It’s tempting–but wrong–to think that Pamela, in being less suitable than the others, should have been allowed to stay longer. She didn’t use her drill sergeant management style as a strategy with the women–it was established that that’s the only type of style she had. It was clear after this second failed PM assignment that she wasn’t going to last, so why not get rid of her now?
There’ s no doubt that most of the other women (Jen M excepted) are horrible, but I think there’s little doubt that they have no chance in advancing (though they are still probably deluded enough to think otherwise). With zero leadership, they’ll probably lose the next assignment, and have a difficult time restoring credibility to themselves in future boardrooms once the team mixing begins, based on their performances already.
In the week-by-week picture, Pamela got the shaft, but in the big picture, not really.
That’s the issue for me – as I think I said (well, I know I thought… ummm… ), it’s not that she was going to win the war, I just don’t think she lost this particular battle. It seems unfair that someone who actively fucks up – like Maria with the $5,000 overrun – is still in the game, while Pamela, who was reasonably successful (say what you will about her approach) gets booted.
Well obviously the important thing is to be in a group where you’re able to hide behind someone who’s an even bigger screwup. Say… this show is kind of like the real world.
I’m watching the rebroadcast and I think I found a clue in the opening credits about who the two finalists are. I’m fairly sure the two are identified by:
Their pictures are in black & white during the intro credits
Oooh. Watching the Board Room – Pamela’s comment at the beginning – “I know I’m going to lose a member of my team” – sounds like she was pretty confident. Maybe too confident?
Personally, I didn’t like Pamela from the get-go, but I thought she was an effective leader on this task. She didn’t get a choice about being PM but she handled it effectively; DTs comments about not knowing each persons strengths were somewhat unfair as Pamela has been on the guys team - yes she’s lived with them but hadn’t yet performed a task with them. I think DT had to fire her because Maria and Stacey were mediocre but hadn’t done any one thing outstanding enough to be fired. Pamela was the prime candidate, even though she had done the best job so far in managing Apex, I would have liked to have seen her get further into the show. And not for nothing, she always looked like a dour, sleep deprived bitch prior to this episode; the night she got fired I never saw her look better!
As for the other girls, lil Stacey will never make it though, and I don’t want to be politically incorrect now, but she looks like she is 13 years old and does not have the physical presence to command other people. I’m waiting for her to be PM, can’t wait for her exaggerated comments in the boardroom.
And about next weeks episode, who says the guys can’t get into the fashion business? Are we assuming all the guys are hetero? If any are gay, are we assuming they have any fashion sense - they don’t always go together. In any case, the guys will pick one m.o. and be effective, the girls will squabble because they are all fashionistas and will be too opinionated.
And do you seriously believe that Bill Rancic is being given anything remotely amounting to real authority? If so, how terribly naive you are.
But it is the comparison being made in this case. By definition, being in the boardroom means you lost. And Trump has consistently not just minimized, but outright ignored the actual results in the task at hand in prior episodes in favor of looking at peformance over the long haul. And drawing on that history, it becomes clear that Pam worked a minor miracle on this task. Of the three women in that room, the one with the most potential was clearly Pam. And she was sent packing.
You know, after watching the extended footage tonight, I think Pam’s firing could actually be justified on pricing grounds. But that isn’t the reason The Donald gave. He said the firing was because Pam “couldn’t read people.” Which is stupid. Pam made correct – or at least eminently defensible – staffing decisions based on her imperfect knowledge of her teammates.
Why, after reading this and your comments on Bobby Fischer, do I suddenly wonder about your views on the first commandment?
Pam’s flaws could be remedied with a stern talking-to. Not so the other candidates. And I’m flabbergasted that you would label Pam out of all the other female candidates as “passive aggressive.”
Well, I think she made some tactical mistakes in the boardroom that did her in, since I don’t think she was necessarily doomed by the team’s failure.
First, using the “tie” gambit. Yeah, they did lose by one sale, but saying that, in her mind, they didn’t really lose was a terrible position to take. Plus, IIRC correctly, since Stacy couldn’t make up her mind about the price, Pamela assumed that responsibility. Maybe that hit the cutting room floor, but it doesn’t look like she made much of a case for that.
She could’ve also used the argument: “Look, this team got their butts kicked week after week, and through my leadership, they came closer than they had to winning in recent memory. Coming into a new situation and rallying the troops together should account for something.” Pamela did none of these things, but if she had (and conveyed just a little bit more humility), I think she’d still be around (for a little while, at least).
Although Pamela did a good job, ultimately she did not impress Donald enough. There was a fairly easy way to win this task and that is to have Donald say something along the lines of “This team sold more units and had the highest 12 minute revenue in the history of QVC”.
Since the rules of the game, as stated to the viewers, is to maximize revenue in 12 minutes, I’m surprised nobody tried to game the system.
Don’t worry about the 12 minute sales presentation. Simply price the sponges at half the wholesale cost and have all the team members call up hotels, supermarkets, distributors, etc. beforehand and tell them about a limited time opportunity to purchase cleaning sponges below cost. A QVC sales record was within easy reach.
My goodness, you are the authority on so many things. How can I possibly keep up? I hadn’t been aware that you were Donald’s attorney. Or else Bill’s. Or else somehow privvy to what Donald and/or Bill are doing outside what they tell us — the little people. All I know is that Bill Rancic was a successful businessman long before he met Donald Trump. He graduated cum laude from Loyola University of Chicago. He founded a multi-million dollar Internet business. He gives business lectures and seminars, including one presently to business owners in Chicago. His parents were accomplished educators. His father was Dr. Edward T. Rancic, and Bill heads the Edward T. Rancic Endowed Scholarship Fund. He is presently the Project Manager for Trump’s new Chicago tower, and according to Donald, “This is the real deal. He’s going to be mentored, but he will also have lots of responsibility.”
What you think might be interesting — in the sense that a wad of gum on the floor of the Louvre is interesting. But the real interest, for me at least, is in the art. Donald is the artist. You are just a janitor.
God only knows. In fact, only He knows why you felt it necessary to engage me in yet another of your obsessive rants about the indignity of my holding an opinion — a rant complete with references to completely irrelevant things like Bobby Fischer and the Old Testament.
I’m sure you are. Naturally, you thought that my comments on her meant that I could not possibly think the same thing about anyone else. To repeat myself (again), Donald said that she was too headstrong — saying all the wrong things and believing she was right. If you must continue your inexplicable hijack of this thread to obsess over me, would you consider taking it to the appropriate forum? Thanks.
Amen. It was almost a psychotic thing to say. Now wonder it prompted George’s outburst. I mean, can you imagine hiring someone who would believe that losing an important bid was a “tie” just because you lost it only by a little bit? I imagine Donald was thinking of her sitting in her office and gushing over how well the company is doing while creditors are carting out the assets.
It’s been noted by others on this thread that there is a difference between hardline authoritative style and disrespectful treatment of your colleagues. The former without the latter would have, I believe, sent Pamela back up to the suite.
You may have a point about that. Had a male cast member treated his team in a similar manner I may not refer to him as bitchy. Just a dick. I can’t say whether I would have found her condescending behavior any more or less palatable if exhibited by a man toward a group of women or by a woman toward a group of women, but I can say without hesitation that if Pamela were a man I would still vote for her (his) firing based on poor leadership in this particular task.
I actually thought, based on the extended boardroom that Pamela’s firing decision could have been justified on the pricing issue alone (although the only person I choose to believe as actually bringing that up to her would be Jen M). On the other hand, I do think Trumpie’s “you can’t read people,” spiel made a little (very little) sense because it was so so so apparent that he was eager to get rid of Sandy (man they reamed her for being so useless and bringing nothing to the task) and had Pamela brought her in, she might have saved her own ass. Also want to note that Trumpie’s syndicated whatever plays here in Chambana and he said that he was pretty close to dumping Stacy as well. So in the context of what I still consider to be a gameshow pandering to Trumpie’s ego (entertaining, but a gameshow), the firing wasn’t as bad as it seemed given the edited boardroom. If you couldn’t notice that Trump really, really wanted you to bring in a particular person who would have saved your own ass…you probably deserved to go.
On the other hand, I completely agree with Dewey’s assessment regarding a real-life-assessment, where a manager who brings a disastrous group together for a near-win would probably be lauded, not punished.
By the way…why are these women so pissed about her language? I think she’s hysterical. The woman was a stockbroker for yonks, wasn’t she? It’s not wonder she has such a dirty mouth…I can’t imagine a woman making it in that environment without taking on some of the characteristics of her compatriots if only to fit in.
Actually, in a sense, I am, or at least was. I represented Trump Hotels & Casinos briefly on a proposed securities offering a few years back. Not that it’s any big whoop – I was the junior lawyer on the deal, rarely saw the client, and to the extent any of us did they were Trump underlings. Didn’t meet the man himself. But given that he’s the major shareholder and I was representing the entity, in a sense I was The Donald’s attorney.
But that’s neither here nor there.
I don’t mean to minimize Rancic’s accomplishments, but there’s some puffery in there.
I give him total credit for his academic work. I think that proves he’s a bright guy. But there are a lot of bright guys out there. And I wouldn’t put any of them in charge of a multibillion construction project with absolutely zero experience in high-rise construction. Somehow I suspect Trump feels the same way.
Rancic’s cigar business was by all accounts successful. But calling it a “multi-million dollar” business, while technically true, is a little misleading. They use that label because the cigar business did $2-3 million in gross revenue a year at its peak. That’s not much for a retail business if you think about it – a lot of mom & pop operations probably do that in gross revenue.
A better measure of the worth of a business is what others are willing to pay for it – and since Rancic sold out to a publicly-held company, we have those figures. Rancic sold for a base price of $450,000, with escalator clauses that could allow him to potentially receive a total of $875,000; to date, he’s received $525,000.
So Rancic built up a business worth half a million bucks. That’s nothing to sneeze at, and he should be commended for it. But saying he founded a “half a million dollar business” doesn’t have a lot of zip, so NBC punched it up a bit. Bill did well, but he was hardly gunning for a Fortune magazine cover.
What is this relevant to, exactly? Who gives a flying fuck what Bill’s dad did?
And Trump wouldn’t have any motive to puff up the amount of responsibility he’s actually handing to Rancic, would he? :rolleyes:
Hijack? The thread topic I see is “Apprentice 10/7/04.” You’ve proffered a defense of The Donald’s decision in the episode airing on that date. How is my quibbling with your defense of that choice a “hijack”? For that matter, how is your suggesting I was requesting gay sex not a hijack?
Many comments here are arguing that Pamela shouldn’t have been fired this week because Stacy and Maria deserved to be fired more, while at the same time acknowledging that Pamela wouldn’t have made it all the way. But that presumes that Trump is firing people in reverse order of suitability–that he’s going to fire the worst candidate that he can. I don’t think that there is any evidence to suggest that he is firing people in order.
I think he’s simply firing the person who annoys him most.
We can assume that there are several candidates that he’s written off as “to be fired.” There isn’t any advantage to him in firing them early. So why shouldn’t he fire the person who is bugging him the most? It’s probably more satisfying to him to do it that way. Which would explain why his stated reasons for the firings are sometimes weak and often contradictory.
We’ve seen a lot of firings, now, and he usually seems to be exasperated with the person he ends up firing. And we’ve also seen the opposite–last season, Nick and Heidi survived longer than expected. Trump was definitely interested in Nick in spite of his shortcomings, and I think he just kind of liked Heidi, even though he had no intention of hiring her.
The times that he didn’t seem to fire someone because he was annoyed with them, it was usually a case where there was nobody in the boardroom that he was gunning for, so he had to choose one, or as in the case of Stacie J, there was an overriding factor.
Let’s look at this season: I didn’t see the first episode, so I can’t comment on that. He was definitely annoyed at Bradford’s offering to waive immunity, so bye bye Bradford. With Stacie J, I think he was annoyed that she had become an “issue,” so he eliminated the issue by eliminating her. Maybe that wasn’t fair, but if he was already planning to fire Stacie J, then it was sensible. It was clear that he wanted to shove Jenn C through a wall, so of course he fired her. And this week, while he was clearly annoyed with Stacy and Maria both, Pamela was the center of his attention. I’ll bet he really didn’t like what he heard about her management “style.” And then when she claimed it was a tie? Hoo boy! Also, her choice of price revealed that her business knowledge is very limited, and she doesn’t have a good instinctive head for it. Maybe he had high hopes for her, and felt that she blew it, or maybe he just found her an insufferable snooty sourpuss and wanted to be rid of her. But either way, by the time he fired her, he was definitely annoyed with her.
I believe your original “quibble” was asking (third person and with a doobie-ous icon) whether I have ever disagreed with one of Donald’s decisions. After you rephrased it to address me as a human being instead of some object in the room, I answered it. As always, you are unsatisfied with my answers, my opinions, and quite possibly with the fact that I exist at all. So let me ask you. Is there anything at all that I can do to get you off my ass in, of all places, Cafe Society? If I suck your dick will you allow me my own opinions? If I just tell you that you’re right and I’m wrong, will you shut the fuck up? If I agree that in every case and everywhere, despite whatever it is that I’m writing, deep inside I hold every opinion, viewpoint, and thought just exactly like your own, will you find another hobby besides hijacking threads in every forum into parsed debate posts complete with cursing and insults? I want to know this so that I can decide whether ever to read anything else you write.
Hey, Liberal! Will you and Dewey take your nastiness outside, please? This kind of writing is unacceptable and I, for one, have had enough of it clogging up this thread.