I think we possibly shouldn't have chosen India in the end but we made the decision as concerns beyond those already raised came to light but by that time the decision to stick with India was right as it was getting late in the day and would have been a risky option. I think having said that things are rapidly improving in India and there are theme parks which are there already so there is definitely a market for theme parks. We didn't want to go somewhere more obvious such as the UK or America (though it was suggested on 2 separate occasions) as we felt the market there was fairly saturated and India seemed to be a good balance between the population numbers and number of tourists each year and poorer safety laws to which we addressed by making sure we had much stricter rules to keep our customers safe.

Okay, I'm just going to respond to each of your points.

I can see your point about it possibly seeming like Roxie was the PM at times, as I did agree with her on certain things. However, I did not agree with things that she said just because she said them, I agreed with her because I tended to feel that she was making very good points. There were actually times when I considered that maybe I shouldn't be agreeing with Roxie as much because it may come across like I wasn't in control, but if someone is consistently saying things that you agree with, then it makes logical sense to back them. There were times that I agreed with Roxie, there were times that I agreed with Iain, and that is how it should be. It just happened that there were more occasions on which I agreed with Roxie.

I think it is clear what our reasons were for choosing India were in the pitch, and there isn't anything I can say that has not already been said. As for the science theme park, I tried to make it clear in the pitch that even if you don't like science (which many people in India do), you can have a lot of fun with what we have in any case. You could just as easily treat our theme park as an ordinary theme park, but we do have some special attractions that set it apart, and we are involved with some very popular sci fi franchises.

As for me doing the graphic work - I know that it would in theory have been better for someone else to do that. My better judgement was inclined towards asking one of the guys to work on that, but on the previous task Lord Sugar said to me that he was keen to see what skills in graphic design I had. I know it's not brilliant - I was never going to create a masterpiece, because that isn't my strength. But it was very much suggested to me by Lord Sugar that I give that a go, and I did my best on it. It may have looked better if someone else had done it, but at this stage of the process you have to look out for yourself, sometimes at the expense of the team, and I knew that I wouldn't have been able to defend that decision had we lost and I not done that part.

I think that could turn to be an advantage. Families and groups of friends who travel to London to do other stuff would be drawn into going to the theme park since it would be quite close. Also, people who do attend the theme park will be able to be in a close vicinity to other London attractions and hence make the day more full of things done. Also, the theme park would cater to all ages so all of the family would want to go to this theme park.

India was certainly a controversial choice on our market research. There was a discussion (I think it was late on the first day, but it could have been on the second - I can't remember offhand) as to whether we should switch it. I did seriously consider it, but I felt that at that point we had worked very hard on the assumption that we would be in India, we had good reasons for going with that which Roxie went into in great detail on the pitch and ultimately we knew that we were able to defend India as a concept if it was criticised, because even if it didn't work out it would be clear that we had chosen it for the right reasons. If I had made the decision to switch to another country and that hadn't worked out, it would have been a lot harder to defend. I could just imagine you saying to me, 'George, you had a great idea for a theme park in India, and some great reasons for going with it. Why didn't you go with your gut?' Also, in our market research, India was controversial but the focus groups were not overwhelmingly against it. If they had been I may have made the decision to change, but as it was, with the time that we had left and what we had worked on so far, I felt that it would be harder to create something great if we switched our location and had to start that bit again from scratch than if we just stuck with our original plan.

While at first glance India may appear to be out there in terms of not being known for its theme parks, I thought that it would be the perfect place for one as I explained in my research in the section on location. The fact that it has such a large domestic consumer population with the second most populous city in the world, with 50% of the demographic below the age of 24 that suits our target market perfectly. It also has some established theme parks but these are few and far between so I think we have taken advantage finding a place which is not crowded with theme parks. And the biggest advantage of all is its low cost production - labour and raw materials are cheap there and it makes it a prime location for investment which is why it is an emerging superpower, the theme park would be easy to construct from a financial angle. As I said in my promotional plan too - you have so many marketing opportunities such as big bazaar areas, malls and Bollywood to take advantage of.

There also some certain perceptions that people have of India and while understandable, they are not entirely true. There are some perceptions that India may lack the infrastructure but India has been injecting lots of money into infrastructure projects as shown on this site with £17.7 billion of investment and it has got a few theme parks of its own which show that construction of the Indian site are definitely feasible. Health and Safety laws are also not a problem as the Factory act ammendment has meant workers have to be skilled in the jobs they undertake and regulations mean that construction sites are closely monitored every week or month otherwise the government has the right to demolish the site. The biggest evidence of the strict Healthy and Safety laws is that there have been no serious incidents with other theme parks. Another point that was raised was about dirty water and I do not think that would be a problem or a limiting factor as the government has to provide clean water for such a public place as it does for malls and other theme parks.

That was kind of what I was getting at though, in my experience going to the theme park is usually something that takes up a whole day so not really leaving much time to do other stuff in London. Most people in the UK live close enough to be able to go down to London for a day and not have to stay overnight so I think it might be less likely that they'd want to spend the whole day doing one thing. It could potentially work, but that was just a possible concern I foresaw.

I agree with everything that George has said but highlighting this bit about the concept I would add that it is a bit gimmicky which is what draws people to it at first and then when they have as much fun as they would at any other theme park come back for more. Also when I originally pitched the idea my thought would be not to so much have a specific sci fi section but have rides dotted around based on the different sciences (physics, chemistry and biology) that were based on science fiction and science fact. The learning aspect was really more Roxie's idea where as the original thought was to focus more on the sci fi aspect as that is where the popularity and public interest lies at the moment whether or not you agree with the concept is despite the point.

I think while the other team's idea is highly creative, it is not feasible with the over elaborate rides which may be too expensive for the prices they are charging for. They also picked somewhere in London and I thought the wonderful thing about this task is that you can choose to have the theme park anywhere in the world - choosing London when it's already saturated with theme parks would not bring in the business enough? I also feel their idea may be slightly restrictive in terms of appeal - would a Fire, Water, Earth and Wind theme only appeal to younger demographics?

I believe our theme park has the advantage in feasibility with location - the population demographics are definitely in our favour with a huge domestic population, a thriving tourist sector and the low cost production, and the pricing scheme which takes advantage of various situations and sensibly matches existing theme parks. We also have an extensive promotional plan which is directed at both domestic and foreign tourists. Our idea is also universally appealing bringing together a concept which would be attractive to both foreign and domestic consumers, families and younger demographics. It is this combination of universal appeal and feasibility which our idea definitely has the edge in and therefore should be chosen.

I do actually like Team Aptitude's idea, it is creative and original, but I think that was always to be expected at this stage of the process when there aren't really any weak candidates left.

You should choose our theme park over theirs because I think that ours makes more sense on a business level, and would take off more. Our location is certainly a lot better - I think that going for anywhere in the UK is very foolish, because we have a lot of already very popular theme parks here, and there is no reason why a new one would be able to compete against the likes of Alton Towers, Thorpe Park and Drayton Manor. India might seem a bit out there, but I think that the statistics and facts that Roxie posted up show that it really is a good idea, we wouldn't have a huge amount of competition from other theme parks and we have utilised marketing tools that would appeal both to an Indian crowd and to tourists as well. I don't know where their prices came from, but ours were, as we proved, very well researched with regards to the market in India, the prices for similar venues and also our special offers were consistent with things regularly offered in that part of the world.

Also, I feel that while Team Aptitude's idea is good, ours is more creative. They have a theme, but I don't see what makes it that different to an ordinary theme park. Our theme park has a theme which is well-researched, we know very well would work in India, would be educational for kids but fun even if you are not interested in the science aspect. We are not generic at any point, we are very original as nothing like this has been done before (which was part of your brief), but we have a lot of fun rides and we definitely have the potential to take off in Delhi. And we have a fantastic promotional plan to make sure that it does, which the other team doesn't seem to have.

I think that Aptitude's idea is a very good one but I do feel that they missed a trick or two in their pitch with the concept. For one it is very similar to Avatar the last Air bender and I feel that they missed an opportunity here to embrace that.

As for what makes our theme park stand out over theirs, I think that we have a very clear and concise concept that can not only be easily expanded within our first theme park we could easily expand to have other theme parks where as I feel they may struggle to expand as much as we could particularly into creating a second or third park which I feel if it were popular enough we could easily do. I think that this should be reason enough for our team to win as we have a brand that could easily thrive into a very successful franchise.

I honestly believe the fact it is marketed as a scientific and educational theme park will not work. I don't think it even matters that children in India like science because it does sound like it is suited for classroom trips and hence does not have a wide appeal. If you give children the option of 'fun' or 'fun with an educational twist', i honestly believe they will choose fun. Also, the Bohr Model is pretty advanced for children.

I think ours stands out more because the experiences people will have with ours will be more appealing ; the fact that there are four distinctly coloured and designed areas as though four different worlds. The appeal for all ages also supports our idea than Inspired's. The different types of theme park all merged into one ; a water park, an amusement arcade, roller coasters etc. No matter what, whoever attends this park will know that it was worth it.

You should make our team the winner because I believe our idea is better and would relate to more people. The market research all apart from one, recommended this idea from the shortlist we created so we know people would like it. And I feel it would work tremendously well.

Thank you for your responses, before I reveal the results, I would like to say that there were things I really liked about both teams pitches:

Aptitude, I thought the four elements idea was a really great idea and you incorporated it into your theme park very well. I also particularly liked the rides you came up with, I thought their was a great selection and clearly a lot of thought had gone into them

Inspired, I really appreciated how much effort and thought you had all clearly put into this whole task. I thought the idea and rides you had were definitely innovative and I liked that you went the extra mile by including things that weren't originally asked for, like the promotional plan.

There were some flaws in both team's pitches, I have addressed a few of these and will discuss the losing team's idea further, but the winner of this task is...

I'd just like to point out in response to this that no one is talking about 'fun' or 'fun with an educational twist'. The educational idea is that children will learn without realising it. But, as we keep stressing, it is not the educational aspect that completely sums up our theme park! You can have a great deal of enjoyment from what we offer, on a digestive system roller-coaster or a ride based on Star Trek, whether you want to learn on an academic level or not.

I would argue that it isn't all about learning and the Bohr model is merely because I thought it would be a great design for a rollercoaster ride rather than to educate on the different models of the atom. In fact I would reiterate that the educational part was unintentional and something that Roxie picked up on and very much advocated perhaps I should have directly challenged that aspect of it.

Team Aptitude.

Congratulations, overall I thought your four elements idea was great and you did a brilliant job applying it to the concept of a theme park. Clearly a lot of work had gone into your pitch, and if you ironed out a few issues I think this would be a brilliant idea for a theme park. Naruto and Shadi you both did a great job on this task and have both made the interviews, well done!

You may leave the boardroom.

Can I just add something about the educational side of it - is that there is only a slight feeling of 'learning'. The theme park is designed for kids to have fun but at the end of the day the parents are the ones paying for tickets, not the kids, and to convince them that it would be a good idea, we would have a bit of an interactive, learning approach to a few of the rides (not all of them, most of them are quite fast-paced and energetic) as parents would then think their children are getting a bit out of it.

Thank you Lord Sugar.

If Iain and George wanted, I would be able to respond to them in the Task thread.

Well done Iain and Shadi - it was a very creative concept.

I'm happy to do that, well done on winning gutted we lost though, good job Roxie and George you both did well, and good luck.

Team Inspired, I can see you put a lot of work into this task but unfortunately I cannot award you the win.

What do you think lost you the task? Do you think any one of you in particular is to blame?

[b]I'd like to comment on this in particular.

We understand not every candidate is able to be artistic and graphically efficient, that's not what the point of them is. Whilst I did comment that it looks basic, that isn't why I don't think it was right...

Throughout the entire task, actually, both yourself & the rest of your team, I feel, didn't really 'grasp' what a theme park actually was. I'm quite the adrenaline junkie and theme park enthusiast, having a Merlin Annual Pass for several years. This is highlighted through many areas of your concept and pitch and that makes me believe that is, in a way, flawed. Most notably, the layout. The gift shop in a random corner, one set of toilets in another corner. That amount of rides in a clock also doesn't really work just because of how cluttered it would be and I just don't see there being space in the market for something so niche.

It's easy to say 'Lots of Indians like Science', but what are you basing that off? Roxie said herself that Doctor Who wasn't popular and Star Trek is something that hasn't (aside from the movies) been relevant for years now...

Congratulations Team Aptitude, and well done to Naruto & Shadi for being the first two candidates to make it through to the Interviews.

Good luck to George, Roxie & Iain, no decision tonight is going to be easy and I can see all three of you making it to the final four so good luck.

I feel that the educational aspect lost us the task. I think that that is very unfair actually because that was not the key theme for our theme park, just another marketing tool, but clearly that didn't come across in the pitch, because some people, such as Naruto, seem to be under the misguided impression that that was our USP. India was perhaps another reason, although I still don't understand the criticism for that, because we had some great reasons for going with that. I was the person who stood firm behind India and if that was a mistake then I hold my hands up to it, but I think it should be clear that I had very good reason for sticking with it.

As for if any one of us is to blame - it's difficult. I really don't think that any of us deserve to go. Iain was the one who was the most passionate behind our theme, Roxie was the one who got really behind the educational aspect and I was the Project Manager, so all of the decisions ultimately went through me anyway. If I had to pick someone to blame it on though, I would choose Iain. He worked very hard, but I didn't feel that he contributed as much as Roxie and I, and he was the one who was the most passionate about our science theme. Had he not been there, we may have gone with the other theme that we had, which for all we know could have won the task.