He is shown in all the trails and they wouldn't do that if he were to be fired. Or WOULD they?

I'm not asking for the result (I know that because I've read the spoilers and I'm not divulging it and I devised my hypothesis before I knew the result anyway so the result is irrelevant at this point) but I'm asking if it's a reasonable deduction to make on the basis of past trails. If a trail features just one candidate does that always imply they are safe?

I've only started taking notice of The Apprentice this series so I haven't been tracking this kind of thing.

Thanks.

I love spoilers and read them for most of the programmes I watch, but I hate them for this programme. I know it doesn't make sense, but the one time I saw a spoiler for it, it ruined the whole show for me.

Back on topic, I don't think that you can deduce anything for the trailers, the producers do so much bluff and double bluff that it's impossible to work out.

Oh I hate you! you would not have mentioned stubags unless he was fired... why else bring him up.

...Then again you wouldn't risk the the wrath of the forum by even suggesting a true spolier

Than again that means I now know Stubags is safe, and therefore you have ruined part of the suprise

But then again, again. Maybe you realises I would think this and you are toying with me.... damn you.

No, this is what I thought LAST NIGHT. Nothing to do with spoilers or results at all.
I keep seeing Stu in the trailer so I thought - what does this mean? It would be too obvious to put the evictee in the trail, wouldn't it?
But because TA has only just surfaced on my radar I wondered if there was a pattern or a rule of thumb...

if alex is PM and loses he'll go

I think Sandeesh was set up.

Alan basically told her to come forward and become PM this week and she sat there and said nothing.

If Alex's team loses, she's gone, not Stuart, IMO.