Stuart had many faults, but his firing was rubbish .. A minor, minor technical point. Anyone will tell you to make things sound a bit better on your CV. Stuart should have answered better but he is nit a criminal, and a bit of ordinary respect would be nice.

All a mystery.

On the one hand LS has now made 3 on air apologies to Liz. That may mean he needs an excuse to finally sack Stuart or he realises how silly he has been and is mad at himself or it just took some argument to make the penny drop or there is somethng we didn't see which produced the change.

There's also a mystery with the interview show and whats been shown since. All 3 male interviewers are shown accusing Stuart of the same thing, but the only detail evidence we hear is with one about the license. How did the other two arrive at the same conclusion - from his application in general, from nothing or something specific we didn't see discussed?

Although people have posited a credible explanation based simply on AS realising what a prune he'd been to listen to the bagginator's tosh I'm still tending to think that they discovered something else amiss during the interviews that they could not expound upon on air for legal reasons.

they arrived at the same conclusion because i am convinced they wanted Stuart out. the way in which he was fired from the show was nasty. If claude littner had refused to shake my hand i would have simply walked out, no man has the right to judge anyone without at least listening to him first. The basic fundimental part of an interview is to meet each other on at least a friendly basis especially for a job interview. you are there to learn things from each other and respect is part of this process. In the real world Stuart being interviewed would have indicated that the employer has at least some interest in the person being interviewed. This i'm afraid is where the program failed for me, it was a process of emlimination and in my book went far beyond that. If I was an associate of claude littner's, i would be this morning be reviewing my business with the man.

We hear about the "£3m company"
Is that the value of the business?
Is it the turnover, which isn't the same as value, and if so what is the true value - it might, after all only be 4p, (or less);

3m is a paper value issue 3m shares at £1 each you own them all, company has a paper value of £3 mill when infact it is worth sod all.

People usually valuate a tech company as a multiple of it's revenue, so with 3m turnover it could be valued at 10-15m say assuming its not going out of business. But it's privately owned so it's just a matter of opinion.

Besides, I'm sure it was his father's/uncle's business that was bringing in 3m, not BlueWave.

But why does he change his mind and ,as its a major failing for others who stay quiet in the boardroom, why don't Karen or Nick stop him making a dumb decision and support Stuart? If they don't tell him, who does? Does he watch the edit back and realise and then find he can't undo it - which would explain Liz's 3apologies.

It could be just set up drama - or it could be he's really angry because "no one makes a fool out of me" - and Stuart just has. But then why and when does the penny drop?. Its made to look like a moment of discovery for LS. Nick and Karen in the final but there's very little spark shown to explain the fire. Was it a suitable way of explaining a big misjudgement made before by looking mislead rather thanstupid , or was something found before or did the spark explain it, or was it followed by a lot of sparks? I don't think we know.

And in show terms why cast people without looking at their CVs properly before you cast the final candidates? Its lazy just doing the last 5 properly later. is that for drama too or, to avoid everyone failing at teh last stage, do you look properly but let some through knowing whats waiting to be found at the interviews?

Sugar's an egomaniac, he just lost his temper when Stuart refused to back down over the license issue (quite rightly) and sacked him in that over-dramatic manner. don't think there's much else to it. i still like Baggs' last words: 'NOT THE CASE' (implicitly followed by 'YOU N003')

I don't understand the frequent apologies to Liz, it is clearly part of the process that someone who can put up a fight in the boardroom may get through and that has been stated in as many words more than once after a firing.

If LS is apologising to Liz he should also be apologising to Ruth Badger since (on what was shown) Michele Dewberry clearly got the job on her 'I'm just like you SrAlan' speeches and was far inferior to Ruth on almost every aspect of management. I remember in particular the retail task when Michele's team won despite her spending most of her time quaffing free champagne in the personal shopping area and leaving her team to get on with it.

I agree about Claude's manners - that style of interview went out years ago and in a proper interview situation such behaviour could be questioned afterwards by the unsuccessful candidate.

In fact I'm not sure how the ageism legislation works but I think Stuart would at least have a case for saying they eliminated him unfairly because of his age (he was only 21 you know! ) since it did seem they had decided not to have him for some reason and made up a reason to justify it.

I have a feeling that the BBC couldn't show some things that could be critical of his companies, for legal reasons.

For example, Jamie's company sells property in Northern Cyprus. If I was Borden I'd be asking if he sold stolen property, but if I was the BBC executive producer I probably wouldn't show that

Couldn't disagree more.

Blunt fact is he was NEVER gonna work with Liz - never.

I agree.

He was just a bit of a cock.

He even said so himself on his YF

I think the only conclusion i can draw is that LS was livid that not once but many times Stuart continued to tell the "lie" and could not bring himself to be straight about it. Surprised me because Stuart was probably most intelligent person there bar Chris , and thought he would pick up how annoyed LS and his interviewer were about him not just admitting it.

Yeah totally! At least he had some degree of self awareness unlike most of the others. I like dJamie but dear god could someone tell him he is not half as good as he thinks he is!

Stuart is undoubtedly intelligent in some contexts but perhaps not emotionally...I genuinely think he finds himself surprised that his belittling of opponents and aggression result in people not being overly positive towards him.

Hmm i think his emotional intelligence compared to the others is up for debate, he rarely ripped into others, i liked the way it was all water off a ducks back to him and he didn't fret about what everyone thought about him. I certainly would not describe him as aggressive, a tad immature and childish yes but also quite hilarious to my eye

He often showed an ability to calm people down and jolly the along - eg Laura when she was throwing all her toys out of the pram about Stella taking the appointment they'd made in the crisps task.

Oh I'm a big Stuart fan, I had him and Joanna in for the final - his ponies comment seems to come in for a lot of mockery but I thought it was a delicious piece of extemporising, especially compared to Liz' identikit "I'll give you 100%" spiel - but with someone who does appear to be so shrewd in other ways you would think he would realise how negatively some of his attitudes and behaviour come across.
But then he is only 21

Michelle's CV was stronger than Ruth's and more suited to the job, and her story was true, and a bit better than Ruth's own journey story. She's better at some things than Ruth, and their show records are close. Stuart's case is blown up with balloonfulls of hot air with a shorter journey underlying it if true. Its also got some big figures floating around that someone should have verified before the interviews (if they were even tested then) Michelle has a good case to win, many would l argue that even if Stuart's figures were 100% accurate , his rhetoric, manner and risk should have sent him home.

Liz can't compete on bluster or challenge Suarts facts and says she saw Lord sugar's eyes watering over Stuarts spiel and that she couldn't counter that. Even if his Lordship hadn't been entranced, she wouldn't expect anyone sensible to fall for such nonsense and she would look and feel silly coming up with some similar hockum even if she could think of it. Its not to do with Liz putting up a fight - its to do with Lord Sugar going off into fantasyland and how anyone could pull him back from there without getting fired for telling him where he was. Someone seems to have broken the spell at some later point, or it just wore off and LS realised (too late) he had fired the wrong one.

Its not Stuart's age that rules him out - its practically everything, He is a good example though of how most of the candidates didn't match the job on offer - in age terms or experience or experience of managing. Stuart most met the show spin on what was needed this year both by CV and in his own spin . He's the least cautious Carol or steady Eddy there - although he might heve been a disaster in a risk taking role. Stella is the best fit for the actual managerial job on offer from day one.

That must be why she was so successful in it.

If they're going to go on the candidates CVs and the finalists work experience rather than anything we see in the programme then there doesn't seem a whole lot of point to any of it.

Michelle struck me as very wispy all the way through and I was astonished that she reached the final TBH, and not at all surprised that for various reasons she and SRalun parted company quite quickly.

I am a big Stuart fan too, and something in all this smells quite unpleasant, and I beleive the smell is more from LS's end than Stuart's. I didn't like the manner of the firing or the 'apologies' to Liz. I think we will either see loads of Stuart Baggs in the future (I shall be watching with interest) or none at all. However, if he only keeps his telecoms business in the IoM jogging along, it is pretty good going.

I thought his entertainment value was great and at least he had a personality, unlike the robotic, automaton Stella. I don't think she will last long or be particularly effective with LS, but stand ready to be corrected and proved wrong.

a dormant business off daddy's back is success nowadays, really?

If all you saw of Stella was a robotic automaton you must have been watching drunk.