Would be good to see the 'real' reaction when they win but i can see why its done that way, - the press could easily find out who the winner of the show is and publish it so its a way to stop that ever happening and also it gives Alan Sugar a better idea of whos best suited for the job.

They should just do it live on You're Hired - the live aspect would make it even more dramatic.

If it was real Sugar would have decided 12 months ago on the day of the boardroom, filmed only one ending and stuck with that! In reality he waits 12 months to make up his mind - yet apparently only decides the winner on the basis of the final task (even when they have been working for him in proper jobs for over 6 months)..

If people believe the official line they are very gullible.

In the end its only a fun reality TV show - I just dislike the way its portrayed as it implies its all decided on the basis of the final task.

I'm confused now, so how come there were a few spoiler threads if no-one knew the result?

That's what is done by Trump in the US - it would be better as at least the winner's reaction would be real and not faked.

The you're hired show was filmed last Thursday - so several hundred people have known the winner for 3 days.

I really think you should drop the gullible, "have a brain" nonsense. I didn't even know when they filmed the show! Not all of us are as ardent followers of it as that.

Besides which, the official line was revealed in the post brangdon made.

The spoiler threads have been around for weeks.

I thought quoting the BBC's own website would have more authority than Wikipedia


It doesn't say that. It says, "He makes his decision on the day of the final boardroom meeting." That is, 12 months ago, when the final boardroom was filmed. They don't film the final boardroom as part of Your Hired; the continuity wouldn't work.

He makes his decision back then, but doesn't tell anyone until just before Your Hired.



Do you understand the difference between making a decision and telling people about it? You seem to have misunderstood what the BBC are saying (irrespective of whether you believe them).


Well, if there are any checks in place to keep him honest, and prevent him changing his decisions, we don't know about them. So it's impossible to prove either way. People believe what they want to believe - some people evidently want to believe Lord Sugar and the BBC are cheats and liars.

I thought it interesting that Karren, on her first Your Hired, made a point of praising the show's integrity.

Alternatively you can believe Saira Khan - who went through the process.
His final decision is not based on the programme that people see. His final decision is based on these two people [who] have been working with him for the six months."

Lord Sugar is a businessman - so clearly he decided something 12 months ago, has not taken into account anything that has happened in the last 12 months and has stayed true to his intentions irrespective of seeing both finalists doing real jobs day in day out in his company. If he applied that thought process he would still be selling produce off the back of a lorry in Hackney.

The spoiler threads can be very accurate for the people who didn't make the final - the show is filmed all over London and people have families/friends who obviously must be aware they didn't win.

No way they can know the winner though - as Lord Sugar didn't decide till last week.

This article doesn't prove anything. At the time of going to press, the winner in 2006 (Michelle Dewberry) had not yet been chosen. So how can a runner-up contestant from S1, Sara Khan, where they did not have a 6 month working period go running to the Times and make such a claim (that the winner is chosen purely from that alone)? She wasn't even involved with S2. She also bad-mouthed Sir Alan (as he was then) and claimed he was a bully. If the truth be told she was a bad loser in S1 and tried to stir up trouble, after losing to Tim Campbell. Just a case of sour grapes, surely?

Although there have been spoiler threads around, I've not seen any credible spoilers about the winner until the last few days. Partly because people who know enough to make their spoilers credible, also know that we know they can't know.

Do you have links? The DS spoiler thread is here. It has lots of claims for the final two, but I don't see any claims for the winner. There is a post #37 saying Stella and Liz are the final two. There's a post #127 saying Stella and Joanna. A post #134 saying Joanna and Chris. As we know, all were wrong. People like to claim big spoilers, but often they are just guessing.

She went through it in the first series. That series was different. They had a "live boardroom" - they got to the stage with the two finalists in the boardroom, and then pulled the boardroom walls away to reveal the audience had been there (apparently) all along.

As has been mentioned earlier in this thread, they changed the system for series 2 and later. That's when they started filming two endings. Saira's experience doesn't reflect what happened this year.

Plus, of course, Saira is likely guessing how and when Lord Sugar makes his decision. Her being a finalist doesn't she knows his mind.

My own view is that he does decide back then, and doesn't monitor the finalists closely in the intervening months (he's not mentoring them), and although he has the option of changing it, only does so if something really major happens.

For example, if one of them got arrested for some serious crime between filming and broadcast, that'd probably rule them out. Maybe if one of them turned out to be a total plonker. So he could change his mind - but that's very unlikely. This time, Stella was the first to be told she was through to the final. That made it clear she was the preferred candidate at the interview round. There's no reason to think he changed his mind to Chris at the final and then changed it back again 12 months later.

I feel embarrassed for you being so spectacularly wrong.

So to clear up what Saira said is wrong because the system changed in the next season? So they do film two endings but they do not both work for Sugar for 6 months? I'm confused.

They do film two endings and both work for Sugar for 6 months before the final (nearly 12 months this time round as the final was shown in December not June).

Clearly in deciding who wins Sugar only takes into account how good the finalists were at designing a new alcoholic drink 12 months ago - and takes no account of what they have been doing working day in day out at his firm for several months.

But what's the point?

Why not decide there and then? He could easily change his mind after seeing how the finalists worked and no-one would ever know.

I'm confused by this post.

Saira has stated that there are two endings filmed and the two candidates then work for Sugar for the period between the recording of the final and the transmission. Why are you making out that she's wrong and things changed from series two? It's always been that way.

Given that the two finalists are working at Sugar's companies for six months, don't you think he'd take a more than passing interest in how they performed before making his final decision?

And what are you talking about with regard to series one? I watched it and don't remember seeing boardroom walls being pulled away to reveal a live audience. Get a grip.

Frankly i doubt he would have agreed to do the show and offer a 100k job if he was not allowed to see both of them working for 6 months. In fact im confident in saying that is exactly why they film two endings, so he can decide later.

I do not see him as the kind of man to pick someone for a job after this show, those 6 months are key.

I see it more that those 6 months allow him to change his mind, but he obviously already has some (if not a complete) idea of who he has chosen.

Hasn;t the next series of the apprentice already been filmed so in fact the 2 finalists will already be working for Lord Sugar waiting for their series to air next year and find out who has won.

Correct.

See, on paper, the two endings thing makes so much more logistical sense. It's the only way the system can really work, given filming schedules.

But I really, really am struggling to believe that they'd be able to act so convincingly. Stella couldn't even sing Knees Up Mother Brown convincingly - tears? I dunno. Look at the actress in the Octikleen ad. That's someone who'd decided to take up acting as a job!

And yet, it's the only really logical scenario. Unless he makes his decision there and then, and then... swears them all to secrecy? And a false job so they don't leak? And so they must've changed it since series 2?

Occam's Razor doesn't really work on this one.

But the Times interview with Tim Cambell does!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article519904.ece

jj