I don't think we can say that people lie low and stay out of trouble, as whether or not they are perceived to is entirely down to the editors. We can't say if people do or not based on the very small amount of footage we see.

Another thing that I found odd about Harry M is that a newspaper reported that relationships with his girlfriend were strained due to a love triangle in the house with Hayley and Zara. Hayley I could just about see, but I cannot imagine Zara getting personally involved with anyone in the house. I'm sure that's just newspaper twaddle though, so it's not really fair to suspect Harry of making things up. The newspapers also reported that Lewis and Hannah were dating (which they may have been as they were seen to be very close) but that that caused jealousy with Harry H who liked her as well. As Harry H is gay, I find that very hard to believe! Don't see why the newspapers can't leave these people alone actually, it's not really news...

On the 'ways to revamp the format' subject, last night I had an idea. What about if instead of having two teams, each week had all the candidates as one team? They'd probably do better on the tasks because they'd have more hands on board, and it would mean we'd get to see more footage of how they did on the task. I suppose the first argument against that is that there'd be less incentive to be PM as you'd automatically be in the final three whatever happened - but I'd argue that the incentive is to prove yourself to Sugar. If you do a good job as PM, it shouldn't matter you being in the final three. It would mean the end of fluke PM wins (Melissa, Noorul, Azhar etc).

One other factor is that our rules on product placement mean it is perhaps harder to run advertising or marketing tasks than it would be in the United States. We need, "invent something then advertise this fictitious product," whereas they can say, "make an advert for a Jaguar XF," or, "run a launch event for the new Sony PS4 in Michigan". (And the corollary is that it is easier to persuade Jaguar or Sony to pay for the cost of facilities.)

I do not know if more use could be made of the web. Create a trailer on Youtube for an auction on Ebay, and so on. Or create two web pages that will be presented to browsers at random from the same site, and the winner is the one that generates the most clicks-through.

The prize had to change as Lord Sugar is now semi-retired and has either sold or withdrawn from day-to-day running of his companies. Any replacement would be hard to find, as there are not many British entrepreneurs with companies across a range of sectors, as Sugar has or had.

Treats are an important part of the show and I'd like to see both an increased budget and more imagination. This series has seen an improvement on the latter front. It is a shame it comes too late for Young Apprentice whose candidates might have been even more impressed by cycling with Chris Hoy, or a spa day. As a viewer, I want the prize to make my jaw drop as much as the candidates', and really, if any of the adults fancied a hot stone massage and eyebrow shaping, they could arrange for it themselves, and I expect some do!

I didn't think the treats on Young Apprentice were too bad. I wouldn't turn down a speedboat ride, dinner at Tom Aikens' restaurant, zorbing, helicopter flying or a meal with Richard Branson (although the latter admittedly because I can't stand Richard Branson and I'd like to confront him about a few things!)

Yes, some of them were good but again, in most cases, by applying imagination rather than a huge budget.

Interesting idea. You could have the incentive for being PM as being that, if your team was judged to have 'passed' the task, you would be declared immune from the boardroom the following week (as per the original US format).

I accept your point about lying low in terms of editorial choice and coverage. You certainly can't do nothing, but I think it's still fair to say that there are those candidates who are more willing to take responsibility and risks, and those who are happy to allow others to step forward and take relatively few risks, or who align themselves closely with the PM - what I call the Laura Moore strategy. Harry M had the guts to take risks much more so than the average candidate, and Sugar noticed and I think appreciated that because that's what an entrepreneur has to do. Nobody made millions by taking the easy route to success.

Oh I hate immunity. Its pointless (As people on the UK show tend to step up as PM pretty willingly compared to the US one where Trump's tendency to fire the losing PM means there is huge risk and no reward)

I think it means that a candidate can coast and do nothing for a week. I think that a candidate needs to display strengths each week. I really do believe that immunity is a terrible idea.


Hehe, George is a fan of Laura Moore so I'm not sure he'd agree on that point. Personally I do agree and I still to this day believe that Harry M deserved his place in the final six as he was genuinely entrepreneurial and business-savvy. As I say, though, his communication and people skills were atrocious and if his team had won Week 7, that, for me, was why he wouldn't have reached the final.

I've always thought the treats should be more 'money can't buy' experiences rather than things that have a defined monetary value. So, cycling with Chris Hoy - absolutely. Having your own private chef cook you a meal - yes. I'm less impressed with a spa day, because anyone can do that - although I admit that would have been a good treat for the YAs. It certainly shouldn't be judged on whether it's costly or not - many of the best treats are, as you say, more about imagination and providing a great experience than because they're "wow, that's expensive!"

Part of my rationale about turning the entire series into one big task was that it would mean coming up with something new, rather than, as you say, "produce an ad for the XF", which you could then market and follow-through on. I know that in things like branding and advertising tasks that one of the reasons the teams often come up with quite naff brand names is that whatever good names they come up with get nixed because - surprise, surprise - someone else has thought of them already and they would be infringing on intellectual property.

It's funny when we see tasks that feature well-known brands of high street names. There's clearly a legal rule/guideline which says that you can mention a brand name directly once (and maybe show a shot of the corporate HQ) but no more. Hence we had lastminute.com named up front in the awayday task, but thereafter they were always called "the online travel company" or similar. SImilarly, Argos (who we often see) becomes "the catalogue retailer" after mentioning their name once, and so on.

There's so much that has to go on behind the scenes that we're rarely privy to - it's necessary but boring in terms of producing an entertainment show.

I know - just pulling his leg (although personally I do think there's a grain of truth in it).


I'd only advocate it for George's one team format.

I only watched the first three series of the original US show, but the reward for the winning PM was exactly that - immunity the following week. I can remember very clearly one episode (I believe it was the start of season 2), where a male PM had won the first task and was then on the losing team the following week. In the boardroom he was all the big-I-am, and Trump invited him to waive his immunity and face the boardroom on an even footing. He did just that - and Trump fired him for it. Tee hee. It's my favourite moment of any Apprentice series ever.

With what you call the Laura Moore strategy (or the Patrick McDowell strategy, another candidate that I liked and no one else did ) I don't deny that they did ally themselves with the PM to avoid being brought back, I just question what is wrong with doing that. The format means that if you're not in the boardroom, you won't get fired (unless you're Jenny Celerier obviously). Therefore, you should avoid being brought into the boardroom - apart from maybe occasionally so you don't end up with the Paul Tulip scenario. If I was on the programme, I'd definitely do that - why not?

I wouldn't support immunity for good PMs, but maybe with my 'one team' idea, the PM would bring three people into the boardroom instead of two? That way, there would be more options for Lord Sugar to make his decision, and if someone was clearly a really good PM, he could easily say at the start of the final boardroom, 'You're not going'.

The Harry Maxwell thing, I don't dispute that he deserved to get to Week 5 or 6, but I think that Hayley deserved to be in the semi-finals more than he did.

George, I don't disagree it's a good survival strategy - which, in the first few weeks at least, is paramount. The only point I'm making is that it's not necessarily the best way to go about impressing Sugar. Eventually you have to do something right on your own rather than simply not doing things wrong.

It's like the difference between being a 'manager' and an 'entrepreneur'. Management is about control and process and doing the basics right and avoiding costly errors. Being an entrepreneur is about taking risks and doing something different and driving change. The two aren't always entirely compatible in the real world, but Sugar's brief is that he wants an entrepreneur rather than a manager (in the new format, I mean).

On the immunity thing, I'm on the fence and not overly fussed either way other than trying to reduce the disincentive for being the hypothetical PM. I like your 3 vs 2 idea - in the original US format, didn't the losing PM also have a choice of bringing back 2 or 3? Alternatively, you could have the boardroom panel decide whether the PM had done a good job: if he/she had, they could then nominate 3 people to send back in and avoid the boardroom themselves, but if they decided they hadn't done enough to convince them then it's the PM plus 2?

Personally I was fine with Harry M as a bit of a wildcard risk-taker, but I do completely agree with you that Hayley also deserved better.

I agree on that. The thing about Laura is, though on a personal level I really liked her, I wouldn't have chosen her to win any other series. I only chose her for the series that she was in because she was the only person who fit the role that Sugar was offering. The other front-runners were either too experienced to be an apprentice (Stella, Liz, Chris), had things already going for them to work on (Jamie, Joanna) or were just idiots (Stuart). I admit that Laura wasn't a stunning contestant like there have been on some other series, but she was young, adaptable, not that experienced but I think demonstrated enough basic business knowledge to learn and become a really good apprentice. The problem is that the production team didn't choose the right people to take part in the first place, but out of those that were there, I think Laura was the right person.


Yeah, good ideas. (Production team, are you listening?) I would have the PM at least in the room with them at the end even if they weren't at risk of being fired though, so that they can give their opinions on who they thought was weak etc.

Laura: I agree with you, I think. She wasn't overly impressive, but as you say she was a better fit than many of the others. By Chris I assume you mean Chris Farrell (was he jailed in the end, I can't quite remember?) rather than Chris Bates, who was as raw as anything in terms of experience and I have to admit didn't rate at all.

As for our alternative universe Apprentice ideas: agreed. Anyone have an email address for Mark Burnett?

Actually I meant Chris Bates, because like Stella he had a background in investment banking, so I presumed he was quite a high-flyer already. I don't think Chris Farrell was jailed - he was given a suspended sentence for fraud, but I think he managed to avoid jail and is still out there somewhere.

If anyone could find Mark Burnett's email, I'd happily send him our ideas!

EDIT: Forgot to say: YAY! Someone finally agrees with me about Laura Moore!

*Partially* agrees.

Re Chris Bates, I forget the exact details but my best friend is good friends with a couple of his former colleagues, and I recall him telling me that Chris had only actually worked a few months in the investment banking world in the kind of extremely back-office junior role befitting a new graduate and, while undoubtedly intelligent and articulate, wasn't necessarily a shining star either. He was a bit of a joke in terms of his credibility and his claims about himsef, I was told. (I can still remember Margaret absolutely tearing strips off him in his interview too - not quite StuBaggs-level evisceration, but not far off from what I recall.)

Maybe Series 6 would have been better won by someone who went early on? Like Sandeesh, say?

I think Raleigh could have done well, but he sadly had to quit. I'm just nervous of saying that anyone who went out as early as that should have won as we didn't see that much of them.

For me Stella was the best of a bad bunch, but for the wrong job given her experience.

I know what you mean about the others you mention. I'm always reluctant to overly praise or criticise anyone who is fired in the first 3-4 weeks. We never really get to see enough of them to make any kind of definitive judgement. (Doesn't stop us trying, obviously!)

Given the way the show is edited, we don't even get a rounded view of the finalists - only what the producers want us to see which suits the narrative of their respective 'journeys'.