Just wondering is there any system in place to decide a winner if a task was drawn?

Obviously such a situation is unlikely to ever happen in a sales/profit task but it's something that could easily happen in a design/orders task.

As you said, it's unlikely to happen, but if it did, I imagine that Lord Sugar would discuss it with Nick and Karren and make the decision as to which team should win himself.

I reckon they'd just manipulate the final standings by a few quid so the team LS prefers can win.

Why would they have to do that though? If the teams were tied, the team that Lord Sugar wanted to win could win anyway. They wouldn't have to be sneaky about it and change the figures, they could be honest. He could say, 'You've both made the same amount of money, so well done. However, from discussing it with Nick and Karren, I think that this team's strategy is more likely to succeed in the real world than that team's strategy, so you've won.'

Ah - bless. You must really think the world is an honest place eh?

A tie would be ridiculous. 'None of you are fired. All of you, back to the house'

I think if a tie were ever to occur (especially now they seem to be allowing also selling to the trade in the tasks which could potentially lead to a tie) it would probably be because both teams had messed up so badly that they each ended up with zero sales, and in that case the solution would be obvious - declare both teams as losers, and fire one person from each team.

Is there anything to say a candidate must be fired, after all we have double firings to make up for it.

You clearly haven't even read my post. I didn't say that he wouldn't fire anyone. I said that he'd make the decision himself. I think if he was making the decision himself, then under those circumstances he'd have nothing to be ashamed of, so what would be gained from deceiving it?

I always thought that. I don't think it will ever happen, but it would be good if Lord Sugar decided that no one in the final boardroom deserved to be fired, and did a double or triple firing later to make up for it. The closest he has come to that is in the interviews in Series 4, when he said he was going to fire three, but ended up only firing one.

There has been one, and only one, episode where no one was fired. This was in the Harrods task in Series 1, as Adele left before anyone could be fired - although Lord Sugar's comments suggested that had she not left, she would have been the one to be fired anyway. In those days, there was a strict system in place saying that only one person could go each week. In later series, if something like that happened, he'd probably fire someone else anyway (like in the third episode of the first series of Junior Apprentice, when Adam left the series, but this didn't stop Lord Sugar from firing Rhys.)

I'm saying that a tie is too much of a headache and the show wouldn't allow it to happen.

Why would it be a headache? The show has shown before that Lord Sugar can overrule the results if he wants to. In the first task of Series 2, he almost disqualified the team that made the most money for their questionable tactics, and they had to convince him to award them the win.

But that wasn't a tie situation

There has never been one.

I just don't think it would cause enough of a problem to change the figures. But it is just my opinion against yours, and there is nothing to say that either of us is right or wrong, and we'll never know unless there is shown to be one.

Just a thought ...

If there was a tie, wouldn't it be great (i.e. dramatic) if we went through the boardroom only to be told that no one would be fired but that there would be a guaranteed double firing next week?

(It's not an unknown concept. One example: American Idol has a judge's save which (until this year) meant they could save someone good who had come bottom of the public vote, but on the proviso that two contestants left the following week.)

After all, there's nothing to say there has to be only one double firing per series, as long as we fit in with a series length of 12 episodes. (Alternatively, George's proposal of a five-person final could be made to apply.)

Marvellous! I'm liking all the ideas we have to improve the series. If it gets axed, we'll have to make sure we're on the production team in a few years time when it's brought back bigger and better than ever before (which inevitably happens.)

Now all we need to do is get it done and engineer a tie ...

Who would you have hosting it? (Ideally I'd have Sugar, but if we're assuming this is the revived series, it may have to be someone else.)

I actually think Karren would be good as the boss!

I think Karren would be a level-headed boss, but not entirely convinced whether she has the big personality to carry it off. (Ditto Nick, who's appalling as the host of Countdown.) To have a female boss would also be a good statement for women in business.

I have no idea whether they would be (a) willing or (b) have the right kind of personality to front something like this, but here's some other suggestions:[LIST][*]James Dyson[*]Stelios Haji-Ioannou (Easyjet)[*]Martha Lane-Fox (lastminute.com)[*]Charles Dunstone (Carphone Warehouse)[/LIST]
I haven't included Branson - he was originally approached for the boss role, wasn't he?

I wouldn't watch it if Branson was host. Wouldn't even consider watching it. For me, one of the things I like about it is that I find Sugar very likeable. It wouldn't work for me if I didn't like the host.

What about one of the past winners? Tim Campbell?

I have many issues with many of Sugar's actions and words, he doesn't need to be so anal about his peerage and tell people off for not addressing by his title, he also seems contradict himself many times over when dreaming up a rationale to fire his charges, however, he is perfect for the part he plays. He chews the scenery when he is on the screen and deals with the sheer idiocy on display with panache. He is great for a quote or two, and keeps it real. I can't think of a businessman in the UK that could do better.

Can you give examples of those things (when he has contradicted himself, how he deals with sheer idiocy etc)?

I agree that there aren't many other businesspeople who could do better though. I think out of the past winners, the only ones who really have the presence to present the show are Tim Campbell and Ricky Martin. Saira Khan could do it, I suppose.

I don't particularly warm to Sugar, but he does call it as he sees it, which I respect. (Even though I choose to disagree with his choices sometimes!)

To be honest, I'm not sure any of the previous winners would have the skills, credibility or broad viewer awareness to carry off being Sugar's replacement. (Yes, I'm thinking Brian Dowling and Big Brother here!) But Tim would certainly be one of the most credible. Perhaps somewhat oddly, I think Ricky Martin would have the personality to do it too. It would be worth it just to hear him say "Hi, my name is Ricky Martin" again. That just never got old with me.

EDIT: Oh yes, Saira too.