Shame on you, Randal

About half-way into this evening’s season finale of The Apprentice I thought that the only fair outcome would be for Donald Trump to hire both Rebecca and Randal.

So when Mr. Trump told Randal that he was hired, then interrupted his celebrations to ask whether he thought he should hire Rebecca as well, I found myself smiling. Justice would be done. Both would be hired.

Then Randal turned round and said that the show was called The Apprentice, not The Apprentii (sic). And The Donald just meekly nodded and said fine, I’ll just hire you then.

I felt bad for Rebecca for having her hopes raised, disgusted by Randal's selfishness and appalled at Mr. Trump’s lack of spine for not hiring Rebecca anyway, as he so clearly wanted to do.

What a lame end to what was otherwise the best season of The Apprentice so far.

Comments

[Sergio on 16.12.05 at 00:54]

The best person won.

The show is a job interview for ONE person to be hired, as in a real life situation where one job is up for grabs.

Rebecca had attacked Randal throughout the process, insisting that she was the better candidate and that she should be the apprentice. This may all have been competitive nature, but the bottom line is that Randal was better than Rebecca.

In seasons past, the person who I wanted to win did not... trust me limey, you get over it.
I thought it was a fitting ending.

Best person = the apprentice. This show has never awarded second place in the past...why should it now? That's the whole idea behind the show!

[Gray on 16.12.05 at 23:10]

It was probably a test. He did the right thing.

[The Limey on 16.12.05 at 23:52]

As Trump himself said, to him this was not entertainment, this was a serious business decision. He had already demonstrated his willingness to ignore the "rules" of the show earlier in the season, when in two boardrooms he fired two people and in one boardroom he fired four.

In real life, if two outstanding candidates applied for one job, a smart company would create a new position and hire both of them if they could. Trump could, and would: he explicitly told Randal that he could have been persuaded to hire Rebecca too.

Was Randal better than Rebecca? I'm not sure. But given that he is about 15 years her senior, he *ought* to be better. Nevertheless, Rebecca clearly demonstrated a ton of potential and ability way beyond her 23 years. I imagine that within hours of last night's show ending she will have been inundated with job offers.

So perhaps Randal's decision was the best thing that could have happened to her. I find the Apprentice entertaining TV, but Trump is possibly one of the most laughably pompous individuals there is. I wouldn't want to work for him. If appearing on the show lands Rebecca a plum job working for someone with a more modest ego, perhaps she'll have got the best of it after all.

[loki on 17.12.05 at 07:49]

I didn't see the show myself, but I did hear him being interviewed on the Opie and Anthony show on XM radio. They asked him about his decision and he basically said, "imagine you'd just won the gold medal in the Olympics and after you'd been handed the medal, the organizers asked you whether you would like to share it with the runner-up." Can't say I blame him, and more power to him for sticking to his guns in the face of pressure from the vocal studio audience.

[wklc on 17.12.05 at 09:37]

Randal did the correct thing. The Apprentice is for one person. He had the superior history on the show, and while Rebecca is smart and talented, there is no way that 2 apprentices should have even been considered.

It is difficult as a black person to analyze this, but in my opinion it does come down to race. Why when a black person finally wins should he have to share the glory? And he shouldn't be expected to!

[The Limey on 17.12.05 at 09:43]

I would have felt the same way if Randal was white. This is not about race.

[BusGuy on 17.12.05 at 10:13]

It is difficult as a black person to analyze this, but in my opinion it does come down to race. Why when a black person finally wins should he have to share the glory? And he shouldn't be expected to!

Posted by wklc on 17.12.05 at 09:37

My now race plays a part in tv shows!!!!!!!!!!!
My Letter to Santa:
Dear Santa,
Can you make everyone GREEN.
Thank You Santa
ps I have been a good boy.

[Gray on 17.12.05 at 10:33]

I can't believe someone is trying to make this into a race issue! Do you buy brown sugar instead of white because of the colour and not the taste?!

[Douglas on 17.12.05 at 10:39]

BusGuy,

Come up Warwick Camp, arrybody's green up there.

[BusGuy on 17.12.05 at 10:46]

Douglas I am up there. Thats why I want all green.

[Cancundreaming on 17.12.05 at 11:15]

Of course Randall did the correct thing, insofar as the correct thing is what was best for him, and in respect of the context of the show, you can't and shouldn't expect him to do differently.

The issue is simple, if there are two apprentices; it would devalue his victory, not only his potential opportunities, but the prestige of being the 'winner'. Surely being one of 10 winners is substantively different then being the 1 winner likewise, it’s substantively different to be co winners then being the 1 winner.

I also think you are wrong in regards to Trump not having a spine, it's about him and the other producers of the show getting some more traction and free advertising...I mean it affected you enough to post a comment on your blog, and I’ve seen quite a number of ‘Randall was an asshole msn names’. You really can't buy advertising like this.... i mean really, would anyone really care if Randall instead made the nice guy decision, who wants to know about that.....

[Sergio on 17.12.05 at 12:17]

Limey, let's face reality...Randal WAS better than her. There was nothing that she did that was better than him.

She kept bringing up the fact that she did it all on a broken ankle and that's why she was so much better due to her determination. Randal lost his grandmother but not once did he use his loss as an excuse in the boardroom. I think it takes a hell of a lot of dignity to not use such an excuse even if it was available to you. It also shows his loyalty and respect for a woman who probably played a significant role in his life.

Rebecca showed her loyalty and dignity by supporting a losing candidate who ended up getting fired the next week! I'm sorry, but there is absolutely no comparison. I even think there were other candidates on the show who were better than Rebecca, but got lost in the mix during the multiple firings.

Randal isn't just better because of his age. Read his profile online and see how much he has done... i'm sure Rebecca will have to work extremely hard, day and night, if she wants to get where Randal is today!

[3rd Person on 17.12.05 at 14:11]

http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/04/candidates/randal.html

This guy should be change is name to God.

[SmokingGun on 17.12.05 at 14:29]

I think Randal should have kept Rebecca and fired Trump.

Seriously if Trump wanted a "team" of Randal and Rebecca then he should have made the decision. He could easily have told Rebecca she would also be offered a position as Randal's assistant if she wanted it.

I can't blame Randal having to make a spure of the moment decision on national TV after having slugged it out aginst not just Rebecca but a slew of others. Last minute rule chages can be taken in so many ways. It could have been a set up to see if he was wishy washy. Fuggedda about it, he did what he thought he had to do at the time.

The biggest screw up I've seen by Trump was the show where the guys from Queer Eye helped a fired Apprentice have an opening night for his charity and they raised $25,000. They then got some face time in the board-room with Trump so the guy could prove he wasn't a failure. Well in my eyes no-one who honestly tries to help others is a failure but he did fail in getting Trump to match the $25,000. He never even asked. And Trump showed he could fail as well because he didn't even offer to match the amount. Pittance to him but a "huge" loss in taking an opportunity to show his generosity or compassion on national prime-time.

Trump - you're fired.

[Sergio on 18.12.05 at 00:38]

Limey,

You actually missed Randal's "Appren-TIE" pun...

I think a guy with that many academic degrees would be able to determine the plural of "apprentice" if he wanted to.

Get it? Appren-TIE, not Apprentii (sic)!!!!!

You gotta love the wit!

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 09:35]

Randal made a mistake in haste--I think he will come to regret it.

If you just win the game I'm sure you wouldn't want to share the glory, but as Limey correctly pointed out, it's supposed to be a job interview.

Trump is asking these people to think like a CEO. Both candidates were great and would have been an asset without direct competition. They wanted different projects in different cities. Randal had clearly won. The Trump organization is large enough for both. Plus it would have made Rebecca totally loyal to Randal forever. Now he looks selfish and disloyal. Anyone who watches the show has heard trump say more than once "I hate disloyalty". You could also hear him asking george and carolyn at the end if they liked that decision--not a good sign.

You can't think like a CEO if you are intimidated by talent on your team. This would have been my answer:

"Mr. Trump, I firmly believe there is one apprentice and I am glad that you have chosen me for the skills, education and talent I bring to the table. I hope to gain the ability to think like you do through this process. If I were you I would want the best possible people in my organization. Rebecca is an amazing businesswoman, competitor and friend. Therefore I don't want her to be another apprenti on another jobsite. I would like to hire her myself."

[Sergio on 19.12.05 at 10:06]

silencedogood,

you and limey have missed the point of the whole show. yes it is a job interview, but it is also a competition.

so in the Superbowl, or NBA finals, or World Cup... should the teams who win be asked if they want the other team to have a first place trophy as well because YOU guys thought they did a good job?

didn't think so...but that's not even the end of it.

in years past, the competition between the final two has been much closer. why now does Trump offer to hire the #2 person? the same person who had a losing 1-2 record and lost $11000 to $0 on the final task!!!

the ONLY thing she demonstrated was her so-called loyalty. well in my opinion, her loyalty to a loser (Toral) was poor decision making. she let her emotions get in the way of rational thinking, which is an extremely poor asset in business.

Randal was not disloyal to Rebecca in any way. Are you saying he was disloyal because he did not let her get hired? Then I assume that if Rebecca was given the chance to hire the #3, she should? With that thinking, what's the point of the entire competition? He might as well hire everyone.

[b,w&p?? on 19.12.05 at 10:08]

You're all missing the point...Trump asked Randal if he should hire Rebecca - The Apprentice had already been chosen and he was being asked to make his first business decision - and he cocked it up...as Trump pointed out at the beginning of his decision process, the show 'The Apprentice' is entertainment, what follows is business. Randal's first mistake as part of the Trump organization was not hiring Rebecca, he made a bad business decision.

[Sergio on 19.12.05 at 10:32]

So if Randal hired had chosen to have Rebecca hired, what would she have been exactly?

Would she not be an apprentice?

[b,w&p?? on 19.12.05 at 10:42]

not in my opinion...In my mind she would have been another Trump employee.

Also Serg, regarding your point that she didn't raise any money in her final task - Yahoo did pledge $100k to both charities based on the job she did for them.

[Sergio on 19.12.05 at 11:30]

Yahoo! was shamed into pledging $100K to both charities, yes.

There is a subtle difference.

Even still, I still cannot see how everyone thinks she was such a strong candidate... I'm gonna have to go back and watch it again because she was good for her age, but overall I think there were much better candidates than her. Alla and Mark are two of them.

With a PM record of 1-2 and an overall competition record of 2-7, I don't see where she made such a significant impression...besides her loyalty to the loser Toral. Oh, and the purple Yahoo! ice cubes...nice touch. Any other examples?

[SmokingGun on 19.12.05 at 11:44]

"Randal's first mistake as part of the Trump organization was not hiring Rebecca, he made a bad business decision."
Posted by b,w&p?? on 19.12.05 at 10:08

I'll agree with you there, however only on the basis that Trump should have been clear about why he was interested in keeping Rebecca. Trump could easily have told Randal this was his first decision and that would he make Rebecca his first hire as his assistant. The Aprentice's Aprentice so to speak. Randal might have been less defensive and said yes.

Sergio - you are right. How funny to see the top gun from Yahoo have to get up and make a public donation.

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 11:49]

Sergio,

Give credit where credit is due. Rebecca was more than some loser who lucked her way into the finals. She did a great job organizing despite Piscapo's drop out and dealt with some tough clients. Maybe tourists can start saying--the BIU Piscapoed my vacation! ;) She had a screw up (major) because she caved into demanding clients (a rookie mistake I doubt she will make again).

Randal was great and I won't take anything away from him. He was a star all the way through. But his last performance was his worst, in my opinion. He didn't check the weather report and had no plan B. He did a good job pulling a last ditch thing together but if he would have had anything less than the stellar team he did, he would have been in trouble.

The reason why I suggested he hire rebecca is because she would be his subordinate. There is also no way she would get paid the $250K. He controls her access to trump and her success makes him look good too. He would be the "apprentice" but he'd dole out some goodies and a good opportunity to a friend also. He looks gracious on TV. Everyone wins.

The only reason I see not to is if you are worried about being outshined. That's what it looked like to me since it was a close decision. Rebecca is alot more together at 23 than I was. Imagine how good she will be in another 5-10 years.

Randal also looked like Tom Cruise by pumping his fists in the air after stabbing her in the back. I was a fan of his before, but lost some respect. He's still a star employee, but I wouldn't necessarily trust him anymore.

[Sergio on 19.12.05 at 12:03]

She had a screw up (major) because she caved into demanding clients

Man, that's more than a rookie mistake she took her eye of the ball. Perhaps a little league mistake. If your goal is to raise money for charity, you do not demote that priority to an optional piece of mail in a handbag. She screwed up bigtime!

He didn't check the weather report and had no plan B

The thing is, his last performance was his worst...and he still won by a longshot! Yes he had a stellar team... because he handpicked them himself (shows good hiring skills) and because he had their respect and they worked their asses of for him. (Yes I know you're going to say that Rebecca had her teams respect too, but you have to agree it's not to the same degree as the respect that Randal had).

The reason why I suggested he hire rebecca is because she would be his subordinate

I didn't quite catch that one. I thought that, being there were two projects, if Rebecca was hired she would be working on the alternative project that was in NJ. I didn't hear Trump mention she was going to be a subordinate of Randal.

The only reason I see not to is if you are worried about being outshined

Outshined? By Rebecca? The one thing that she was excellent at was public speaking...she was outstanding! However, even in that, she still wasn't better than Randal (you can reference the emotional speaches he made throughout the season).

Rebecca is alot more together at 23 than I was

I already said she as outstanding for her age...in some respects, not all. But if you look at the broader picture, she lacked experience and the results to be on the same level as Randal.

He's still a star employee, but I wouldn't necessarily trust him anymore.

I'm sure he will be sorry to hear that... and will probably cry himself to sleep tonight... haha.

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 12:29]

He's still a star employee, but I wouldn't necessarily trust him anymore.

I'm sure he will be sorry to hear that... and will probably cry himself to sleep tonight... haha.
Posted by Sergio on 19.12.05 at 12:03

Didnt' you know that he's on LIB? ;) I meant if I were Trump.

Randal should have won--no question, I'm just saying he could have come out winning on all fronts. He damaged his image.

P.s. thinking like a CEO means you have to be able to renegotiate deals to your advantage. I think Trump had in mind hiring rebecca for the condo job, but Randal could have flipped it into a "work for me or not at all" deal just as easily as he prevented her being hired. It's all about expanding the pie to a win-win situation my friend.

[Sergio on 19.12.05 at 13:07]

If that's not what he wanted, then he shouldn't have to do it.

Randal does think like a CEO... he has run 5 companies!

He did not damage his image one bit. If anything, he demonstrated that he can make a tough decision, e.g. not making a decision based on emotions, by not hiring her because he felt she lacked the experience to work for the Trump organization. She said he did not have the toughness to work in NY... well I think he demonstrated that to her and the rest of the world when he made that decision.

I mean, this happens all the time. Especially in Bermuda... not hiring a Bermudian because they lack experience...get someone from overseas, right? That's how it works.

You say he damaged his image in your eyes. I say he strengthened his image in my eyes. You can't please everyone. There will always be people who do not like your decision. So if it means silencedogood and Limey do not like him, so be it...there are a million more others who like him more for the decision he made. Trump is probably one of them, that's why he didn't dispute it or counter in her favour.

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 13:51]

Damn Serg, you seem to be taking this very seriously. It's a show. Stop savaging me! J/J

You can't assume Randal's reasoning behind. I have my opinion you have yours. But just like there are millions who will agree with you, there are millions who will agree with me.

I'd rather look good for my 15 mins of fame to 100% of the public than only 50%. The addage by the way is you can't please everyone all the time. You can please everyone for 15 minutes of fame.

I don't think Trump liked it. He's always harping on loyalty and if he didn't want to also hire rebecca he wouldn't have brought it up. I'm sure he would rather have two star employees rather than one because he'll get more publicity, more work done, and more money.

I didn't see it as some altruistic decision. I saw it as a mistake based on either fear of being outshone or a desire (selfish or entitled) to not share the limelight that damaged his image, left benefits on the table and stabbed a friend in the back.

I see his running of 5 companies irrelevant. If that made all the difference then why was it such a close call? His experience should have made him check the weather report and have a plan B.

He's a brilliant guy, but his background is primarily in technology not business management. (Yes, I know he's the CEO of at least one of those companies but he owns it, he wasn't hired from the outside; plus its not like he was running a fortune 500 company) It's no insult to his intelligence or skill to suggest he has room for growth in his management skills.

I think we just differ in our styles. I keep hearing Rebecca wasn't as good. Randal was better. True. That's why he won. I'm only saying, why not turn her into a company asset as well if it doesn't damage the winner.

You seem to be a win-lose guy, I prefer win-win.

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 13:54]

P.s. Trump had to ask Randal because he was the Apprentice and he had to abide by Randal's decision.

To do otherwise, even if he wanted to, would have undermined Randal which would have been unacceptable.

The show ended like 2 seconds later and you could hear him asking "Did you like that" to either george or carolyn. Not a good sign.

[SmokingGun on 19.12.05 at 14:09]

Although I don't hold it against him for handling things the way he did under such pressure I agree Randal did miss a great opportunity to show he was a leader willing to share in building the company. Had he been given another opportunity to be inclusive maybe he would have realized he was being offered such a huge opportunity to really shine by including Rebecca. Maybe after seven years or so he'll look back and realize just how much he alienated so many people in the world's view and screwed up out of the starting gate.

[Sergio on 19.12.05 at 14:36]

You know what, you're right. Actually I've only been posting so much because I'm supposed to be studying... this has been one of my many procrastination tools. I'm not sure if you should be working or something...

But exams coming up soon so i'll make my last post on this one.

I'd rather look good for my 15 mins of fame to 100% of the public than only 50%.

Not sure where those numbers came from, but like I said, if you actually watched the show there were several candidates shaking their heads when Trump asked if Randal should hire Rebecca. So if he would have said yes, hire her, he would not have make 100% of the public happy.

Again, I do not think she was a star employee... you still haven't said much to her defence. What made her such a great candidate??? No results, emotional decision making... not Trump material.

Stabbing in the back? A bit too extreme for me. He has no long-term loyalty to her and with good reason... she was his competitor, not his wife.

Close call? Do you honestly believe that. Remember this is TV. Ever watched the amazing race? Sometimes you would think the families were running neck in neck when they are really about an hour apart. Like YOU said, "Randal should have won- no question"... that's NO question...not perhaps, it's a close call, etc.

Yes, Randal should have checked the weather...I think we're all entitled to an oversight every once in a while (but this was not critical and he still won the task by $11000). Let's not forget Trump fired 4 people for producing over 100% less return than the opposing team. This $11000 to $0 was the worst defeat in apprentice history :-) ...and she should be hired???

He's a brilliant guy, but his background is primarily in technology not business management.

BCT partners - BCT Partners is a multimillion dollar, management, technology and policy consulting services firm that works with corporations, government agencies and nonprofit organizations to improve organizational effectiveness and support strategies for change.

To suggest that his management skills need room for improvement isn't an insult, but it is a bit disingenuous.

I'm only saying, why not turn her into a company asset as well if it doesn't damage the winner.

Sure...hey, while you're at it, why not hire the #3 person. And the #4... in fact, let's hire everyone who showed some potential... that's not what the show is about... maybe you could suggest that to NBC.

Ok, so now I'm a win-lose guy. In a competitive situation like this yes... just like in the NBA finals there is a winner... and a loser. Just like in the World Series, there is a winner... and a loser. Shall I continue?

Trump had to ask Randal because he was the Apprentice and he had to abide by Randal's decision.

Wow, so now Randal is running the company and Trump has to listen to him? Wow, man Randal sure does move quickly! Plus, I wasn't saying that. I was saying he didn't even say are you sure Randal, don't you think her loyalty and whatever crap you think she has will be good for my company? ...he said fine.

The show ended like 2 seconds later and you could hear him asking "Did you like that" to either george or carolyn.

You must have amazing vision being that when he said that, he wasn't even on camera so for all we know he could have been talking to the cameraman.

If you watch the post-show interview, Trump said that he was thinking about hiring Rebecca, but the way Randal put it, he convinced him not to.

That's all folks...wish me luck in my exam ;-)

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 15:19]

I hope it is a political science exam: Spin 101. If so you'll do fine. Seriously, Good luck in any event.

You've got to be kidding though. "for all we know he could have been talking to the cameraman." C'mon now. I don't think I need to respond to this one.

When I say 50% of the public I mean just that--not 50% of the apprentice candidates. You must have been watching with your nightvision goggles on too--it was dark in the studio when that question was asked. The only person to really come down hard on REbecca was Alla who was a bitch anyways to any other woman on that show. Sour grapes I say.

I will make a case for Rebecca, albeit brief--I'm not her biographer. She's young but has a responsible career. She has a good education. She gets results despite obstacles (i.e. broken ankle, absentee Joe Piscapo). She did not have as good a record as Randal, but she was a solid, reliable player on every task. She made very few mistakes.

She was also quite savvy. Her loyalty to Toral made her the only PM to get results from her. She was respected by her team who gave her glowing reviews in the boardroom. She organized a great event for her last task. If she had not dropped the ball on fundraising she would likely have trounced Randal.

Yes, she would. She had a larger, upscale crowd as well as yahoo. If she had played her cards better she could have gotten that 100k up front. She made a key mistake and paid dearly for it--that's part of why I say Randal should have won. But if you want to get all philisophical here, the apprentice is supposed to be someone young but with potential, not a 40 year old businessman. I think when she's at the same stage of life she'd trounce randal--did you see how she schooled him in negotiation when picking their teams?

It was close because he was so last minute with everything and only raised 11,000. You have to admit that is pretty paltry considering all the celebrities he had. His event looked like crap too in that room. The outback people weren't thrilled with him either. His strength was his speech and the fact that he got any money.

Again, if he's this bigshot executive walking on water then you would think key stuff like checking for rain, which was a huge deal considering it threw out their entire plan with no replacement, would have been done.

I don't know anything about BCT except what's on the Apprentice website, but I'm skeptical. That website makes the beauty shop owners sound like Lee Iacoca. I'm sure its website is equally worthless--it's in their interst to puff their rep.

As for running Trump's company--please, Trump hired the guy. If Trump asks Randal to make a decision and immediately cuts his legs out from under him then Trump looks like a jerk on TV, damages his apprentice franchise (b/c it will be obvious that they have no real authority once hired) and he's got a pissed off Randal to deal with for at least a year who will be asked a gazillion times by reporters "How did you feel about Trump going against your decision".

As for hiring 3 or 4 people--you could say the same thing about firing people. Why not just fire all the crappy people on the first show? You do it if it makes sense. It's supposed to be like business on TV. I'm making the case for a good business decision. If you want to make sports analogies try this: Randal gets the gold, Rebecca gets the silver.

You know what's really funny--I thought Randal should beat her. I was somewhat indifferent but thought he deserved it. I just think it was really stupid for him to cut her out. That's all.

I'll see you on the tread debating General Hospital. ;o

[Sergio on 19.12.05 at 15:57]

The procrastination continues....

C'mon now. I don't think I need to respond to this one.

That's fine, dont respond because you know you do not know who he was talking to...and again, "did you like that" doesn't sound like a pessimistic comment in my opinion...not sure how you come to that conclusion.

You must have been watching with your nightvision goggles on too

Actually if you download the episode like i have, you will see that it wasn't asked at that point. It was asked afterwards when the candidates were in the backshot...no nightvision required.

She gets results despite obstacles (i.e. broken ankle, absentee Joe Piscapo).

Honestly, I think Randal would have preferred two broken ankles in replacement of his grandmothers loss. It's annoying how people make it sound like she had a brain tumour and could not think coherently...it's not like she was in a marathon and had a broken ankle...give me a break.

Her loyalty to Toral made her the only PM to get results from her.

Again, her misguided emotional decision making made her loyal to a loser like Toral. Toral was someone who did not get any results throughout the entire show.

But if you want to get all philisophical here, the apprentice is supposed to be someone young but with potential, not a 40 year old businessman.

Umm... come on, let's do research before we make claims.

Bill: 33
Kelly: 37
Kendra: 26
Randal: 34

Need I say more? Or are you the executive producer now and you dictate what the apprentice should be. Besides, 34 is young in executive business terms.

I think when she's at the same stage of life she'd trounce randal--did you see how she schooled him in negotiation when picking their teams?

I dont think so...but we could argue that all day. As for schooling Randal, yes I do see how she managed to successfully select an inferior team to Randals. Great job! I mean...she even picked Toral...again! She would have been much better off picking someone who could demonstrate their talent. Emotions...I tell ya!

I don't know anything about BCT except what's on the Apprentice website, but I'm skeptical. That website makes the beauty shop owners sound like Lee Iacoca. I'm sure its website is equally worthless--it's in their interst to puff their rep.

And where does this skepticism come from? Perhaps you should do some research on the company before you comment about whether it's a good company or not, rather than make unsubstantiated comments about its quality.

If Trump asks Randal to make a decision and immediately cuts his legs out from under him then Trump looks like a jerk on TV

I didn't say he had to undercut Randal, I just said that maybe he could have made a case for Rebecca, which he did not. He didn't debate Randal's decision...he accepted it for it's truthfulness and value.

If you want to make sports analogies try this: Randal gets the gold, Rebecca gets the silver.

Yes, very good. And you know what silver gets you on the apprentice? Ask the past 3 seasons runner-up candidates.

I've already made the case for a good business decision. Your case for Rebecca was brief because that's all she had...and that's all she showed on the show. She even got a job offering after the show... you know what it was for? She was offered $150000 for it too!

[silencedogood on 19.12.05 at 16:40]

Alright Sergio,

If you keep comming back with this misrepresentative nonsense I'm going to have to keep responding. Since you like point for point--here you go:

The procrastination continues....

That's fine, dont respond because you know you do not know who he was talking to...and again, "did you like that" doesn't sound like a pessimistic comment in my opinion...not sure how you come to that conclusion.

Ok use your common sense. He is setting next to two of his key advisors whose opinion he has been asking for all season. No one else is close by (not even your mythical camera man). Who is he talking to if not them?

Actually if you download the episode like i have, you will see that it wasn't asked at that point. It was asked afterwards when the candidates were in the backshot...no nightvision required.

I can't speak to the downloaded version, but on TV it was dark. It's beside the point anyways. I was talking about public opinion, not the would-be apprentices.

Honestly, I think Randal would have preferred two broken ankles in replacement of his grandmothers loss. It's annoying how people make it sound like she had a brain tumour and could not think coherently...it's not like she was in a marathon and had a broken ankle...give me a break.

Nice try, but no redirection here. It's not about what anyone would prefer. Of course I would prefer to break my ankle than have my grandmother die, but give me a break--there is no way that the grandmother dying is more of a hinderance. I love my grandmother very much, but she is quite an old lady. When she dies I will be sad and will miss her but it isn't unexpected or something unrecoverable. Hell, working would help deal with it by getting my mind off. Especially if you consider that they would want you to go on to win and that it would make them proud. At the end of the day it wasn't a parent or a sibling.

A broken ankle may not be as severe an emotional hinderance but for the purposes of the game would affect everything--mobility, people's perceptions of you, dressing yourself, mental state (due to pain).

Again, her misguided emotional decision making made her loyal to a loser like Toral. Toral was someone who did not get any results throughout the entire show.

It's only misguided if Toral turned into an Omarosa. She didn't. Everything aired indicated toral did a good job. If you think Toral sucks so much but will admit that she did a good job on the last task ask yourself why that is?

Bill: 33
Kelly: 37
Kendra: 26
Randal: 34

Need I say more? Or are you the executive producer now and you dictate what the apprentice should be. Besides, 34 is young in executive business terms.

Our IT doesn't allow us to view entertainment sites at work, but isn't Randal over 40? I love your second sentance--so I'm dictating how to run the apprentice by suggesting they go with a younger person with talent over a middle aged one but when you say that "there is only one apprentice" and go on and on about how it would be wrong to hire more than one you aren't dictating????? You are unreal! Hi pot, it's kettle.

I do see how she managed to successfully select an inferior team to Randals. Great job!

Why were they inferior again? Was it because Randal did little to nothing while that one guy set up the entire section alone? Or maybe it was because the chubby guy with glasses knew more about autism and was perceived as the real leader when meeting with the charity director? Surely you don't think the event at the stadium was a better event do you? The Yahoo event was waaaaay more professional in design and execution. It just didn't make money and therein lies the loss.

And where does this skepticism come from? Perhaps you should do some research on the company before you comment about whether it's a good company or not, rather than make unsubstantiated comments about its quality.

Hello? Nobody made a comment about it's quality. Did you see the part where I said "I'm skeptical". That means I'm not taking the apprentice website at face value. If this debate was on something more important than a TV show I would research it, but it's not. It's just TV. And as you stated yourself, TV has a way of trying to mislead you. It may be that the company is the second comming, but I have experience with consulting companies. Many of them, especially in the US, are full of sh*t. I'm not saying his is, but his pitch listed two companies on its resume. I would expect a bit more from a top notch firm. If it was that great why leave? What does multi-million dollar mean? Is that gross, net, sales, sales in one year or over all the years? Is it puffed up to sound better? etc. etc.

I didn't say he had to undercut Randal, I just said that maybe he could have made a case for Rebecca, which he did not. He didn't debate Randal's decision...he accepted it for it's truthfulness and value.

Even debating it would have undercut randal because it would imply--you made the wrong decision. If it was standard to hire the 2nd place then sure. It's not. Plus, as I said before the show ended 2 seconds after the decision was made. No time.

Yes, very good. And you know what silver gets you on the apprentice? Ask the past 3 seasons runner-up candidates.

Now this is just silly. The whole point of this is what should be, not what has been done. Another example of win-lose thinking.

Your case for Rebecca was brief because that's all she had...and that's all she showed on the show. She even got a job offering after the show... you know what it was for? She was offered $150000 for it too!

It was brief because this argument, while entertaining isn't important!!! I'm replying off the cuff. I'm not going on the net to do research and download the latest apprentice footage.

If she got offered a big money job after the show it should be clear that she wasn't just some lucky chick who picks losers because they are her friends. I'm curious as to what it was for, but I'm done for the day. Plus, I think you are just taking a piss.

[Sergio on 19.12.05 at 17:10]

Yeah, it is clear you haven't done most of the research with regards to the job. Your inaccuracy with regards to events that have happened clearly demonstrates this. You dont know Randal's age, you are talking about the wrong part when I'm talking about the nightvision, you support the professional event that does not meet its objective and above all you can't even remember what you have said (see "equally worthless" comment).

It would be a lot harder for me to dispute your comments if they weren't so off-the-cuff.

Also, you're comments about your grandmother are saaaadd. Really, really sad. I would have both my ankles broken than lose my grandmother and I feel the emotional toll of that would be way worse than a broken ankle.

Just to let you know, she got an offer as an event planner...not a manager...go purple Yahoo! ice cubes. Yeah, I'm sure Randal wishes he got THAT job.

Maybe next time you can discuss this when you can actually access and research some facts. Then the quality of your thoughts would be much better. Cheers!!!!!

[SmokingGun on 19.12.05 at 17:18]

Sergio - when exactly are you going to get around to that exam?

[Simon on 19.12.05 at 17:46]

Who honestly gives a crap? This sort of shite that now feels the TV listings is the lowest form of entertainment imaginable. The fact that people waste their time watching it is bad enough but to spend more time talking and arguing about it is rediculous. It's irrelevant meaningless rubbish that should be banned from airwaves.

[Michelle on 19.12.05 at 18:04]

Thank you Sergio. All the best on your exam. I am a huge Apprentice fan and I agree with you, in almost every instance. One comment though - much of this final episode is indeed about race. Randall was the best man for the job, in every way. What if the tables had been turned? What if Rebecca had the 5 academic degrees, (including an MBA and a PhD from MIT) and had an undefeated record as a PM? Think for a second that Randall had the broken ankle, the losing record, had hired Toral and failed to raise even $1 in the final task. Would the Donald have suggested hiring them both? I seriously doubt it. That's why this boils down to a question of race. The question is, why was this finale as close as it was? The old saying is indeed true - that to win as a black man (or woman), you must be twice as good as the competition. Please, just open your minds to consider the possibility that this might be about race. Race is a valid player in this boardroom just like most boardrooms, as much as we might not want it to be.

[SmokingGun on 19.12.05 at 18:25]

I would suggest it was more about sexism than race. Trump is known to favour the females and he was probably trying to stay on their good side. She beat out a lot people to get there and did appear to have a lot to offer. He should have just told Randal to hire her instead of putting both him and her in such an awkward spot. Did you see the look she gave Randal after he totally dissed her. I mean seriously folks, there's going to be a lot of people out there giving the man a sideways look every time he acts wondering if it's all about him and no room for anyone else, especially a smart woman.

[silencedogood on 20.12.05 at 12:48]

You are right sergio--it is more important to dilligently research the apprentice for a fun discussion regarding the apprentice rather than a) study, b) work, or c) save that energy for important topics on other threads.

My mistake. I thought this was a rare lighthearted thread. I'll remember to footnote my posts on entertainment next time.

I'll trade you a victory on this one due to your unmistakeable research skills for one on a thread that matters.

You will be the apprentice debating king for all time but if you don't study for whatever class you are taking that will be the only thing you are an expert on. As it is, you've got my vote to take over fresh TV.

Ps. I really hate that you keep twisting my words, especially regarding the grandmother thing. Why are you so competitive over an unimportant topic? Is being right that important to you? Again, win-lose thinking...and over a TV show... very sad.

[observor on 20.12.05 at 16:11]

Sergio ... you must really, really have a lot of free time ...

[Sergio on 20.12.05 at 18:05]

silencedogood...

if you, or observer ever noticed, i do not post on this site very often. i do have waaay much more important things to do. like i told you (i wish you would listen), i was procrastinating...ask any college student, it's what they do best.

i guess you're a little upset that you couldn't state the facts... it's ok. thank you for your interest in my studying, just to let you know, i got an A in that course...at McGill (try and knock my school if you dare...haha).

as for twisting your words, no twisting was done. you said what you said. but that's getting off-topic (dont want to be removed)!

oh, and observer, you'd be amazed how much time you can waste when you dont wanna study!

I win ;-) Happy holidays!!!

[SmokingGun on 20.12.05 at 18:18]

"at McGill (try and knock my school if you dare...haha)."

Sergio - you are surrounded by scores of the most beautiful women in the the world and you want to spend over-time online debating the pros and cons of Randal and The Apprentice with us??

My friend, trust me, ultimately you are losing......

Happy Holidays! ;-D

[Sergio on 20.12.05 at 18:26]

Sorry Gunner, I've got my wifey already.

Maybe you'll get one like mine some day instead of dreaming you were in Montreal.

Sadly she's gone home for the holidays already... i'm just tryna stay outta trouble...

got anything else you wanna try and hit me with?

[SmokingGun on 20.12.05 at 18:56]

With all the georgeous women around I guess you having a wife up in Montreal is sort of like having a.... Serg Protector? I have a Czech Chick to keep me in check. ;)

I spent nearly a week in Montreal when I was 18 representing Bermuda in Hockey playing at McGill. I've never been the same since. I should have stayed and gone to school there myself.

Oh and as far as hitting, only after I've run out of ammo. But I'm all about taking one on the chin and grinning once and a while. You should try it sometime.

[silencedogood on 21.12.05 at 09:39]

if you, or observer ever noticed, i do not post on this site very often. i do have waaay much more important things to do.

And you chimed in on the pressing issues of the day--Randal vs. Rebecca! Ha ha. It's nice to have priorities.

Don't be so paranoid--I would never knock someone for gettting an education.

Merry Christmas to you too! I'll dedicate "Twist and Shout" to you at my new years party. ;)

[Jack on 30.03.06 at 02:40]

Trump should of said to Rebecca,
Your HIRED!

[Triforce on 30.03.06 at 09:48]

Is anyone even watching the new season? I've given up on it. Only 'reality shows' I care for these days are Survivor and The Amazing Race.

[Draft Dodger on 30.03.06 at 11:20]

Can someone explain to me why if an individual comes up with a disasterous idea that the whole team agrees from the outset that it is on their head. Trump always wants to fire the person with the intial idea when it all goes wrong. Surely this means the best tactic is to keep your mouth shut when brain storming so you can cry foul in the board room. Hardly what you would be looking for in an employee in the real "reality".

[Triforce on 30.03.06 at 12:04]

That's part of what makes the show unreal. Trump calls it a "thirteen week job interview" or whatnot but really he and Mark Burnett's job is to push the drama and everthing, that's why obviously unreliable/unstable candidates last longer.

Draft Dodger you're absolutely correct. The strategy to get far in the show is to keep a low profile early (but not so low that you can get blasted for being invisible). Once the herd thins, you won't have that luxury.

Oh, and massage Trump's ego in a subtle fashion when you can. Helps when you're a leggy blonde. However don't try it with George or Carolyn.

[yazid ikhwan on 04.04.06 at 07:33]

in malaysia, season 4 has just finish and we all know whor is the winner..

then, i think randal should not say that the only apprientice but why dont he just work together with rebbeca..