Individually Andrew hasn't lost 5 and Navdeep hasn't lost 2, at this stage, it's still very much a team game. So those stats shouldn't enter the equation.

I think it's a very fair assumption to make, she stays in the background and only steps forward when a speech needs to be made. Her strategy was very obvious throughout and she deserved to be fired. Like Andrew said, she criticised so she could bring that back to the boardroom if she needed to, but her downfall was not having any imagination or creativity, as she never came up with any suggestions herself or brought anything to the table. As Lord Sugar said, she is very academic, but has no business nous. Her presentation was awkward and she offered nothing else in the task.

I never mentioned those who speak louder are better, you have made that up. My view is that Ashleigh should have gone last week instead of David, so already your arguement is wrong and I rate Lucy very highly. Maria is gobby, but she has offered the most throughout.

This was one of the more outrageous wins that I can remember. Strexy was utter shit.

But of course if Strexy lost, it meant Maria in the boardroom, and she is too entertaining to be fired just yet.

Also from a production point of view, it makes sense to bring back the team with 4, so there can still be a 'who do you bring back into the boardroom' cut, which there isn't with a team of 3.

Totally agree Strexy was SH*** . If the so called advertising directors fed back to LS that it was the better then I despair for the world of advertising, well I do anyway. Neither was brilliant but Chameleon was head & shoulders, sic, above the other. Mind you if I was Steven, sorry if it's a ph, I would want to thump Andrew after his boardroom behaviour.

Sterxy WAS an inferior product (in terms of perceived quality). But that is not what the task is about or what it is judged for. The task is about devising a brand with a clear positioning and to deliver a clear communication to target consumers about it by means of a 30-second TV ad.

Like Maria said, Strexy was tacky, but it was consistently so - from its name to its packaging to the TV ad. Chameleon just ended up being totally confused, even though it seemed to be a superior product.

Which product would I buy? Chameleon - but then I'm much closer to the target market for the product. Which ad was the less bad of the two? Strexy. Even though it made me cringe!

If anyone still doesn't understand why Chameleon lost, reread the above, It was flawed at its core. Strexy ''did what it said on it's garish tin." Chameleon is a much better name than Strexy - but it promotes the opposite of what they were trying to say it achieved - making you stand out. Terrible mistake! As was the final shot showing a Chameleon user looking stupid. Who does that in their ads???

If anyone understands why Navdeep got fired instead of Andrew, I'm still waiting for an answer that makes sense.

You could add the chameleon that didn't look like one, the prominent text with the confused message, the green colour for a male product, the lack not only of any positive ending, but implied success for the males using it, and the problem that the boys probably all looked better without it.

It could be just balancing the sexes or he sees something in Andrew's CV. It may become apparent next week. Whoever gets Andrew and Patrick is likely to both lose and make the final??

Chameleon could have won had the team had some more wit and intelligence about them. Right idea to change concept, but they went about it wrong.

Here is what they should have done, changed the concept so that thier product is about adaptability, suitable for all men in their natural environment.

most of advert is shot through a mirror, product on shelf in front of mirror, 4 different cut scenes where 4 totally different men come up and use product, one is a punk rocker, spikes etc, another executive type and so on, final scene has the 4 people in each quarter of the screen doing thier jobs etc, with the bottle in middle of screen.

Simples.

Hi guys, newbie on here.

Gotta say I'm really enjoying this series, not least because of some controversial firings.

As regards tonight, Strexy was just woeful, even the model looked like a drag-act Jordon. When will Maria get over her 'Gurl Power' obsession? It's becoming rather cliched now - and LS is male, after all.

Andrew got it so nearly right, but like the other young lad (with the hair), he tends to get laid into by the others - is it a size/age thing?

Look at how the others went from supportive (the idea) to super-critical (the packaging) to supportive again (the ad). They seemed to me to be covering all their bases, and colluding on how best to stitch-up Andrew if they lost. I believe LS saw through this, and likes the fact that Andrew wears his heart on his sleeve. Navdeep didn't really display much passion or desire, rather, she just concentrated on her argument.

Chameleon was almost a very good product, and on a par with anything the 'adult' contestants might have come up with. Yes, technically it lost, however perhaps LS gave credit to Andrew when it came to the crunch. Strexy wasn't 'good tacky', it was lame, dated and bordering on sexist.

That said, I still expect Maria to win

Welcome, and enjoy the forums! I haven't been here that long, but I'm loving it.

Thanks

That awful hairspray ad got my blood boiling, so great to let off some steam on here..!

What would that be exactly

The fact that she doesn't sit back, she get's fully involved in every task, she's creative, whether it's tacky or not, she still has ideas, she says when things aren't going to plan and can deliver speeches.

She's the ideal candidate in my opinion.

I don't buy the stitch-up theory. Everyone liked the idea at first because it sounded good and their market research supported it. Once they realised that the nature of a chameleon didn't really fit the concept, the team rightly conceived that it was a bad idea. Unfortunately, Andrew wouldn't be persuaded to change course, and no-one was able to think of a good idea to replace it (even Chameleon was better than Brian!)

The team blamed Andrew because he was to blame, frankly. And if there was any stitch-up, it was Andrew stitching up Navdeep; while some of his criticism about her lack of creativity was fair, his criticism of her "negativity" (ie her efforts to point out the problems with the course he was taking) was emphatically not. One could even, if one were cynical, suggest that his refusal to let her direct the advert with Lucy, as she wanted, was to support a "Navdeep did nothing" argument he was preparing for the boardroom.

Andrew was the one saying it didn't make sense and realised first and said it wasn't right to go ahead with it. It wasn't that he wouldn't be persuaded at all. It's the fact that time was limited and no one thought of a better idea, he did try to rectify the situation by making the team aware in his phone call.

It was actually Lucy and Steven that ran with the idea the most. Steven did try to think of some idea's to his credit. Navdeep simply went oh yeah that doesn't make sense and that was it, She didn't even attempt to bring any idea's to the table, instead had the excuse she needed to beat Andrew up in the boardroom. That's why people are saying that Andrew got stitched up.

Navdeep didn't just say one comment; she was quite vocal and strong on it. That's what Andrew called negativity. I accept she didn't come up with any better ideas, but I don't see why that would be a stitch-up. It would only be that if she was thinking of good ideas, but not saying them. In fact, she probably just isn't creative in that way - which is in a way a valid reason to fire her, but I don't see anything underhand in it.

Strange that the three most divisive characters were put into one team & then won, for reasons I don't fully understand.

Oh hang on, is it for ratings?

Navdeep's concerns were completely correct. She was the one who spotted the fatal flaws, nobody else. If Andrew had listened to her, maybe they could've done better. He brought her back into the boardroom for spite not because of any good reason. He should have been fired for that and for being a terrible PM who made all the wrong decisions. And Sugar gave no good reason for his firing, I think we deserve a reason every time. Couldn't care less who wins now.

I think that, for reasons best known to Lord Sugar, Navdeep simply wasn't right for him. It wasn't really fair on her to be fired on this task, but she was never going to win. I think Lord Sugar had already made up his mind about that, if you think about his comments last time she was in the boardroom.

Well Lord Sugar is an idiot who should be replaced. If he won't explain his reasons then he's doing a crappy job. He's supposed to tell us why he fires people. It's an important part of the show, It's not 'The 'guess why Sugar made this week's ridiculous decision' show.'

I don't think there is a 'Why I Fired Them' programme for Young Apprentice, is there? Shame.

He did tell us. He doesn't think she has business nous and sees her as more suited to doing something else with her life. You might disagree with him, but he clearly explained it.

Disagree with bit in bold, he went on about something to do with his science teacher more, and yes I do disagree if he thinks Navdeep has less 'business nous' than Andrew, as she spotted all the flaws in his business idea, and Andrew hasn't shown any business acumen. And just saying,basically, 'Navdeep isn't cut out for business' just isn't good enough. Sugar is an idiot who knows very little about business, I have realised.

The bit about his science teacher was a little confusing, but I understood it... he basically said that when he was in school, he really wanted to be successful in science, but his teacher could see that he wasn't really cut out for it, and told him so. And the teacher was right, as Sugar has seen that that's not what his destiny was. He remembers his science teacher when talking to Navdeep, because he believes that she's not cut out to do business, but she's very good at some other things.

He's an idiot who knows little about business? Well, he knows enough to get to the position he's in.

He mostly made his money through property, at a time when investing in property made a lot of people rich. His business ideas have had a very patchy record. What was his last big idea, a phone that you could do emails on or something? What happened to that?

Navdeep's firing was just another in a string of bizarre decisions.