A little off topic, but what's the story on the blond woman who always sits next to trump?

I think I'd rather sit across from Trump on a negotiation than her, she appears tough as nails.

You must've not watch every episode. If you've watched every episode, you'll get my joke.

I thought that was das Monkey's girlfriend. :D

Don't think it was luck at all. I think it was pure setup by the show. That woman looked like a stage hand Mark Brunette just threw in there. Sucks they didn't cut crazy bitch again. They better do it on the next episode.

Ereka, too, hasn't been on a losing team either.


Not that she's a strong contender, anyway.


Apprentice = best show on TV!

She was on this week's losing team wasn't she? If you mean she's never been up for the firing line, you're right.

I'm not surprised at all. The whole thing smelled to begin with.

I'm a genius! :lol: :D

I read the article and I don't see anything fishy. Here's the course of events as I understand them.

1. Landlord promises woman she can rent an apartment from him at a certain rate.

2. Producers offer landlord money to allow them to rent the apartment for him.

3. Landlord tells the woman "Sorry, but I can't rent this to you any more."

4. Woman comes by the apartment in the afternoon to see what's going. There's a bunch of hoopla with camera crews, etc. She decides not to bid on the apartment.

5. Woman gets a promise from the Landlord that if she signs a lease with the television people, he will honor the original amount the agreed to before the hoopla began.

6. Woman signs the lease, knowing she won't actually be paying the higher rent.

So the contest wasn't fixed or rigged...what happened was a side agreement between the landlord and the woman that had nothing to do with the show.

well the fishy part is the team didn't REALLY LEASE the apartment for the markup amount of 27% that they showed on tv.
They should have used the lower amount.

:confused: How is a side agreement where the lessee actually doesn't rent the apartment for 27% over the original rate not fishy. If she actually rented it at lower % markup than the 10% increase the other team got, that certainly changed outcome.

But that is clearly not what was shown to the TV audience. Protege was given the high mark-up and the win as a result. Didn't you see that? So guess why there's a high mark-up in the first place...

Call it what you want, but I feel that the coin flip could've been rigged too...

While it changed the outcome, the producers weren't involved. It was an agreement between her and the landlord.

Wow, I'm sure that in every single "reality series" out there, the producers have always been completely impartial and unbiased; and they never, ever try to manipulate the contests/games/rules so that it goes one way or another in order to get better ratings... because they believe in the fairness of competition and want to see a good, clean game; they would never stood so low as to rig things for a few cheap rating points. :lol:

If no one involved with the show knew about the deal, then they shouldn't be blamed and it doesnt make the show "rigged" or "fixed."

But that doesn't change the fact that it isnt a true representation of how much she was going to pay. In the lady's head, she was signing a different lease, at a lower markup. Now we don't know what the lower price was (it could easily have been more than 10%), but it still means that nothing Protege did led to their win.