Both teams made a loss so the winning team (the one that made less loss ) shouldn't have got a treat? Perhaps Sugar should have said

"Seeing as both teams made a loss, the winning team won't get anything as a reward. Winning team, go back to the apartment."

It must be the first time both teams did poorly and yet one team got rewarded!

Yes but these things are already set up and it's a business boost for whatever company is providing the treat. Of course they didn't deserve anything (except ridicule) but the treats are a nice plug for the contracted companies and have been agreed in advance. It's all business.

Was this the first episode/task when both teams failed? It might be. It might have been more appropriate not to reward the 'better' losing team!

It's like saying:

"Both teams were rubbish but team 'A' was less rubbish than team 'B' so team 'A' gets the treat."

In hindsight, I think Sugar or whoever has final say over the content of the show should have the decision: "no treat for the winning team as you still made a loss. Sir Alan doesn't reward failure."

Anyway, it's more of an observation than a criticism.

Am sure both teams losing has happened before.

The QVC round from series 3? Both teams lost tens of thousands of pounds for QVC, yet Kristina, Katie and Lohit were rewarded for being less shit than Simon, Tre and Naomi.

Or perhaps he should have said "you may have technically won but you still lost me money, have a treat but I'm going to send you the bill"

I agree with this thread. Why should you be rewarded if you were less rubbish than the other team. Maybe the team mates should go on the reward, but since the leader (Phil) was so awful he should have been forced to stay at home. Now that would have been interesting.

The way "losses" and "profits" were measured on this task were clearly very different to the way they were usually measured, to a far more exacting degree, therefore I don't think you can apply the same set of standards as you would to a loss on, say the Olympic task. It was a loss comparative to retail prices, not real terms.

I'd say it was rather like they'd done a normal task, but bought inappropriate niche things far too expensively. Only in this case, it was Siralan doing the buying, not a member of the team.

Phillip's team, aside from Phillip, did fairly well to bring in the amount of money they did. We just didn't see most of it, in favour of the rug drama - literally all of their profit making was done off-screen. I think they definitely deserved a treat.