I have always wondered this. I suppose LS is the Simon Cowell part, do the production team prefer mouthy one, good lookers etc to stay longer

I think Lord Sugar only originally agreed to do the show if he had complete control over who is fired.

It's probably a team decision of both Sir Alan & the producers. Remember it is an entertainment show after all. The more viewers and the more popular the show is the more money Sir Alan makes.

Makes how? The viewer levels are constant over the past few years. I'm pretty certain he donates his fee to Great Ormond Street.

As he ultimately ends up with the winner, it's his interest to get the best on offer. I think it's his decision alone.

Doesn't he donate the fee from the National Saving Bonds advert not the Apprentice?

Also, if the viewing figures & media interest died they would have difficulty justifying continuing the show. In addition, the BBC needs reasonable viewing figures to justify the licence fee.

Anyone, remember the BBC popstars/ x-factor equivalent Fame Academy?

He donates that as well as a lot of speaking fees.

It's one of the most popular programs in the country! It's got a long way to fall to get axed.

Well he does say "I'll fire the whole bleedin' lot of yer!" quite frequently and I'm sure he would. It probably came as a surprise to the production crew in series 4 when he fired Jenny Celerier and Jennifer Maguire in quick succession in the same episode. That was fantastic, that Morocco one.

I have to think they dont after the hilarious Dan went in week 1 - either that or they made a bad judgement call.

In US Reality Shows the credits at the end do state that the producers are involved in the decision about who goes.

I suspect its also true to a certain extent here. I'm sure that Sugar has insisted on the winner (or even the finalists) being his sole decision, but the order in which the others go is probably as much about their entertainment value as their performance in the tasks.

I completely agree! Remember we only get an one hour programme that covers 2-3 days in real life. The editing of the show is there to manipulate your view of the candidates.

He makes out that Nick and Karren are his eyes and ears but I suspect he sees a lot of footage beforehand. His questions in the boardroom always go uncannily straight to the heart of the matter. I’m not sure which comes first - the production team’s choice of highlights (made after Sugar’s comments and sacking) or his decision, based on a rough edit that he’s seen which the production team have concocted, following an agreed storyline.

I'm sure there's a big discussion before the firings, where LS and the producers go through the pros & cons of each candidate before the decision is made, taking into account the actual task, the individual performances, and the "story" they're trying to tell (which is where all the "good TV" elements come in.)

That said, I'm also sure that LS gets the final say-so - he's certainly seemed to go "off-script" on a few occasions where he simply gets fed up with a contestant during the last "justify your existence" wrap-up!

PS without getting too "conspiracy theory" about it, I have gotten the vibe sometimes that the winners or the more subjective tasks (those not decided by measurable sales figures) are chosen according to the producers' priorities... hopefully not!

I would find it hard to believe that the producers don't pull some strings regarding who stays and who goes. They almost certainly did for Michael Sophocles, Jo and Syed of course, as well as many others.

Even if the decison is Sugar's, I imagine the producers try to talk him round about some things. Adam claimed in S3 that Sugar wanted to fired Tre for the "team certis" scam, but the producers persuaded him not to. I know that Adam tells the story in a way that makes him look favourable, but it does raise questions about what the producers are up to behind the scenes. Here what Adam claimed he saw:

"But the sly sod had used the name of a company he works with to get a cheap plug in and unfortunately my negotiation skills had helped him win the vote. It actually stated in the contract that if we tried to plug any company or product we represented we would be thrown off the show, as it is the BBC I understand why. If Sugar had any balls he'd have fired him the following morning. Well as it turned out he does have but the production team vetoed him on the decision, me and Andy both heard him say to Nick that he had wanted to fire him but he wasn't allowed, as we would later find out he was there for comedy value."

http://www.thecoolmarkwebsite.co.uk/adamhosker/

I think Sugar has about 3-5 candidates he wants around till the end, the others are probably decided by the production team. As it doesnt really matter in which order they go. I think if somebody seriously f'ups, then Sugar would probably insist they go that week.

I'm confident he doesn't see any footage beforehand. There is far too much of it, and there wouldn't be time to edit it and identify the bits he can usefully review. He's said himself that watching the broadcast is the first time he gets to see what happened.

And that explains some of his stranger decisions. He just doesn't see what we see.

However, I do think he gets some feedback about what happened from the production crew. Generally the teams split in two, so there are four sub-teams, and Nick and Karren can only follow half of them so they can't report on everything.


The boardroom sessions last for many hours, and are then edited down to show key moments. And he can be insightful, you know. He didn't get that role by chance.


I disagree. In most cases when someone stays, it's because they have a spark, some originality and drive, which the fired person lacked. Syed and Jo did, for example. Syed famously won a huge contract on the retailers task, for example, which so impressed (then) Sir Alan that he offered him immunity for being late (which Syed turned down). Jo didn't get on with the others on the calendar task, but she was basically right, and although she should probably have been fired on the shopping list task instead of Karen, I can understand why she wasn't. And it wasn't because she was entertaining.

I don't think anyone is ever kept for entertainment reasons. It's not necessary. However, I do wonder if some unmanageable people are kept to see if the others can manage them; as a test. And Lord Sugar does has his foibles. He tends to keep people who remind him of himself, and tends to fire people who seem too academic.

On reflection, I think you’re right – there wouldn’t be any time to make even the roughest cut of the footage for Sugar to see. There would be literally days (from multiple cameras) of raw material to wade through, make sense of, and cut together. Each camera crew’s producer must mark interesting events or soundbites as they go through the day and then I guess they meet up later to review the scenes and shortlist possible angles. Sugar is probably briefed on these before entering the boardroom.

He seems pretty relaxed this time round. I think he must enjoy the process of making The Apprentice and get on well with the TV people around him while retaining just enough control to satisfy his integrity.