# Trump Apprentice Finale



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

Can we end this already? 
Must we have all the flashbacks? 
Must Rebecca sound so overwrought "Mr. TRUMP When I was FIfteen I Founded a Non Profit and I WOrked with Al Gore and Colin Powel.! Mr. Trump Mr. Trump Mr. Trump." And just how many times is she allowed to bring up that broken ankle as proof of her invincability? It's a broken ankle for Pete's sake, you get a crutch, you get over it! If I was him I'd say, Rebecca this is like 40th time you've brought up this broken ankle, YOU"RE FIRED! 
But then Randall, every time she says anything about him he gets that look on his face, like he's insulted and knocked down a notch and he thinks he has to get back up. Get over her! 
Now Trump is saying the ankle would have made anyone give up. Yeah right! A hand, I could see, that would really stop you from doing certain things, but unless they were running a marathon. ..

Oh no did Randall just do what I think i saw him do? That is so low rent!


----------



## HoosierFan (May 8, 2001)

OMG!! That was cold!

I don't believe he did that! Guess he didn't want to share the spotlight.

He will not get good press out of this.


----------



## magaggie (Apr 9, 2002)

Wow. Way to take the shine off your win, there, Randall.

Totally made me regret that he had won. I feel confident that if Rebecca had won, she'd have suggested that Trump hire Randall.

Tacky.


----------



## chs4 (Sep 25, 2002)

OUCH!  

:down: Randall :down:


----------



## Win Joy Jr (Oct 1, 2001)

You saw the true Randall tonight. Everything else was just an act.

Randall: YOU SUCK!


----------



## Neenahboy (Apr 8, 2004)

OK, this is a spoiler thread and I don't feel like watching it right now, so what'd he do???


----------



## itstrue (Dec 20, 2004)

His answer almost seemed like he knew the question would be asked, it was a stunning ending, but I think Trump will probably end up hiring her anyway, just so none of Randall's stank will end up on him.


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

Trump hired him, then said, "Randall, I respect your opinion, should I hire Rebecca too?" 
Randy said, THIS is not the Aprentici! You should stick with only me (or something like that).


----------



## nataylor (Apr 26, 2000)

Trump asked if he should also hire Rebecca (after telling Randall he was hired). Randall said he strongly believed it was _the_ Apprentice, and it should be a single peron. It looked like Trump was ready to hire Rebecca.

What a total ass. I can't believe he did that.


----------



## crowfan (Dec 27, 2003)

:down: :down: :down: to Randal. What an ass. You just lost a lot of respect from just about everyone.


----------



## soudev (Nov 17, 2005)

Randall, you suck!


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

You know, that was such a jerk ass thing to do, maybe they told him to say that just to get people talking. Cause this is going to make people talk (who would really do that on tv like that)?


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

I was saying through the whole show that Trump was picking both...and then Randal had to go ahead and ruin my prediction. I think it's a case of a highly competitive person not wanting to share the spotlight. I think while he might be a good leader, he's the type that would stab his collegues in the back to get ahead. I lost a lot of respect for him as a person, but he'd make a great politician.


----------



## Frank_M (Sep 9, 2001)

You know... about 30 minutes into the finale, I said to my wife "Trump's going to end up hiring both of them." It just started to see that they edited it that way. And to be honest, they both deserved it.

And then when they had them pick their jobs first? And they took opposite projects? It became more obvious.

I think Trump was shocked with what Randal did...and I bet pretty pissed off. That WAS low rent. I mean, hiring Rebecca... what harm to Randal does that do? He literally just took a great job away from her, for no reason.

I'm with everyone else... I liked Randal a lot up until that moment. And if he had told Trump to hire her, and he did so... I would have walked away thinking this was the best season yet. Because the two best people won.

Now I just sit here and my only thought is "Randal sucks."


----------



## indyrobb (Feb 9, 2005)

I was so looking forward to both of them getting hired and I agree, I lost all respect for Randall in that final minute. It did seem like he wanted all the glory for himself when in actuality it wouldn't have dimmed his light one bit!


----------



## Jotas (Mar 19, 2005)

That's crazy, the guy worked his butt off and I agree with his decision. That is the title of the show The Apprentice as he stated. If Trump wanted to hire Rebecca he didn't need a second opinion, hell its his show. Would you like some cheese with that whine?


----------



## boywaja (Sep 30, 2001)

unbelievable. After the way they were buddies all throughout and then he just slams the door in her face. Perhaps 4inziksych is right that Randall felt hurt by her mild attacks. And this was his revenge. Or perhaps the poster who said he didn't want to share the spotlight is right. Either way, in 5 seconds he just destroyed his goodwill with America.


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

Man, nobody's sticking up for Randal? Well I can't either. I let out a big BOO when he did that. I kind of figured the whole thing about not collecting any charity at the event was going to do Rebecca in. But it was still going to be a close one, unlike the last couple of seasons where the choice was very clear and there was no drama.

So when is Rebecca gonna show up in Maxim? :up:


----------



## mmilton80 (Jul 28, 2005)

Rediculous. What an ass. Would a double hiring really hurt Randall's feelings? I wish Trump said after Randall said no " Randall, I'm lucky you are my employee and what I say goes."


----------



## kar74 (Feb 13, 2005)

That was so totally wrong. I also lost all respect for Randall when he shot down any hope of Rebecca being hired. I think that if Rebecca were chosen, she'd have hired Randall in a second.

Boo, Randall. :down: 

~kar


----------



## spanozzo (Mar 1, 2004)

I can not believe Randall. I think Randall made a HUGE mistake. He instantly made himself the odd man out and it was all about him. His ego was so huge that he couldn't humble himself to the very impressive 23 year old woman. How many 23 year olds accomplised what she did. Randall looked defensive the whole time like the world was out to get him. The young girl had it together. 

Randall - I hope trump fires you.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Wow I liked Randall up until now and though the two of them were pretty honest and loyal but now he came off as a total egomaniac and ass.


----------



## itstrue (Dec 20, 2004)

As I write this at 11pm CST, the NBC website has a practically blank front page, with an Apprentice link that goes to the show's home page BEFORE tonight's program. Maybe NBC had to pull the page announcing both had won?


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

itstrue said:


> As I write this at 11pm CST, the NBC website has a practically blank front page, with an Apprentice link that goes to the show's home page BEFORE tonight's program. Maybe NBC had to pull the page announcing both had won?


They don't usually update it until after the west coast airing anyway, so I wouldn't read much into that.

Another boo for Randall. Talk about a graceless winner.


----------



## TheDewAddict (Aug 21, 2002)

As this episode started, my girlfriend asked me who I wanted to win. I said I liked both Rebecca and Randall, and I'd be happy if either one won. If I had to pick one person though, I said I would pick Rebecca, but I didn't know why. 

As I watched the show, and especially tbe boardroom(s) toward the end, I really started rooting for Rebecca. But when Randall won, I was still happy.....at least until he stabbed her in the back. Way to go Randall, you just lost the respect and goodwill from a LOT of people. All to glorify your ego, and keep all the glory to yourself.

I'm sure Rebecca will go on to great things, but no matter what Randall does, in my eyes he will always be the one who harmed another person for no other reason than pure selfishness. If I were Rebecca, I'd kick him in the nuts during the wrap party.


----------



## mmilton80 (Jul 28, 2005)

I'm actually mad. While I am sure Rebecca will do great things, I'm pretty pissed that Randall attempted to road block her. Someone should punch him in the back of the head.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

mmilton80 said:


> Someone should punch him in the back of the head.


waiting...


----------



## ScottE22 (Sep 19, 2003)

All of the goodwill and respect Randal had earned -- at least with me -- disappeared in 5 seconds.

Sure, Jotas, it's Trump's show and he didn't need Randal's permission, but I highly doubt The Donald actually thought Randal would do that! I had a feeling the whole thing was rehearsed -- did you see the smile on Rebecca's face right up to that instant? 

...and then he threw her under the bus...

:down: :down: :down: Randal :down: :down: :down:


----------



## ayrton911 (Sep 4, 2000)

I liked Randall a lot during this season, but I wanted Rebecca to win. I feel Randall has such a high look at himself that it could hurt him (he is brilliant), but I think it did hurt him tonight. People are going to remember Randall, for this. Maybe having to share the spotlight would *not* have been what he hoped for, but he would have been the guy who said "She'd do great on your luxury building project Mr. Trump." Now he is the guy who wanted it all for himself. 

Randall has a valid argument that it should be for "one," tonight, but if Trump thinks its a case that both should be hired, Randall should have let it happen especially since it was live and everyone was going to see Randall turn it down. Maybe in the back of a boardroom you could do this, but I don't know if this was the right situation to deny Rebecca. 

I don't think Randall is a bad guy at all, he is really great, but its unfortunate he is going to be remembered for this. Maybe Trump will announce hiring Rebecca tomorrow. haha.  

Nevertheless, it made great television!


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

Well AT LEAST she finally got off the crutches.


----------



## Romera (May 29, 2000)

The apprentice is a game show. As a game show (and I don't care how important it was to Trump as an interview process), only one person should win. If Trump wants to hire them both - great. But the Apprentice is not a 13 week interview, it is an entertainment program. It would be ridiculous to have more than one person win. Why not just hire all 16 at the begining since they were the best 16 out of more than a million people.

The classless person was Trump for putting Randall in that position in the first place. Whatever you think of Randall's answer, it is a question that Trump should not have asked. Randall would have looked like dumb no matter how he answered that question.

Steve


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

Romera said:


> Why not just hire all 16 at the begining since they were the best 16 out of more than a million people.
> 
> Steve


You apparently never saw Marcus! Or Toral!

He wouldn't have looked bad if he had graciously said she was great and Trump should hire her.

Imagine the awkward moment when Rebecca and Randall meet at the punch bowl at the wrap party. Does everybody there feel the way we do, do you think? Is Randall like a villain now? Maybe he'll get fired tomorrow.


----------



## Jotas (Mar 19, 2005)

Romera said:


> The apprentice is a game show. As a game show (and I don't care how important it was to Trump as an interview process), only one person should win. If Trump wants to hire them both - great. But the Apprentice is not a 13 week interview, it is an entertainment program. It would be ridiculous to have more than one person win. Why not just hire all 16 at the begining since they were the best 16 out of more than a million people.
> 
> The classless person was Trump for putting Randall in that position in the first place. Whatever you think of Randall's answer, it is a question that Trump should not have asked. Randall would have looked like dumb no matter how he answered that question.
> 
> Steve


I agree. This is a game and that is what the whole hype was about. Who will be the last one standing. Trump should've just gone ahead with his grand idea and hired both if that is what he wanted to do. He should not have put the decision on Randall. Remember, Randall is the one being hired not the other way around. Had The Donald simply said "your both hired" (which I thought was going to happen) then everyone would be overjoyed and pleased. Alas there has to a winner and second place.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Trump was so into mass firings all season, why not a mass hiring? He should have given Randall the chance to hire Rebecca to work for HIM.

I still think the producers threw Rebecca under the bus by setting up her task with Joe Piscopo without vetting him for the union thing. It's not like she picked him from a list, and it was a harder hurdle to overcome than a rainstorm.


----------



## Animgif (Jan 4, 2002)

That was just classless. He had nothing to lose -- he was the clear winner -- and everything to gain -- show that he was really a good business person by having the business sense to give Trump two excellent employees. Now he will forever be remembered as the guy that was a di*k at the end of the season for no good reason.


----------



## latenight (May 5, 2005)

My dream scenario after Randall rediculously threw Rebecca under a bus was for Trump to say "Randall, Its a shame that your ego would come in the way of an obviously good business decision for me. If you cant recognize this kind of talent than maybe you're not the apprentice I thought you would be. Randall you're fired... Rebecca... You're hired" and end the show....

Now THAT would have had everyone talking tomorrow.


----------



## latenight (May 5, 2005)

Jotas said:


> I agree. This is a game and that is what the whole hype was about. Who will be the last one standing. Trump should've just gone ahead with his grand idea and hired both if that is what he wanted to do. He should not have put the decision on Randall. Remember, Randall is the one being hired not the other way around. Had The Donald simply said "your both hired" (which I thought was going to happen) then everyone would be overjoyed and pleased. Alas there has to a winner and second place.


Obviously Randall had heard the rumors that they would both be hired and didnt want any of that. Before he was hired I remember him saying something about "and that is why I should be the sole apprentice"


----------



## PacMan3000 (Sep 23, 2003)

Why, after watching this show for three months, would you want to see BOTH people win? So what if they were both qualified--you hire the better person. I can't imagine watching this years past Superbowl, and as the Patriots raised the Lombardi trophy, the NFL Comissioner comes up and states, "New England, you played great, but you know, the Eagles played their hearts out too. I think they deserve a Superbowl Ring as well."

If Trump wanted to hire two people--hire two people. State at the start of the season you are looking for two winners. But don't pull a stunt hire at the end just so viewers can turn to each other and go "Oooooh! I didn't see that coming." 

While hiring Rebecca wouldn't have HURT Randal, I can understand where he's coming from. I'd also be upset if I was the CLEAR winner--in regards to PM wins, experience, education, raising $11,000, and having the support of most of my fellow collegeagues--and Trump wanted to also hire someone else I've been working hard to beat. If that's the case, why even have the final comeptition?

Hiring the two of them would've been a cop-out. Just hire the best person or re-configure your rules for "The Apprentice 5."


----------



## DLL66 (Oct 21, 2002)

The Donald probably is hooking up Rebecca.


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

_OMG- Omarossa's Revenge!_


----------



## bro1ncos (Aug 2, 2004)

While I don't necessarily agree with Randal, what is wrong with him having the opinion that Rebecca wouldn't make a good executive in the Trump organization? Most of the people here say it was because of his ego, but really no one on this board has any idea exactly why he did this. Like I said, maybe he just didn't think Rebecca was ready for that position. Let the man have his opinion without everyone talking about what a bad person he is.


----------



## Peter Miller (Nov 28, 2001)

latenight said:


> My dream scenario after Randall rediculously threw Rebecca under a bus was for Trump to say "Randall, Its a shame that your ego would come in the way of an obviously good business decision for me. If you cant recognize this kind of talent than maybe you're not the apprentice I thought you would be. Randall you're fired... Rebecca... You're hired" and end the show....
> 
> Now THAT would have had everyone talking tomorrow.


Holy crap would that have made for some good TV.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Rhodes scholar: "I had no idea the issue of Autism was such an issue, but it's a really big issue. We hope you'll contribute to this issue." ?????

Disease? Epidemic? Can't a RS come up with a better word than "Issue?"


----------



## danielhart (Apr 27, 2004)

latenight said:


> My dream scenario after Randall rediculously threw Rebecca under a bus was for Trump to say "Randall, Its a shame that your ego would come in the way of an obviously good business decision for me. If you cant recognize this kind of talent than maybe you're not the apprentice I thought you would be. Randall you're fired... Rebecca... You're hired" and end the show....
> 
> Now THAT would have had everyone talking tomorrow.


I alsmost smeeked your idea - glad I read the whole thread first. Like many people, I thought Randall had the edge going into the final task but as the last episode wore on, I became more of a Rebecca fan. I think Trump did as well and that's why he started toying with the idea of a dual hiring. She handled herself with class while Randall became egotistical and petty. And then for Randall to do what he did at the end, what a freakin' jerk. :down:

Did anyone else notice Rebecca's response? She stood up, shook Trump's hand, and said "That's unfortunate." Class all the way :up:


----------



## forecheck (Aug 5, 2000)

Wow, bad PR move by Randall.


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

mmilton80 said:


> Someone should punch him in the back of the head.


4 or five times... There I did it. Happy now?

Oh yeah, That was a total d!ck move by Randall. Regardless of it being a gameshow, the grounds have and always were set by Trump. Even though it started out with only one person being fired each week, he changed it as he saw fit and fired 1-4 people to fit the situation. Prior to this he had never encountered 2 final contestants who deserved to win as much as Randall and Rebecca. I think it was completely valid for Trump to want to hire both and reflects VERY poorly on Randall for his handling of the situation.


----------



## appleye1 (Jan 26, 2002)

brianp6621 said:


> 4 or five times... There I did it. Happy now?


Wow, that took longer than I thought it would.


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

I think Randal may have been confused. He may have thought Trump meant for Rebecca and him to work together. But a good executive would have at least asked some questions:

*TRUMP:* Randal, should I hire Rebecca, too? I respect your opinion and will go with it.
*RANDAL:* What do you mean, to work alongside me?
*TRUMP:* No. You took Atlantic City, so that's yours. If you think I should hire Rebecca, too, then we'll give her the condo building that she wanted.
*RANDAL:* Oh, in that case, sure. She's very deserving.
*TRUMP:* Well, then, Rebecca, you're hired, too!

But this whole thing assumes Trump meant that they'd be independent of each other. What if he really DID mean that they would work together? If Trump meant for them to work together, then I would have said "No", too.


----------



## Proto (Mar 4, 2004)

You people all make me LAUGH. Randall is hands down, clear-cut, every way shape and form better than Rebecca, PERIOD. The fact that he would hire him, and then take the shine off of his win and hire her too just smacks of no class :down: 



Kwame was just as good as Bill....did you see Trump asking him if he should take Kwame too?? Thought so.



Randall is unbelievable talent....total CEO material. Why the hell work for a clown like Trump?


----------



## hollywoodguy (Dec 16, 2005)

I was so impressed with everything about Randall - until last night. Trump can't fire him tomorrow - but he is going to bury him in the organization. He'll never do any public appearances for Trump after what he did last night. 

And no mattter what he does to try and redeem himself - the World saw the real Randall last night and will never forget it.


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

[spin] Randal's grandmother in her grave[/spin]


----------



## Ruth (Jul 31, 2001)

Wow, what the hell was he thinking? What an idiot. Now everyone in America knows he's a jerk. Not much of a career move.


----------



## beeman65 (Oct 18, 2005)

He probably thought that he came this far and worked so hard for it, he wanted the title all to himself. Still though, to leave the decision to Randall is stupid. Trump can do what he wants.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

bro1ncos said:


> While I don't necessarily agree with Randal, what is wrong with him having the opinion that Rebecca wouldn't make a good executive in the Trump organization? Most of the people here say it was because of his ego, but really no one on this board has any idea exactly why he did this. Like I said, maybe he just didn't think Rebecca was ready for that position. Let the man have his opinion without everyone talking about what a bad person he is.


To say that Randall suddenly started making decisions on who would be a good executive for a job with an organization that hired him 90 seconds ago is far-fetched, at best. He was still in the mode of begging for a job and saying he was better than Rebecca, and it was a continuation of that.

Trump may be a little wacky, but he had to know going in what he was going to do. If the question was planned or not, all it did was put Randall on the spot so he takes as much heat as Randall. That exchange added nothing to the show except negative. If he wants to hire Rebecca, he'll still hire her and the comments won't change it. Actually, the exchange may lead to her hiring to save a little face for all of them.

As far as Randall looking bad or hurting his career, how? Anyone know how the other winners are doing? Any negative things they did on the show coming back to haunt them? I don't see it hurting him at all, beyond comments like on this board.



Proto said:


> You people all make me LAUGH. Randall is hands down, clear-cut, every way shape and form better than Rebecca, PERIOD.
> 
> Randall is unbelievable talent....total CEO material. Why the hell work for a clown like Trump?


I am sure that your "laughing" will go a long way. Actually, from a business perspective, Rebecca has qualities that are superior to Randall (as far as the editing of the show has revealed). She appears to be less flustered, and much more willing to jump in and take risks, and based on what we know she seems to be more well-rounded than Randall in areas other than strictly business (considering her age). Just as Randall has an exceptional presence that came out from the beginning, Rebecca has an excellent combination of charisma, toughness, and a willingness to take risks (coincidentally, excellent characteristics for real estate). They both have qualities that make up for the weaknesses.

I do believe an argument can be made that Rebecca would be at least as good of a fit for the actual job of Trump Apprentice (though we really don't know what that is like until Rancic writes another book). At 23, she has a lot of qualities that Randall does not have, and at his stage, likely will not have. Not that it is a female issue, but I think there is a clear comparison to Carolyn. Rebecca has huge upside.

Random comments - The employees seemed to do well, with much less drama as past shows. Alla again came off as the stripper she is, and is bucking for whatever scraps she could get. She was a failure at becoming the next Omorosa and will be forgotten. Jennifer M. came off as the smitten Barbie she probably is, Toral got a little redemption (just a little), and Marshawn was about as useless and vacant as she had been throughout. No air time for Marcus? He has to be disappointed.


----------



## Mike Wells (Mar 9, 2000)

Romera said:


> The classless person was Trump for putting Randall in that position in the first place. Whatever you think of Randall's answer, it is a question that Trump should not have asked. Randall would have looked like dumb no matter how he answered that question.


I agree here. Randall looked very bad - no class at all in blocking her from a job - but the question shouldn't have been asked. Nobody looks good here.

I think Randall got mad during the exchange when Rebecca went on about how he wasn't able to lead, or that his focusing on the details causes him to miss the big picture. Isn't that exactly what she did with the final task - focus on the Yahoo details while overlooking the Glasier foundation?

Randal should not have to share the Apprentice win, and it was Trump's fault for even suggesting it.


----------



## bivs (May 12, 2005)

Bottom Line.. It was great TV. When it is all said and done. You have to remeber that it is just a tv show.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Proto said:


> Kwame was just as good as Bill.....


That made ME laugh.


----------



## TiVo'Brien (Feb 8, 2002)

I swear I heard Rebecca at the end say "I support that", meaning she respected Randall's decision. I had to hit replay a few times, but it's there.

Yeah, no skin off Randall's nose if Rebecca also gets a shot. He still came in first place. There were enough spoils to go around, but he didn't want her to have any. Bad move. :down:

I thought Rebecca really caved to the Yahoo execs way too easily at the expense of the EGPAF. Her event turned into an evening of entertainment sponsored by Yahoo -- and nothing else except for the one sign and a few pamphlets. :down:


----------



## 4inziksych (Mar 1, 2003)

bro1ncos said:


> While I don't necessarily agree with Randal, what is wrong with him having the opinion that Rebecca wouldn't make a good executive in the Trump organization? Most of the people here say it was because of his ego, but really no one on this board has any idea exactly why he did this. Like I said, maybe he just didn't think Rebecca was ready for that position. Let the man have his opinion without everyone talking about what a bad person he is.


Except that he told us why he did it. He wanted to be the sole winner.


----------



## TriBruin (Dec 10, 2003)

A couple of thoughts....

Boo Randall. Granted that was a no win question from Trump, but I think picked the wrong answer and made himself look bad.

All though there is no "official" winner of the last task. I clearly believe that Rebecca handled her task MUCH better than Randall. The fact that she did not raise money at the event was beyond her control. The Yahoo executives were VERY specific with their instructions "NO BEGGING FOR MONEY!". So specific they repeated it multiple times. YAHOO treated the event as a VIP event for their corporate sponsers and not as a fundraiser. Boo them, but Rebecca ran the event to perfection. (Beside, I would like to know how much money was later sent in as a result of the envelopes? Any one of thoses VIPs could have blown the $11,000 Randall raised away)

Randall did all fair job at most. His event was poorly planned to start. Granted he can't control the weather, but he could/should have made better alternative plans. His actual event just run well.

BTW - Alla :down: I don't know what show she is watching. To say that Rebecca did not have what it takes? Classless.


----------



## HoosierFan (May 8, 2001)

I was just thinking this morning...

Randall's reasoning is a little flawed. He says the show is "THE Apprentice" so there should be only one. But there isn't just one. There are now four.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Only one yahoo comment here so far. I do think she didn't see the 'goal' of the task unfortunately. And ever person who attended that function should be ashamed. At least send in 5 bucks! Whatever VIPs were invited by yahoo should be especially singled out. 50K is nice, but I would have donated a bit more but then again it's not my money. 1million would have impressed me. 100K just said 'oops we messed up and better fix the PR thing.' 

did you notice the 2 women behind Randy (last 2 voted off) nodding in extreme agreement when he said not to hire Becky? Very telling 

Just watched Becky on Today for a second. She said "Randall is entitled to his opinion" and she was gracious. She knows that there are other options and she's a winner anyways. When asked if she would hire Randall she said she would and I do think she wasn't just giving the PC response. But I'm biased of course. She said there is no reason to exclude valuable individuals from an organization. Could be taken as a round about dig on him lol

There was a yahoo exec on the Today show and they want to hire her for Yahoo Finance. Interesting to see what she does, she expressed interest. 

Maybe yahoo pays better than Trump


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

newsposter said:


> There was a yahoo exec on the Today show and they want to hire her for Yahoo Finance. Interesting to see what she does, she expressed interest.
> 
> Maybe yahoo pays better than Trump


I would expect that either of them could make far more money than Trump's salary, and that it is probably a pay cut for both.

Maybe if you call her "Bceky" enough it will magically become her name. Or cute or amusing.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Trump this morning talked up Randys education. Randy said that if you won a gold medal, would you want to share it? Trump said that 99% of the ppl out there would have hired Rebecca but Randall didn't "he's a tough guy." Randall said even though the condo project was closer to home, the AC project sounded exciting. 

Interesting that when asked his first day of work, DT said we will talk about that in 2 minutes and Randall said 'we will negotiate that.' I'm no exec but I'd assume that if I was in this game to win, I would have had a plan "B" to start work right away Randy! I don't think DT likes to keep waiting.


----------



## Kaliboom (Dec 16, 2005)

PacMan3000 said:


> Why, after watching this show for three months, would you want to see BOTH people win? So what if they were both qualified--you hire the better person. I can't imagine watching this years past Superbowl, and as the Patriots raised the Lombardi trophy, the NFL Comissioner comes up and states, "New England, you played great, but you know, the Eagles played their hearts out too. I think they deserve a Superbowl Ring as well."
> 
> If Trump wanted to hire two people--hire two people. State at the start of the season you are looking for two winners. But don't pull a stunt hire at the end just so viewers can turn to each other and go "Oooooh! I didn't see that coming."
> 
> ...


I think its pretty interesting that everyone is against Randall for standing up for himself but had Rebecca won and was asked if she thinks Randall she get the job we all know she would have said no. She tried to stab Randall in the back at least twice during the interview process and Randall took it like a man AND STILL WON! Rebecca came out in her game face but did you see how she was trembling when she was talking to Trump... I mean she was so amped up she was almost losing her cool. I do believe that Randall had a feeling that Trump was going to try and hire both of them and I thought it was very interesting when he made the comment that "this is why there should be one and only apprentice" I think Randall finally stood up and was the Tenacious Tiger that everyone kept making Rebecca out to be. That foolishness that she did with Tora alone should have gotten her fired. Basicallly she felt close to Tora because Tora went with her to the hospital and held her hand after she broke her ankle. Had Tora done something that was worthy of backing her up then by all means I would have understood BUT EVEN TRUMP told her she was stupid for standing up for her. If anything Randall should have been asked if he would like to take Rebecca on to be his apprentice!


----------



## BucketBrew (Dec 6, 2005)

> Alla again came off as the stripper she is, and is bucking for whatever scraps she could get. She was a failure at becoming the next Omorosa and will be forgotten.


 _--Hansky_

Watching Alla in the background during the Boardroom is priceless-- er, I mean classless. She's nodding her head "NO" like a poodle in the back window of a family cruiser, and when Randall say's "no" to Trump she whoops it up like she's auditioning to become the next Arsenio Hall. I cannot imagine anyone having less class than Alla.


----------



## TivoZorro (Jul 16, 2000)

TiVo'Brien said:


> I swear I heard Rebecca at the end say "I support that", meaning she respected Randall's decision. I had to hit replay a few times, but it's there.


After Randall said no I think what Rebecca said was "that's unfortunate". I think she was disappointed. I already deleted my recording so I can't go back and check.


----------



## latenight (May 5, 2005)

Am I the only one who doesnt think Randall is as golden as the rest of the world seems to. Randall had everyone on his side when his grandmother passed away and didnt do anything to screw it up. I dont think he ever did anything extraordinary. He was HORRIBLE in the final task. I dont think he did a single thing right and he was full of crap that he had the makings of a plan B. I remember the Outback guy asking Randall if he needed more tents in case it rains and his answer was "oh, its not going to rain"/

Rebecca was screwed either way. If she did fund raising at the show and the executives hated the event because of it she would have been equally screwed. Considering this was the ONLY negative thing about the event she was the clear winner of the task.

What Rebecca should have done during the live show when Randall went on his I'm undefeated and you have a bad record soapbox was to say , No Randall you were not as I clearly performed better in the final task and then go down the line with his mistakes (there were more than a few) - Sending 4 people to Party City, Missing an important meeting with the MC (Radio DJ), Only having one person set up tents, making the client (charity) nervous. Since she was able to see his mistakes on the show it should have been easy for her to do this.


----------



## latenight (May 5, 2005)

TivoZorro said:


> After Randall said no I think what Rebecca said was "that's unfortunate". I think she was disappointed. I already deleted my recording so I can't go back and check.


No, thats right. In the end I think Rebecca is better off as she will get a very good offer elsewhere and unfortunately the Apprentice position is more PR than business.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

bro1ncos said:


> While I don't necessarily agree with Randal, what is wrong with him having the opinion that Rebecca wouldn't make a good executive in the Trump organization? Most of the people here say it was because of his ego, but really no one on this board has any idea exactly why he did this. Like I said, maybe he just didn't think Rebecca was ready for that position. Let the man have his opinion without everyone talking about what a bad person he is.


I think part of it, well for me at least, was that for the last 3 weeks Randal had been kissing up to Rebecca. They worked well as a team, and it seemed like they were best of friends. In the board room you have to state your case why you should win. I understand that. And he did say a few times how outstanding she was. Now all of a sudden, he disses her like that. And, I disagree with everyone who says that Trump was wrong putting him in that spot. In fact, in many ways, this was Randal's first decison as a memember of the Trump Org. He had a say in hiring a new employee. I agree Trump could have spun it different. He could have said, Randal, you are the winner, but, I feel that as an employer, I need to recognize talent, and I think Rebecca would be an asset to my firm as well. This way Randal's ego was stroked, and Rebecca gets hired too.

Yes it's a game, but this is NOT the same as a football game, where everyone is on a level playing field. In a football game, two teams go at it and their proformance directly leads to an objective winner. This game, is completely SUBJECTIVE. It's up to one man, Trump to decide a winner, and by all rights, if he wanted to pick Rebecca over Randal because she was a "hot chick", that's his perogative. This is STILL someone being hired for a job at the end of the day, and I've seen many times where two people are hired because they are both qualified and they don't want to lose the talent.


----------



## kmccbf (Mar 9, 2002)

I'm not normally a watcher of this show, but my wife is hooked and I usually watch the board rooms with her when I get home from work. I don't really think that Randall blocked Rebecca from being hired, just from being hired as "The Apprentice." He said he said if I remember right. "...tonight, there should be only one hiring." As far as a game show portion, he won, fair and square and deserved to be recognized for that. I felt that the wording that Randall used was such that it implied. "Of course, once we are off the air, and the contest is over..." 

I would like to have seen Rebecca hired, and I think it is likely that she will be, unless she turns it down, but not as "The Apprentice." Trump still might want someone for the New Jersey project, and Rebecca would still be a good canidate.


----------



## grecorj (Feb 6, 2002)

Poorly executed finale -- yet again! -- by the producers of the show.

Trump should simply have called it a tie and hired both at the sime time. Period. They took a gamble and put it all on Randal's shoulders, which was unfair to him. Perhaps he should have taken a different tact for his answer, but it's not like he had time to think about it! I'm willing to cut Randal some slack on this.

Plus, it's just a tv show. Does anyone really think these people have any authority whatsoever on the Trump projects?


----------



## latenight (May 5, 2005)

grecorj said:


> Poorly executed finale -- yet again! -- by the producers of the show.
> 
> Trump should simply have called it a tie and hired both at the sime time. Period. They took a gamble and put it all on Randal's shoulders, which was unfair to him. Perhaps he should have taken a different tact for his answer, but it's not like he had time to think about it! I'm willing to cut Randal some slack on this.
> 
> Plus, it's just a tv show. Does anyone really think these people have any authority whatsoever on the Trump projects?


Randall had definitely thought about it before he went into the show last night as he had mentioned that he should be the "sole" apprentice before Trump ever brought it up.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

kmccbf said:


> I'm not normally a watcher of this show, but my wife is hooked and I usually watch the board rooms with her when I get home from work. I don't really think that Randall blocked Rebecca from being hired, just from being hired as "The Apprentice." He said he said if I remember right. "...tonight, there should be only one hiring." As far as a game show portion, he won, fair and square and deserved to be recognized for that. I felt that the wording that Randall used was such that it implied. "Of course, once we are off the air, and the contest is over..."
> 
> I would like to have seen Rebecca hired, and I think it is likely that she will be, unless she turns it down, but not as "The Apprentice." Trump still might want someone for the New Jersey project, and Rebecca would still be a good canidate.


He may have said that, and meant it that way, but that's NOT how it came off to the majority of viewers. It came off as pompous. I think how Trump could have handled it, is by having Randal HIRE Rebecca. This way it's clear Randal won, but Rebecca still gets to work.

When you think about it, and based on what Randal had said, most of these folks who are on this show are not there for the salary, they are their for the fame and the career advancement that could come with the fame. Randal, with his education and his current job which heads (as he said) a multimillion dollar firm, is going to make his money and be successful. When you look at it THAT way, being hired as The Apprentice is most definitely an EGO thing, and he definitely let his get in the way of his decision.


----------



## Blackssr (Mar 4, 2004)

Win Joy Jr said:


> You saw the true Randall tonight. Everything else was just an act.
> 
> Randall: YOU SUCK!


Trump gave Randy a rope and now he thinks he's a cowboy! Also did you notice all Randalls coworkers were black.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Blackssr said:


> Also did you notice all Randalls coworkers were black.


And your point is?


----------



## BetterYeti (Aug 24, 2004)

4inziksych said:


> Except that he told us why he did it. He wanted to be the sole winner.


He was the sole winner. He was number one. . . . And he blew his first executive decision, by passing up a talent like Rebecca. Maybe he was trying to show he is tough enough for a city like New York. ******.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Kaliboom said:


> That foolishness that she did with Tora alone should have gotten her fired. Basicallly she felt close to Tora because Tora went with her to the hospital and held her hand after she broke her ankle. Had Tora done something that was worthy of backing her up then by all means I would have understood BUT EVEN TRUMP told her she was stupid for standing up for her.


Completing your thought: Rebecca also heard...MANY times...that he didn't understand why, but admired and loved that she was loyal to her friend. He seemed to like that on personal level. Even in the finale, trump said he admired it. If I was Becky and heard that multiple times, I'd latch on to it as well and say, hey, DT likes my loyalty so I better not get wishy washy now or he will notice. So staying loyal to toral was almost mandatory from my point of view. At least toral didn't say she didn't know why becky was so loyal and went along with the program. Now that would have been funny if she went against her friend.



> Does anyone really think these people have any authority whatsoever on the Trump projects?


I haven't looked up the definition of apprentice lately but thought that implied 2nd fiddle or underling that is close by in order to learn, be shaped etc. So I think the gist is that it's more important to be close to DT rather than actually leader of a company deciding how many bolts the furniture needs. Just my opinion.


----------



## Blackssr (Mar 4, 2004)

Steveknj said:


> And your point is?


All his coworkers are black. Is that tough to comprehend or are you black too?


----------



## Steeler Mike (May 5, 2005)

Blackssr said:


> Is that tough to comprehend or are you black too?


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

Blackssr said:


> All his coworkers are black. Is that tough to comprehend or are you black too?


Ouch.

Anyway, with his business based in Newark, he's just dealing with the majority demographic. Look at his clients - most of them were also black.


----------



## rberry88 (Jul 6, 2003)

latenight said:


> Am I the only one who doesnt think Randall is as golden as the rest of the world seems to. Randall had everyone on his side when his grandmother passed away and didnt do anything to screw it up. I dont think he ever did anything extraordinary. He was HORRIBLE in the final task. I dont think he did a single thing right and he was full of crap that he had the makings of a plan B. I remember the Outback guy asking Randall if he needed more tents in case it rains and his answer was "oh, its not going to rain"/
> 
> Rebecca was screwed either way. If she did fund raising at the show and the executives hated the event because of it she would have been equally screwed. Considering this was the ONLY negative thing about the event she was the clear winner of the task.
> 
> What Rebecca should have done during the live show when Randall went on his I'm undefeated and you have a bad record soapbox was to say , No Randall you were not as I clearly performed better in the final task and then go down the line with his mistakes (there were more than a few) - Sending 4 people to Party City, Missing an important meeting with the MC (Radio DJ), Only having one person set up tents, making the client (charity) nervous. Since she was able to see his mistakes on the show it should have been easy for her to do this.


I couldn't agree more. Also right before they went to a commercial, George was listing some of Randalls' miscues during some task(s) but was cut off (on TV at least ) by the need to cut to a commercial.

And Alla purely showed she is nothing but pure white trash and should be married to a pole. IMHO.


----------



## txfeinbergs (Mar 21, 2004)

I was ok with either person winning until Randall did his backstab. Did you see how during the closing of the show he is up pandering to the crowd trying to get them to whoop it up while Rebecca is back there sitting in the chair. What a total ass. IT'S ALL ABOUT MEEEEEE FOLKS!

Alla would come in next as most classless person of the year in my books (or maybe ahead of Randall even - I am glad they showed the clip of her after her rant where she pretty much showed what a jerk she was).


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Randal comes off like a total jerk in this scenario. Even if Rebecca is hired, it is clear that Randall won. He IS the Apprentice, he is winner. Everyone knows it. 

Trump just recognized potential in Rebecca, wanted to hire her, and they thought it would be a neat twist to have it as part of the finale. Randal could have easily said sonething about how Rebecca is a capable young woman, and if Trump has a position that is right for her, that he should use his judgment and hire whomever he feels will benefit his organization. 

It doesn't take away from his win, I guess it just bruises his ego.


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

Look for this in the next season of The Apprentice:

*TRUMP:* And filling in for Carolyn this week is last year's runner-up Rebecca, who is doing an awesome job with my new billion dollar condominium project off the Hudson River. Rebecca, welcome.
*MARCUS II:* Excuse me, sir, but what about Randal? No offense, Rebecca.
*TRUMP:* Unfortunately, Randal is no longer with the Trump organization. He decided to return to the business he started, and I wish him all the success in the world. Now, for your next task..."


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

latenight said:


> Am I the only one who doesnt think Randall is as golden as the rest of the world seems to. Randall had everyone on his side when his grandmother passed away and didnt do anything to screw it up.


The rumor i'm hearing on the street is that his grandmother never passed away, and he was looking for sympathy...which is the same stunt johny fairplay used a few survivor seasons ago.


----------



## dolcevita (Jan 1, 2004)

Frank_M said:


> You know... about 30 minutes into the finale, I said to my wife "Trump's going to end up hiring both of them." It just started to see that they edited it that way. And to be honest, they both deserved it.
> 
> And then when they had them pick their jobs first? And they took opposite projects? It became more obvious.
> 
> ...


You absolutely read my mind. I don;t know that I would say "Randall sucks", but he definitely has NO class after that move.

What did he gain by that - absolutely nothing. What did he lose -- the respect of a LOT of people. He would have looked like a hero had he said "you know Mr. Trump, you have two projects that need managers and as you just said, it is really hard to find great people, so yes, you should hire Rebecca also -- just don;t call her "the Apprentice"."


----------



## txfeinbergs (Mar 21, 2004)

markymark_ctown said:


> The rumor i'm hearing on the street is that his grandmother never passed away, and he was looking for sympathy...which is the same stunt johny fairplay used a few survivor seasons ago.


Oh wow! I wonder who they buried in the casket then! Maybe its empty!


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

In my opinion, The Donald was the jerk when he asked Randal about hiring Rebecca. HELL NO would have been my answer. I wouldn't have wanted to fight so hard, be chosen, and then being told essentially "you know what, I don't care, I'll hire the other person too". I would have lost respect for Randal if he HAD gone along with it. Sure, it would have been a nice happy hug-fest... but that's not what the show is about.

The finale was a disaster as usual. Not as crappy as last year's (but that was one of the worst network broadcasts I've ever seen, so it wasn't hard to improve on that), but still awful. Why do all of this live, if 95% of it just consists of showing a taped episode anyway? Way too little time spent talking to the fired contestants, but that might be because Trump is a terrible host.


----------



## rberry88 (Jul 6, 2003)

MickeS said:


> Way too little time spent talking to the fired contestants, but that might be because Trump is a terrible host.


We saw way too much of Alla as it was, and you want more?


----------



## Tracy (Mar 12, 2000)

It seemed clear that the producers of the show expected Randal to hire Rebecca. The ending of the show was unclear and a muddle.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Hansky said:


> No air time for Marcus?


They didn't have an extra hour for him to get his sentence out


----------



## ScottE22 (Sep 19, 2003)

rberry88 said:


> We saw way too much of Alla as it was, and you want more?


I spent a good chunk of the Finale on 3-arrow FF assuming it was a bunch of fluff... Now it's deleted and I have no idea what Alla did that was so terrible!! Do tell...


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

Alla did some mean-spirited Rebecca-bashing. And yes, I didn't mind that particularly, I enjoy the drama on the show. But I wanted to hear more from the other contestants. And it would have been nice to get Marcus' views. 



> The ending of the show was unclear and a muddle.


Just like the beginning and the middle.  The previous Apprentice finales have been even worse, so I wouldn't read too much into that, in regards to whether they expected 2 Apprentices or not. The finale is always a big, horrible mess.


----------



## etexlady (Jun 23, 2002)

I thought the finale was an hour too long. I am with the group who didn't see Randal as the golden boy. I'm sorry George was cut off for commercials as I believe he was going to call Randal on his continual chant that he had won three tasks as PM. I think he was going to comment that a lamp post could have been PM in a couple of those early tasks and won due to the fact that the ladies were so disorganized. Carolyn had already stated that he made a major error not having a Plan B for the final task, something any good manager would have in place. I would have been okay with Randal's win but, as someone said on another forum, he scored the touchdown but it was totally without class to spike the ball in Rebecca's face.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

By the way, I'm surprised how much the discussion is about Randal's last comments. When I watched it, I didn't think it was a big deal, I just thought it was a really crappy thing of Trump to do at that point, but didn't reflect much on it. Seemed like a perfectly natural reaction to me. Then I go online this morning and that's all that people write about.


----------



## Proto (Mar 4, 2004)

markymark_ctown said:


> The rumor i'm hearing on the street is that his grandmother never passed away, and he was looking for sympathy...which is the same stunt johny fairplay used a few survivor seasons ago.


And the rumor I'm hearing is......YOU'RE FULL OF IT.


----------



## ChofuHS (Apr 15, 2004)

mmilton80 said:


> Rediculous. What an ass. Would a double hiring really hurt Randall's feelings? I wish Trump said after Randall said no " Randall, I'm lucky you are my employee and what I say goes."


Trump showed he was a good manager. Don't ask an employee their recommendation if you don't accept it. Not that you always have to take the advice, but the way he asked Randall was really like, hey, I will let you decide, and then he stuck with the recommendation. Trump could have asked Randall in such a way as to blow him off, but he didn't. Maybe today, Trump will talk to him again, due to bad PR and Randall will reconsider.

Randall showed his true inner self, and it an ugly politician kind of self. He lost a lot of good will with his recommendation. Really sucks! It teaches us all, no matter how strong the act, some people will let you down if given the chance. I am really upset that he disappointed many of us.


----------



## ChofuHS (Apr 15, 2004)

Observations:

1. It should have been clearly spelled out to each person what the relationship was between the charity and the sponsors. No way Rebecca should have taken a hit when Yahoo hamstrung her ability to collect for the charity. Gee Mr. Trump, am I suppose to collet a few dollars for a charity and piss off a major corporation forever?

2. Rebecca should have never played the "ankle card." She would have gained so much more respect for NEVER bringing it up.

3. Rebecca's final speech at explaining Randall's weaknesses should have been "zilch" Mr. Trump. He made a few mistakes during the whole process which is human and he seems to learn and adapt from each one. Randall, is like me, a great person with unlimited potential.
Instead, her speech about Randall's focus about objectives sounded like she was talking about herself in the final task where she lost the objective of collecting for the charity.

4. Randall will always be remembered as the guy who made a ruthless, incorrect decision as his very first decision as the Apprentice.

5. Trump's final speech how this is more than just entertainment, it really is about hiring someone and it is a very important decision. BS. He hires one of these people, the overall pay for one year for either of them is less than he makes from one episode of the show. He can always transfer someone if they begin screwing up a project during their first year. It is just a show Trump so don't shovel this out like it really matters very much, it doesn't.

I haven't looked for the fallout today in the media, but it should be interesting, as Trump surely will have pressure on him to do something for Rebecca.


----------



## cmgal (Oct 2, 2003)

I wonder how Randall's "employees" for the final task feel about him now that he's shown his true colors. I'm sure he would have made the same decision if either of the three would have been in the final and performed as well as Rebecca throughout the season.


----------



## Steveknj (Mar 10, 2003)

Blackssr said:


> All his coworkers are black. Is that tough to comprehend or are you black too?


I should have said "so"? Does it matter whether they were black, white, green or blue? And I am not black.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

What's this about his "true colors"? Like it's a BAD thing to want to be the sole winner?


----------



## markymark_ctown (Oct 11, 2004)

Proto said:


> And the rumor I'm hearing is......YOU'RE FULL OF IT.


that's not the first time that's been said!


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

MickeS said:


> In my opinion, The Donald was the jerk when he asked Randal about hiring Rebecca. HELL NO would have been my answer. I wouldn't have wanted to fight so hard, be chosen, and then being told essentially "you know what, I don't care, I'll hire the other person too". I would have lost respect for Randal if he HAD gone along with it. Sure, it would have been a nice happy hug-fest... but that's not what the show is about.


You say that like they would have to split the salary and work on the same project. I'm pretty sure the deal would have been that they each work on the project they picked and each get a full salary ($250K ?). In which case what the hell does this take away from Randal? I think that's where most of the negative reaction is coming from.


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

RBlount said:


> The fact that she did not raise money at the event was beyond her control. The Yahoo executives were VERY specific with their instructions "NO BEGGING FOR MONEY!". So specific they repeated it multiple times.





ChofuHS said:


> No way Rebecca should have taken a hit when Yahoo hamstrung her ability to collect for the charity. Gee Mr. Trump, am I suppose to collet a few dollars for a charity and piss off a major corporation forever?


They did not prohibit her from finding other more creative ways of raising money. She could have had a raffle, or a silent auction, or any number of fund-raising events that weren't blatant requests or "begging" for money. She goofed by not seeing this.


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

grecorj said:


> Trump should simply have called it a tie and hired both at the sime time. Period. They took a gamble and put it all on Randal's shoulders, which was unfair to him.


Calling it a tie is what would have been unfair to Randal. Trump gave him the respect of naming him the "winner". If Trump wanted to hire both, he didn't have to do that; he could have called them both winners. But after Randal won, there's no harm to his victory in allowing Trump to hire Rebecca. Nothing could have taken away his win.

Randal demonstrated the maxim, "It's not enough that I succeed; others must fail." That's an attitude displayed by many successful leaders, but it's still a despicable quality.

A good leader praises and elevates those under them. A bad one crushes them down so he can take all the glory for himself. Who would you rather work for? Randal should have said, "I am now an employee of the Trump Organization, and as such I must put personal views aside and make decisions that are in the best interest of the company. Therefore, you should hire Rebecca." Trump would have respected that a lot more than, "Noooo! There can be only one! Waaaah!"


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

How is it that Trump can have such a successful show, but have the absolute worst finales?

1. Is it me, or were there more commercial breaks than normal? My 30ss button was actually warm after the show was over!

2. Two hours and the only fired contestant that they spent any real time with was Alla? I was hoping to get Ms. _"I'm Hispanic so I can speak for all Hispanic people"_ to put her foot in her mouth, at least.

3. And geez, Carolyn, give it up with the "Why didn't you check the weather?" BS!! God, that got old! HEY DIMWIT, IT WAS AN OUTDOOR EVENT! WHAT DID YOU EXPECT HIM TO DO, BUILD A SOFTBALL FIELD IN THE CLUBHOUSE? Any amount of rain would ruin the theme of the event.

4. Has Joe Piscopo emerged from hiding to explain his double-standard? _"I'm Mr. Charity. If you have a charity, I'm there!"_ So where were you? And don't blame the Union. No Union would want it on Prime Time that they ruined a charity event for children with AIDS.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

> Randal demonstrated the maxim, "It's not enough that I succeed; others must fail."


When it's a competition with only one winner, it's not a maxim, it's a rule... and I didn't see him as some kind of employee of the Trump organization at that point, I saw him as a contestant in a game show. To ask someone who just won a contest to share his win with the runner up is tacky and unfair.



> How is it that Trump can have such a successful show, but have the absolute worst finales?


I have no idea, I've been wondering the same thing. These finales are painful to watch.  I wish they'd have a host for it other than The Donald, for starters.

At least there weren't too many tacky promo's and musical numbers...


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

jrinck said:


> And don't blame the Union. No Union would want it on Prime Time that they ruined a charity event for children with AIDS.


I kept waiting for the scene where she looked into what the union's requirements were and tried to appease them. Even if she wouldn't have been able to do what they wanted, she should have inquired about. The way they edited it, it looked like she just wrote them off and moved on to plan B.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

> The way they edited it, it looked like she just wrote them off and moved on to plan B.


Isn't that also pretty much what she explicitly stated that she did? Wise move to me, deal with it and move on.


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

MickeS said:


> When it's a competition with only one winner, it's not a maxim, it's a rule... and I didn't see him as some kind of employee of the Trump organization at that point, I saw him as a contestant in a game show. To ask someone who just won a contest to share his win with the runner up is tacky and unfair.


If you won the Jeopardy championship, and Alex said that #2 played so well that they were going to let them keep their money also, how would that take away from your win?

Besides, that's only true if Randal's motivation was simply to win the game show. Then he should have turned down the job and said that all he wanted was to be named winner, thank you very much and I'm going home. But if the goal was to get the job, then he got the job. Allowing Rebecca to get one also wouldn't have changed that in any way.


----------



## fireman18 (Dec 10, 2003)

VERY poor decision not to hire a very bright person. He showed NO class.

He won and Trunmp simply asked if she should be hired too. He would still have been the winner. 

BAD BAD PR move


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

MickeS said:


> Isn't that also pretty much what she explicitly stated that she did? Wise move to me, deal with it and move on.


It might have been something simple, like they were using a non-union electrician and the union wanted them to hire a union electrician. Simple enough to fix, perhaps, and then you get to keep Joe.


----------



## bobsbizzy (Jun 20, 2002)

MickeS said:


> Isn't that also pretty much what she explicitly stated that she did? Wise move to me, deal with it and move on.


Not a wise move, don't give up on something when you don't even know what you're giving up on.

For example (and it's only an example I not saying it would have happened), a call to the Union may have had a response, "what, Joes got the wrong end of the stick, we never said that" or something to that effect. So at least understand what the problem really is before assuming its unresolvable and moving on to a new, and at the time unknown, plan.


----------



## bobsbizzy (Jun 20, 2002)

On the Yahoo thing, Rebecca should have challenged the executives re: the fundraising.

It was called the "Yahoo VIP benefit". If it wasn't for fundraising it shouldn't have been called a benefit. VIP's know they are going to be tapped up when they go to these things, done correctly it can be enjoyable, they can leave with a warm glow that they've done something for others while having a good time. A better feeling than "well that was fun".

Rebecca so missed the reason for the show, that when Toral said "we can get another comedian to jump in" the guy said, "we can't afford it", Toral said "they'll do it for free" and Rebecca said "they'll do it free for a charity, not for Yahoo". Proving that she had completely missed the point of the "benefit" part of it, so blaming the Yahoo executes wasn't the whole story.

As for Randalls event, raising $11,000 from a bunch of VIP's, was pathetic. $100,000 should be the minimum for an event like that, with $250,000 being a great outcome. All that sweat the charity lady put into the event for $11,000 out - pathetic.

This in a town where people spend $100's on dinner!


----------



## bobsbizzy (Jun 20, 2002)

TivoZorro said:


> After Randall said no I think what Rebecca said was "that's unfortunate". I think she was disappointed. I already deleted my recording so I can't go back and check.


In the background to the chaos that followed Randalls classless act, I'm pretty sure I heard Donald say "can you believe that?". I'm not sure to who he said it (I assume Rebecca), but it captured his surprise.

I'm confident that Donald asked the question of Randall because he was confident (like 90% of the rest of us) that the answer would be Yes. This way of doing it provided more showmanship for the TV and bignoted Randall.

Boy, was he (Donald) and Rebecca surprised at the answer.

His moniker in the organization now will be "stab you in the back" Randall.


----------



## bobsbizzy (Jun 20, 2002)

Blackssr said:


> Also did you notice all Randalls coworkers were black.


Did you notice, throughout the show, that nearly all Donald's co executives, and the top executives from nearly all the companies that appeared on the show, are white?

Major need for some diversity in that "club".


----------



## rberry88 (Jul 6, 2003)

Proto said:


> And the rumor I'm hearing is......YOU'RE FULL OF IT.


Quiet Randy, we're talking about you


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

There is debate out there in support of Randal, and it's all about race:

Randal would be the first black apprentice. How coincidental is it that this is the first time Trump asked to share the prize/glory? He didn't ask white Bill Rancic if black Kwame should be hired, too, and Kwame was no slouch.

I'm not saying this argument has any merit, but this COULD have been what was on Randal's mind when he declined Rebecca. Nothing personal, other than the color of her skin. How do you like THAT, white America?


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

rseligman said:


> They did not prohibit her from finding other more creative ways of raising money. She could have had a raffle, or a silent auction, or any number of fund-raising events that weren't blatant requests or "begging" for money. She goofed by not seeing this.


I was about to post this pretty much exactly. Even though I like much of the way Rebecca handled the task and herself, she definitely did goof here and was called on it, rightfully so. A person in that position is supposed to and needs to be able to negotiate or come up with a creative solution for a situation between the 2 parties which seem relatively at odds(the charity wanting to raise money and Yahoo not wanting to beg). This is where she completely missed the mark on this task.


----------



## ChofuHS (Apr 15, 2004)

rseligman said:


> They did not prohibit her from finding other more creative ways of raising money. She could have had a raffle, or a silent auction, or any number of fund-raising events that weren't blatant requests or "begging" for money. She goofed by not seeing this.


She did put the envelopes in the package, but overall you might be right, I just see it another way. To me, it seems like the charites, sponsors and contestants were never on the same page from the beginning with the same goals in mind? 

$11K at the other event was pathetic from the standpoint of collecting funds. With the celebs they had there, they could have done much more. I personally would have shelled out a few grand for some of the autographs and all. How much would a lunch with Sugar Ray Leonard been auctioned off for? Just an odd event (s) all the way around. IF the event was for a charity, they spent more money for renting stuff and all then they took in. It was just an perculiar assignment in my opinion because it didn't seem the sponsors were really there in order to have a charity event. I wonder if the events purposes were miscommunicated to all parties before Randall and Rebecca even came in to the picture?


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

MickeS said:


> ... I saw him as a contestant in a game show. To ask someone who just won a contest to share his win with the runner up is tacky and unfair.


Even in that context, which I don't think it is, It'd be like asking the winner, hey your runner up did such a good job. Would you mind if we gave her a car(assuming the car was the grand prize) also?

Why not? What does it cost you? NOTHING, yet it makes you look like a selfish poor sport who can't share the spotlight. Now if you said Yes, EVERYONE would still know you were the winner and you could be an even BIGGER winner by having been the one who was in control of allowing the runner up to get a prize too, and graciously permitting that.

Randall came across as a big time loser for what he did.


----------



## FourFourSeven (Jan 3, 2003)

brianp6621 said:


> Even in that context, which I don't think it is, It'd be like asking the winner, hey your runner up did such a good job. Would you mind if we gave her a car(assuming the car was the grand prize) also?
> 
> Why not? What does it cost you? NOTHING, yet it makes you look like a selfish poor sport who can't share the spotlight. Now if you said Yes, EVERYONE would still know you were the winner and you could be an even BIGGER winner by having been the one who was in control of allowing the runner up to get a prize too, and graciously permitting that.
> 
> Randall came across as a big time loser for what he did.


I can see why Randall did what he did. There IS a downside. As most of us know, the "Apprentice" job is almost entirely PR. Make public appearances, throw out the first pitch at ballgames, etc, etc. If Rebecca is also hired, suddenly, there are two people doing all that stuff, and Randall has to share the spotlight. I'm not saying that's a good reason, but it's a legitimate one...

I don't agree with what Randall did, but I can see why he did it. Here's how I would have answered if I were him:

"Mr. Trump, the show is called The Apprentice, not the Apprenti - there can and should be only one apprentice. That being said, Rebecca has shown she is incredibly talented and would be an asset to your organization. And I, as your newest employee and one who is quite familiar with Rebecca, strongly endorse you hiring her."

With a simple statement like that, Randall still gets the glory of being the Apprentice (woo hoo!), but comes across as a solid supporter of Rebecca, and she still gets the Trump job.


----------



## goMO (Dec 29, 2004)

Randall really blew it at the end. A great manager looks for a win-win, and not to burn bridges. He turned it into a win-lose, and burned a bridge, and possibly more. 

I was fairly neutral between the two, but liked her more and more as the show went on. She had a certain "something" that he didn't. He was basically reading his resume when asked why he should have the job. She made more of a connection when trying to sell herself.

I'm sure she'll end up on her feet just fine...


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

FourFourSeven said:


> I can see why Randall did what he did. There IS a downside. As most of us know, the "Apprentice" job is almost entirely PR. Make public appearances, throw out the first pitch at ballgames, etc, etc. If Rebecca is also hired, suddenly, there are two people doing all that stuff, and Randall has to share the spotlight. I'm not saying that's a good reason, but it's a legitimate one...
> 
> I don't agree with what Randall did, but I can see why he did it. Here's how I would have answered if I were him:
> 
> ...


I guess I can see that. In my mind your version is the very LEAST I would have found acceptable though it may still have not set well with me.

Did anyone else just cringe at Randall's "Mr. Trump, the show is called The Apprentice, not the Apprenti" line? It just seemed so contrived to me.


----------



## MacThor (Feb 7, 2002)

Why do none of the finalists ever call out the Donald and ask "What the heck does event planning have to do with running one of your construction projects?"


----------



## brianp6621 (Nov 22, 1999)

MacThor said:


> Why do none of the finalists ever call out the Donald and ask "What the heck does event planning have to do with running one of your construction projects?"


It might be because Trump would probably just say it goes a long way in showing your ability to manage a larger task and working towards a goal while dealing with the details as well. In addition it shows your ability to lead and focus a team, work under tight deadlines and cope with sudden changes.

So pretty much exactly what running a construction project would be like except with building materials instead of party favors.


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

FourFourSeven said:


> As most of us know, the "Apprentice" job is almost entirely PR. Make public appearances, throw out the first pitch at ballgames, etc, etc. If Rebecca is also hired, suddenly, there are two people doing all that stuff, and Randall has to share the spotlight.


Not necessarily. Randal had already been crowned *the* apprentice. That wasn't going to change. Trump could have declared a tie, in which case your scenario plays out. But he didn't; he chose Randal, who would always be known as the winner. Rebecca would have just been the runner-up who he also hired.


----------



## bkmunroe (May 24, 2002)

jrinck said:


> Randal would be the first black apprentice. How coincidental is it that this is the first time Trump asked to share the prize/glory? He didn't ask white Bill Rancic if black Kwame should be hired, too, and Kwame was no slouch.


I think Bill and Kwame were even before the final task, but Omarossa torpedoed Kwame and made the decision easy for Trump. Even if it was closer, I don't think he would've hired them both as this was the first series and dual hirings might have become expected after that.

I do think race and gender factored into last night's decision. After white males won the first 2 Apprentices, there were complaints that Trump wasn't giving women and minorities a fair chance. Trump caught flak in season 3 when 2 women made the finals and instead of offering them big projects similar to what the previous winners got, he gave them a choice between renovating a mansion or running a beauty pageant. This was his chance to give a woman and an African-American big projects. Trump could've given Rebecca the other project himself, but then there would've been complaints that he only did that because a black man won and he wouldn't have done it if a white man won. So, he let Randall make the decision. It should've been an easy decision, but Randall blew it. Either way, Randall would've been _The Apprentice_ and he would have had the job he wanted, but instead of saying "Yes" and getting a lot of praise he said "No" and it getting a lot of bad PR.


----------



## Deekeryu (Sep 20, 2005)

I don't think Randall's decision has anything to do with arrogance, or class. The whole deal was why don't you think the other should be the Apprentice, and why should YOU be the Apprentice. Why should the focus change at the last minute as to why another should be an Apprentice.

This is a competition to see who will be the top dog, the best, the chance to win out against all other successful people, not a competition that at the last minute means nothing more than making the whole point of a One winner competition worthless. Just like in sports, and competitions, it would be nice to share the spotlight with the other, but there is only one winner, plain and simple. Randall won and should not have to share the title, and overall maintained the integrity of the Apprentice show.


----------



## syno (Jan 1, 2005)

I think Randal did not understand the question, he was caught up in the moment I think he though if he would have said yes hire her, trump would have taken her and not Randall. As trump is known for this wild cares like firing 4 people at once


----------



## ChofuHS (Apr 15, 2004)

Like everything else, it is all about race. Or it could have been Carl Rove and the Vice President involved in this conspiracy. Hmmmm.


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

syno said:


> I think Randal did not understand the question, he was caught up in the moment I think he though if he would have said yes hire her, trump would have taken her and not Randall.


Trump asked, "would you hire Rebecca _also_?" And then Randal said there should be only one apprentice, not multiple apprenti. So it's clear that he understood that Trump was suggesting hiring them _both_, and not hiring Rebecca _instead_ of Randal.


----------



## NinerK (Oct 10, 2002)

bobsbizzy said:


> On the Yahoo thing, Rebecca should have challenged the executives re: the fundraising.
> 
> It was called the "Yahoo VIP benefit". If it wasn't for fundraising it shouldn't have been called a benefit. VIP's know they are going to be tapped up when they go to these things, done correctly it can be enjoyable, they can leave with a warm glow that they've done something for others while having a good time. A better feeling than "well that was fun".
> 
> ...


Good post here...


----------



## NinerK (Oct 10, 2002)

LOL @ Alla and the "three blonde bimbo brigade" jumping out of their seats with their arms raised when Randal won.....

Also, how about when Toral spoke up for Rebecca and one of the brigade shouted over her "BIASED, BIASED".....  Jealous much?

I think Randal loves himself very much. When introduced he came out with his fist raised to the crowd and greets Caroline, George and the Donald with "let's get this done" Then after he won he hugged all his "peeps" in the cast and ignored the Donald...."Randal, Randal.....RANDAL!" Then after the questions during the closing credits he stands on the stage surveying the crowd.

I dunno, seemed a little fake to me. Oh and then there was the whole; "I'm the only one"....I think he was caught off gaurd. I hope if he had time to think about it he would at least be somewhat complimentry to the hotness that is Rebecca....


----------



## PacMan3000 (Sep 23, 2003)

jrinck said:


> There is debate out there in support of Randal, and it's all about race:
> 
> Randal would be the first black apprentice. How coincidental is it that this is the first time Trump asked to share the prize/glory? He didn't ask white Bill Rancic if black Kwame should be hired, too, and Kwame was no slouch.
> 
> I'm not saying this argument has any merit, but this COULD have been what was on Randal's mind when he declined Rebecca. Nothing personal, other than the color of her skin. How do you like THAT, white America?


That's an interesting point. Now that I think about it, I'll throw fuel on the fire. When Vescepia won Survivor a couple years ago (a black woman), the producers also decided to give EVERY contestant a Jeep. Everyone. It wasn't just her win or her time in the limelight, it became everyone's. Although she outlasted, outwitted, and outplayed, others won in a sense as well.

Now you have this situation with Randal, Rebecca, and a stunt hiring. Not saying race was THE issue--I really dunno. But all other past winners, to my knowledge, successfully win the game and get the sole respect and credit for doing so.

Maybe it's not George Bush who hates black people, maybe it's...........Mark Burnett?


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

newsposter said:


> Randall said even though the condo project was closer to home, the AC project sounded exciting.


When asked why he chose the AC project, Randal keeps saying "it's in my home state"...but they *both* are!


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> When asked why he chose the AC project, Randal keeps saying "it's in my home state"...but they *both* are!


are you countermanding a Scholar??? You're fired!


----------



## jrinck (Nov 24, 2004)

PacMan3000 said:


> That's an interesting point.
> 
> ....
> 
> Maybe it's not George Bush who hates black people, maybe it's...........Mark Burnett?


Being that the finale was live, and shown well after the final events were filmed, Randal and his "entourage" had plenty of time to read all the internet chat rooms and message boards that we have. No doubt he was at least aware that the public thought he and Rebecca were equally deserving. So he had plenty of time to do the "What if?" analysis. Looks like he might have done it with the wrong person, though:

*NAT X:* Hey Randal, what if Trump wants to hire both of you?
*RANDAL:* I can't stop him.
*NAT X: * OK, so what if he hires you and asks you if Rebecca should be hired, too?
*RANDAL:* I don't think he would do that, but if he did, sure, why not?
*NAT X:* You know, you might catch some heat for that.
*RANDAL:* Why?
*NAT X:* Look, Trump didn't ask white Bill if he should hire Kwame, too! If he hires you, and then wants Rebecca, then he's just pleasing us, while still giving the man what he wants!
*RANDAL: * The man?
*NAT X: * Yeah, the man! I'm talkin' about the same man who decided to give you an outdoor event during the cold and rainy season, while the white girl got the indoor, heated event!
*RANDAL:* Come on, Nat.
*NAT X:* Don't get me started, Uncle Tom! Remember, this is the same man who hired Omarosa AND Stacy J! There are plenty of wacked out white chicks in this world, why would BOTH of the wackos he picked both be black?
*RANDAL:* Nat, give it up, man. He's not going to hire both of us.
*NAT X:* Yeah, yeah. Hire the black man to keep the bruthas happy, and to sweep up at night, then hire the white girl for the brochures!
*RANDAL:* Nat. Seriously, relax. If he asks me, I'll say no. Fine? Just give it a rest already!
*NAT X:* Straight up!


----------



## loubob57 (Mar 19, 2001)

After 5 pages of discussion here it sure looks like there is about a 90% negative reaction to Randall's final action. So can we at least agree that it was a bad PR move regardless of any other logic?


----------



## Gene S (Feb 11, 2003)

PacMan3000 said:


> That's an interesting point. Now that I think about it, I'll throw fuel on the fire. When Vescepia won Survivor a couple years ago (a black woman), the producers also decided to give EVERY contestant a Jeep. Everyone. It wasn't just her win or her time in the limelight, it became everyone's. Although she outlasted, outwitted, and outplayed, others won in a sense as well.


I don't want to delve too deep into this since it is OT, but I don't think its the same. That's the year Rosio O'Donnell hosted the reunion. I think she had more to do with the cars than the CBS producers.


----------



## lander215 (Jan 10, 2003)

I don't care whether Randall's decision was a bad PR move, etc. To us, it was the disappointment in the decision that he made that overshadowed everything else. 

We also noted the lack of diversity in Randall's office, but to his credit he didn't say word one about being the first black man to win The Apprentice (at least during the show). He earned The Apprentice as he had earned our respect, but he's only walking away with the title...he left his respect at the board room table.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

Randal sure didn't seem like he was caught off guard with the question. I would have taken a few seconds to actually think about it. He seemed to expect it and immediately answered. He did provide the wrong answer. As others have said, he had little to lose and lots to gain. He probably did her a favor. She will probably land a MUCH better paid job.


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

At the last break, I turned to my wife and said that Trump was going to hire both of them. Namely because there was no clear winner between the two, and with all the crazy double and quadrouple firings this season, it only made sense for something like that to happen. 

Randall's first decision as Trump's Apprentice was a poor one.


----------



## ChofuHS (Apr 15, 2004)

loubob57 said:


> After 5 pages of discussion here it sure looks like there is about a 90% negative reaction to Randall's final action. So can we at least agree that it was a bad PR move regardless of any other logic?


 :up:

Good point. And I think the live audience responded about the same way. Randall showed himself to be much different than what he had displayed during the entire contest. His reply to Trump appeared to be something he gave thought to before he was asked.

Oh, I would have hired Randall, I thought he was the winner.


----------



## ChofuHS (Apr 15, 2004)

EMoMoney said:


> Randall's first decision as Trump's Apprentice was a poor one.


Maybe this is the best point of all. Randall is now working for the Trump empire. His job is to help the company. He made a decision which did not help the company. Would Rebecca probably make a great employee, most likely yes! So his first decision was one of selfishness instead of a business decision to help the company for which he now works. Other than that, I think he made a jerk of himself on national TV. Now I really wonder how much of Randall is fake, like now I have to wonder how he turned on the passion for the charity in a moments notice. Maybe his next task will be for an Oscar! :down:


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

lander215 said:


> We also noted the lack of diversity in Randall's office, but to his credit he didn't say word one about being the first black man to win The Apprentice.


I didn't even 'notice' that he was black. Or rather, I didn't see it even as any sort of delineating thing like the 1st black apprentice etc. Hope you know what I mean. Brain is fried from hours of Christmas shopping this a.m.


----------



## lander215 (Jan 10, 2003)

newsposter said:


> I didn't even 'notice' that he was black. Or rather, I didn't see it even as any sort of delineating thing like the 1st black apprentice etc. Hope you know what I mean. Brain is fried from hours of Christmas shopping this a.m.


No...I think I know exactly what you mean...and that was my point as well. It was refreshing to see him win without all the BS PC crap such as occured on Survivor a few seasons back. Randall won because Randall deserved to win, he was the best candidate for the job, and a lot of us saw that early on.

That is why it was so disappointing to see him do what he did after he won...but it was his decision to make and he made it.

Argh! One more present to buy for a 9 year old son whose only request was a little $10 toy car!


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

jrinck said:


> And don't blame the Union. No Union would want it on Prime Time that they ruined a charity event for children with AIDS.


Don't blame the union? Well... they can be blamed for being an outdated concept that do little but maintain their own existence and suck away resources from workers, industry, and other parties.

Assuming this example is real, you had one person ready to work and one company ready to hire him. Then comes the union to do nothing but interfere just to fabricate a reason for their existence.


----------



## sageone (Feb 24, 2005)

Well folks, I applaud Randall for having some balls on national television and saying that there should only be one. I thought Trump was going to hire both, but Randall said F that...you picked me and that's that. I think it took balls. I honestly don't agree with what he did, but you have to give him some credit for going against the grain.

Something tells me that trump will hire Rebecca anyways...and by the way, Rebecca is a rocket.  I'd hire her.


----------



## 5thcrewman (Sep 23, 2003)

Wasn't Randal the one who screwed up the XM Cafe channel number during that presentation? Poor attention to detail.

I think Rebecca could have slipped in a few fund-raiser items at the party. I'm guessing that it was an open bar, so why not charge $2 -$3 for the Yahoo-tinis, with proceeds going to the charity? The way it went, I bet that the bartenders got more than that in tips. 

With the way the Yahoo exec stepped up and made the big donation during the show, you could tell that they felt that they got a black-eye by having their person telll Rebecca not to put the touch on the VIPs. Why did they give to the Autism charity as well? Shouldn't that have been something for Outback to do? Do you think the Yahoo person that interfaced with Rerbecca is still around?

Do you think George will ever sit down front at a comedy event ever again?

Is Jersey City nice now? I wanted to get out of there so fast the last time I mistakenly got off the Interstate.


----------



## JTAnderson (Jun 6, 2000)

ChofuHS said:


> Maybe this is the best point of all. Randall is now working for the Trump empire. His job is to help the company. He made a decision which did not help the company. Would Rebecca probably make a great employee, most likely yes! So his first decision was one of selfishness instead of a business decision to help the company for which he now works. Other than that, I think he made a jerk of himself on national TV. Now I really wonder how much of Randall is fake, like now I have to wonder how he turned on the passion for the charity in a moments notice. Maybe his next task will be for an Oscar! :down:


Hammer, meet nail-head. Nail-head, meet hammer. BANG!


----------



## stlarenas (Sep 17, 2005)

Here is my take on Yahoo not wanting to ask the VIP's for donations during their "benefit" event. 
I figure the only way they could get away with calling it a benefit was to charge the VIP's for admission. IE: "Have a great night out and support X charity at the same time for only $250 a person" Since they were already asking for money for tickets up front (to go directly to charity)...they did not want to ask for more during the event. 
If this was the case, than Rebecca's goody bag envelope was perfect. A reminder of what their money went to, and an extra nudge to give more from home at a later date.
If this was not the case than Yahoo deserves every bit of critism. I would think there would even be some sort of legal issue in holding an event and stating that it is to benifit a charity, but than not actually raising any money for the charity. Sounds like fraud to me. 
I have a hard time believing that Rebecca didn't ask these sort of questions in the initial meeting with both Yahoo and the Charity Reps. I think that most of this was just edited to add drama to an event that was nearly flawless....since she handled the Piscepo hangup with such ease.
Randal didn't bother me, but I just didn't like him like I did Rebecca. I'm with the majority, bad bad PR move.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

Oh Randal my man, what did you do? I think he made the wrong decision, but I can almost see where he was coming from. Almost. He should have just said that Trump could/should hire hire Rebecca later, but not as an "Apprentice."


----------



## lew313 (Jul 2, 2002)

My recollection of the question DT asked Randall was*" If you were me" *...and knowing the qualifications of Rebecca would you hire her?

He didnj't ask if Randall as Randall would hire her. :down:

I think this still leaves the door open for him to hire her if he chooses.


----------



## brookerific (Apr 27, 2005)

I think it is understandable that he didn't want to share in the spotlight, BUT he looked like a huge schmuck for answering it that way. My husband and I both thought Randall should say, "I would love for Rebecca to work FOR me."


----------



## El Gabito (Mar 11, 2004)

Yeah, just watched the finally, I had a lot of respect for Randall, but what a DICK move to do. I'd hire her over him any day at this point.

And alla is a $%^&#.


----------



## InterMurph (May 22, 2003)

brookerific said:


> I think it is understandable that he didn't want to share in the spotlight, BUT he looked like a huge schmuck for answering it that way. My husband and I both thought Randall should say, "I would love for Rebecca to work FOR me."


This was my reaction. It would have been sweet for him to say, "I would love for you to hire Rebecca to be my Apprentice."


----------



## ping (Oct 3, 2005)

What a bunch of feelgood, anti-competitive, PC crap. This isn't a 5-year-old soccer match where everyone gets a trophy to help their self esteem. This is a job interview for a single position. There is a winner and "over one million" losers. It was unfair to put Randall in that position, but given the circumstances he did absolutely the right thing.


----------



## ChofuHS (Apr 15, 2004)

ping said:


> What a bunch of feelgood, anti-competitive, PC crap. This isn't a 5-year-old soccer match where everyone gets a trophy to help their self esteem. This is a job interview for a single position. There is a winner and "over one million" losers. It was unfair to put Randall in that position, but given the circumstances he did absolutely the right thing.


Good analysis.


----------



## DLiquid (Sep 17, 2001)

ping said:


> It was unfair to put Randall in that position


Definitely.



ping said:


> , but given the circumstances he did absolutely the right thing.


Umm, no. As evidenced by this thread, he went from being loved to hated in that moment. If he thought the right thing was that there should only be one winner, he could have said that while also saying Rebecca should be hired outside of the context of the show.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

InterMurph said:


> This was my reaction. It would have been sweet for him to say, "I would love for you to hire Rebecca to be my Apprentice."


That's crazy. Why should Trump only hire Rebecca if she's to work for Randal? Randal can't teach her about working for the Trump organization.

She should have gotten the other project...


----------



## Deekeryu (Sep 20, 2005)

I think Trump asked Randall the question to see how much he wanted the job. Why would anyone want to share the title with another? It doesn't happen in sports, other reality game shows, or job interviews.

So, do people think Trump would have answered differently from Randall? From Trump always bragging about being the best, you'd think Trump would have accepted that Randall say "Go ahead, Hire my competitor as well"? I doubt it.

Randall is a nice guy which some may see as a weakness, but he showed toughness when Randall stood up for himself, and wouldn't let another competitor regarded the same as him. This verified he is tough enough to withstand the tough NY environment he will be placed in. Randall would be foolish to say Yes, Hire Rebecca Too. And then I could see Trump saying, "so you think Rebecca is equal or better than you now? No, or course not. Randall won the competition on his own merits and was the best candidate so Randall made the right decision. From a competitors standpoint, you stand your ground to the end. If Trump wanted to hire Rebecca as well, he would have. He's the boss making the decisions, not Randall.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Deekeryu said:


> I think Trump asked Randall the question to see how much he wanted the job. Why would anyone want to share the title with another? It doesn't happen in sports, other reality game shows, or job interviews.


No one suggested that Rebecca share in the title of "Apprentice".

All Trump suggested was that Rebecca also come to work for Trump. That doesn't take anything away from Randal---he won the competition fair and square.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

If he can 'break the rules' and fire more than one at a time, why can't he hire more than 1 at a time?


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

ping said:


> What a bunch of feelgood, anti-competitive, PC crap. This isn't a 5-year-old soccer match where everyone gets a trophy to help their self esteem. This is a job interview for a single position. There is a winner and "over one million" losers. It was unfair to put Randall in that position, but given the circumstances he did absolutely the right thing.





Deekeryu said:


> I think Trump asked Randall the question to see how much he wanted the job. Why would anyone want to share the title with another? It doesn't happen in sports, other reality game shows, or job interviews.
> ....
> Randall is a nice guy which some may see as a weakness, but he showed toughness when Randall stood up for himself, and wouldn't let another competitor regarded the same as him. ... Randall would be foolish to say Yes, Hire Rebecca Too. And then I could see Trump saying, "so you think Rebecca is equal or better than you now? No, or course not. Randall won the competition on his own merits and was the best candidate so Randall made the right decision. From a competitors standpoint, you stand your ground to the end.


Actually, he clearly made the wrong choice as an executive, though the circumstances may have not been clear to him when he was on the spot. As mentioned, the only right choice after he was hired and deemed the winner was what was best for the company. The question was simple - should Trump hire Rebecca. The analysis was simple (after Randall won) - what is best for the company. Trump made it clear earlier that the game was over, and the issue was what was best for the company. To say that course of action would have been "foolish" is a joke.

Randall had the chance to come off as a very competent and skilled executive who acts on what is best for the company, which would have blown away any ridiculous accusations that he would not be "tough" by encouraging the additional hiring of Rebecca. "Tough" is doing the job you just won, not continuing to play a game you just won and is now over. "Tough" is nutting up and saying "the game is over and now we get to business."

Now...very importantly, things do not happen like this if you have 2 seconds notice of a surprise question. If this was a total shocker, I can't blame anyone for being put on the spot, having to consider even the remote possibility of a Trump turnaround, and coming up with something that you may not have said if given time to think.

IF (a big "If") Randall anticipated the question and thought about his response, he blew an obvious chance to have Trump and most people watching to raise him to a much higher level. A good answer from him would have been much more help to him than his actual response hurts him (since I don't think it really does).


----------



## bighurt1b (Feb 23, 2005)

Im reading all of the Randal haters out there and let me ask you this, when did Randal become the boss? Donald Trump simply asked if he should hire Rebecca, and Randal gave his opinion. 

DONALD TRUMP MAKES THE DECISION!!! How come nobody is saying Donald Trump made a mistake by not hiring her? Its all his decision, not Randal's.

Also think about all the twists throughout the shows (The guy in the second season who gave up his exemption in the boardroom only to get fired, Trump firiing mutltiple people at a time). What if Randal would of said, yes you should hire Rebecca, and then Trump goes and says "Well, since you think I should hire Rebecca, Randal, YOU'RE FIRED".

That would suck.

Also, the lady Yahoo execs looked really bad in this episode. They cared more about throwing a party then making money for a chairity, i would be very surprised if they werent discplined for their actions.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

bighurt1b said:


> Im reading all of the Randal haters out there and let me ask you this, when did Randal become the boss? Donald Trump simply asked if he should hire Rebecca, and Randal gave his opinion.


Sure, and it was an opinion that was poorly constructed and not thought out. That is why people are criticising Randal for Randal's comments. No more, no less.



> DONALD TRUMP MAKES THE DECISION!!! How come nobody is saying Donald Trump made a mistake by not hiring her? Its all his decision, not Randal's.


Perhaps if Donald voiced his reasons for not hiring her (if he does not make an offer), those would be analyzed and criticized. He certainly deserves criticism for putting Randal on the spot.



> Also think about all the twists throughout the shows (The guy in the second season who gave up his exemption in the boardroom only to get fired, Trump firiing mutltiple people at a time). What if Randal would of said, yes you should hire Rebecca, and then Trump goes and says "Well, since you think I should hire Rebecca, Randal, YOU'RE FIRED". That would suck.


Yes, it would, and no doubt Randal may have wondered for a split second if it was another test. However, as mentioned above (if I may cite myself), he had the opportunity to win over everyone with a well thought-out response. He just didn't think quick.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

bighurt1b said:


> Im reading all of the Randal haters out there


Why does not liking what he did equate with hating him? I don't hate him, and I think he was the best of the candidates, but I don't like what he did.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Hansky said:


> Yes, it would, and no doubt Randal may have wondered for a split second if it was another test. However, as mentioned above (if I may cite myself), he had the opportunity to win over everyone with a well thought-out response. He just didn't think quick.


Many people (myself included) believe that he knew this was coming, so he would have had time to think out his response. In fact, his cute little catch phrase ("it's called the Apprentice, not the Apprenti") seemed very much pre-planned to me. He also said well before the winner was announced that he believed he should be the "sole" and only Apprentice...or words very similar.


----------



## rseligman (Dec 5, 2000)

bighurt1b said:


> Im reading all of the Randal haters out there and let me ask you this, when did Randal become the boss? Donald Trump simply asked if he should hire Rebecca, and Randal gave his opinion.
> 
> DONALD TRUMP MAKES THE DECISION!!! How come nobody is saying Donald Trump made a mistake by not hiring her? Its all his decision, not Randal's.


I assume you've never had a management job. A manager who delegates a decision to an underling and then overrules them is not a very well respected manager, and has very demoralized employees who don't last very long. Trump was correct in how he responded. He clearly disagreed with Randal, but since he gave Randal the option Trump realized he should go along with it.


----------



## DLL66 (Oct 21, 2002)

I wonder if she got the job after the show?


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

Speaking of runner-up jobs, I just caught Tana "from national TV" doing a Bedazzler commercial, complete with her name in rhinestones on her shirt. She even mentioned how she used to be known as the "Bedazzling Queen." 

I'm thinking Rebecca has a better outlook.


----------



## Hansky (Nov 17, 2005)

From TV Guide.com (from the source stated) ...


> APPRENTICE TO BE AXED?: Will Donald Trump "cobra" Randal Pinkett after all? According to the Media Business Report newsletter from Jack Myers' MediaVillage.com, insiders are abuzz that DT, already miffed that his latest Apprentice champ Debbie Downered the prospect of a season-finale double-hire, has been disappointed by Randal's display of unwarranted hubris around longtime Trump-organization employees. Randal, please allow my pal Earl Hickey to tell ya somethin' about "karma"....


Of course, I would not assume this is more than idle gossip at this point, but it is interesting.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I think the whole thing with Randal was pre-planned. He almost answered the question before DT finished asking it. And the former contestents were shaking or nodding their heads immediatly. Usually with radio or TV the more improvised or sporadic it looks, the more scripted or better written it is.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

DeDondeEs said:


> I think the whole thing with Randal was pre-planned. He almost answered the question before DT finished asking it. And the former contestents were shaking or nodding their heads immediatly. Usually with radio or TV the more improvised or sporadic it looks, the more scripted or better written it is.


I think they got wind of the rumors of the double hiring. I don't think that was intentionally "scripted" other than that Randall was aware this might happen, and was ready for it. I thought Trump looked surprised at Randall's answer.


----------

