English wine is a classy product and wanted a classy advert. Hair spray needn't be and Maria went consistently for her market. The other advert made no sense at all.

Navdeep made a sarcastic comment against Andrew at the start of the episode, in the car, backed up by Lucy. So neither have a great concept of teamwork then?

Fair comment.

Andrew made all the wrong calls. He accused Steven of doing what Navdeep had done. Andrew has one of the worst records. So Lord Sugar fires Navdeep??


Actually he could have fired all three, or just Andrew, and it would have made more sense.

He's only 16, probably sleep deprived, in a highly pressurised situation. I'll cut him some slack. Reckon he cried in part because he's a decent person - probably less experienced with dealing with people backstabbing & playing games.

So anyone explain how Andrew remains?

Absolutely ridiculous decision. Sugar has lost his marbles and didn't even explain his barmy decision. Seriously, I'm not watching the rest of this series, that made so little sense.

Maria had the basic ideas right - strong focus consistency and a standout can.

The others had a green product for males, with a chamelon that didn't look like one and a blurb on the bottle that was contradictory. They had a joke in the advert that took away the focus and the advert didn't show any gain from using the product. Maria also presented hers better.

I don't think tacky is a problem for Lord Sugar if it may sell and doesn't contradict its own message. he's not adverse to making millions selling something tacky.

Corny boxer ad.

Exactly, Maria did nothing wrong really. Sugar knows tat sells. But all Andrew's team's mistakes came from Andrew, and were opposed by Navdeep - and he fires Navdeep...because she reminds him of his science teacher or something? Makes no sense. I'm out.

Symmetry? 3 boys, 3 girls left??

He's seen Navdeep's offer and doesn't want to invest in it?

He didn't seem to think much of Andrew last week so why keep him though?

Next week he's going to lose two - which means its pretty crucial who is on what team. Does he want to dump the obvious weaker cases in one team to preserve his options? He seems to see something in Stephen. Lucy has a good record and he noted it early on. Maria is on his wave length and her record is now looking quite good. We know, on the other hand, he didn't rate Patrick's design and Patricks record is poor, so he's not really looking like a possible winner, and Andrew was nearly fired for the last two weeks.

I've never bought any Sugar product because I always thought they weren't good quality.

In my opinion, there is a big difference between selling something tacky and almost being proud of its tackiness to the extent of thinking there is such a thing as "good tacky".

I'd like to point out in Lord Sugar's defence that, while I think it was a mistake to fire Navdeep over Andrew, he knows what he wants and maybe Navdeep just wasn't doing it for him. People forget that they're not being fired from a company for doing something wrong. It's an interview - previously for a job, now to go into business. I think everyone who has ever interviewed or auditioned anyone has come across people who don't seem to have anything wrong with them, but at the same time is just not right. This has been the case with lots of Apprentice candidates over the years - Karen Bremner, Sara Dhada and Howard Ebison to name but a few. And I imagine that this was the case with Navdeep.

Sorry, Thenetworkbabe, I probably shouldn't have quoted you in that last comment, as it wasn't really a response to what you said. Just a mistake.

Just watched the bit where Andrew's team discusses ditching "Chameleon". Stephen suggests "Brian" as the product name! When the other three unanimously express surprise, he adds "Brian - the only friend you can count on"!

At that point Lucy threw "Chameleon" back into the mix on the basis that the focus group really liked it. Andrew immediately said "I definitely don't like Chameleon". Stephen said they can change the sense of "adapting"; Lucy backed him up strongly, saying "I think you can pitch it as in that you can adapt it to your own style" - which is what they went with and were heavily criticised for.

Navdeep to her credit was 100% against using "Chameleon". Andrew quite reasonably said that Navdeep was criticising the idea without coming up with a workable alternative.

I don't share other people's opinion that Lucy's great. She could justifiably be held accountable for the failure of this task.

And it was Lucy who thought that the rear of the chameleon's head was a quiff!

Okay, fair point. Maybe that was a bad suggestion, but Andrew still went with it. I think Andrew was more to blame than Lucy. And I can't think of anywhere else where Lucy has gone wrong (unless you count when she argued with the sub-team in Week 2, but I think that was more their fault than hers.)

Who do you think is the best then?

Andrew admits his faults - and decisions. He made lots of admissions in the boardroom as to which (bad) decisions were his.

That's pretty rare in The Apprentice. Would you rather invest in a person who tries to wheedle his way out of responsibility, or in someone who will admit his mistakes?

Did NOT see that coming! Although Andrew boasting he has lost 5 tasks is like saying "come on, shoot me" you could see the cogs whirring in their heads " well girls, looks like we got ourselves another scapegoat".

Impression of Andrew: "Regrettably" "Navdeep, you r'e Fired"!

Its not so much firing Navdeep - he's fired lots of queter smarter people before - even this series because he doesn't think they fit his bill. He's sent some of his best potential winners home on the argument they belong somewhere else. There's more of a question why he didn't fiire Andrew as he seemed not to think that much of him last week? if Andrew had been somone good on a bad week, or Lord Sugar was sold on keeping a Tom or a Stuart or a Tre for the particular reasons he kept them, it would make more sense for someone innocent but unwanted to go?

I think he does like Andrew though... I think last week he just said that (as he does sometimes) to see how Andrew would react. While Andrew hasn't generally been strong on the tasks, he is boyish, fun and likeable - and I think LS likes him, as do many of the people on these forums. Patrick is another one who is weak on the tasks, but comes across as being a nice person, but he doesn't have an infectious personality like Andrew does.

Difficult question because it depends on what they are offering, and what he sees himself as offering them. Take Maria. Maria always thinks in business terms, she's active, forceful and likely to finish anything she starts. She can also present and sell. She can bulldoze her way through other poeple, but may be getting better. Her problem is that although she thinks in business terms she gets her decision wrong a lot of the time - because another business argument prevails. If he's confronted by people with less business sense, and drive , and she has some project thats viable, and he sees himself as the one to throw out the dud ideas and teach her what are dud ideas, she becomes a viable candidate. If he doesn't want the hastle, someone else with a passible idea. less killer instinct, less in need of guidance and with a better series record and fewer errors to show, may be better.

George, I don't know what the "bad suggestion" is that you refer to as my comment was a stand-alone one, not in response to any others (save a general comment by some people a little while ago on Lucy). I haven't read all the comments on this thread yet - I guess you think I'm responding to one of yours but I'm not.

Andrew can be held accountable as PM and I can't say that that is wrong. I'm just saying that Lucy is slipping under the radar. Of course, some people might say that's a good thing - a skill.

I like Andrew. I paid closer attention to Lucy this week as some people think she's great and I'm not so sure. Of course she could pull a blinder next week - we'll have to see.

I must say I think that people must bring a professional attitude to work, including towards people you don't like, and I didn't like Lucy & Navdeep's comment about Andrew in the back of the car. I wouldn't judge them on that alone - I'm just saying that it's a warning sign in my book, requiring watching them closely. I do feel that with Andrew, what you see is what you get. I'm not so sure about that with Lucy.

George, you like Lucy and that's fine. You may prove me wrong should she shine in the next 2 episodes.

Maybe. I think he identifies with Stephen certainly - Andrew is another possiblilty. He actually seemed happy Maria had won .......That may be because he sees aspects of himself there. On the other hand it maybe that he likes what some people are proposing and what some have set up already - and we have a Tom situation here too?? Do we know what Navdeep, Lucy or Ashleigh are proposing - or can we even guess from their CV's

Yes, I know your comment was a general one, I never thought it was a response to anything I said. I just thought it was interesting that you don't think Lucy is so great, so I thought I'd ask you about it. It interests me when people think differently to the group, I do that a lot (although in this scenario my opinion about Lucy happens to be the same as the group's, but not because it's the group opinion, it just happens that way.) The bad suggestion I referred to was what you brought up - when Lucy said about the Chameleon brand 'I think you can pitch it as in that you can adapt it to your own style', which was what they went for. That was a potentially bad suggestion of Lucy's. But I didn't think you were responding to me, I just thought you said something interesting, so I responded myself.

I disagree - I think it sounded a bit like he was accepting blame, but actually he was still trying to take credit for what he thought were basically good ideas. He just couldn't get why anyone would think his ideas were rubbish (a common thing on the creative bits of The Apprentice).

I suppose we saw Navdeep correctly criticize the product, but she didn't come up with a good solution did she?

I still think Sugars firings have a lot to do with the business plans of the contestants. maybe Andrew has a good one and Navdeep doesn't. Still she was robbed, completely, she should've been final two (with Lucy) - based on what they have let us see.