I know it always has been, really, especially the US one, but I still hate it when the "quiet" ones get booted.

There was zero reason to fire her.

Absolute joke. JUMPED THE SHARK. GAME OVER.

Yeah, she was blatantly fired cos the other two have a simmering little war to carry forward. Joy actually helped the girls win the task last week by pushing the gourmet sausage idea home. After only two weeks, Alan should have taken that into account. I asked what the hell did Paloma do in either week?

Since series 2, I havent thought of The Apprentice, as being anything other than an entertainment prog.

Certainly, some of the "tasks" have descended into farce, fit to grace any west end stage.

Can't believe Alan got rid of the quiet yet kept on the team leader who refused to give Boots exclusivity!!! Bang out of order!

I think her firing was justified. Sugar's perception was Joe wasn't pulling her weight and she admitted in the You're Fired show that she didn't like this week's task nor the bickering girls. She doesn't seem ideal Apprentice material - too quiet, not assertive enough - although she seems a nice person.

It's no surprise at all. He ALWAYS fires the one's he perceives to be not doing much. He should have fired both the PM and her though as the PM on this task was terrible.

If it was just an entertainment show, why would he sack the most entertaining candidate in week 1? The fact is Karen, and Nick and Lord Alan Know far more about each candidate than we do from an hour programme a week.

I find the US one tends to have better candidates overall. Although both are more about entertainment, the UK version more so.

It doesnt really matter who he fired, as I cant see any of the three in the boardroom making it far. Certainly not final four.

Well it's Lord Sugar's show so he makes the decisions. You don't have to watch it if you don't want.

In a job interview, employers never feel obliged or like they have to follow any fixed rules when employing someone. They don't HAVE to do anything, they just go for the one they personally like. Might be unfair, but that's the way it goes.

Agree with comments that the TM Laura should have gone.

She showed that she is not a people person, she has a look about her that whilst pretty, is almost too pretty to hide a nasty young woman underneath.

She cannot control a team. She dismissed (and often), just about the only idea that was there, not only did she do that, but she did it in the most awful manner too, full of derision.

She then made the decision to run with it, then blamed the one person who had the decision in the first place but failed to critisise the bank of 'supposedly' marketing/sales experts she had at her disposal - she should have been putting all others on the spot for ideas, after all, that's what their forte is (meant to be!), rather than going with the only one idea. The one that would have ultimately won them the slot if she'd need been so bloody Miss High and Mighty with the Boots' representatives.

Even the manner in which she dismissed their request , based on that alone never mind everything else, she should have been papped out the door.

Sugar does not like his leaders to 'opt out' even if they are uncomfortable - to him, not finding a solution to a situation like that is worse than being an over-vocal part of the problem. I don't think that he was happy with Laura's decision as to who to bring back. a team leader who was too inexperienced to handle the excessive conflict and the only team member to have an idea, he was offered a lamb to slaughter and did so. I think that Paloma or one of the other ones who did not do much would have been a better target. He had decided to forgive the team leader due to inexperience, so she should have been smarter than to bring back the only one with an idea - which Boots actually liked. Nobody stood up and asked about the terms of the exclusivity - order volume, duration etc - they let the least experienced person just say no - they could even have sent somebody back in to apologise and ask more about it. negotiations and a pitch are distinct phases - so surely somebody more experienced (Jenny Eclair for example) should have piped up rather than lose the challenge.

all of which may be true, but then, that would defeat the purpose of threads like this, to discuss whether the average punter agreed with LS or not. It does not negate a person's right to put up posts with their own thoughts, now... does it.

No one got a chance. Laura couldn't get the words out of her mouth quick enough, and in the manner / tone she did, I thought the others were quite correct to do so. Her inability to make a correct decision at a very crucial stage when other pitches had clearly not received good vibes, was not only stupid, it was ignorant, and smacked of her ego taking over. She wanted to make herself look as though she was the powerful TL. She wasn't, and to prove that point, she screwed up when their was an obvious chance to claw back sales from not only a UK Nationwide retailer, but a retailer who trades in a great many countries globally.

And I was simply stating my opinions on the matter. That basically it's Lord Sugar's show, so tough titties to what I wanted to happen, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying watching it though.

You were critisising other fm's though for putting up posts and view, with your "if you don't like it, then watch something else / tough titties' approach to the thread .

I beleive the thrust of the thread isn't about whether people can turn the tv off or not, or indeed if we don't like LS's judgement. It is a discussion surrounding the reasons for and against LS's decision. Not whether he has the right or not .(which I'm sure we didn't need to be told, the decision is his) I think that's a more emphatic point for the thread existing.

I wasn't telling them not to watch, I thought the words 'GAME OVER' suggested they might not be watching it again.

And the 'tough titties' was at myself, not anyone else. I don't always agree with Lord Sugar, but I tend not to let it bother me, not that I'm saying that other people have to. But a thread is going to attract some varied opinions on the matter, and I was describing where I was coming from.

Oh I agree with the part that varied opinions are what the forum is all about.

It was your first quote above that you appeared to be suggesting that if members here didn't like what they saw, they can turn off. The 2nd quote, along with your 'tough titties' - again, in my opinioin, is slightly antagonistic and quite cleverly worded that 'it doesn't bother you' with an 'inferrance' that others shouldn't be bothered, and not enough to post - but turn off /watch something else then, perhaps it's been misconstrued at this end, there is that possibility.

As I say, that wasn't really the reason for the thread - none of which was what the thread was discussing.

It is one of those shows that will divide opinions, not least on the man who fronts it. The more fuel he adds to the mixture, the more watchable it becomes (so theory goes) and that will lead to more comments on various aspects / outcomes and views arising from the show.... like this thread which allows others to post their views and thoughts on those various aspects, particularly when they are watching the show.

Maybe I try not to let these shows bother me because there's a slight suspicion that that's the reaction they wanted, as there's no such thing as bad publicity.
Again, I wasn't TELLING anyone how to watch or react to the show, but just saying how I respond or deal with the show when things don't go the way I want.
And 'tough titties' is how I talk, there's no hidden meaning in it.
Anyway, this is all getting a bit too analytical now.

Sounds fair enough. I agree, it's played out they way LS and the production team want it to, maximum exposure. We finally agree!

You need to be able to talk and back yourself up in the broadroom regardless of what you do or don't do in the tasks.

If you can do the work and can talk = Potential winner

If you can't do the work and can talk = Will get far

If you do the work and can't talk = Potentially get fired - This is what happened on last nights show.

If you can't do the work and can't talk = FIRED!

It didn't "jump the shark"..it's always been the same.
The producers are just looking for "good television", the quiet ones don't boost the ratings. She didn't deserve to go, but I doubt she was adding to the viewing figures. It didn't help that she wasn't a "looker"..I'm sorry if that offends anyone, but if she had been quiet AND very attractive, my bet is she would still have be in the show a little longer.
Mr/Sir/Lord Sugar has never been interested in finding an "apprentice", he doesn't need some crazy tv reality show to recruit staff..it's just entertainment and publicity. There's nothing wrong with that, it's one of the better "reality" shows on tv.

Lord Sugar, is that you?

True and exactly what Karen said on the spin off show.

Oh, given what took place in the boardroom, I very much liked your Freudian slip there....'broadroom'.

I don't think there's any reason to say that. There are prettier women who stayed, but Laura didn't pick them for the boardroom so Lord Sugar didn't have the option of firing them. Had Laura stuck to her original choice of Sandeesh, it's quite possible Sandeesh would have been fired despite being attractive. Unattractive women have done well in the show in the past. It's not a beauty contest.

Joanna was never going to be fired. She won as PM last week, doing what Laura failed to do in managing the team. She also had the product idea this week, which would have won if Laura hadn't rejected Boot's exclusivity offer. She needs to think more before she speaks, but she wasn't as aggressive as some people make out. She certainly didn't suppress better product ideas.

Personally I would have fired Laura this week (and kept Dan last week). But I can see that Joy contributed nothing. She only features in the edit twice, and one of those is in a piece to camera.

LOL@ tough titties... thats very mild pet.