Surely if they were going to give a wildcard to someone who finished outside the top 3 they would have to state this fact prior to people spending money on voting? If the British public had spent money voting for people to come in 2nd/3rd place only to have an act that finished 4th, 5th or 6th take a place in the final then there would be an uproar.
They may or may not be able to do this legally, I don't know. They can certainly do it practically, but I don't think they can do it morally.
Then again, does it matter? If an act couldn't make the top 3 of the semis there is no chance of them finishing anywhere near the top of the rankings in the final.

The act will be whom ever Simon wants
I think what it should be all the acts that did not get voted as judges choose to go to final should do their acts again and public votes and act who wins will be the act with most votes

I see the OP is desperately hanging on to the possibility of the wild card bringing Alice back


Look at it this way, even if she is brought back she obviously wasn't that popular if she couldn't get into the top three. If she comes back, she'll more than likely be out again on the very same night.

Exactly why the wildcard was almost of no use last year. The Mend were third in their semifinal, brought back for the final and finished 8th. If they are going to bring back an act, it needs to be one that has a chance of winning. Whoever it is, I would hope it's not a singing act.

The wildcard is important because its still a good achievement to reach the final whether you finish 1st or 10th.

11th, as with the addition of the wild card there will be an extra place as opposed to the usual 10.

A lot will depend on voting during the week. For example - if Jack and Cormac received more votes than Gabz last night, they wouldn't risk putting them into the final as a wildcard as Simon clearly sees Gabz as a money maker so will want her to finish as high as possible. They wouldn't want to put someone in the final who might pose a threat to their preferred winner.

I think the whole idea of a wildcard is a bit pointless really. As others have said if they weren't good enough to finish in the top 2 of the semis they don't stand a chance realistically of getting anywhere near the top half of the final. I could understand it if the acts in the semifinals were picked randomly as it could transpire that one semifinal has 3 or 4 brilliant acts who would easily beat the winners of a semifinal that was full of less talented acts. However, I believe the semifinal lineups are not picked randomly and are seeded in someway.
Perhaps they could draw up a shortlist of all acts that polled a certain number of votes regardless of which night they were on and select an act from there. Other than that I don't see the point other than to balance out the variety on final night (or split the votes of acts the producers don't want to win if you are a sceptic).

So we don't vote for the wildcard? I thought they announced a shortlist and the public voted last year.

Nope. Quite simply, the judges chose it. And they had them on first which did them no favours.

Wildcard is the biggest waste of time ever. They have no chance of winning why even discuss it.

Thanks. Don't know what I was thinking of then

don't see the point of a wildcard since there probably just gonna put another stupid singer through. the only singers i like are luminites and mc boy and marrty for entertainment

I think you were thinking of X Factor last year (and the year before).

Google confirms that I was - thanks

When is this decided then,next Saturday?