Given the nature of the firing, and the venom thrown at someone who is only 21, I'm guessing there was a fair amount of 'important stuff' of Baggs being interviewed that we didn't see. And that the BBC kept some things back for whatever reason.

There's no way Sugar would fire him like that purely over the distinction between a full telecoms licence. Like Stuart said in the boardroom you can apparently buy a full licence for £5k so the argument that anyone can buy his type for £350 is kind of redundant (like him ).

I don't usually post on this apprentice forum so sry f I'm repeating stuff...but this is my speculation as to why he fired...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Bluewave Communications. Yes he has done well to set up a business. However, ultimately it's clearly small fry, and moreover no 18 year old could get funding for that. They obviously exposed in the interviews that his whole start up was funded by his millionaire dad (who apparently is just as much of a cock as his son).

Look on the Bluewave website...the company claims to sponsor powerboat racing. If I'm not mistaken that powerboat is his Dad's (who races it). So is Bluewave really sponsoring it in the usual sense...I highly doubt it!
http://www.bluewave.im/about/powerboat.php

2. I'm guessing the rest of his CV was mostly boll*x, though they didn't cover it much.

3. His claims of being the director/a director of a 3m company is distinctly dodgy given he's 21. Again it wasn't covered, but I'd speculate that this is the father's company and his dad just basically added him as a non-executive director. So again, bullsh*t.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said this has probably been covered on this forum so sry for repeating stuff if that's the case. Just seemed to me that they focussed on one fairly small distinction when the other claims he'd made were a goldmine...or a soldmine if you will.

PS. Notice how Karen said on You're Fired that Sugar had phoned her that day to say Stuart was going to be successful. An indication that Sugar himself probably thought he'd gone a little bit over the top with the firing?

What are your sources on all this info about his Dad etc.? I've only seen the stuff on the documentary about the last 5 candidates, last week. I thought his parents ran a pub/inn?

I agree that there must have been more b/s from Stuart to cause that outburst.

The Viglen guy was being overly pedantic.

I'm a fully licenced driver.

I can't drive a bus or an HGV but that doesn't alter the truth of the statement.

There's no way that little bit of spin justified the outrage.

Can't believe that I'm defending Stuart here, but on last week's show, Stuart was asked several times if he had really started the company and whether he had had any parental help, to which his answers were Yes and No respectively.

I assumed that they knew this to be untrue and were preparing to take him to the cleaners about it this week.

In the absence of any come-uppance about it, and instead banging on about some very minor technicality that was trumped up to being in the same league as shooting the pope, I can only assume he was telling the truth....

Wasn't he giving Stuart a bit of rope to see if he'd hang himself? The actual lie would have come to light earlier, surely, because they'd have researched the candidates before the semi-final; but how Stuart dealt with it was crucial and he dealt with it badly.

Did he really deal with it badly, though ?

As mentioned above, there are different layers to the term 'licensed' and he was trying to explain that to ISP-man, rather than really blagging anything...

The way it was presented in the show, there aren't different "layers" to the term if you are actually in the industry. A layman might be persuaded by Stuart's response but a professional would not.

I personally think that a bit more discussion on the nature of his claim would have been more in order, rather than the bloke just keep on claiming that having an ISP licence isn't the same as having a licence.

I know it's all theatre, but the interviews were very poor this year, trying to expose 'lies' that weren't really there.

Nothing concrete. His Dad (Stephen Baggs) is certainly a millionaire it seems from various sources. He was on a Martin Clunes programme about the Isle of Man. Lots of locals accused him of giving a terrible impression of the Island. I didn't see it, but Clunes interviewed him and he was on a yacht or something, talking about trying to decide whether to buy a porshe or a ferrari for his next car. Apparently came across as a total cock, though I stress again I didn't see it.

This is his powerboating team website. It's my understanding that you need to be fairly bloody rich to indulge in this sport. As you can see it's the same powerboat that 'The Brand' 'sponsors'. Like I said I'd speculate this is boll*x, and that daddy just puts his son's company name on the boat.
http://www.f4sa.co.uk/team-12vortigern-t35.php

Re the director of a 3m company. Again just speculation, but I know business...and I know no one could make director of a company like that at 20/21. Again it's either BS, or more likely that is Stephen Baggs company and Stuart has been added as a non-exec director. Which to all intensive purposes means he does nothing.

But Stuart's CV was not for telecoms professionals.

He has a licence that allows him to provide telecoms services. So to a layman - as those dealing with this process are - he is a licenced telecoms provider. The qualifier 'fully' is just meaningless spin.

There must have been more deception in his CV that for some reason the BBC didn't want to reveal.

On the website, he is listed as Managing Director, so hardly a non-exec.


As I said in another thread, why would the BBC hold back the 'good stuff' ?

I think the BBC were probably mindful of his young age and didn't want to f*ck him too badly.

This is an article from the Star (I know I know...treat with extreme caution)

WINDBAG plonker Stuart Baggs’s millionaire dad made his fortune flogging air beds.

Stephen Baggs, whose company Vortigern Ltd sells outdoor leisure items, lives in luxury on the Isle of Man so he can avoid paying UK tax.

And last year the Apprentice hopeful’s father annoyed the locals after a cringe-worthy interview on telly – much like Stuart’s smug appearance on Lord Sugar’s BBC1 show.

Last week we revealed Stuart, 21, has been disowned by Manxmen for his big mouth. And the same fate befell his dad after he boasted about his wealth on his yacht in ITV1 show Martin Clunes: Islands Of Britain.

Stephen bragged about owning a yellow Porsche and said he was planning to buy a matching Ferrari.

The businessman also insisted: “We would not have got where we are today paying UK tax rates.”

But residents accused him of putting off visitors to the island.One posted a web message saying: “Thanks a bunch Mr
Baggs of money! You did us no favours whatsoever!”

Usually some arcane, legal, reason.

Yeah...his Dad is listed as a managing director. Of the company Vortigern. Which is his company. I'm confused as to what you mean?

I'm saying Stuart is likely a non-exec of that company. But that's speculation.

Stuart always discussed his directorship or a 3m company and his Telecoms company as two separate things if I'm not mistaken.

I suspect it's more a case of just plain 'not existing', to be honest....

Oh, OK - I may be confused.

On the Bluewave website - http://blog.bluewave.im/ - Stuart is clearly Managing Director. I was assuming that was the 3m company, but maybe not.

Even so, it does seem a reasonably impressive company, and he did repeat several times that he set it up without parental help, which I guess would have been exposed if it wasn't true...

I think you're wrong.

Sugar may be a bit unpredictable from time to time but he's not that capricious.

Of course, it may be that he hadn't been aware of the lie that Baggs told about a competitor and that could still come back to bite him.

Now that it's out in the open the competitor may take legal action against Baggs and there's no way that Sugar would want to employ someone who could be ending up in court in short order.

Genuine question - if his parents had set him up or supported him in building the business, wouldn't that be possible for him and his family to collectively cover that up? The reason I'm asking is maybe LAS & Co just didn't believe it (to the point of knowing it) but couldn't actually prove it?

This is from another forum...and I don't know the source...but again seems like more evidence that the BBC or the interviewers held back.

(talking about BlueWave)

Stuart calls himself the MD, but he is not a registered director. His father is mentioned elsewhere as MD. And 2 yrs ago Stuary was Carrier Sales Manager, not the normal role of a business owner.

If this is true, then the poster is right. You don't set up a business and then make yourself the teaboy!

Doesn't add up.

Stuart said on BBC Radio 5 today on Victoria Derbyshire's show "don't vote Labour", and he repeated it. Maybe Sugar heard about his politcal views and that was another reason seeing that Sugar is a Labour supporter which has always surprised me seeing that he made most of his money under Thatcher and I'm generaly a Labour person too!

Stuart has every right to express his views, much like Lord Sugar. However to even suggest that is morally wrong and in business your political views should never come into play (which is why there is a big deal about the banning of BNP's members). I'm sure Sugar has worked with many hundreds of people who don't share his political view and I very much doubt that has reflected on their careers.... otherwise you are talking about a mass lawsuit for unfair dismissal, discrimination and possible other suits.

Possibly.

For example, his father could have said to him: Set up a company doing x and I'll put a lot of business your way.

Or he could have overpaid Stuart's company for something in order to get the money to him covertly.

The guy who split this particular hair did not come out of it with any credit at all.

For starters he said an ISP stood for "Internet Service Protocol". No it doesn't.

Quite so, Sausage. But why didn't Stu challenge him on that? I found that bizarre.

I think you've got that completely wrong.

A 'fully licensed' telecoms operator implies to most people that you have licenses to operate all major telecomms technologies i.e. mobile, land and internet (broadband). The most important of those by far are mobile and landline - the 'limited to broadband' makes him a bit player not a major player (even in the IoM) and also makes him a mere 'licensed' telecoms operator, not a 'fully licensed' one in most people's eyes.

Lord Sugar's venom would simply have been left over from what he could have done last week when he could and should have fired Stuart (but was I am sure persuaded by producers to leave it a week, for 'good TV).