I have always wondered this.

I assume before the boardroom he is briefed who to get rid of or who is not making good tv

I assume last night the producers would not have stood for Luisa going so it was a no.

Out of the other two Rebecca was the dullest tv, so the producers would have gave a thumbs up to that

Sugar has said that the only way he'd agree to do the show was if he had the final say on who got fired/hired.

But that's not to say that he doesn't consult with the producers about it.

There is no evidence to support this, and it seems out of character for Lord Sugar to agree to it. Luisa was never really in the firing line yesterday.

I'm sure they try to influence him, but I doubt he listens. I don't think it's in his character.

Absolutely yes.

If it was on entertainment, then why was Melissa fired over Jamie? Why was Bilyana fired over Katie? Why was Amy fired over Steven? Why was Mahamed fired over Harry H? Why was Edward fired over Leon?

There are plenty of examples of occasions when entertaining people have been fired quite early over and above people who are more competent. I know that there are examples of competent people going unfairly, but there is always a reason for it, even if it's one that we don't agree with. I think that Sugar is generally quite fair. Not always I'll admit, but not every decision can be completely fair. He was fair to Luisa, because he recognised that she was essentially only there because she isn't liked.

Absolutely.... except. however, the proverbial loser remains at the end of each season, and miraculously appears the next, viz a viz Mr Alan Sugar.

Poor pleb - he failed to achieve anything a school, only received mediocre grades at O level, failed to make the grade for anything else, and became a mere Barrow Boy. And, within The Apprentice, he has to sit idly by watching his intellectual peers be paraded in front of him - it must be quite demoralising.

I have a lot of respect for Sugar. Just saying.

Luisa wasn't responsible for the loss, so why would she be fired? Francesca was duller TV than Rebecca in my opinion and should have been fired as well, if not instead of her (who is at least good to look at and never joined in the shouting matches). Much classier.

Sugar warned Francesca not to bring people back who didn't deserve to be there or she would be fired. She did exactly that and survived. To me that supports Sugar being in total charge of who goes, including his being inconsistent in the boardroom.

No reason why he shouldn't want the show to be good TV either. He can afford to keep the more abrasive characters in for the early rounds who perhaps should have been fired instead of quieter and less noticeable contestants like Rebecca and Sophie.

I'm sure his lack of O levels keep him up all night, in his giant bed, in his giant house, with a Jag in the garage and politicians and Uncle Rupert on speed dial.

Your sneer has also affected your vocabulary, you misused the word 'peers' - that would refer either to the guys he went to school with being the contestants, or all the contestants having a similar educational background to him. I think you meant to say 'intellectual superiors' and yes, he must find it incredibly demoralising to watch a bunch of people with degrees act without basic common sense, decency, or intelligence. 'I'm so demoralised by how easy it would be to run rings round this lot,' he thinks to himself. 'Bet I can get them to dress up as chickens next week.'

..and yet you missed off his title there!

That's not how you spell or use "vis–à–vis".

Oh dear

I just did that to save time, in the same was that people say LS instead of writing it out. But if it makes it easier, 'I have a lot of respect for Lord Sugar.' Happy now?

I can't believe you're asking this........ do you really think Alan Sugar has a say in any of this??? They probably gave him some say to get him involved initially, but I can't believe he has any control at this stage. He has benefitted massively from being the front man but he has no real say.

How precisely has this semi-retired businessman with a seat in the House of Lords and several hundred million quid in the bank benefited massively from being the front man?

I was just being silly! It reminded me of when Jim called him "Sugar".

Rebecca wasn't the dullest TV. She was the best salesperson on two tasks and I quite enjoyed watching her work. It's nice to see someone good at what they do. She was also capable of stupidity if that's what you want: basing a wine tasting on which bottle cost more for example. She wasn't shouty in the boardroom, but the show doesn't need everyone to be shouty, and her apparent coldness had its own TV appeal.

I am confident that the producers and editors could have made her into good TV. That's their job, and she gave them enough material to work with.

I'm pretty sure LS himself knows from the off who is going all the way to end and then who he needs to keep longer to ensure the show is watchable.
The producers could of course intervene if they think he has it wrong but I doubt it happens. He doesn't like to be contradicted does he?