Just caught up on Episode 6 and was astounded that the comment about the motivational speaker being "the best thing about the day" was not bought up in the boardroom.

Why was LS now made aware of this??

I know that they'd have saved £600 without the speaker and therefore won the task by £100 BUT surely without the speaker the client would have most likely asked for a bigger refund???

I was shouting at my TV. I have no idea why this was not raised (other than the whole show is a big fix of course )

The comment about the speaker being the best part of the day was made by one attendee, speaking to a cameraman, out of sight of anyone else. Barring somebody on the show like Nick or Karren being passed the footage by production (which we're told repeatedly doesn't happen), I'm not sure who would be in a position to bring it up.

There was some mention of paper feedback being given by the client, but we don't know what was in it, beyond the whole day being slammed for lack of relevant business content.

The key bits of whole thing though were pretty invisible. The other teams effort was pretty hopeless too - hence the same fine being taken. The only thing it had going for it was Karen claiming they were trying to make it relevant. But all we saw of that was some people spouting wisdom they didn't have, to people who were more successful than them and who could see the tenous connection with what they were doing. We saw Neil's risible waffle, and then hear him being praised as worth listening too ,but that was also praised by just one person on screen , and again by Karen.

If it was true that Francesca's team was worse, it should have shown up as a bigger fine. If they are the same because the fines options are either zero or 25%, whoever spent least is doomed - whether their effort is a bit better or not.

It all told us nothing - as no one is proposing to offer that sort of service, both did it badly, and it was purely random which team had someone who could blag a motivational lecture, and had the lack of sense of their own ability to try. . It all ooked a bit familiar. The cheapest rubbish product won. The homespun illogical wisdom was treated as being brilliant. And the person who went home hadn't done much wrong, and had been one of the few who had actually done something properly.

I thought both teams did exceptionally well in this task, having no previous experience of such events . I wouldn't have a clue where to start or what to say.

LS should be reminded more often that the candidates are novices in the tasks he sets them and deserve praise for doing their best , instead of the derision he heaps on the losing teams.

Up to a point, Lord Copper. I've not been to one of these leadership away days either (not important enough, obviously) but I'd sincerely hope they were more business-orientated than either team managed.

Forget the losers and their school-based wine tasting; look at the winning team, where Leah held a vote but rejected its choice of school in favour of medieval, which in turn she later abandoned in favour of a military theme.

Now, which of those three themes (four if you count business!) swirling around in the chaps' heads made them buy sumo costumes and croquet?

I was expecting to see a private video with a thread title like that

Louisa should have gone not rebecca

i know i am a bit late LOL , i am really annoyed that Rebecca got fired, the other candidates were determined to get rid of her they got there wish, why did Alan not see this

Thats true. You really needed some people who had relevant teaching/acting qualifications to meet those set objectives at more than a kindergarten play level. They might have been adequate for 12 year olds but not for that level of audience. Some of the best actors in the West End are employed teaching trainee doctors to communicate. They at least needed more time to think and plan and invent things to do , and to draw up contingency plans.

What they did though was still pretty pointless and insulting. Understandably rubbish, because even if they had realised what was needed and pitched it at a higher level they couldn't have done it in the time. But it still was pretty rubbish.

"I'm gonna give you two the benefit of the doubt, you're 25"

No other reason for Rebecca being fired. Terrible ageism, didn't even try to hide it

He gave Luisa the benefit of the doubt. Francesca is 32.

It would have been brought up in the boardroom. The actual boardroom is several hours long.

I see your point, but sorry it doesn't hold water. Most of these people are already in the corporate world, where events like these "grow on trees" in fact quite a few of the candidates had actually attended such days. The whole point of the tasks are to put people under "stress and strain" and get them to their "breaking point" not to give them easy tasks which they are comfortable with.

Where I do agree with you is on the production/invention tasks where a team of usually amateurs are expected to produce a product, devise a launch all in the space of a couple of days, and then LAS berates them for producing "crap" I'd love for someone to turn around and say "well if we had £20 million, 2 years and a huge product development team then we could of done better"

It reminded me of my all-time favourite headline relating to The X Factor: 'Cheryl Gets Shafted'. Anyway...

She was MAJORLY shafted.

The 600 kept being stated as "why they lost". But it wasn't. The penalty/refund was.

Not only would the refund have been bigger with an amateur speaking, but also the SPECIFIC justification FOR the refund was that the event wasn't professional enough. So Rebecca's insistence preserved the ONE aspect, the SOLE aspect, of the event's professionalism. If the rest of the event had been more professional, in fact, and they'd gone with an amateur speaking... that in fact would have been criticized.

Even the wine tasting wasn't really to blame. Among the legion of bad suggestions it was far from the worst one. True it didn't fit with the school theme, but the school theme was horrid anyway. At least Rebecca was able to cobble together some loose connection between the wine tasting and the core business practices of that company. At least compared to cupcake decorating and some of the other things.

Shafted. Totally.

Its been obvious to us from the peanut gallery I think that Rebecca was seen as a threat to the other women from Day 1.

What I REALLY hated is that Sugar's excuse for the firing basically revolved around her being so composed whenever she's in the boardroom. Which is bunk, because the biggest error MOST candidates get called out for is talking their way into trouble. Rebecca sits there like a sphinx, calm as a cucumber, but clearly listening and ready. But she got punished for that.

I agree with you, but I think Rebecca should have brought this up in the boardroom. She didn't defend herself very well, and even if you perform well on the tasks, you won't last long if you can't defend yourself - which makes perfect sense, because Lord Sugar doesn't see the tasks firsthand, he only hears what Nick and Karren tell him, so it is to be expected that sometimes he may not get an entirely clear idea as to what went on. Plus, he just likes people who can talk the talk, as do I. Rebecca's defence was based around 'I've given up a lot to be here', and when she said that I groaned because that is not how to defend yourself in the boardroom. They've all given up a lot to be there, that has nothing to do with it. You need to focus on how you shone on the task and why it was not what you did that cost the task. This has been shown time and time again - prior to this, the most obvious examples being Karen in Series 2 and Shazia in Series 4. An example of the opposite way around is Zara in Young Apprentice Series 2. She was brought into the boardroom on the third task (flowers) for asking for more money from the clients than her PM asked her for and therefore losing one of the clients, and if she had not been able to defend herself she may well have been fired for that. However, she pointed out that it was not the fact that she did that that they lost, it was the fact that they didn't charge enough for the prices of the flowers on the stall, and actually her strategy of marking up the price for the clients paid off in two out of their three pitches. I think a mistake that a lot of candidates make is that they work really hard on the tasks and are so confident that they have done a good job that they don't think that defending themselves is necessary - and in Sugar's world, it is always necessary to defend yourself, no matter how well you have done.

I know that there is the argument that she may have defended herself and that that was cut out, but I think unless we know that for sure, then we have to judge it on what we are told.

I hate to lower the tone of this discussion but I thought Rebecca was bang tidy and therefore deserved to stay