The Gamers Arms

Ugh, second week in a row where the boys conspire to miss the massive open goal left by the girls' incompetence. As soon as their corporate deal collapsed it was clear the brown abomination with twigs sticking out of it would win by a landslide, despite being described as the client as "inedible".

Who would have guessed that the guy whose business plan was to make ice treats would be fired when he couldn't win the task that involved making ice treats. Given that his problem seemed to be that the mixture became a single colour (instead of the marbled red and white that emerged when they blended their two main ingredients together), you'd have thought he'd have enough experience to know that was going to happen. It's a shame as he was one of the only people that I actually liked, but he was useless this week.

I cringed when the girls decided rosemary was a good flavour for an ice lolly, but when I saw that they were putting entire sprigs of rosemary (which are inedible - they have the same texture as twigs) I think I cringed so hard my entire face inverted.

I despise them all. I knew I would and I do. At the top of Snowy's Pyramid of Hate® currently are the utterly self-absorbed Lottie and the indescribably slimy two-names (whatever he is called, the insect who sells women's undies in Harrods). The others are piled just beneath them.

Snowy wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 10, 2019 4:21 pm

I despise them all. I knew I would and I do. At the top of Snowy's Pyramid of Hate® currently are the utterly self-absorbed Lottie and the indescribably slimy two-names (whatever he is called, the insect who sells women's undies in Harrods). The others are piled just beneath them.

Yes, they do stand out somewhat, those two.

Also, I was a bit shocked when in the boardroom Sugar said the guy he fired was 19 and one of the others (forget which) in the final three was 20!

When did they all get so young?

I actually gasped when the PM let the fuckwit barrow-boy off the hook by not bringing him into the boardroom. So instead of the guy who holed their team below the water line with a stupid product they fired the guy who, yes, was negative but nothing he said was wrong.

Yea, they couldn't wait to throw Souleman under the bus.

Sly Boots wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:12 pm

I actually gasped when the PM let the fuckwit barrow-boy off the hook by not bringing him into the boardroom. So instead of the guy who holed their team below the water line with a stupid product they fired the guy who, yes, was negative but nothing he said was wrong.

While I agree that the product design was what lost them the task, there were three or four people designing that thing, and as far as I remember he wasn't the subteam leader, so should really have been overruled if the others thought he was wrong.

Souleyman was constantly supplying entirely unhelpful criticism without any attempt at a solution, I'm not surprised they got rid of him.

Raid wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:22 pm

Sly Boots wrote: ↑

Wed Oct 16, 2019 9:12 pm

I actually gasped when the PM let the fuckwit barrow-boy off the hook by not bringing him into the boardroom. So instead of the guy who holed their team below the water line with a stupid product they fired the guy who, yes, was negative but nothing he said was wrong.

While I agree that the product design was what lost them the task, there were three or four people designing that thing, and as far as I remember he wasn't the subteam leader, so should really have been overruled if the others thought he was wrong.

Souleyman was constantly supplying entirely unhelpful criticism without any attempt at a solution, I'm not surprised they got rid of him.

To me it seemed like he completely railroaded his sub-team into doing what he wanted. We're beholden to the editing here, but the sub-team leader seemed pretty adamant afterwards that she brought up the age unsuitability multiple times but in the end deferred to him because of his "passion" (ie he shouts down everyone who disagrees, even those he's pitching to).

I'd have fired him both for being the brains behind the product and for being a poor team-worker, which is something we've seen on the previous tasks as well.

Inability to control your subordinates has also been a fireable offence in previous years.

I wonder if the fact that he acknowledged his failing fairly quickly after they lost saved him; perhaps he does have some humility in him after all.

I think the PM (I forget his name) realised that Tom is such a wideboy character that Sugar wasn’t going to fire him in week 3, simply for ratings.

Wrathbone wrote: ↑

Thu Oct 17, 2019 6:11 am

I think the PM (I forget his name) realised that Tom is such a wideboy character that Sugar wasn’t going to fire him in week 3, simply for ratings.

Hell yes, anyone who has watched the show knows the cheeky cockney sparrow who can sell will always warm Sralan's nostalgic little arse and not go until late on, with a "with regret" seeing him out the door.

But he says "with regret" for just about every candidate these days.

I'm sure there was something missed out in the edit; it really doesn't make any sense that Pillowfactory wasn't brought into the boardroom.

Team leader Thomas? Hopefully that's him gone then.

It's impossible to be that 'oi-oi!' laddish. He must be exaggerating it.

One million??!!