I thought that Alan Sugar was rather mean in the boardroom. He seems to forget that these are young people and he definately has his favourites.
The girl who got fired was quite right about David annoying her when he was chipping in while she was trying to listen on the phone.
Sugar definately has his favourites out of the youngsters and seems to resent the candidates who may be cleverer than he was at that age.

Errr she was making a tit of herself mishearing what the guy on the phone was saying....that's why he was chipping in... Trying to help the grumpy little cow.

Her attitude stunk last week and this, and as she showed she wasn't a team player both weeks, she deserved to go, especially she virtually irised herself by refusing to shut up in the boardroom. She talked herself out of the show, a bit like Paloma in the grown up version

I agree . Someone should remind the old fossil that they are still children.
He certainly does have his favourites . David should definitely have gone as he doesn't have a clue.

I disagree. What I like about Young Apprentice is that, although LS is a little bit more gentle with them than on the adults, he is not patronising like on a cheesy CBBC thing, he is firm, fair, honest and expects a lot out of them. I think they can handle it. The candidates on Young Apprentice actually come across as being more mature than the adults quite a lot of the time.

I thought sending them to buy a car was a bit much at their age...

What's wrong with that? They weren't buying it for themselves, just for the opera house. Besides, most of them are 17, the age where you can learn to drive and have a car anyway.

I thought the girl who was fired totally deserved it. She was thoroughly unpleasant.

She spent her entire time on the show stirring trouble and putting other people down. She had no idea how to be a team player. Good riddance I say. Hope she learns a valuable life lesson from this.

They are not children, they are 17, they can drive, join the Army, work full time, get married (with permission) and have children of their own! in Law they are children true, but most of them have their own businesses etc and wish to be treated as Young Adults, if that is the case then they also should have to be treated as such in the Boardroom.

btw Glad that Amy has gone, god she got on my nerves, maybe next week it will be Teflon David.

A lot of them are 16 . 16 or 17 still children .

^ This ^

I like the way LS tones himself down for the junior version, too, and would love to see an adults vs. juniors edition, the younger contestants seem every bit as competent as the adults in the tasks...

I don't think so. I don't remember any adult team only finding half the items. Three of them spending 6 hours inside and only finding was it 2 or 3 items.

So you're saying you'd rather work with a team of people including Stuart Baggs, Katie Hopkins, Helene Speight, Jim Eastwood and Tre Azam, than a team including Arjun Rajyagor, Zara Brownless, Harry Hitchens, Lizzie Magee and Haya Al Dlame? Seriously?

I think you're being a bit selective there. There are plenty of competent individuals in the grown-up version, you've just chosen a selection that would be hard to work with. What about Yasmina Siadatan, Ricky Martin, Tom P, Tom G, Nick Holzherr, James Max, Tim Campbell, Ansell Henry, Ruth Badger, Chris Farrell, Stella English, Sara Dhada, Lohit Kalburgi to name just a few?

Also, there are plenty of bad candidates to work with in the Young Apprentice versions:

Hibah Ansary, Zoe Plummer, Hannah Cherry, Jordan de Courcy, Gbemi, Harry M, Mahamad Awale and even Maria Doran and Amy Corrigan from this series.

I think that there are very good and very bad candidates to work with on both shows and you can't say it's better to work with the kids as you don't know which kids you're working with.

Obviously I was a little selective, it's impossible to make a comparison without being. However, to minimise this I did make sure I only chose people who made it to the last two weeks of the show.

I just think overall, the Young candidates have been more mature than the adults, and it's hard to make a fair comparison because there have been so many more adult candidates than there have been Young candidates, so I just had to select some of the people who made it to the last two weeks. For the record, I quite liked some of the Young candidates you referred to there... Zoe was a strong saleswoman and a strong pitcher; Hannah was creative and led her team to a strong win when she was PM; Jordan didn't shine very much and I hated him when I first saw him, but when I've watched it back, I do think he could have done better... his mistake was being too confident in being PM, he was quite out of his depth, but even his team admitted his leadership got better as the day went on, and he seemed fine to work with when they all came back in the finals; Amy, like Zoe in Series 1, was a strong saleswoman, even if she did put people's backs up.

And if you compare some of the results, the Young Apprentices have done much better. On the advertising task last year, both adverts were pretty good, and they both featured the product prominently - I don't remember that ever happening on the adult version. While the format of the semi-finals was unfair, not many products the adults have created got as many orders as the people who bought the popcorn - I think Helen and Liz got more orders, but that's the only times. Kirsty broke the record for the biggest profit on a task before that was exceeded by Liz... I know Series 1 had the first occasion a product had no orders from retailers, but it's rare that a task is messed up as badly as that on Young Apprentice - I suppose the most recent task was, but it happens so much more often on the adult show.

^Another this.

I'm 18, been watching since series one, and never have thought he's been too harsh. It'd be a mistake to treat them like kids, at that age your almost desperate to prove yourself as an adult and by not patronising them he's doing that. Sure they'll probably make more mistakes than adults would because of lack of experience, but then I think he tones it down enough to allow for that.

Which was the point I was making, they may be children according to the Law (i.e. under 18), but they are very grown up for their age and if Alan Sugar went easy on them it would be very patronising.

Don't forget these people will of seen the apprentice/young apprentice and know whats going to happen and since they're under 18 their parents/guardians will of had to give permission as well so they will know what they are letting themselves in for

And for buying cars theres no legal age at which you cannot own a car, theres legal ages which you can drive it on the public highways but i'd assume that a fully insured member of the production team would drive the car for them which was why the tax issue came up and they didn't seem to be bothered about getting insurance etc but the time taken and the cost of adding the tax to the purchase price seemed to be the killer

Lord Sugar does seem to be cutting them more slack than the adults but to their credit he's not having to give them much slack as they are quite often doing a better job than the adults

She wasn't making a mess of it. She was talking to the guy on the phone in nato alphabet - which is what anyone who can does to make sure they have the address right. David had no idea what she was doing and was repeating every letter even though she had already repeated them, and written them down, and was trying to hear the next bit . Basically David just isn't very bright and is extremely irritating.

She had done quite well on the first tasks. She sold and negotiated better then either of the males in that final 3. She was pushy , but he often takes to pushy females.Her mistake was not to let the rest of that team lead the argument against David and just repeat their points.

The basic issue probably though was that he had fired two males already and he almost certainly didn't want another one to go in a row - even tthough two had proven themselves to be useless this week.

Sugar doesn't have a problem with too many people of the same sex going in succession... In Series 7, the first three to go were men, in Series 1 the first four to go were women.

0_0 Since when 17-year-olds are considered 'children'? They're young, that's for sure, but they aren't children. In fact, they would resent the hell out of Sugar if they sense he's coddling them. They're old enough to believe they are adults and should be treated like one. Even so, as far as I can see, Sugar treats them gentler than he does with actual adults.

Well put! That girl was a nightmare! She was petulant, rude and aggressive. She wasn't the sharpest tool in the box as she couldn't take in the information relayed to her on the phone quick enough and properly. David was clearly more switched on and was rightly trying to help her. Rather than thank him she descended into another one of her silly tantrums and started arguing with him.

And LS did say he had been getting bad feedback from Karen & Nick about her so it was no surprise she was fired. She was very unpleasant i must say. I have a hunch Lucy will win.

I didnt like the girl who got fired but did not think the failure of the task was down to her. The stupidity that drips from Davids mouth regarding his management style towards others should have made him a non starter let alone three boardroom escapes.

The failure wasn't down to David either. Yes he talks a lot of crap but he did do his job. Amy was interrupting him when he was trying to do his buy of the army boots so she could then claim to have done it. The failure was actually down to Steve because if they'd got the car then they'd have beat the other group easily.

Actually, the man on the phone told her the postcode like 10 times before he started chipping in. He can't help if she is deaf