Ok it cant be a perfectly fair competition because its not up for public vote.

But after last nights firing you can clearly see that Lord Sugar already has a good idea of his winner or at least who he wants in the final.

Everyone can see Stuart should have gone, Stella was poor but the taks wasnt who does the best tour it was who gets the most money and Liz beat Stuart comfortably.

Realistically it should have been Suart or Stella with Stuart most likely getting the sack based on Stellas performance as a whole. Liz should have been well-safe.

But its clear Lord Sugar likes Stella and wants her in the mix at the end and I think he was thinking of the entertainment factor when he kept Stuart in.

Having said all that I think they all still have a good chance of winning, but its not strictly a fair competition.

Id give the order of most likely to win as this

1.Joanna
2.Stella
3.Stuart
4.Chris
5.Jamie

Of course it's a fix (in the later stages, at least).

Sugar knows what he wants from the winner - what job he wants her (or him) to do.

Each of the six candidates left before last nights episode, with the possible exception of the bagginator, would be a good fit for some job that he could envision.

He's obviously making sure he keeps the one or two candidates that are the best fit together with others whom he (or the producers) thinks will make good TV.

He said that Liz is an intelligent capable girl but she wasn't a fit for the job he has in mind and it was never going to as much fun seeing the interviewers lay into her as into Baggs and very possibly Chris and Jamie.

A fix?

Lord Sugar alone chooses the winner.

So where does the "fix" come into it?

Fix is the wrong word, i was meaning it isnt a fair competition ie. Liz outperforms Stuart on this task but gets fired.

Ah, OK.

I thought I'd stumbled into the XFactor forum.

The problem (not that's it's really a problem) is that Lord Sugar goes into it knowing what kind of person he is looking for but it may not tie up with what we think he is looking for.

If at the start he listed exactly what his ideal candidate would have, and not be vague like "that spark" or "a little oomph", then we would know who will reach the final from week one and it would be rather boring.

As it is we make up our minds that this person is an ideal salesperson, and dresses well, and speaks confidently and we think "Well that's obviously just what he needs" only he then goes and fires them and we go "WTF!".

It's not a fix, it's like we're sitting in the back of his car and don't know where we are going...but we think we do.

A bit tricky to involve the public seeing as it's already been filmed. Only live events such as SCD and the XF lends itself to public voting.

I think you have a point, but the problem is Lord Sid has a particular role in mind so certain candidates, though very strong, don't fit that role and so need to be disgarded.
It may well work out better next year where the prize is cash not a job...

It's LA's decision so he can do what he bladdy well likes!

Its a fix in as much as Sugar keeps a joke character in year after year over much more capable people.

I believe he's heavily influenced by the BBC producers telling him to keep the joke characters like Baggs for headlines and ratings.

Thats a flaw in the whole thing. The job determines the winner in at least 3 series and the low level of the job may rule out more capable people in others. When he wants someone who can sell to rich home counties businessmen he takes Simon. When he wants to sell to London underground management its Lee. When he wants someone who knows how to organise outsourcing contracts overseas its Michelle who has done it. Yasmina's job is a step into business for her, but its a step into tedium for a Kate or Michelle.

Which is why you look at this year's top 5 and note 4 of them have similar backgrounds that suggest one sort of low level job but Chris comes in with qualifications that fit him for Simon's type of vastly different job. Which is it? What job could Stella, Chris and Joanna all do??

Not sure there. The evidence from most series is that people come up with very few good ideas when needed - so how can he test that skill? There's an awful lot of Stuarts who will claim to walk on water but can he tell fantasy from reality?

You also have to ask won't it all be decided on day one? What will tasks show other than that you lost following someone elses idea or because of someone elses mistakes - unless you happen to have a great idea when you are PM and can follow through? Surely people will turn up with an idea in mind and CVs will matter even more compared to what you do. Anyone from an academic background/big business will be at an enormous disadvantage and anyone like Michelle who has set up a highly profitable business already will be pencilled in to win from day one?

This is very true.

In virtually every task they are given such an absurdly short time to plan that it's quite obvious they are going to come up with bad ideas and tackle the tasks in the wrong way.

If they really wanted to test the candidates properly they would have at least an entire day for nothing but planning and research. But, of course, that mean far fewer hilarious mistakes.

In business, who is going to be the most useful person to employ? One who can spend two hours working out how to do something not very well or someone who can spend a realistic amount of time and, with proper attention to detail, come up with a sound plan to move the business forward.

Despite a lot of the crap talked by people who's only idea of business is what they've seen on TV it's very, very, rare for people to have to make snap decisions. If they do it's most likely that their higher management are incompetent (or that there has been some 'act of God' that needs to be dealt with). What is needed in business is people who can come up with an idea and follow it through in a reasonable time frame.

well at least they don't cheat people out of voting money .

Id say the role he has in mind by keeping Stuart is loo cleaner & I don`t know if Stuart would be up to that even. Stuart is a total idiot who`s just full of hot air. If this is the way The Apprentice is going I won`t be watching next year. Has SirAl been tested for dementia?

The REAL difficulty for Lord Sugar is that he HAS to fire someone from the losing team - and this year, the losing team has been something of a shock on more than one occasion

JJ

Yep, that's right. He selects which candidates stay in the contest based on entertainment value. Hence controversial Dan, jokey Shibby, unignorable Melissa and fiery Paloma going out in the first five weeks.

Liz was a "Cautious Carol." He says it at the start of every episode, but by now you must've worked out that he doesn't just value competence, but also a degree of "ballsiness." Liz had one of the two qualities. The other two had both.

I do like how everybody who's more fond of Liz has suddenly decided the Apprentice is shallow, though.



Sergio's assessment is more fair. The above's more of a general comment sparked by the thread's general direction. I don't disagree with the OP. Alan's a biased judge. He's looking for an employee for his company, it's not the "businessperson of the year" award, it's the "Work for Lord Sugar" award. Don't think it's ever been denied, though.

He does test the final two properly eventually though, they go and work for him from the end of filming until the final episode is filmed just before transmission.