The Apprentice 2/19 Question (spoilers)
#51
Thread Starter
DVD Talk Legend
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.
I think I'd rather sit across from Trump on a negotiation than her, she appears tough as nails.
#54
Suspended
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: 5 Point West Side
Originally posted by Gallant Pig Troy's group won on sheer dumb luck.
#55
Originally posted by Brak55
I beleive Amy is the only one left who has not been on a losing team.
I beleive Amy is the only one left who has not been on a losing team.
Ereka, too, hasn't been on a losing team either.
Not that she's a strong contender, anyway.
Apprentice = best show on TV!
#56
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Originally posted by jeffkjoe
Ereka, too, hasn't been on a losing team either.
Ereka, too, hasn't been on a losing team either.
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.
#58
DVD Talk God
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 133,140
Received 896 Likes
on
740 Posts
From: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Originally posted by Patman
Things that make you go "Hmmm..."
Things that make you go "Hmmm..."
I'm not surprised at all. The whole thing smelled to begin with.
#59
Originally posted by Patman
Things that make you go "Hmmm..."
Things that make you go "Hmmm..."

Originally posted by ~~ PAL ~~
Plus, Trump or Burnett could've easily manipulated the outcome of this challenge by sending some "prospective renters" in. Isn't it convenient that Protege rented the apartment out in the last 10 minutes?
Plus, Trump or Burnett could've easily manipulated the outcome of this challenge by sending some "prospective renters" in. Isn't it convenient that Protege rented the apartment out in the last 10 minutes?
#60
Moderator
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.
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.
#61
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 4,097
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Albany, NY
Originally posted by Groucho
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.
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.
They should have used the lower amount.
#62
DVD Talk God
Joined: Feb 2000
Posts: 133,140
Received 896 Likes
on
740 Posts
From: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Originally posted by Groucho
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.
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.
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.
#63
Originally posted by Groucho
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.
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.
Call it what you want, but I feel that the coin flip could've been rigged too...
#65
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.
#66
Senior Member
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.




