Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

The Apprentice 2017

1678911

Comments

  • them sweet jars, wilko, bhs all do them usually in the xmas gifting section, at a fraction of the cost - stupid idea wont make much out of it.

    michaelas idea aswell working in the target market - we wouldn't use it and its too pricey.

  • With those two in the final I think Sugar has finally lost the plot. The only one worth hiring was Michaela, certainly not James the spiv, who uses a false accreditation and was sacked from his last job. Seriously think the show has run its course.
  • Yes Sralan
  • I think Michaela's string of businesses is a concern, and I suspect that there is a lot more dirty laundry than was revealed on the show
  • edited December 2017

    sralan said:

    With those two in the final I think Sugar has finally lost the plot. The only one worth hiring was Michaela, certainly not James the spiv, who uses a false accreditation and was sacked from his last job. Seriously think the show has run its course.

    Isn’t this fraud? Albeit relatively minor. The show has many flaws but I forgive most of them because it often adds to the entertainment and if Sugar wants to waste his money then that’s his prerogative, but one area it needs to be stronger on is business ethics. Many weeks a team will be allowed to lie or missell to people and get a minor slap on the wrist in the boardroom but sometimes still win the task. I’d like to see contestants disqualified or st least automatically lose the task, especially for something as serious as this.
    It can be construed as fraud, albeit it a very light version. I used to work with a really arrogant guy, who although was very clever had never passed an exam in his life. He used to claim on his Linkedin profile, CV and business card he was ACCA qualified and often used to boast how he’d never studied but would put the letters after his name for show (despite only being employed because they thought he was qualified). As someone who took a very long (and stressful) time to pass all of my ACCA exams, I used to hate him for it, but would never grass. One morning our company got a copy of a letter sent him from the ACCA telling him in no uncertain terms if he didn’t remove all reference of the ACCA from his profile etc. he’d be taken to court. A week later he left and was never heard from again.

    I expect the recruitment body here would do the same, warn him then take action if their request was not adhered to.

  • 5 lousy business propositions, you could have fired all five of them tonight!

    He did say it was incredibly tough to choose.
  • them sweet jars, wilko, bhs all do them usually in the xmas gifting section, at a fraction of the cost - stupid idea wont make much out of it.

    michaelas idea aswell working in the target market - we wouldn't use it and its too pricey.

    Michaela was pitching the cost effective alternative I thought. £4k to do whatever it is they do? Is that cheap?
  • Sponsored links:


  • seeing as Sugar's main concern with Michaela was that she had all those other businesses I can't figure out why she didn't point out that she's had other people running them without her for the duration of the process
  • edited December 2017

    sralan said:

    With those two in the final I think Sugar has finally lost the plot. The only one worth hiring was Michaela, certainly not James the spiv, who uses a false accreditation and was sacked from his last job. Seriously think the show has run its course.

    Isn’t this fraud? Albeit relatively minor. The show has many flaws but I forgive most of them because it often adds to the entertainment and if Sugar wants to waste his money then that’s his prerogative, but one area it needs to be stronger on is business ethics. Many weeks a team will be allowed to lie or missell to people and get a minor slap on the wrist in the boardroom but sometimes still win the task. I’d like to see contestants disqualified or st least automatically lose the task, especially for something as serious as this.
    It can be construed as fraud, albeit it a very light version. I used to work with a really arrogant guy, who although was very clever had never passed an exam in his life. He used to claim on his Linkedin profile, CV and business card he was ACCA qualified and often used to boast how he’d never studied but would put the letters after his name for show (despite only being employed because they thought he was qualified). As someone who took a very long (and stressful) time to pass all of my ACCA exams, I used to hate him for it, but would never grass. One morning our company got a copy of a letter sent him from the ACCA telling him in no uncertain terms if he didn’t remove all reference of the ACCA from his profile etc. he’d be taken to court. A week later he left and was never heard from again.

    I expect the recruitment body here would do the same, warn him then take action if their request was not adhered to.

    I did ACCA too so feel your pain. Horrendous episode of my life! :-)
  • sralan said:

    With those two in the final I think Sugar has finally lost the plot. The only one worth hiring was Michaela, certainly not James the spiv, who uses a false accreditation and was sacked from his last job. Seriously think the show has run its course.

    Isn’t this fraud? Albeit relatively minor. The show has many flaws but I forgive most of them because it often adds to the entertainment and if Sugar wants to waste his money then that’s his prerogative, but one area it needs to be stronger on is business ethics. Many weeks a team will be allowed to lie or missell to people and get a minor slap on the wrist in the boardroom but sometimes still win the task. I’d like to see contestants disqualified or st least automatically lose the task, especially for something as serious as this.
    I wonder if he takes a salary to be on the show?

  • sralan said:

    With those two in the final I think Sugar has finally lost the plot. The only one worth hiring was Michaela, certainly not James the spiv, who uses a false accreditation and was sacked from his last job. Seriously think the show has run its course.

    Isn’t this fraud? Albeit relatively minor. The show has many flaws but I forgive most of them because it often adds to the entertainment and if Sugar wants to waste his money then that’s his prerogative, but one area it needs to be stronger on is business ethics. Many weeks a team will be allowed to lie or missell to people and get a minor slap on the wrist in the boardroom but sometimes still win the task. I’d like to see contestants disqualified or st least automatically lose the task, especially for something as serious as this.
    It can be construed as fraud, albeit it a very light version. I used to work with a really arrogant guy, who although was very clever had never passed an exam in his life. He used to claim on his Linkedin profile, CV and business card he was ACCA qualified and often used to boast how he’d never studied but would put the letters after his name for show (despite only being employed because they thought he was qualified). As someone who took a very long (and stressful) time to pass all of my ACCA exams, I used to hate him for it, but would never grass. One morning our company got a copy of a letter sent him from the ACCA telling him in no uncertain terms if he didn’t remove all reference of the ACCA from his profile etc. he’d be taken to court. A week later he left and was never heard from again.

    I expect the recruitment body here would do the same, warn him then take action if their request was not adhered to.

    I did ACCA too so feel your pain. Horrendous episode of my life! :-)
    If you both did ACCA, then you're clearly sad losers

    Sorry, the competitive CIMA accountant in me coming out :smiley:

  • sralan said:

    With those two in the final I think Sugar has finally lost the plot. The only one worth hiring was Michaela, certainly not James the spiv, who uses a false accreditation and was sacked from his last job. Seriously think the show has run its course.

    Isn’t this fraud? Albeit relatively minor. The show has many flaws but I forgive most of them because it often adds to the entertainment and if Sugar wants to waste his money then that’s his prerogative, but one area it needs to be stronger on is business ethics. Many weeks a team will be allowed to lie or missell to people and get a minor slap on the wrist in the boardroom but sometimes still win the task. I’d like to see contestants disqualified or st least automatically lose the task, especially for something as serious as this.
    It can be construed as fraud, albeit it a very light version. I used to work with a really arrogant guy, who although was very clever had never passed an exam in his life. He used to claim on his Linkedin profile, CV and business card he was ACCA qualified and often used to boast how he’d never studied but would put the letters after his name for show (despite only being employed because they thought he was qualified). As someone who took a very long (and stressful) time to pass all of my ACCA exams, I used to hate him for it, but would never grass. One morning our company got a copy of a letter sent him from the ACCA telling him in no uncertain terms if he didn’t remove all reference of the ACCA from his profile etc. he’d be taken to court. A week later he left and was never heard from again.

    I expect the recruitment body here would do the same, warn him then take action if their request was not adhered to.

    I did ACCA too so feel your pain. Horrendous episode of my life! :-)
    If you both did ACCA, then you're clearly sad losers

    Sorry, the competitive CIMA accountant in me coming out :smiley:
    CIMA

    Chartered Institute of Mediocre Accountants..... :wink:
    image
  • McBobbin said:

    Macronate said:

    £18 for some cheapo sweets in an old silver skin pickled onion jar.

    Yeah, good choice Al.

    To be fair, her sweets are easily distinguished from the opposition on account of a bow
    I loved that bit! It was adorable watching her trying to give reasons why her business is unique and better than the competition.
    "The cups are packed by hand..."
    "There's a little bow on top..."
  • i wonder who would win The Apprentice if the Strictly contestants took part.
  • I don't know about Strictly contestants but...

    "You made some terrible decisions, and your strategy was hopeless. A complete shambles, Trevor Bayliss, you're fired"
  • Sponsored links:


  • i wonder who would win The Apprentice if the Strictly contestants took part.

    I would go Alexandra Burke as she seems quite focussed and driven.
  • MrOneLung said:

    i wonder who would win The Apprentice if the Strictly contestants took part.

    I would go Alexandra Burke as she seems quite focussed and driven.
    Agreed. She’d fit right in, given the number of other burkes in this year’s show.
  • MrOneLung said:

    i wonder who would win The Apprentice if the Strictly contestants took part.

    I would go Alexandra Burke as she seems quite focussed and driven.
    A lot of tears in the boardroom though!
  • Parts of The Apprentice tonight filmed at our company in Islington. www.rapidity.com
    As ever, will probably be disappointed with the amount of exposure.
  • I'd like to see Alan Sugar and the interview panel on the dance program. As contestants
  • Didn't see that coming at all. Thought Sarah came across really well and would have backed her if I was lord sugar.

    Imagine just having half a million quid to, on a whim, invest in two people ffs
  • Each way bet.
  • I thought Sarah was the best candidate from the start, but I think it was a good decision as James seemed equally credible in the final.
  • I was impressed with that box design that Sarah came up with, it showed creativity and drive that I didn't think she had

    Thankfully, the decision is based on the individuals, not on the bits of the task done by their other team members, which were dreadful...
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!