His edit reminds me of Paul Tulip. He looks like he'll be going a long way, coming across fairly competent, but he's also very cocky and snidey about the other candidates to the camera, almost making sure that viewers don't root for him.

Like Paul, I think he'll come to an abrupt end. Especially since I don't think Sugar deals with his brand of arrogance very well, and neither do the interviewers.

Who's to say Paul wouldn't have won with the business plan format? He was pretty unemployable, but he was very capable and he may have had a great business plan. Mark may well have the same.

If Paul had won then he probably would have got a much better edit. Just like how they aren't bothering to hide away Mark's arrogance.
Ricky was incredibly cocky at the start of his series, but the edit did its absolute best to hide most of it so as not to alienate viewers when he won.

I suppose, but there's an argument to be had that Lee didn't have the best edit. Surely if they'd wanted to show him in a better light, they'd have cut out all that stuff he was saying about Sara at the end of Episode 6? The same with Michelle. There was an occasion when she was heavily involved in a big row during a treat for the winning team, and she didn't come out looking especially good to the viewer.

Paul Tulip should have won series 2. Most of his bad side came about due to arguing with Syed, and Syed was a total prat. If he made it into the final then he'd have received a much better edit.

Interesting. I've never considered the suggestion that he could have won, mainly because that series had two very strong contenders in the form of Ruth and Ansell, but I do appreciate the fact that he was a pretty strong task performer, something that is largely forgotten. I think his firing was mainly due to his appalling performance at interviews, but who knows? Maybe he'd have been more successful working for Lord Sugar than Michelle was.

I thought Ricky was the weakest most unlikeable person to ever win. I was shocked he even got to the last stages, so I don't think the edit could have been that contrived....I usually agree with Sugar's final choices, and this was the only time I didn't.

I didn't really like Ricky either.
Though I was also basing my opinion on his appearance on Total Wipeout where he came across unbearably arrogant. During The Apprentice though I did have a hard time pinpointing any unlikeable moments from him. We kind of just found out how arrogant he was from what the other candidates said when they were talking about how much he changed.

Fortunately I thought Tom was very robotic and bland, so Ricky beating him was fine by me. I would have preferred Nick to win in the final, but it was probably my least favourite series overall so I wasn't that invested in the result.

Paul, Ansell and Ruth were all far superior candidates than Michelle. I'll never understand what Sugar was thinking when he picked her to win.

Mark is a total snake, so arrogant as well

I would have fired him for lying to get the PM.

"Believe it or not, Lauren's also a lawyer!" *cringe*

All this stuff about Mark "lying" to get PM is the most overblown nonsense I've ever heard. He's a sales manager in digital marketing for god's sake, you can't get a great deal closer to a task being in your field.

He did misrepresent himself, but I agree it wasn't exactly a bare-faced lie. No more so than Lauren's claim about having extensive local knowledge of New York having been there all of four times - something Dara pulled her up on (jokingly) during YF.

Most of the stuff on here to do with Mark is overblown nonsense. Mark is a nasty bully And as for Mark being arrogant has no one noticed James or Daniel. At least Mark has something to be arrogant about

The pitch..... *cringe* - Felipe.......*cringe*

I was surprised at how bad Mark's pitch was. His job as he described it in the boardroom was very different to how he described it to his team, but the former description reflected a confidence in his persuasive ability.

Mark is simply an extremely negative person about everyone and everything. Not a good trait to have in a business partner - a partnership is all about trust, loyalty and mutual support. I think he's inacpable of all of that.

Horrible person.

Have to disagree with you there, mate. Ansell, really?? And Paul made it that far on pure luck (like Felipe this series, but even worse as Felipe could actually have been fired already).

He is getting more and more villainous. Love the feud between him and Dan.

Good TV.

Ansell was great! Second most competent after Ruth in my opinion.

I seem to recall you saying that you have only seen each series once? Why not give that one a re-watch, you may be surprised...

Would you go into business with someone who backs you 100%, right up until things go wrong, then decides to blame you? To be fair though he did have a difficult choice of who to bring back between Daniel and Katie. He didn't have an answer when Daniel called him out on that.

The feud's overblown, in my opinion. It's clear that, whether openly or not, both of them tried to take a step back during this task and find a way to work together. Daniel even praised Mark on a couple of occasions, while pre-boardroom Mark made it pretty clear that he appreciated Daniel had given 100% and he considered Lauren more to blame.

The feud only blew up again when Daniel - who gets quite emotional quite quickly - took the fact Mark had brought him back in personally, even though his 'regrettably' comment, whether sincere or not, made it perfectly clear to everyone in the room that he blamed Lauren.

Don't get me wrong, Mark's no angel - but he's not the pantomime villain everyone seems to see him as.

^^ did notice that they seemed to have put their personal attacks on one and other to bed, until the boardroom that is.

Daniel must have something LS likes in him, the way LS looked when he "fired one back" at Mark. He's getting a lot of boardroom time, which can make him a very tough candidate, when he comes across those not so adapt at the boardroom game.

I know I'm swimming against the tide, but I thought Mark (and, initially, Daniel) handled the situation pretty well. I think they both realised their personal issues were getting in the way, and whether they agreed it openly or not it looked like they just got on with it.

I'm sure Mark was keen to keep Daniel away from NY, but Daniel took it well and even embraced the opportunity to show his creativity (sadly it was found lacking, but hey). Mark gave Daniel responsibility (yes, I know that can be read as foregrounding in case they lost) but he had no real choice - he couldn't control that part of the task from NY, and it was a show of faith in him and Katie that Bianca singularly failed to show to her UK sub-team.

Daniel complimented Mark on his pitch - fair dos. Even outside the Bridge Cafe after they had lost, Mark could have stuck the knife into Daniel - instead he acknowledged that this wasn't an area of expertise and he had given 100%.

It was only when Daniel reacted emotionally to being brought back into the boardroom that it all broke down - and this was 100% Daniel's fault.

Again, you can question Mark's ulterior motive in trying to put the feud behind him, but the way he said that we was "regrettably" bringing Daniel back in was a clear signal that he didn't consider Daniel as blameworthy as Lauren. If I was Sugar I would have read that as, "I have to bring someone else in, it's Daniel, but Lauren is far more to blame." In effect, he was narrowing the field from three to two (i.e. himself and Lauren) for Sugar. It was either a silly move tactically, or an honourable one.