Watching the TA segment on BBC breakfast last night a couple of vital pieces of information emerged which, to my mind, completely changes the probability that Chris's deal was as shrewd as AS seemed to think it was.

Chris said that one of the reasons he was so set on getting the agency deal was that they were not authorised to sell tickets in Trafalgar square.

That was the first time I'd become aware of that and, in all the discussions we've had here I've never heard it mentioned.

He also referred to the deal with the agency he was negotiating for as their tour of the day.

Given these two pieces of information I'd now change my opinion of his deal from; 'possibly shrewd but more likely got lucky' to 'completely on the ball and extremely well negotiated'. Well done Chris!

Strange. I thought we saw them selling tickets in Trafalgar Square. Also, when Stuart touts right outside their office, he doesn't seem aware he can't do that.

That it was Tour of the Day was mentioned in the programme. On the telephone at 16:40 on iPlayer, and at 33:20 it's on the blackboard as "today's special".

My view is unchanged. I think he stumbled onto it, but having done so, stuck with it because he understood the importance of the agency. I've just watched it, and he says he is saying it "on the spot", which makes me think he didn't think it through in advance.

I thought that as well. Unfortunately I've deleted that episode now but thinking back I all I actually remember is them talking to people.


I think he must have been. The producers would have made it very clear to them. He certainly wasn't aware of the basic English 'right to pass and repass' law, nor who owns the land outside a property.

I think it was a bit of both.

The tourist office clarified with him that it was 20% of ALL income.

I wondered if up to that point he hadn't realised this was what he had offered, but as they seemed keen he made a split second decision at that moment to go with it based on the fact that it was so advantageous to get the deal with them.

If they hadn't got the deal he would have lost nothing by offering really good terms, if they did get the deal it seemed clear it would sell them a lot more tickets than anything else they could do.

The task didn't seem particularly well thought out to me, since the person on the bus had nothing to do with the success of the task and the ticket sales were very hard to make other than through the tourist agency. I certainly wouldn't randomly buy a tour from someone in a Thunderbirds outfit who came up to me in the street demanding a lot of money form something I had no information about.

Come on its plain to see he completely blagged his way out of that hole!

He NEVER meant to give away as much as he did, it wasnt a "shrewd and innovative" deal - he merely f***ed up on what he offered and managed to get away with it because the other tour was a piece of crap that nobody was interested in!

He lucked out and the explanation he gave as being insightful and forward thinking was COMPLETE bullshit!

If his team had lost this 'shrewd deal' would have definitely gotten him fired .

Most people wouldn't under normal circumstance but if the ticket seller is being followed around by a camera crew then a lot of people would jump at the chance of maybe being on tv, even if only for a few seconds I wonder if all the people who took part in the tours had to sign a disclaimer saying they agreed to be on telly?

I often wonder what effect the cameras have generally. Plus we have found out this series that the deals they make are not proper deals.

Its certainly strange. If they had a briefing that tells them a list of advantages to getting the deal, its not shrewd to go for it. If they did get that brief though why doesn't Stuart. or his team, realise that? If they don't get an adequate briefing and Chris knows about it, how does Chris know it and no one else? if he doesn't know, how can he assess what deal is shrewd?

Turn it around and why is the ticket agency in there as part of the task equation at all? its the only winner takes it all negotiation in the entire series, so it looks significant. Is it intended to be there as a key move for someone, somehow, to spot? Even if it is, though, the outcome seems unclear - because you can win the contract with or without realisng its importance. It only tests who negotiates for it better - depending on factors like pricing, attraction of the tour, personalities - and who offers what percentage commission or comes up with an unusual bid like Chris's. It doesn't necessarily test much at all because, in the short term, it could just come down to who offers 38 and who offers 37% and its a blind negotiation where the teams don't see each others bids. Its also failing to test any of the factors that would matter long term (concept and quality) and Chris even wins with an offer which makes it advantageous for the agency to send all his potential custom elsewhere. It looks set up to prove something, but can't.

If was set up with one hidden key objective - to see who can spot whats important and who can hegotiate for it - the resulting firing then has no relationship to the objective. If Chris is shrewd for targeting the contract, Stuart, by definition, isn't for completely missing the point and negotiating badly. If its a test of basic business thinking, Stuart fails it seconds before he escapes being fired by claiming to have the same raw business sense he's just shown he doesn't have. Its a task where clearly not having something means you stay, and, just possibly, seeing something gets you to to the final.

I'm sure both teams were given the same information. I doubt that included projected sales from team members and the agency. Chris realised the agency was important because of its position. We don't know about Stuart; he apparently wanted the agency too, but thought the way to get most value from having it was to minimise its percentage. Liz had doubts about his strategy, but didn't know until it was too late to stop him. He was PM.


No it's not. Even without the agency, Stuart's team could have won if he had sold as well as Liz, and Stella had got as many tips as Jamie. The agency alone didn't determine the result.

On the design-a-product task, the Boots deal was of similar importance. In the pick-products task, there were key products (eg the baby-glo thing), and key vendors. Most tasks involve an element of assessing priorities.


I don't think I agree that concept and quality are important, because Lord Sugar doesn't want them to run a tour bus. It didn't really matter than Stella was less good at it than Jamie.


Firings are rarely mechanical, especially this late in the series.

This is exceptional though. Its the only task when its all or nothing getting the contract. There's always otherwise a choice of supplier or buyer or product and you will end up with something to sell or someone to sell to or someone selling your item. You can have a mixed result at the selection stage and still do well or do well with a poor choice. Here there's one agency and no fall back. Its also the only case where there's no downside to making the contract - tif you stick to the standard terms, it can only add custom and sales revenue to your team. The team that doesn't get the contract gets no help at all. The other team can't make a better deal with another supplier or find a better supplier, or do well with a poorer one, because there is none . Its true you can win the task wihout that help, but only Liz does sell at a rate thats good enough to do that and you wouldn't assume everyone could do better than an existing agency. It ought to be obvious that the contract is important as soon as its clear what the standard terms are - and that it offers, what can be a cost free, advantage.

You then have this big mystery. If selling tickets, and devising and presenting the tour is not important, what is? You have this big contract sitting there shouting (whispering?) win me - what elseis left that do you have to do to be deemed a success in this task, if its not to spot that? But would anyone intentionally design a task that depends on someone winning one initial negotiation when the rest of the task doesn't matter? Or Is it all random whats finally in a task and what isn't?

its true that firings are not mechanical, but if you want to test business sense and design a late task that allows a "shrewd move" and discounts anything else this is it, or its claimed to be it, When its over, you ought to at least note who shows business sense and who missed the shrewd move alltogether. You then ought to notice who is claiming megatons of business sense and note that there's good, current, reason to think this isn't true.

If things are not mechanical and task performance doesn't matter, you have to ask whats the point of having tasks at all? If he has a list of who he wants in the SF and final, and who he wants to win, you have a very different show than the one advertised where what you do matters. And thats probably the best explanation of the outcome of tours week. Stuart has to stay for TV value, Liz will be difficult to remove in interviews. Liz might more clearly beat Stella in a final task . You want Stella (and may have decided on her after she showed the required management skills in week 2 and ability with detail in week 1) You like Chris. Tours week does all that for you. It allows you to find an argument for Chris in the contract issue and to get rid of Liz regardless, to keep Stuart regardless, and to get Stella to the final, without her strongest competition.

They could sell tickets themselves.


In order to get the agency you had to be more generous than the other team, but if you are too generous you can lose out. With Chris's deal, the agency might have provided no sales and still taken 20%.


I don't think they were told the standard terms in advance. That's part of where Stuart went wrong.


I think what's important is how they went about it. For example, arguably having the last tour at 3pm instead of 4pm was a big mistake, but what's interesting is not who made the mistake, but why?


It was noted. Stuart did get criticised for his mistake.


To find out about the candidates. For example, Stella showed herself to be less corporate. That was a gain for her even though she lost for the team. She was safe because of past performance, and of course that past performance was seen over the previous tasks. So the tasks do matter.


If he has a list, it's largely informed by what happens on tasks.


One of my pet hates is people saying things like that. Stuart was nearly fired in this task. For comparison, consider Syed in series 2 who was fired at this stage, even though it would have been immensely entertaining to see him in the interviews. Stuart could have been fired.

What saved Stuart was his impassioned speech about yo-yos. Lord Sugar fell for it. It was a mistake, one that he regretted later. There's nothing here to explain, no great scheme or conspiracy. Sometimes Lord Sugar makes mistakes.


I doubt it. They trumped up charges against Stuart with caring about fairness. They've done the same in the past (eg to Tre). They could have done it to Liz.

Funny, isn't it, that Sugar is always banging on about people working well under pressure (despite the fact that the best business people are careful and avoid making important decisions under pressure unless it is absolutely unavoidable) and yet he seems woefully bad at it himself.

Under the pressure of having to make a decision in the boardroom he has more than once fallen for a load of old flim-flam that just about everyone else sees through instantly.