly these days.

I didnt say the show was pathetic, I was talking about the boys v girls angle. Its very immature and is aimed at 8-yr olds, which is not the target audience.

I've only caught bits of the programme, and watched some of it online, so I wouldnt call myself an avid fan, nor an expert.

I realise people arent looking for business tips from such a programme, but at the end of the day, Alan Sugar is running a business and he is recruiting an employee, at least supposedly. How many of the previous winners are still with him? That is perhaps a good indication of how succesful he/this process is. If a reasonable business person was going to select an employee, most of the things that happen in this series is not the way/process to go about. If the show was tweaked, it would be better for Sugar and better for entertainment as well perhaps.

> All persons regardless of nationality must call him Sir.

Not true. A person can address him in any manner that they like and he can do likewise. Whilst not using an official title may be breaking some minor law, it isnt practically enforced and people are not thrown into shackles in the Tower in London these days.

Redspider

Quality

redspider wrote: »

If a reasonable business person was going to select an employee, most of the things that happen in this series is not the way/process to go about.

^Could you imagine the amount of unfair dismissal cases if they went about firing people like sir alan does!



Personally I think the show is hilarious.. i watch it solely for the comedy factor.

ojewriej

redspider wrote: »

I didnt say the show was pathetic, I was talking about the boys v girls angle. Its very immature and is aimed at 8-yr olds, which is not the target audience.

I've only caught bits of the programme, and watched some of it online, so I wouldnt call myself an avid fan, nor an expert.

Fair enough so.

redspider wrote: »

I realise people arent looking for business tips from such a programme, but at the end of the day, Alan Sugar is running a business and he is recruiting an employee, at least supposedly. How many of the previous winners are still with him? That is perhaps a good indication of how succesful he/this process is. If a reasonable business person was going to select an employee, most of the things that happen in this series is not the way/process to go about. If the show was tweaked, it would be better for Sugar and better for entertainment as well perhaps..

That's my whole point, I don't think he, or people behind the show see it as a recruitment exercise. They are making an entertainment show, which is supposed to make money. The 100000 pound job offer is just one of the expenses they have to cover, and I wouldn't say it's the highest one either. If the winner is able to do the job, great, if not, no harm done, Sir Alan will still make a mint on it. And fair play to him.

Gekko

Here's my 2 cents worth.

That Ian defo deserved to go - I had to laugh at his impatience when Kevin called the meeting - Ian was almost jumping up and down like a little kid...or a monkey, the animal he most resembled.

In terms of the programme itself, it is designed to be mostly entertainment-led. I think it has a weakness in that the tasks are perhaps too sales-driven. There always seems to be a bias towards contestants with mostly sales skills.

Business is about a lot more than sales. As others have pointed out, you wouldn't learn much about business from this programme.

niceirishfella

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Business is about making money - nd to make money you have to make the "sale" whatever the sector! So, sales ability is a pre-resiqite i would have thought.

Our man in Havana

But does every task need to be about selling?

Utopia Parkway

Bond-007 wrote: »

But does every task need to be about selling?

Well business is usually about selling something. Whether it be a product or a service.

Elmo

I don't really understand why the boys (and Sir Alan) where saying that they brought in more money so they should have been the real winners.

The girls had made a profit before going into the kitchen.

Sure if I produce some thing for 1euro and sell it for 10, I am doing better then some who produces the same product for 5euro and sells it for 12!

Claire is going to get fired next, she is critical of everyone.

OPENROAD

Elmo wrote: »

I don't really understand why the boys (and Sir Alan) where saying that they brought in more money so they should have been the real winners.

The girls had made a profit before going into the kitchen.

Sure if I produce some thing for 1euro and sell it for 10, I am doing better then some who produces the same product for 5euro and sells it for 12!

Claire is going to get fired next, she is critical of everyone.

Have to agree with Sir Alan, the lads really should have won after taking in more money but they completely messed up on costs, rather than buying wholesale they went to the supermarket, they spent way too much on mraketing and this is why the lads lost.

redspider

ojewriej wrote: »

I don't think he, or people behind the show see it as a recruitment exercise. They are making an entertainment show, which is supposed to make money. The 100000 pound job offer is just one of the expenses they have to cover, and I wouldn't say it's the highest one either. If the winner is able to do the job, great, if not, no harm done, Sir Alan will still make a mint on it. And fair play to him.

But that raises an important point: this show is made by the BBC, the state-run company in the UK. Now, if financially, one of the main beneficiaries is Alan Sugar (who can get spin-off stuff, etc, it boosts his visibility in media, etc, etc), does that make sense and is that within their remit? It seems to be too much ego-stroking of Sugar, imo. A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc.

The BBC are aware of this yet they continue to promote Sugar. They spend the tax payers money from the UK to do so. The US version (who the BBC must pay a stipend to) is different in that sense as it is purely commercial, and Trump produces it partly. If ITV were producing this programme in a purely commercial sense with Sugar's backing, that would be an entirely different matter.

Redspider

ojewriej

redspider wrote: »

But that raises an important point: this show is made by the BBC, the state-run company in the UK.

It's actually made by a company called talbackTHAMES, which in turn is owned by Freemantle. as far as I know BBC buys it as a ready made product, together with " you are fired" and other spin-offs.

redspider wrote: »

Now, if financially, one of the main beneficiaries is Alan Sugar (who can get spin-off stuff, etc, it boosts his visibility in media, etc, etc), does that make sense and is that within their remit? .

Who said he is one of a main beneficiaries? I'm sure he makes a mint, but I'm also sure that many other people do, all the way to Trump who owns the rights..

redspider wrote: »

It seems to be too much ego-stroking of Sugar, imo. A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc.
The BBC are aware of this yet they continue to promote Sugar.

Sir Alan's personality is one of the biggest assets of this program. Like him or not, he is a character. He likes to flash his money, granted, but he almost never talks about anything not-Apprentice related. You don't see him in talk-shows, he rarely gives interviews. I think it's unfair to accuse him of self-promoting. Also, he contributes a lot of his time to the show, uses his business contacts, and funds the main prize. He even gives the temporary jobs to the finalist for few months between filming the final show and announcing the winners.

redspider wrote: »

The BBC are aware of this yet they continue to promote Sugar. They spend the tax payers money from the UK to do so. The US version (who the BBC must pay a stipend to) is different in that sense as it is purely commercial, and Trump produces it partly. If ITV were producing this programme in a purely commercial sense with Sugar's backing, that would be an entirely different matter.
Redspider

3rd episode of The Apprentice was watched by 6.8 Million people in the UK. It's nearest competitor had 3.4 million viewers. It looks like taxpayers think that BBC spent their money well.

Utopia Parkway

redspider wrote: »

But that raises an important point: this show is made by the BBC, the state-run company in the UK. Now, if financially, one of the main beneficiaries is Alan Sugar (who can get spin-off stuff, etc, it boosts his visibility in media, etc, etc), does that make sense and is that within their remit? It seems to be too much ego-stroking of Sugar, imo. A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc.

The BBC are aware of this yet they continue to promote Sugar. They spend the tax payers money from the UK to do so. The US version (who the BBC must pay a stipend to) is different in that sense as it is purely commercial, and Trump produces it partly. If ITV were producing this programme in a purely commercial sense with Sugar's backing, that would be an entirely different matter.

Redspider

I think you're taking it a bit too seriously. It's a reality show for entertainment purposes. I don't think it's ever been portrayed as public service broadcasting by the BBC.

Elmo

one of the main beneficiaries is Alan Sugar (who can get spin-off stuff, etc, it boosts his visibility in media, etc, etc), does that make sense and is that within their remit? It seems to be too much ego-stroking of Sugar, imo. A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc

Any person who appears in primetime TV will get rewards if they have a successful TV program regardless how good it is. Most TV stars can make a fortune opening shops and giving speechs.

kerash

redspider wrote: »

A proper programme would have different 'masters' in eash season who are looking for an apprentice and there could be a critique epidisode over how they did, etc.

Someone thinks he can do better eh? I can see it now, Redspiders Apprentice!

On another note, I hope the army lad (donno his name) gets further than those posh lads, they are so full of themselves. The other night one of them said something about him being working class? I cant remember the quote, it was ignorant anyway:mad:

ojewriej

kerash wrote: »

On another note, I hope the army lad (donno his name) gets further than those posh lads, they are so full of themselves. The other night one of them said something about him being working class? I cant remember the quote, it was ignorant anyway:mad:

I think it's Simon, he's my favourite too. Seems to be not so full of **** compared to the rest.

I think your man who went first said the thing about working class.He implied the whole team was split - working class and posh boys. It doesn't seem to be true anymore though.

Elmo

Have to agree with Sir Alan, the lads really should have won after taking in more money but they completely messed up on costs, rather than buying wholesale they went to the supermarket, they spent way too much on mraketing and this is why the lads lost.

We don't know how many meals the boys or girls cooked. If the cooked the same amount or more then prehaps they should have won as they had more work to do, but to suggest that the boys should have won when they overspent and under priced the meals is stupid IMO.

ojewriej

Elmo wrote: »

We don't know how many meals the boys or girls cooked. If the cooked the same amount or more then prehaps they should have won as they had more work to do, but to suggest that the boys should have won when they overspent and under priced the meals is stupid IMO.

I don't think he meant "you should have won, you were robbed" but more "you should have won, but you messed it up"

redspider

ojewriej wrote: »

It's actually made by a company called talbackTHAMES, which in turn is owned by Freemantle. as far as I know BBC buys it as a ready made product, together with " you are fired" and other spin-offs.

Who said he is one of a main beneficiaries? I'm sure he makes a mint, but I'm also sure that many other people do, all the way to Trump who owns the rights..

Sir Alan's personality is one of the biggest assets of this program. Like him or not, he is a character. He likes to flash his money, granted, but he almost never talks about anything not-Apprentice related. You don't see him in talk-shows, he rarely gives interviews. I think it's unfair to accuse him of self-promoting. Also, he contributes a lot of his time to the show, uses his business contacts, and funds the main prize. He even gives the temporary jobs to the finalist for few months between filming the final show and announcing the winners.

3rd episode of The Apprentice was watched by 6.8 Million people in the UK. It's nearest competitor had 3.4 million viewers. It looks like taxpayers think that BBC spent their money well.

Okay, I do take some of your points on board. But even if Talkback/Thames produce the programme, the BBC 'commissioned' it and agreed to pay for it. Its like many of the 'independent' programmes that are made for RTE. They essentially wouldnt get made unless the buyer (RTE/BBC) are in the bag. Its the same in the case of The Apprentice.

In terms of Sugar benefitting, yeah, okay, maybe I came across as too hard on him. He is not in it solely for the money, as he doesnt need it, and he does give and take. He does contribute. And the main beneficiaries are the 'nobody' contestants. I am sure though he is happy getting his ego stroked all the same.

> It looks like taxpayers think that BBC spent their money well

People dont decide to watch a show or not depending on its suitability for licence payer money. This information is not even divulged before each show/programme, so popularity of a programme or not has nothing to do with value for licence-payers money. People would even watch things if they wre bad value for money.

> Someone thinks he can do better eh? I can see it now, Redspiders Apprentice!

:-) definitely not .... but it would be interesting (and entertaining) to see other 'masters'. Might get rid of the blagging and be equally if not more entertaining. Similarly to Dragon's Den, getting in new Dragons helps that show and the same would happen with the Apprentice. How many more tasks like: "My mate from the east end owns a fish shop, your task today is to sell as many bloody fish as you can" is entertaining .....

Btw, back to the show,

I hear on the grapevine that this week's decision is another poor one by Sugar, who kicks out someone who is not at fault. Same old, same old ....

Redspider

Our man in Havana

Please use spoiler tags if you are referring to a show that has not yet been shown. Thank you.

Also if the BBC did not buy the show from talkback, I am sure that ITV/C4 would buy it in a heartbeat.

loyatemu

Is the Irish burd yer wan from B*Witched? Maybe she'll break out the denim and do a duet with the Sugababes girl later in the series...

the Guardian have a pretty funny blog running on the show:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/organgrinder/2008/04/the_apprentice_series_four_epi_2.html

Our man in Havana

Which one is from the sugababes?

loyatemu

Bond-007 wrote: »

Which one is from the sugababes?

this one:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/apprentice/candidate/id/15/type/contestant.html