Just got caught up with this. Although I think George kind of 'missed the point' and perhaps didn't lead the task as much as he could have (personally I can see why he brought Stacey back, even if it seems a bit odd), I reckon his previous record may well save him.

Depends what Mitch does in the BR, I think he's probably gone but if he can put up a good defence, then George could go after all.

All I can say with some degree of certainty is that Stacey will probably be called safe first

I think if George writes an essay and Mitch doesn't which I can see happening then Mitch is gone.

Agreed. Although I believe that on the basis of this task, George absolutely deserves to go but I think he'll be saved by the fact that he has the potential to go further than Mitch.

It shouldn't be about whether your defence is an essay though I think it all comes down to this: would they fire George, in spite of his previous record? Or would they fire Mitch, who may not have contributed as much to this task?

I'm not sure what will happen to be honest. This time last series, it was lack of contribution that saw the first candidate fired (I think it might have been Naruto), but then iirc there weren't really many 'errors' to say that any of us could have gone.

Stacey seems to be singling out George, I did wonder whether she'd do that. Think that might make a PM firing a little more likely.

Ultimately I think if Mitch goes it will be due to their out-of-game personalities and past-series records, which I don't really think should be taken into consideration either, but I admit I think firing someone like George on the first task would be a ballsy move, deserved or otherwise.

It would be ballsy, but I would have to admit that that's what I would probably do - if anything, having such a good previous record kind of counts against you, as in you'd think he wouldn't be making these kinds of mistakes in the very first task. #ruthless

I'm intrigued to see what Lord Sugar will do here. There are reasons for firing either of them.

EDIT: LS' write-up has Mitch being fired I think.

Meh, I wouldn't have fired Mitchell, but I can completely understand Niall's decision. George is, in general, a much more competent candidate than Mitchell, so it would have been a difficult decision, although I do believe that George's shambolic management should have earned him the finger really.

Commiserations, Mitchell!!

For those of you who've seen past DS Apprentice's, you'll be happy to know that the Wikia pages are making their return!

I agree that George's disorganisation, idea and serious lack of communication should have got him fired. Sorry to see you go Mitchell.

Hello! Man, that was crazy

Incidentally, I just realised tonight that in the history of DSA, the losing PM in Week 1 has never been fired in that week. Glad I wasn't the first...

Awesome, I was looking for this earlier!

No Edgic table?

I do agree with Stacey's comments towards Mitchell, though. He does have a tendency to have some kind of drama that keeps him from putting in too much effort and always has an excuse.

Definitely very sad to see Mitchell go this early, I do agree that he had more to give but unfortunately taking everything into account I feel it was the right decision based on this situation, and I hope people understand my reasoning.

I sent a PM round yesterday about this and there didn't seem to be much issue with it, so I'll go ahead with starting the next task on Wednesday unless anyone has any major issues with that - it will be a slightly shorter one this time so will only run till Friday when we'll have the boardroom. I will post tomorrow the exact time when the task will be posted and the task will begin.

David and Louise should be posting feedback for all contestants soon so look out for that, and other than that I hope you've enjoyed the first task/boardroom of DSA4!

I understand it may seem like this, but I wouldn't say they are excuses, I wouldn't reveal they're there unless they affected my performance in the task, if I had of seen these coming I wouldn't have signed up, but unfortunately these were not in my hands.

The project manager in series 1 was not fired.

Edgic will be up to some of the other people.

I understand if they were brought into question, but I think it's unfair to judge me based on a game I did 3 years ago when I was 14/15, I've done a lot of growing up since.

Team Aptitude - Evaluations

Naruto - The most active member of the team. Availability is a huge part of success in DSA and you definitely tried your best. You were the only team member to send me your work (like I requested at least twice) and you impressed me on this first showing. However, when the deadline as fast approaching and it looked like none of the other team members were showing up, you just sat there worrying whether you would get their work on time and didn't act productive in any way. I need to see a lot more initiative.

Roxie - Whenever you were around, you were a joy to watch. Obviously intelligent with some great ideas and you have a great way of interacting with your teammates; you're very likeable. However, availability is a huge issue. If you were around more you would certainly be a force to be reckoned with. You have all the ingredients to be a top candidate so I hope you put everything you have into the next task.

Arran - You started off quite well, you were available and you seemed to be trying to get things organised. However your leadership went right down the drain today. Nothing of your pitch was sent around and even though you had Roxie's parts none of your team were informed until the last minute. You organised a deadline today yet failed to inform your team members you wouldn't be around. The whole posting of the pitch was a complete mess. You have potential Arran but this was just disastrous in the end and quite frankly, irritating to watch.

Jess - You were a good team member this task. However most of what I saw from you was asking about what you'd missed and you certainly weren't around half as much as you say you were. I didn't receive any PMs with your work either. On the other hand your organisation skills definitely pulled the team together (night one and during the posting of the pitches when Naruto was doing nothing to sort things out). I think everything would have been a complete disaster without you.

Emma - I don't even know what to say Emma. You spent most of your time talking about the Sims (which is fine for design but really shouldn't be your only contribution). I was impressed with you night one because you were so involved but your contribution in terms of ideas just seemed to fizzle as the task went on. You're going to have to contribute a lot more than this to advance in the process. You need to focus.

Tom - INV

Yes, that's just what I said. They've never been fired.

I apologise, I didn't get your point

tl;dr sorry y'all know I love a good wall of text.

Team Inspired - Evaluations

Shadi - You impressed me the most, to be quite honest. You had a midterm to be studying for but honestly you were probably the most active member of your team. You weren't around on the first night, but made sure to inform Niall beforehand so you knew that was good conduct. You definitely made up for your first night of inactivity because you came up with some really good ideas and made sure your opinion was heard. Despite having to be busy a lot of the time, you still ended up doing some of the most and best work that was handed in so majorly well done!

Steve - Steve you excel at design. When you said you were new to doing that sort of thing I was super shocked because your layout in particular did look so professional and it was really impressive. You were the first person to come back with all your work complete and then offered to do more which was nice to see and within discussions you appeared to be active and not take a backseat. In order to develop, I'd really like to see some more ideas coming from you in tasks and also for you to do work that isn't design-orientated and more written based.

Stacey - Stacey, you being brought back into the boardroom was a bit of a travesty and an injustice. Due to the way work was delegated, you didn't get the opportunity to do much work (limited to the desserts only), but I noticed that you were the only person around to offer to help Mitchell with the pricing for the drinks and then earlier during Steve's MIA crisis you offered to reupload the images (although Shadi did beat you to it, you were the first to offer to help). It's small things like this that I think maybe as an advisor I notice more than if I were on the team. You also came up with the best idea that was mentioned in the brainstorm and it is honestly a shame that you didn't push it harder and your team didn't go with it because I do think you could've come up with the winning idea if executed properly! Don't let your emotions get the better of you though at times in the boardroom and within chats.

George - Honestly, this task was a bit of a disaster for you from start to finish. It started on Friday when I silently questioned your methods of delegation, concentrating entirely on the menu for 2 whole days as opposed to delegating people to work on the pitch or details on the promotional methods and launch party. The final straw, to be honest, was earlier during the posting because it was actually quite comical to watch!! You were saved this week by being so dedicated to the process and that amount of effort and work you put in, but I think you realise you need to step it up if you are to make it as far as you did last year.

Zak - Aside from the passive aggressive comments within the skype team chat & the boardroom thread tonight, I would say you worked well to an extent. You were fairly present within the discussions and brainstorms on Friday and at the start I thought you were going to be one of the strongest members of the team, but I feel that you quickly got complacent. Fair enough, you were only delegated the starters, but nobody ever saw any of the completed starters writeup that you lost earlier and you did leave it all to the last minute. I hope you don't get complacent because although you are a strong candidate you need to give a lot more if you want to win this year, and watch that attitude in the boardroom if the result doesn't go the way you want it to.

Mitchell - Commiserations, Mitchell! Whilst I do agree with you being fired with the circumstances, I do urge that I am also quite sad to see you go. I was really pleased and impressed with just how much you've grown up since I had last spoken to you and you put a lot more effort in, even with inactivity issues due to real life (which is understandable) than you have in past series of this show. Because of that, it's pretty ironic you were first to be fired. You were right with opposing the idea but what let you down, and the reason why you're fired, is because although you had the right idea, your ideas about different types of restaurants (a 'Build-a-Burger' bar and a 'same main course for everybody' which was just weird) didn't offer much to the grand scheme of things. It is a shame you got fired though, but sadly, the right decision.

I appreciate the feedback David, thanks.

Not to try and start an argument but I think it's a shame Poth went and someone in the other team appeared to do virtually nothing yet is still in.

Aw I like the idea of having the cute little evaluation feedbacks. Nice words <3

Just to reiterate what I said in the boardroom, past performance didn't come into it - it was based on the considerable amount of effort George put into this task, which is especially important in week 1 where we need to determine who's will be dedicated in the long term. If George had made considerably less of a contribution, he would have been fired. That's not to say that we're firing people based on activity - if someone does the most in a team but everything they complete is completely awful then they will most likely be fired, that's not the case for George as I feel the pitch (which was largely done by him) was to a very good standard and also I feel he held his own remarkably well when he had to answer a string of tough questions. Obviously he wasn't perfect, made some fatal mistakes as PM and was a lot more to blame for the failure of the task than Mitch was, but I think if you looked back on every task in DSA and determine who would have been fired if it was completely down to responsibility for the failure of the task then you'd have some pretty bad firings. One of the reasons I was sad to have to fire Mitchell was because I was looking forward to see how he could improve on his previous performances, so that definitely wasn't the reason he was fired.


I actually agree, but obviously we have to base task results on the finished product itself and not based on if we want someone from a particular team to get fired - otherwise it's not fair on the teams and there's not even any point in having a task.