The Apprentice 2019

voldejoie

It's funny, I don't work in sales or in a customer facing role at all really, and yet I know if I carried on as unprofessionally as pretty much any of them I'd be out on my ear :pac:

Can't decide which was more cringeworthy, the girls not bothering to work out their asking price for the rosemary monstrosities or the boys failing to sell their lollies at all!

He was right to get rid of Kenna though, christ alrighty imagine asking someone for a £250,000 investment in your ice cream business and screwing that task up so completely...

passremarkable

Thought Dean was very lucky to escape tonight

siblers

The cockney lad is brilliant. Rest of them are horrible or robots with no personality

Exclamation Marc

gmisk wrote: »

I think the quality of the vast majority of applicants is poor tbh, they also clearly pick "characters" I'd say a lot just go on it for a shot at fame rather than anything to do with business

At the end of the day it's an entertainment show no matter how much they promote it as being about business so 'characters' is what keeps people watching.

If you have 18 intelligent business people on that show making solid but unspectacular decisions (for better or worse) the viewing numbers would fall off a cliff.

yerwanthere123

"Enchanté"
Ryan-Mark is my favourite so far, what a guy :pac:

seligehgit

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

"Enchant:D
Ryan-Mark is my favourite so far, what a guy :pac:

He is insufferable and obnoxious beyond belief.The sole mitigating factor is his youth.

He has shown absolutely nothing thus far.

Exclamation Marc

seligehgit wrote: »

He is insufferable and obnoxious beyond belief.The sole mitigating factor is his youth.

He has shown absolutely nothing thus far.

His claims of being an award winning speaker and of having some of the highest net worth clients straight away let me know he was an insufferable ass.

davyboy1975

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

His claims of being an award winning speaker and of having some of the highest net worth clients straight away let me know he was an insufferable ass.

Am waiting for one of clients on the task to ask him how the stand up is going

SteM

siblers wrote: »

The cockney lad is brilliant. Rest of them are horrible or robots with no personality

Brilliant in 1 minute segments. Imagine having to work with the lad, he'd do your head in.

everlast75

Did anyone else think it was unfair on Dean (who should have gone by the way) to say that the lady said she would pay one pound per lolly? I don't think she said she would, she said she would struggle to pay one pound per lolly. Bit of a difference. He saw it as a negotiation and asked for 1.25, and she declined.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Did anyone else think it was unfair on Dean (who should have gone by the way) to say that the lady said she would pay one pound per lolly? I don't think she said she would, she said she would struggle to pay one pound per lolly. Bit of a difference. He saw it as a negotiation and asked for 1.25, and she declined.

What is the value of 100 rude looking and melting ice lollies when you have a short window to make a profit?

When she said she would struggle to pay a pound he should have countered her with "ok, how about 90 pence each?"

They lost the task by 160-ish quid, if my memory serves me. 100 lollies at 90 pence each would have made the difference 60-70 quid and who knows what difference that could have made to the other sub-teams morale?

SteM

everlast75 wrote: »

Did anyone else think it was unfair on Dean (who should have gone by the way) to say that the lady said she would pay one pound per lolly? I don't think she said she would, she said she would struggle to pay one pound per lolly. Bit of a difference. He saw it as a negotiation and asked for 1.25, and she declined.

That's exactly what I thought but he never disagreed anytime anyone broached the subject so I thought I'd picked it up wrong.

coL

everlast75 wrote: »

Did anyone else think it was unfair on Dean (who should have gone by the way) to say that the lady said she would pay one pound per lolly? I don't think she said she would, she said she would struggle to pay one pound per lolly. Bit of a difference. He saw it as a negotiation and asked for 1.25, and she declined.

It did seem unfair but as @SteM pointed out he didn't seem to disagree at any point or seem very upset when the point was repeatedly raised so maybe there was footage we didn't see where he did pass up on an offer!!!

What I find unforgivable is not taking the other lollies they made as an alternative to offer the lady. When the PM was asked about it on You're Fired he basically said that was a stupid idea!! It seems very arrogant and given how things turned out very foolish.

Also I got he vibe from him on You're Fired that he didn't really accept that he was responsible for loosing the task or even that he had done anything wrong!!!

yerwanthere123

seligehgit wrote: »

He is insufferable and obnoxious beyond belief.The sole mitigating factor is his youth.

He has shown absolutely nothing thus far.

Well yeah, I know, I just think he's funny

crisco10

Deleted User wrote: »

What is the value of 100 rude looking and melting ice lollies when you have a short window to make a profit?

When she said she would struggle to pay a pound he should have countered her with "ok, how about 90 pence each?"

They lost the task by 160-ish quid, if my memory serves me. 100 lollies at 90 pence each would have made the difference 60-70 quid and who knows what difference that could have made to the other sub-teams morale?

That whole bit was damned if you do, damned if you dont.

if when she said "I hardly would pay £1 for them" and he accepts it, the feedback from Sugar and co would be that he should have pushed back and tried to get more out of her.

Muahahaha

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

"Enchanté"
Ryan-Mark is my favourite so far, what a guy :pac:

The Tory boy head on him, I've added him to my list of people I'd like to punch in the face

crisco10

crisco10 wrote: »

That whole bit was damned if you do, damned if you dont.

if when she said "I hardly would pay £1 for them" and he accepts it, the feedback from Sugar and co would be that he should have pushed back and tried to get more out of her.

No the feedback would have been the same. Why did you only spend 11p per lolly when they were meant to be luxury and bespoke.

ArmaniJeanss

siblers wrote: »

The cockney lad is brilliant. Rest of them are horrible or robots with no personality

Loving cockney Thomas alright - he will do great in task four when they have to run protection rackets down the Old Kent Road (robbed from another board).

Have the opening credits always been such a complete spoiler? This week they showed one of the three potential firee's taking part in a future task, so it was obvious they wouldn't be fired tonight. And by extension can't be fired until that scene is shown.

davyboy1975

Anyone else follow claude on twitter, if its really him the guy is hilarious :-)

Kerrydude1981

Jesus that little posh fella is a right pain in the nads

Thomas is the star of the show at the moment he's like the Harry Redknapp of The Apprentice

everlast75

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Loving cockney Thomas alright - he will do great in task four when they have to run protection rackets down the Old Kent Road (robbed from another board).

Have the opening credits always been such a complete spoiler? This week they showed one of the three potential firee's taking part in a future task, so it was obvious they wouldn't be fired tonight. And by extension can't be fired until that scene is shown.

I always fast forward through it.

Although, I f'n hate spoilers in general

Galwayguy35

Didn't realise it was back already, suppose i didn't miss too much in the first two episodes.

seligehgit

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Didn't realise it was back already, suppose i didn't miss too much in the first two episodes.

Not really.:D

_Kaiser_

Interesting sub team lead justification by the Irish girl there. Can't see that going down well if it had been reversed

_Kaiser_

Jaysus.. The kids are a tough audience

mewso

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Jaysus.. The kids are a tough audience

Smarter than most of the candidates by the looks of it.

lawred2

Useless shower. The whole lot of them. Wouldn't employ one of them.

Also some of these girls are seemingly quite rude and dismissive of their male colleagues.

The Irish one is out on her ear anyway. Her strategy for picking sub team lead and then sidelining the marketing expert is going to deservedly sink her.

_Kaiser_

Ridiculous result there. Both teams should be brought back in

RugbyLover123

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Interesting sub team lead justification by the Irish girl there. Can't see that going down well if it had been reversed

Can’t believe nothing more was made of that. If it was the other way around there would be killings.

_Kaiser_

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Can’t believe nothing more was made of that. If it was the other way around there would be killings.

Yea, I'm amazed that was just glossed over. I can just imagine the reaction if one of the lads had decided the poor girlies needed a man to keep things on track :rolleyes:

siblers

The Irish one is a gob****e. Blatant sexism ignored cause it was aimed at a man.

The young very posh gay fella is growing on me. Seemed to show signs of intelligence in today's episode

alchemist33

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Can’t believe nothing more was made of that. If it was the other way around there would be killings.

I was looking forward to her losing and her being fired for sidelining half of her team for no good reason, and also foregeeting slime, her toy's USP. But Iasha saved her ass

Mean Laqueefa

Souleyman , bet he didn't see that coming

Muahahaha

3rd episode and its hard to see anyone standing out as a winner here

Calhoun

RugbyLover123 wrote: »

Can’t believe nothing more was made of that. If it was the other way around there would be killings.

There are killings online (twitter) and allot of the rags in the UK are running a story about her being sexist.

I don't think she expected the backlash.

Scott Tenorman

Mean Laqueefa wrote: »

Souleyman , bet he didn't see that coming

LOL at that and Blindside88 thanking it :pac::P

I'm only 15 minutes into last nights episode and i'm already cringing.

Galwayguy35

Can't wait for the Irish one to get fired, put a woman in charge to put the lads in their place she says :rolleyes:

And then says in the boardroom it was taken out of context.

Reverse the sexes and Twitter would be on meltdown.

I assume they get very narrow parameters for things like the video. And they can't visit a toyshop to see what a toy for 6-8 year olds look like.

Fann Linn

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I assume they get very narrow parameters for things like the video. And they can't visit a toyshop to see what a toy for 6-8 year olds look like.

plus the PM didn't listen to the woman who actually had a 7 year old kid.

Calhoun

Fann Linn wrote: »

plus the PM didn't listen to the woman who actually had a 7 year old kid.

The video was the worst, I don't get how dancing around in a turtle suit conveys any message.

The product logo or name they flashed up in the video was like animal pals or some crap associated with Tommy the Turtle which was odd.

Calhoun

The backlash online is pretty intense, i think the producers of this show know what they are up to and edited in a way to get as much noise generated about it.

Just goes to show how bad the likes of twitter ect is.

Calhoun

Calhoun wrote: »

The video was the worst, I don't get how dancing around in a turtle suit conveys any message.

The product logo or name they flashed up in the video was like animal pals or some crap associated with Tommy the Turtle which was odd.

Maybe there's already been one but I'd love a behind the scenes episode where they show what really goes on, and I mean, what really goes on.

I've heard rumours of not being allowed more than minimal phone calls between teams or limited time on calls,

Basically they are set up to fail.

ncmc

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe there's already been one but I'd love a behind the scenes episode where they show what really goes on, and I mean, what really goes on.

I've heard rumours of not being allowed more than minimal phone calls between teams or limited time on calls,

Basically they are set up to fail.

A few of the fired candidates have come out in the past with some truths about what really goes one. It sounds dreadful, some have reported that they are deliberately kept sleep deprived and given minimal food during tasks so that they aren't at their best and make stupid mistakes.

The turtle toy actually wasn't bad if it had been aimed at pre schoolers. I know the unicorn wasn't very original, but I my 5 year old girl would have loved it! Especially if there had been a bigger quantity of slime. The videos were terrible, but it's a very difficult thing to pull off when you're short on time, budget and don't have expertise in that area. I don't know how you're supposed to make a decent video, when all the props you have are a few ****ty costumes.

Exclamation Marc

One of those tasks that neither team should have won. One sale was enough for that shïtty My Little Pony knock-off to win.

Pamela was atrocious in her behaviour whether it was her casual sexism, brutal toy design, outright lying, crap pitching, tunnel vision or malignment of her team.

The other team were just as bad. The turtle was a disaster from the first moment (given the target market) and how Tommy didn't get brought back was beyond me. The product was made for the wrong age group yet the product maker avoided the boardroom....?

I feel for Solomon as although he was negative (and right to be); in the Apprentice you're either a devout blind-to-reality lemming or you're a disruptor who nobody can work with. Tommy bulldozed any negativity and even tried to pretend that there had been no concerns raised by the candidate with the kid. Bewildering.

And come on, did that team lose because of Solomon? Absolutely not.

Still Ill

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

The other team were just as bad. The turtle was a disaster from the first moment (given the target market) and how Tommy didn't get brought back was beyond me. The product was made for the wrong age group yet the product maker avoided the boardroom....?

And come on, did that team lose because of Solomon? Absolutely not.

Would've been an insane decision to bring Tom back by the team leader. He was singled out for praise in one of the previous tasks and he has enough about him that he'd have to had done something terrible to get fired this week.

Calhoun

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

One of those tasks that neither team should have won. One sale was enough for that shïtty My Little Pony knock-off to win.

Pamela was atrocious in her behaviour whether it was her casual sexism, brutal toy design, outright lying, crap pitching, tunnel vision or malignment of her team.

The other team were just as bad. The turtle was a disaster from the first moment (given the target market) and how Tommy didn't get brought back was beyond me. The product was made for the wrong age group yet the product maker avoided the boardroom....?

I feel for Solomon as although he was negative (and right to be); in the Apprentice you're either a devout blind-to-reality lemming or you're a disruptor who nobody can work with. Tommy bulldozed any negativity and even tried to pretend that there had been no concerns raised by the candidate with the kid. Bewildering.

And come on, did that team lose because of Solomon? Absolutely not.

Say what you want about the pony i found the turtle to be worse, they should have draped it in a Union Jack with the way it being made.

Solomons problem was that he just wasn't really that much of a personality compared to others. He was relatively invisible up until this week and then he was just super negative. I think the team leader or Lottie should have went as he was useless and she was invisible but they have got a bit more longevity due to the personality.

Tommy survived because hes like the sales workhorse as he can just spit out sales.

Its funny online people complaining that it was a race thing and they were only keeping the white people in.

Exclamation Marc

Still Ill wrote: »

Would've been an insane decision to bring Tom back by the team leader. He was singled out for praise in one of the previous tasks and he has enough about him that he'd have to had done something terrible to get fired this week.

The question about who to bring back is 'who is responsible for the failure of this task?'

The task failed based on the toys target market. Even Hamleys liked it, but not for 6-8. The toy was designed by Tom who ignored criticism of it being 'too young'.

Maybe he wouldn't have been fired but he sure was responsible for its failure.

Still Ill

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

The question about who to bring back is 'who is responsible for the failure of this task?'

The task failed based on the toys target market. Even Hamleys liked it, but not for 6-8. The toy was designed by Tom who ignored criticism of it being 'too young'.

Maybe he wouldn't have been fired but he sure was responsible for its failure.

The aim of the game is to survive through your poor tasks and to try and win the competition. From a game theory perspective bringing back someone who is highly unlikely to be fired is far from optimal.

LizT

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

The question about who to bring back is 'who is responsible for the failure of this task?'

The task failed based on the toys target market. Even Hamleys liked it, but not for 6-8. The toy was designed by Tom who ignored criticism of it being 'too young'.

Maybe he wouldn't have been fired but he sure was responsible for its failure.

But Lord Sugar doesn't always fire the person responsible for the failure, especially if he likes what he has seen from them. In the early weeks, he tends to fire people if they haven't contributed much, even if they're not responsible for the failure.