The Apprentice [UK] - General Discussion

[Trick Question]

I was actually liking Selina more this week, until she didn't stop whinging about being banished to the replenishing job.

I can't help but think that these complaints over who's doing what job (specifically, who's doing the most high-profile and important jobs) within a task happens literally every week, and it's just a question of how much the editors choose to show us.  Surely all these type-A personalities are always jockeying for the biggest positions, apart from the under-the-radar types or candidates like the first guy fired this season that "didn't like sales."

 

Brett doesn't seem like the strongest of candidates but his bluntness is pretty funny.  He reminds me of Drax from Guardians of the Galaxy --- just completely literal at all times.

 

David and (on the other side) Sam also did themselves no favours with staggering displays of ineptness.  Sam was very, very lucky his team won.

 

I did think it was an excellent choice of task, not only seeing who can't handle getting their hands dirty, but also with the pricing stratagem - you have to get it low enough to get the job, high enough to make a profit - and organisation.

The pricing and organization, yes.  The actual "getting your hands dirty" thing, probably not so much.  Obviously Lord Sugar can't expect these people to be construction professionals with no training whatsoever, so David's error with the pipe measurements was hardly a big deal.  That type of thing doesn't mean a damn when Sugar is choosing whose business to invest in --- "David, your plan is completely sound and may be the next Google, but eh, that shortened pipe in Week  still nags at me.  You're fired."  The more important thing for this task is to at least give it an effort and to have common sense about your limitations.  Case in point, Vana stepping in to stop Scott from promising the customer the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

[HauntedBathroom]

Sam seemed like a lovely chap, but he just didn't fit with Lord Alan at all. Shugs has always seemed to not fully trust education, or at least to think it's nowhere near as important as getting up at 5am each day to sell things off a barrow, I can't see him wanting to invest in a tutoring business.

[RCharter]

How did Selena not get dragged into the boardroom?  Brett may be a jerk, but he was responsible for the turnaround in sales.  And while he was wrong in how he went about it, I don't think you should fault someone for strongly expressing a counter point of view...especially when you lost.  Who knows, maybe placing the items in Brett's way may have won the day.

 

Selena on the other hand was the epitome of whining and not being a team player.  She had her chance to sell and she didn't do very well at it, either day.  I don't see how she keeps skating by.  I would have brought her and Sam in.  Sam seems a little lost.  I'm sure he has a great business plan, and I think anyone can make a mistake with numbers.  But he doesn't seem to have that instinct that the rest of them have for sales, or presenting, or marketing

 

On another note, Scott's hairline confuses me.  It slopes diagonally, its strange.

 

And why does Charlene hate Richard so much?  Did they get in a fight that I missed?  I think she annoys him, but I don't feel the same intense hatred from him that I get from her.

 

 

Sam seemed like a lovely chap, but he just didn't fit with Lord Alan at all. Shugs has always seemed to not fully trust education, or at least to think it's nowhere near as important as getting up at 5am each day to sell things off a barrow, I can't see him wanting to invest in a tutoring business.

He tells that story multiple times, every season.  I get being proud of your humble roots, but dang!

How did Selena not get dragged into the boardroom?  Brett may be a jerk, but he was responsible for the turnaround in sales.  And while he was wrong in how he went about it, I don't think you should fault someone for strongly expressing a counter point of view...especially when you lost.  Who knows, maybe placing the items in Brett's way may have won the day.

 

Selena on the other hand was the epitome of whining and not being a team player.  She had her chance to sell and she didn't do very well at it, either day.  I don't see how she keeps skating by.  I would have brought her and Sam in.  Sam seems a little lost.  I'm sure he has a great business plan, and I think anyone can make a mistake with numbers.  But he doesn't seem to have that instinct that the rest of them have for sales, or presenting, or marketing

 

On another note, Scott's hairline confuses me.  It slopes diagonally, its strange.

 

And why does Charlene hate Richard so much?  Did they get in a fight that I missed?  I think she annoys him, but I don't feel the same intense hatred from him that I get from her.

 

 

Sam seemed like a lovely chap, but he just didn't fit with Lord Alan at all. Shugs has always seemed to not fully trust education, or at least to think it's nowhere near as important as getting up at 5am each day to sell things off a barrow, I can't see him wanting to invest in a tutoring business.

He tells that story multiple times, every season.  I get being proud of your humble roots, but dang!

[Kromm]

Nothing will ever compare to the US Apprentice boardroom massacre.  Say what you will about Trump, the man has a flair for the dramatic.

And now we're going to have to deal with Aaaahnold (who I presume is only going to be doing Celeb versions, because otherwise why even cast him?) 

 

Those old shows are really the only sense in which anyone can miss Trump. The show got worse and worse, Trump more and more like a big orange cartoon character, and it's mostly in this light that Alan Sugar doesn't seem so bad in comparison.

[RCharter]

And now we're going to have to deal with Aaaahnold (who I presume is only going to be doing Celeb versions, because otherwise why even cast him?) 

 

Those old shows are really the only sense in which anyone can miss Trump. The show got worse and worse, Trump more and more like a big orange cartoon character, and it's mostly in this light that Alan Sugar doesn't seem so bad in comparison.

I miss regular Apprentice so much.  I think the UK version has more realistic tasks than the US version ever did, but I really miss original Apprentice.

 

And yes, Trump just became some dude who yelled random, and sexually harassing comments at female D-list celebrities.

 

I think Arnold is going to be an absolute death knell for the show.  Its going to be so obvious that he is acting outrageous to keep up with Trump's style.  Trump is seriously that embarrassing dad who doesn't know how to shut his mouth and says nutty things.  That's not Arnold.  He was great in movies, but I think CA is going to be a fail with him at the helm.  I have no idea why he was even picked.  Has he ever even been on a reality show before?

 

I find Alan Sugar hilarious.  I could listen to the accents all day.  He tells the same story ad naseum like an old man reliving his glory days.  I mean, at this point, does anyone think he was born to wealth?  Are we unsure how he got his start? 

Edited November 24, 2015 by RCharter

[legaleagle53]

I find Alan Sugar hilarious.  I could listen to the accents all day.  He tells the same story ad naseum like an old man reliving his glory days.  I mean, at this point, does anyone think he was born to wealth?  Are we unsure how he got his start? 

 

You should follow him on Twitter.  The man does NOT suffer fools gladly and can be just as acid-tongued with his followers as he is on the show (just TRY making a lame "You're fired!" joke.  He will cut you to shreds for it.)  He also has a running banter with Piers Morgan that shows what a dry sense of humor he has.

 

On the other hand, he can also be very kind and gracious to people who mind their manners around him, and he is very definitely proud of every one of his Apprentice winners (he frequently plugs their latest endeavors in his tweets.)  And he spends his winters in Florida, so he also has some affection for the United States.  I have a great deal of respect for him.

 

I also follow Claude on Twitter.  You honestly wouldn't believe it's the same stern figure in the Boardroom -- he's actually got quite the sense of humor and can be downright playful at times.

Edited November 24, 2015 by legaleagle53

[Occasional Hope]

From the preview, do we think they actually fed nuts to the allergic client, or is that false advertising again like the "paint over the cat" thing?

 

So no, false advertising again.

 

Gary was quite lucky not to be sent home.

 

I was surprised that Selina picked Richard for her team; I thought I remembered them clashing badly in the past.  Maybe they've been bonding in the house over their evident mutual loathing of Charleine ;)

Edited November 26, 2015 by Occasional Hope

[RCharter]

1.  I call BS on that nut allergy.  How does that woman even survive in the world if she can't be in the general vicinity of nuts.  But....lol @ nutcake

 

2. I still don't see the problem with the "nutcake."  They advised her the cake was made with products that may contain nuts.  If she has an allergy so severe that she can't even be in the same area, why would she ever even risk exposure to nuts by eating a cake made with products that may contain nuts?  And why was it such a huge deal that she not have a piece of cake?  I could understand the utter disappointment if the child had a severe nut allergy, because a child should be able to eat his own birthday cake, but I've been to parties where I haven't had cake because I'm gluten free.  Doesn't bother me in the least.

 

3. I don't see how Joseph and Charlene were at fault for the cake.  I think I must have missed something, did they initially tell Gary that they used hazelnut spread and then called him back?  I can tell you right now, I wouldn't have been shelling out $2,000 for a party with cakes that looked the way those cakes looked.  They would have been better off just to make the chocolate portion from scratch to ensure that there weren't any nuts.  But at the same time, most everything says that it is processed in a facility with nuts, may contain traces of nuts, or may have nut particles in it.....so it would be hard for them to even go to the grocery store and make it from scratch without giving her some sort of disclaimer.

 

4.  Also don't see how Joseph and Charlene were at fault for the gift bags.  It was Gary's idea to charge the dad $9.00 a bag, he should have charged less for the bags if they didn't have quality material, or he should have told them what to get for the $9 bag.  If the dad is a fool who agreed to pay $9.00 for silly doo-dads, that is on him.  

 

5.  I didn't mind Richard before, but this task he was a straight up tool

 

6. Hilarious to see Brett doing Britney Spears....nice to see him let his hair down a little (so to speak)

 

7.  Do people in the UK really spend $2000 on a child's birthday party?

[Kromm]

1.  I call BS on that nut allergy.  How does that woman even survive in the world if she can't be in the general vicinity of nuts.  But....lol @ nutcake

It's an incredibly common allergy in the past few decades.  Where have you been living that you think it's a made up condition?

 

While it IS somewhat excessive and seemingly overreactive for someone to physically move themselves out of an entire park to avoid even ehem... fumes... that one part may have been encouraged by the producers and TV cameras. What's likely the reality though is that if she eats, or potentially even touches, any of it, her airways would swell up like balloons and she'd be dead in minutes. She'd likely be carrying an EpiPen (an epinephrine autoinjector), or maybe even 2 or 3 of them. THAT's how those people "survive in the world".

[RCharter]

It's an incredibly common allergy in the past few decades.  Where have you been living that you think it's a made up condition?

 

While it IS somewhat excessive and seemingly overreactive for someone to physically move themselves out of an entire park to avoid even ehem... fumes... that one part may have been encouraged by the producers and TV cameras. What's likely the reality though is that if she eats, or potentially even touches, any of it, her airways would swell up like balloons and she'd be dead in minutes. She'd likely be carrying an EpiPen (an epinephrine autoinjector), or maybe even 2 or 3 of them. THAT's how those people "survive in the world".

 

I thought I was clear that I called BS on her nut allergy.  Which apparently means that she can't even be outside in the general vicinity of nuts.  If thats what she was doing to avoid nuts, than she can't live in the world, because nuts are everywhere.  And why would she even consider eating or being around a cake that "may contain nuts" if she is so sensitive to it?  That doesn't make sense.  So yes, I call complete BS on her nut allergy.  If she would be "dead in minutes" from merely touching a nut or something that had nut traces on it, she should have just stayed home.  She was going to be around a bunch of kids, who knows what those kids would have eaten or had on their clothing that could have gotten on her.  You certainly can't control what other children eat, or have on their clothing.

 

As for where I've been living....here, in the real world, where a nut allergy doesn't require you to sit behind a fence to avoid a product that may have nuts in it.

Edited November 27, 2015 by RCharter

[Trick Question]

Do people in the UK really spend $2000 on a child's birthday party?

I know, right?!  Obviously the budgets were boosted for the sake of the show since otherwise, man, you could add up everything my parents spent on every one of my birthdays from ages 1-12 and still not hit four grand.  And we had fun!  Just invite some friends over to play board games or watch movies, not David's brand of strictly enforced frivolity.

 

I had David pegged as a potential winner since he was one of the few who seemed generally competent from week to week, though the wheels really came off here.  Richard might have a shot but ever since Brett's David Brent comparison, I can't stop seeing it.

[HauntedBathroom]

7.  Do people in the UK really spend $2000 on a child's birthday party?

 

Only if they've got more money then sense. This whole birthday planning thing seems to be very much a reason for parents to brag to other parents about how much they've lavishedon their little sprot. Both sets of kids seemed to be happy with running around shouting, which they could have done in their local park.

[chocolatine]

I also follow Claude on Twitter.  You honestly wouldn't believe it's the same stern figure in the Boardroom -- he's actually got quite the sense of humor and can be downright playful at times.

 

I don't follow him on social media, but I do believe it. When he used to do the interviews I could tell that he was playing the role of "the tough one". He obviously enjoyed it and was really good at it, and had a total poker face during the interviews, but in the debriefs with Alan he was all laughter and jokes. I also like the faces he makes while he observes the contestants during tasks - it's like he's in on the joke, rather than exasperated and above-it-all, which I thought Nick Hewer was.

 

Regarding the nut allergy, I had a friend in college with a severe one and she couldn't eat anything that "may contain traces of nuts", but it was still possible for her to be in the vicinity of such products, so I thought the mother waiting outside the venue was a little much. I wonder why nobody on that team thought about finding a nut-free bakery though (there must be at least a few of them in London). The cake would have been more expensive, but if the clients had seen that the team had put so much consideration into getting a "safe" cake, they would have been less likely to deduct money for the other things they didn't like.

 

Oh, and the parties each cost ‎£2000, which is $3000. The mind boggles.

Edited November 28, 2015 by chocolatine

[Kromm]

Yeah I was gonna comment on that. Poundage aint' Dollarage!  That makes a £2000 figure even MORE ridiculous for a kids party.

Of course if this had been the old Trump version of the US show, I bet the budget would have been even higher.  "Luxe"... you know. Gold plated crap expected.

[Occasional Hope]

This ep would have worked much better for me if I hadn't been spoiled (and over-sold) for the walkout (much less dramatic than advertised) .  The task was not actually that interesting.

 

If I'd been the losing PM I would have brought back both Charleine and Selina so they would destroy each other in the boardroom and leave me out of it (neither is a good advert for women in business, unfortunately); but I admit Charleine did sell well, and Joseph survived anyway.

 

Vana's growing on me, but Joseph took a step backwards.

[Trick Question]

You know what, I can't really blame Scott.  He's going through this stressful process, he's been crapping the bed for weeks now and even when his team wins, Sugar personally calls him out as lucky.  At that point, Scott had to have known he had zero chance of winning so he decided to spare himself more humiliation.  It's also not a bad way to protect his business plan, as even if he'd made it to the final interviews, Scott was assuming his plan would've been picked apart on international television. 

 

Could've been some in-house issues as well.  Scott quits, makes a beeline for his suitcase and departs without a word to his flabbergasted teammates...no handshakes or anything.

 

If I'd been the losing PM I would have brought back both Charleine and Selina so they would destroy each other in the boardroom and leave me out of it (neither is a good advert for women in business, unfortunately); but I admit Charleine did sell well, and Joseph survived anyway.

I suspect if Joseph had taken Charleine into the boardroom, Sugar would've called it out as tactics since Charleine clearly seemed to be the team's top performer.  Had the rules not required him to take two people in, I suspect Joseph would've brought only Selina back.

[RCharter]

The little "temper tantrum" walkout was absolutely ridiculous.  Why wouldn't you at least wait until after you did the reward to quit?  The only reason I can't think of is that Scott did it in the boardroom to somehow punish Sugar.  But how much did he really think that through?  Why in the hell would Sugar care if Scott left?  I don't even see what Scott had his panties in a bunch for, Sugar/Trump have said much, much worse to candidates who did a bad job on the task, and the response is always "I'll try hard next time lord sugar."

 

The only loser in that situation was Scott, and he probably regretted in the minute he cooled off.  You are never going to look good quitting a show like the Apprentice, you'll almost always look weak doing that.  And I'm not sure who Scott thinks is going to invest in his company if he decides to run away when he is called out for a legitimate poor performance.

 

Charliene did a good job, and I think Joseph was smart to bring Gary back.  You get those two screeching at each other and Sugar wouldn't be able to hear either of them.  Gary, however, is more steady and so he was able to get some words in and it didn't sound like a personality conflict.  Selina has a lot of annoying personality traits.  No PM is ever good enough for her, and she has mentioned a few times when she thought the team might lose that she "wasn't given enough direction" but it should be up to her to do her best at a job, not be told by someone else exactly how to do it.  Why would Sugar want a business partner that needs constant direction?  And she always deflects, if she is being called out in the boardroom and another candidate addresses her, she will accuse them of "yelling" at her, so the focus is taken off of her.  The fact is, she sold nothing, even Joseph with his hard nosed approach and lack of finesse was able to sell SOMETHING.

[Kromm]

Wow. What an episode.  Petty infighting, a surprise quitting, Sugar and Karen Brady being condescending, a bit o' luck (face it... BOTH high end sales were luck--people walking in who wanted to buy ANYWAY). 

 

Joseph really is a common piece of work, isn't he?  All this time spent on how common Charliene is, but he was far worse in that respect. That insane pencil thin mustache of his makes it even worse. How does he NOT realize that?  Selina is a real head case too, so there's no absence of rubbish on that team.

[waving feather]

The little "temper tantrum" walkout was absolutely ridiculous.  Why wouldn't you at least wait until after you did the reward to quit?  The only reason I can't think of is that Scott did it in the boardroom to somehow punish Sugar.  But how much did he really think that through?  Why in the hell would Sugar care if Scott left?  I don't even see what Scott had his panties in a bunch for, Sugar/Trump have said much, much worse to candidates who did a bad job on the task, and the response is always "I'll try hard next time lord sugar."

 

The only loser in that situation was Scott, and he probably regretted in the minute he cooled off.  You are never going to look good quitting a show like the Apprentice, you'll almost always look weak doing that.  And I'm not sure who Scott thinks is going to invest in his company if he decides to run away when he is called out for a legitimate poor performance.

I couldn't agree more. The bottom line is, Scott's ego could not take the criticism, so in a fit, he decided to call it quits, thinking he had the upper-hand on Lord Sugar by somehow quitting before being fired. The way Lord Sugar handled the whole exchange is why I enjoy watching him. He didn't get personal with Scott, even when he must know Scott is trying to stick it to him. He just let him leave in a professional manner. Scott's parting remarks that Lord Sugar would "kick himself for not looking at him in a different light". Will he, Scott, will he really? What a clown.

 

People like Selina are the worst people to work with. She would never take the initiative or be proactive, sulk when things are not going her way and refuse to take any responsibility. I also hate the way she rattles on and on in a monotonous voice without making any sense.

[RCharter]

I couldn't agree more. The bottom line is, Scott's ego could not take the criticism, so in a fit, he decided to call it quits, thinking he had the upper-hand on Lord Sugar by somehow quitting before being fired. The way Lord Sugar handled the whole exchange is why I enjoy watching him. He didn't get personal with Scott, even when he must know Scott is trying to stick it to him. He just let him leave in a professional manner. Scott's parting remarks that Lord Sugar would "kick himself for not looking at him in a different light". Will he, Scott, will he really? What a clown.

 

Yeah, lord sugar is going to be on his million dollar yacht, living his billion dollar lifestyle drinking his champagne, eating his caviar and thinking "you know what, I really wish I had praised Scott for doing a shitty job back in season 11"

 

Even if Scott's business took off, unless he has the next Facebook, lord sugar is still going to be a billionaire so why would he care?

[chocolatine]

Selina has a lot of nerve calling other people out for their lack of "polish" considering her tacky hair extensions, poorly applied eyeliner, and perma-bitchface.

 

Did the brunette woman with the glasses who bought a Canary Wharf flat from Vana and Richard mutter "husband's gonna kill me"? What kind of person buys a £1,000,000 flat without discussing it with their spouse? That makes last week's clients who spent £2,000 on their kids' birthday parties look sane in comparison.

Edited December 4, 2015 by chocolatine

[Occasional Hope]

Both those products looked revolting.  The two chefs should have been fired (Vana and Charleine).  The pitches were awful too, and the packaging was flawed, but no pitch could have sold those bits of crap.

[Trick Question]

It seemed like the crisps were at least mostly a good idea, and they would've gotten orders a) if had Vana used 60% less oil or b) if Richard had included the 'raw' and 'dehydrated' info on the packaging.

 

The Rejuvenation bar just looked like a pile of crap all-around, however.  What I can't understand is why Chareline was doing all the cooking herself while the other two were doing the packaging and branding.  Just for sheer time management reasons alone, they should've had two people in the kitchen.

[waving feather]

Both those products looked revolting.  The two chefs should have been fired (Vana and Charleine).  The pitches were awful too, and the packaging was flawed, but no pitch could have sold those bits of crap.

It's easy to blame the product but in this case, the product is actually the problem. When the products are crap, the clients are definitely also going to nit-pick the other stuff like pitches and packaging. I thought the pitches for both teams weren't that bad. The flaw in the pitches is still the product because they all had a hard time selling it. 

 

Vana is a good candidate but she did screw up with the oil amount. It's supposed to be healthy for goodness' sake but it's oilier than regular chips! Charleine definitely needed help in the kitchen. Who told them they need 2 guys to design a freakin' wrapper that looks like a stock image.

Edited December 10, 2015 by waving feather

[Occasional Hope]

It's just occurred to me, but wasn't it rather sexist in an old fashioned way to relegate both of the two women left in the process to the kitchen?  Perhaps coincidence, but...

Edited December 10, 2015 by Occasional Hope

[chocolatine]

IIRC in past seasons retailers have placed orders for food products even if they didn't love the taste, with the agreement that the team would tweak the recipe, so if nobody ordered anything this time both products must have been really bad. It's interesting that Tesco didn't even throw their former employee Gary a pity order for a small batch - did he leave on bad terms, perhaps?

 

I think if team Brett had gone for kale chips instead of courgette/onion/cabbage, they would have won. Kale dehydrates much better than the other veggies, gets really crispy when dehydrated, doesn't need much fat, and goes with a wide variety of flavors. Raw kale chips are very popular here in the US and go for $6-7 a pop in health food stores.

 

Looking forward to the interviews! My prediction for final two is Vana and Joseph, and I think Vana's going to win (not spoiled, just speculating).

[RCharter]

Having dehydrated food before, I can say that for me, getting a "crisp" is damn near impossible.  If you cut the vegetables really, really thin....maybe.  But even then, the crispiest thing I ever got was portobello mushrooms and those had to be sliced thin and don't naturally have a lot of water.  I don't see how you could ever truly get a dehydrated crisp from something with as much water as a cucumber.

 

I also don't understand why Vana had to use any oil at all.  That was the one thing I really enjoyed about my dehydrator was that I didn't have to use any oil and I could still get a usable product.  I think the better process for them to use might have been to "air fry" the vegetables.  It requires a very, very, very small amount of oil and I believe it all comes out crisp.  

 

But I really think the crisps were a much better idea than the bars which were a disaster the entire way around.  Why would I want these messy bars with this crappy packaging.  I wouldn't even buy those from the 99 cent store, heck, I don't think I would want them if they were free.  And those bars, as natural as they are, almost always have a lot of calories.  It's better to snack on something like a crisp than to try to slowly eat a bar.  If Brett's team could have found a way to get them a little crisper (and lose almost ALL that oil) I think it would have been a hit.

 

I do think Richard is tricky, and I don't know why he took off the raw claim.  If he didn't know what it meant and everyone else was telling him it was raw, he should have just kept it on, he wasn't with the chef, so he didn't know.  I do think that if there had been less oil, and the packaging had the truthful claims on there, someone would have placed an order.

It seemed like the crisps were at least mostly a good idea, and they would've gotten orders a) if had Vana used 60% less oil or b) if Richard had included the 'raw' and 'dehydrated' info on the packaging.

 

The Rejuvenation bar just looked like a pile of crap all-around, however.  What I can't understand is why Chareline was doing all the cooking herself while the other two were doing the packaging and branding.  Just for sheer time management reasons alone, they should've had two people in the kitchen.

I can't figure out why Charliene didn't just put in as much of the "healthy" ingrediants as possible.  Even if it didn't taste great, people would still probably grab something that said it was going to "boost energy" or whatever.  I remember getting a soyjoy bar and that shit tasted horrendous....but people bought them because they could make all those nutritional statements.

[chocolatine]

I can't figure out why Charliene didn't just put in as much of the "healthy" ingrediants as possible.  Even if it didn't taste great, people would still probably grab something that said it was going to "boost energy" or whatever.  I remember getting a soyjoy bar and that shit tasted horrendous....but people bought them because they could make all those nutritional statements.

 

I think Charleine's utter cluelessness was painfully obvious in this task. She didn't even know how to pronounce any of the ingredients, let alone how much of them the bar needed to contain to be able to make nutritional claims. She called one of the ingredients a "contraceptive", for Pete's sake!

[RCharter]

I think Charleine's utter cluelessness was painfully obvious in this task. She didn't even know how to pronounce any of the ingredients, let alone how much of them the bar needed to contain to be able to make nutritional claims. She called one of the ingredients a "contraceptive", for Pete's sake!

That...was...hilarious.  Can you just imagine some idiot eating that bar and ending up with a baby nine months later!  After thinking they had bought birth control in a bar!

[Kromm]

It's a real contest whether Charleine or Joseph is a dimmer bulb. It has nothing to do with their common accents. They just aren't very bright people. 

 

Looking forward to the interviews! My prediction for final two is Vana and Joseph, and I think Vana's going to win (not spoiled, just speculating).

Perhaps. But Vana is an American, and I think this show's audience would riot if an American won.

Also, she's really taken a back seat for a lot of tasks since she lost as PM. And not been PM again. Suggs doesn't like that.

[Occasional Hope]

I think I partly agree.  There is a difference between stupid and uneducated, but Charleine comes across as both to me (and a bully, too).  I'm not quite so sure about Joseph.  He's had some good weeks and I think there's some substance there.  I could imagine him better than her in the final, but obviously it all depends on the business plan.

 

Vana's grown on me, and I think has improved through the process.  I don't know that Sugar would be bothered about what the audience thinks.  He awarded the win to an Australian last year, anyway.  (It might be more off putting to certain strands of the audience that she is, I assume, in this country because she's an EU citizen via her Greek dad ;) )

 

I kind of think she might win looking at her business details on Linked In.

 

Richard is the exact opposite - early on he seemed like one of the few competent ones, but the toolishness has come out more in later stages.  

Also, I was irritated by an unsolicited spam e-mail he sent out today advertising both his reaching the semi final and his marketing business which came into our mailbox at work -  completely inappropriate imo.

 It put me even more off him.

 

Gary seems nice enough, but I get the impression AS doesn't rate him because of his years with Tesco.  

His linked in account suggests to me he doesn't win.

[RCharter]

I think there is not a snowballs chance in hell for Gary.  Sugar clearly doesn't respect him and thats that.  I was really surprised he didn't get rid of him this time because I think he likes Brett better.

[HauntedBathroom]

I think the problem with Gary is just that Alan doesn't like corporate men. He wants people to have struck out on their own.

 

Wow. this episode was a fuck up! The crisps thing could have won, if they hadn't come drowned in fat. I don't know why neither team played the "This is a prototype, we'll take your ideas on board before we go to production" card.

[RCharter]

I think the problem with Gary is just that Alan doesn't like corporate men. He wants people to have struck out on their own.

 

Wow. this episode was a fuck up! The crisps thing could have won, if they hadn't come drowned in fat. I don't know why neither team played the "This is a prototype, we'll take your ideas on board before we go to production" card.

They kept trying to say that, but no one was biting.  I think there is "meh, your product is a mess, but you can fix it" and the unutterable FUBAR's that they tried to pass off.

[legaleagle53]

I still want to know what the hell Vana was thinking using that much oil.  She should have known that one of the biggest complaints that people have about potato chips (that's "crisps" to you Brits) and similar snacks is the HUGE amount of oil that is used to fry them, which is why most companies now go out of their way to emphasize the fact that THEIR "healthful" alternatives are BAKED (i.e., prepared WITHOUT oil).  It's been that way for at least 20 years now; where has SHE been?

 

And Charleine was just as much of an idiot in the kitchen.  I mean, as Karren noted, she was basically just throwing stuff in without bothering to note how much of each ingredient she was using and what its health benefit was supposed to be (and yes, she should be embarrassed for not even bothering to learn how to pronounce them correctly).  Frankly, I'm surprised that Lord Sugar didn't fire both of them.

 

Has there ever been a task before where both teams completely bombed like this?

[waving feather]

Richard may be a slippery fella but if I were a boss (not a business partner) I would hire him. I've notice that he uses common sense and is competent enough to get the job done 99% of the time.

[Kromm]

Vana's grown on me, and I think has improved through the process.  I don't know that Sugar would be bothered about what the audience thinks.  He awarded the win to an Australian last year, anyway.  (It might be more off putting to certain strands of the audience that she is, I assume, in this country because she's an EU citizen via her Greek dad ;) )

 

I kind of think she might win looking at her business details on Linked In.

Okay, but hasn't she only been PM once, and lost?  Or am I forgetting an episode? In other words, she's either lost, or ducked taking leadership. 

 

I know Sugar pretty much makes this up as he goes along, but he'd have a hard time giving it to a contestant with no winning record.

[RCharter]

I still want to know what the hell Vana was thinking using that much oil.  She should have known that one of the biggest complaints that people have about potato chips (that's "crisps" to you Brits) and similar snacks is the HUGE amount of oil that is used to fry them, which is why most companies now go out of their way to emphasize the fact that THEIR "healthful" alternatives are BAKED (i.e., prepared WITHOUT oil).  It's been that way for at least 20 years now; where has SHE been?

 

And Charleine was just as much of an idiot in the kitchen.  I mean, as Karren noted, she was basically just throwing stuff in without bothering to note how much of each ingredient she was using and what its health benefit was supposed to be (and yes, she should be embarrassed for not even bothering to learn how to pronounce them correctly).  Frankly, I'm surprised that Lord Sugar didn't fire both of them.

 

Has there ever been a task before where both teams completely bombed like this?

The thing is that the process of dehydration is not really helped at all by oil, nor is it really required.  I actually think it would almost ruin the process because the oil would just literally sit on top of the product.  I use zero oil when I dehydrate vegetables, and from my POV, you want the vegetable almost as try as possible when you put it in the dehydrator.  I've also never had a dehydrated vegetable that is truly crisp, even the dehydrated kale chips I've had are somewhat chewy.  If you really want a crisp texture, I think its important to pick a vegetable without a lot of natural water in it, the cabbage was probably a good pick, but cucumbers would have been difficult and would have had to be sliced super thin.  The onions were also a good pick, but the additional oil would just be a disaster. 

 

The sad thing is, I really think the crisps are a good idea.  Dehydrated red onion with some seasoning sounds good and probably pretty light on calories.

Richard may be a slippery fella but if I were a boss (not a business partner) I would hire him. I've notice that he uses common sense and is competent enough to get the job done 99% of the time.

I like Richard well enough, but I think I would be too scared to hire somebody I didn't think was trustworthy, and he just strikes me as a person who can't be trusted.

[Kromm]

The thing is that the process of dehydration is not really helped at all by oil, nor is it really required. 

I don't think she was attempting to use it to help dehydrate, I think she was mistakenly trying to use it as a binder.  They had some kind of mash pre-dehydration I think, and the liquid of the oil was what was (at first) holding it together. When it dried out though that oil just became useless.

[RCharter]

I don't think she was attempting to use it to help dehydrate, I think she was mistakenly trying to use it as a binder.  They had some kind of mash pre-dehydration I think, and the liquid of the oil was what was (at first) holding it together. When it dried out though that oil just became useless.

oh, I thought she was slicing cucumbers and red onions and putting them into the dehydrator directly.  I had thought the oil was to help hold the spices to the vegetables.  Dehydrated vegetable mash does not sound delicious.

[Occasional Hope]

Most of the recipes I've seen for vegetable crisps do use oil, even if they use a dehydrated process, so even if you don't really need it the candidates may not have known that.  They clearly aren't very comfortable in a kitchen to start with.  Apparently, also, dehydration takes away most of the vitamin C, which makes them rather less healthy than I assumed.  And as the process involves some heat*, I'd say the raw claims are a bit questionable, so maybe Richard was right to remove that from the packaging (possibly by accident).  (*Unless you use a lot of salt, or a smoking process, which would also be a no-no for modern health-conscious consumers.)  But then there's also a bit of a difference between a truly healthy snack, and one you can sell to consumers in large numbers as a "healthy snack".

[chocolatine]

oh, I thought she was slicing cucumbers and red onions and putting them into the dehydrator directly.  I had thought the oil was to help hold the spices to the vegetables.  Dehydrated vegetable mash does not sound delicious.

 

Just to clarify, the third vegetable wasn't cucumber, it was zucchini (which is called "courgette" in the UK). Cucumber is like 98% water so attempting to dehydrate it would be madness even for that crowd. I have seen zucchini chips sold at Whole Foods in the US, so it wasn't a bad idea, it just failed at the execution stage.

[RCharter]

Okay, zucchini makes sense (I had no idea what a courgette was and I had no idea why the hell they kept referring to it, now it all makes sense).

 

It wasn't a bad idea, and if they picked cabbage, red onion and zucchini than they picked pretty good vegetables to dehydrate because they are a little drier.

 

It failed pretty bad at execution.  They just really didn't need all that oil.  They needed as little oil as possible.

[Occasional Hope]

No one was absolutely eviscerated tonight - even with Richard it was more like a balloon being slowly punctured.

 

I was really annoyed tonight by Sugar's hangers on all laughing sycophantically at his not-very-funny jokes.  I find it irritating when the candidates do it, but somehow it's even worse when it's senior executives.

[Kromm]

I did NOT see this going how it did.  Vana's chances at this seemed mighty thin going in, because her record in the tasks was pretty dismal. But really, despite the money issue, her business idea was the best by far. And what Sugar ISN'T saying is that there are ways around the money issues. They can take on other investors. Or partner with an existing social and/or gaming platform.

 

Pencil Thin Mustache Boy's business is penny ante. I wonder what Suggs does if he slaughters Vana in the task.  Because I can tell you right now which one is a placeholder to simply get the series under Sugar's belt and which might actually make him money (or admittedly also lose a lot of it).

[chocolatine]

My prediction for final two is Vana and Joseph

 

Called it!

 

 

No one was absolutely eviscerated tonight - even with Richard it was more like a balloon being slowly punctured.

 

 

Yeah, now that Claude has shown himself to be low key and humorous in real life, his cover is blown and he can't be the big baddie anymore. I think the show tried for the lady in the salmon-colored dress to be the new big baddie, but I couldn't take her seriously with her botched face lift (seriously, can't someone who's presumably that successful afford a better plastic surgeon?). Although it was great when Richard agreed with her that his business plan was a pile of BS.

 

I still think Vana is going to win, but I'm not sure it's smart for an app developer to give away 50% of the equity for £250,000, which is roughly $375,000. If the app idea is that good she could have gotten $500,000 - $1,000,000 in a seed round from a venture capital firm in the US for only 10%-20% of the equity. She'll possibly get some users from the exposure on the show, but barely anyone in the US watches it, which is where she'd really have to get traction if she wants to compete with the likes of Tinder.

[Trick Question]

So much time was spent on the start-up costs of running a dating app or website....what are the comparable costs of games apps?  Since the interesting thing about Vana's idea (which I quite like, actually) is that it's the best of both worlds.  If they offer some interesting games, that might be in itself interesting to some people who see online dating as a "game" unto itself --- Tinder is already essentially a pick'em game for many.

[chocolatine]

So much time was spent on the start-up costs of running a dating app or website....what are the comparable costs of games apps?  Since the interesting thing about Vana's idea (which I quite like, actually) is that it's the best of both worlds.  If they offer some interesting games, that might be in itself interesting to some people who see online dating as a "game" unto itself --- Tinder is already essentially a pick'em game for many.

 

A social gaming app would be just as expensive to launch and maintain. Programmers cost a lot of money regardless of the application and there's also infrastructure cost. Even with cloud computing the cost would be non-trivial. The way it would normally work is that the app developer would only start with a $500,000 - $1,000,000 seed round, and as the app grows, receive several more millions (sometimes tens or even hundreds of millions) of dollars in investments before an exit (IPO or acquisition). Any serious app would need a lot more than Sugar's £250,000 to launch and stay afloat until it gets to profitability.

[RCharter]

I think all of these ideas are a little terrible.  But I can't help but like Joseph even though I don't really understand what his business is.  Vana's idea seems nice on the surface, but I think the lady in the green dress had Vana dead to rights when she said "so basically, I would spend all day playing a game with a dude and then find out he isn't even close to my type?"

 

That is the cornerstone of Vana's idea is that you see the person as you play the game with them, but unless the games are really, really short you're spending at least 10 minutes to just see a persons picture.  And then if they are an absolute disaster, its hard not to feel a little shallow when you just stop talking to them.  I mean, its an interesting concept just because I always appreciate a way to get to know people that doesn't involve a loud club scene, but I don't know.

 

Tinder is popular because you can see the person immediately and swipe right or swipe left.  Jump high, jump low, almost every dating service shows you a picture, because its important.  When you filter through people, generally your first filter will be looks, and then it will be personality and sense of humor.

Edited December 17, 2015 by RCharter

[RCharter]

No one was absolutely eviscerated tonight - even with Richard it was more like a balloon being slowly punctured.

 

I was really annoyed tonight by Sugar's hangers on all laughing sycophantically at his not-very-funny jokes.  I find it irritating when the candidates do it, but somehow it's even worse when it's senior executives.

I can't be mad because I would laugh at his dumb jokes too.  He makes such old man, dad jokes.  It's so cliche, you know he must embarrass the heck out of his children, but they probably love him regardless.  He loves making stupid jokes and reminding candidates about his glory days when he was selling stuff off a cart.  And then he would get more stuff and put it on his cart.  And he only had $100...and he had to walk five miles in the snow.  Its just so much.