I think Leah proved that she was able to do that. She was quite quiet and competent for quite a lot of last year, but she was under the spotlight in Week 9 and she really defended herself very eloquently, in a similar style to Susan Ma. Who knows, she may have been fired that week had she not done that. Lord Sugar seemed to be having some doubts about her, but she impressed him.

I would argue that Stella was an upfront type. Mind you, we know how that partnership worked out.

And although he didn't employ them, Ruth Badger, Saira Khan, Claire Young, Luisa Zissman, Susan Ma, Debra Barr and Katie Hopkins all made it to the end and were all very much "in your face". Susan Ma got the investment after the show had finished. I believe Lord Sugar has expressed regret over not hiring Ruth, and he very very nearly hired Claire. Saira has done very well for herself and I believe she is in contact with LS. He gave Debra his card upon firing her and asked her to call. Admittedly Katie and Luisa were lucky escapes for him. But LS doesn't appear to have any real problem with assertive types, he just doesn't like to stake everything on a risk. An understandable stance for a businessman.

Didn't deliberately list all females there, but there you go! I guess that loud-mouthed men don't make it to the end, with the bizarre exception of Ricky. I ignore that whole series though.

Jim Eastwood was another exception - I don't think he deserved to be a finalist, but he got there.

Why do you ignore Ricky's series? Just personally not liking it, or you think it's an anomaly?

Both. In that it's startlingly boring and had no stand-out candidates other than the one person with any personality, who won by default IMO. I've seen from your other posts on here that you like Series 8 but boy did I feel disillusioned after that year.

As for Jim, I wouldn't say he was an in your face type. I think he was a very particular kind of schemer who knew how to position himself in a conversation. He would make an outstanding politician but I don't think he was a match for Lord Sugar in terms of personality.

Fair point about Jim.

Yeah, I do like Series 8, it's up there quite high if I had to put them in order. We did that a while back, I think I ranked it about third or fourth. I don't understand what was so boring about it. I suppose there must have been something if so many people think there is, but personally I've never quite seen it... (Incidentally, I disagree with the suggestion that Ricky won by default. I think Nick should have won, although I was happy with Ricky...)

I think the root of the problem was that everyone was too savvy about the process and didn't drop their guard. I do take the show seriously but the standard was almost too high to be honest in some respects. But in terms of personalities and characters it was dead in the water as everyone knew exactly what you should and shouldn't say/do. Series 9 got it right by bringing back in fun people who weren't as au fait with the process such as Jason and Alex. Series 10 is one of the best yet.

And that actually brings me smoothly back round to Lauren, as she is one of these people who is being very professional, making no real mistakes but not taking risks. She would have run away with Series 8. But in this series of big characters and big ideas, she's getting lost.

Do you think that about other series that had high candidate standards, such as Series 1, 5 and some of the earlier Young Apprentices?

Of course the show and the tasks are still relevant. He might like really like a business idea, but he still has to find out if the person proposing it is capable of running a business with him. Having a good plan might save someone after one bad performance but it won't save them every week.

Imagine if they dropped the "fake" tasks and simply presented their business plans and went straight to the interviews so he could choose the best. How could Sugar tell the genuine business skills from the self-promotional claptrap they all trot out to begin with. They need a way to whittle down the competition and make watchable TV at the same time. That's what the tasks are for, exactly the same purpose as when the prize was a job.

I don't think anyone has been fired so far this series that didn't deserve to be.


They tried that the first time out, but people simply assumed he knew the plans anyway, so since then they have been more upfront about it. It's more transparent this way. All that is known at the start is the basic idea. The detailed business plan isn't written and presented until the interview stage.

While she might not have been as in your face as Debra, I don't think that Yasmina really fits that description (especially considering her opponent in the final).

I thought Ella Jade's firing wasn't remotely justified by anything shown as being anything other than "wouldn't it be dramatic if we fired three people at once", but that whole episode was a nonsense anyway so why not?

Why not? She was the losing PM and had claimed relevant experience.

I agree the task was nonsense. Creating viral videos is not something you can do overnight. It was more a case of who made the least worst videos.

She had a better handle of what the task was about (shallow grubbing for instant hits) than the other team and her team were in the lead for most of it, only losing out because of the collaborator Summit got (it's noticeable that we're never shown Ella making the wrong choice of collaborator, only Solomon making the right one, a fact that logical guessing, along with the fact that she was never called on to defend her decision, would leave me to believe that she didn't make the wrong choice and she was screwed over by the stupid nature of the task, which her team only barely lost). She'd performed strongly on sales, negotiating and pitching in earlier tasks, she was in the Boardroom with two people who were so much less plausible than her for it to be farcical that she be fired along with them, most of the criticism was meaningless waffle coming from Pamela, who it has become obvious could be PMd by anybody and find reason to bitch and whine, and the justifying around her firing was mostly a bunch of pettifogging about how she'd never washed dishes in a pub (?).

In terms of losing PMs I think there's less reason to fire her than either Sanjay or Roisin, both of whom sailed through their boardrooms fairly easily.

Me too. I thought Pamela was rude in this episode and scathing in last week's. Her performance in the boardroom was no surprise. She doesn't listen and is loathed to give anyone else credit. So glad she's gone.

I agree . Maybe she has been ducking the PM role but she certainly has not been hiding in the tasks . She did a great job last week and gave her best this week even though she knew from the start this task was doomed to fail . Pamela showed in this task her total incompetance as PM .

The person who has been hiding since her stint as PM is Katie . I've no idea what her contribution was in this task .

I don't think he needs the tasks to know who has a good proposal. The CVs and proposal - with a bit of checking - will tell him that. The tasks often test irrelevant skills, or the ability to work with people no one winning will ever have to work with. With the new prize, he already has evidence in many cases that they can do what they are offering to do successfully- because they are doing it now. He doesn't have to evalaute their ability to do some job he has in mind for the winner.

What the tasks may do, is to identify people who are better than their CVs suggest, or have potential to change fields, or move up a level. He's chosen a few winners on those grounds - because they were ready for promotion, ready to make a career move, or had more potential than their CV suggested.

Most winners, though, won for being the right person for the job, the best, least flawed, candidate left, or, post 2010, as the person with a safe proposal that met his requirements, or the only person with any real proposal he could accept. He's often avoided the most capable people in a series, , and some of his winners have had some moments of cras error - that have sent lesser mortals home.

Its true he's mostly sent the right people home this series - although firing 3 was probably overkill, and just removed his room for manouver the next two weeks. But if he wanted to keep several of them - because he wanted their proposals - he could have. There's no reason to think they all couldn't do what they are proposng - he just didn't want what they were proposing. Equally, some of the people he has kept on now look as if they have zero chance of winning - because they lack the basic skills and/or the technical skills to do what they are proposing, and have no record of doing it .

On Dragons' Den, there have been so many instances of someone receiving investment at the time, but later the deal falling through due to something not working out between the entrepreneur and the investor(s). I think the fact that Lord Sugar gets to know the candidates through the weeks definitely helps to choose the right person for the investment. So far, since the prize has changed there have not been any winners who didn't work out, although admittedly there were a few when the prize was a job, Stella being the most obvious example.

They are all self-promotional and not above lying so the CV is no indication of anything. James' CV would be fantastic but we know what he is actually like now. The CV checking would be best done at the interview stage. So you either go straight to that, or you have some other means of identifying the deadwood, i.e. the tasks.

For the job prize he had the CVs too. All you actually need then to choose a winner is an interview process. So the tasks have the same function whether the prize is a job or a business investment.

It's up to him. He has to work with them or invest his money in them. People cite Tom as someone who should have been fired and was kept in because of his inventions. But he was rarely in the boardroom to be fired, and was often right about why a task was going wrong. He may not have been on the winning side much but he showed his capabilities all the same.

If the person who did best over all the tasks was meant to win then they'd have a league table to decide it. In the end it's Sugar's judgement that decides and you can't blame him for keeping someone in the process who he thinks should make it to the interview stage. That applied to the job prize era too.


I didn't think we have heard what all the plans are yet, so how can we know who isn't up to it? I don't think anyone left in has a zero chance, not even Daniel. All the no-hopers have gone. Who did you have in mind?

I thought she was poor throughout the task. She directed the first video because of her experience of making and editing them and made a total pig's ear of it. She didn't lead well and didn't take responsibility. So she was in the frame for technical and leadership failings.

As you say, we never saw what their alternative collaborator was about. However Solomon opted to go for a popular blogger rather than someone specialising in cookery. Lauren chose the fitness video specialists. It's likely their alternative was also someone not relevant to the theme but with lots of viewers. Ella Jade wasn't involved but probably should have been.

Pamela wasn't even in the final boardroom so how could her criticism have been important? The washing up was a throwaway line from Lord Sugar saying he'd have more respect for her if she had real work experience, such as "washing up in a caff". But then he's never liked the intellectual route to business greatness. That's a reason to fire her in any series.

CVs tell you a lot- if you can read them - hygiene improvement operatives are cleaners - and managing and retail director may mean street trader. Equally winner of a national award suggests quality and top universities don't throw 2.1s and Firsts away. . The only problem is if the actual qualifications and jobs are made up - which has been pretty rare. . He's blurred that by ignoring misleading statements in some past cases, and sending people straight home at interviews for others.

You may be right - if he checks nothing at all. As you say, it should be obvious who can't do anything, but i did benefit from ten minutes research on linkedin on some others that suggested who could do things. . Lord Sugar may not do that. On the other hand, I suspect he hears some worlds like "swimming, bridal dresses, or old folks home" and decides straight off he doesn't want anything to do with that.

I don't think all the people who went were no hopers. There's no reason to think that a couple at least couldn't do what they were offering to do. Their tasks tested irrelevant things, that didn't undermine their past achievements. I think a couple of people he's left in (because he had used up his multiple firing options, or they had TV value) would get into my category of someone not fit to risk £2-50 with. They have either proved not to be capable of what their Cv claims and their proposal depends on (salesmen who can't sell) or they are just monumentally thick.

The idea of picking who is compatible with him is an interesting one. The problem is its been pretty arbitary. Some people who look like wide boys he has had time for. Some people have put words into his mouth and shaped his thought processes throughout - while others have been condemned for trying to repeat his thoughts or influence him. Highflyers have been seen as too smooth, too corporate. People who most seem to share the basic skils and who argue strongly like him- have never got the job. People who might do others things as well have been condemned for not wanting to concentrate on whats only a 250k investment.

I think its even worse than that. Ella lost on hits on the collaborator's site. But as far as anyone can, seemingly tell, she took (as you said above) the rght collaborator. Solomon had twice as many hits from his , but that was remarkably likely to be only because he had a much better option available - with twice as much traffic as any Ella had on offer. She seems to have lost because she didn't have a collaborator available with ten million hits a month, and she was stuck with one with 5. Give Solomon her choice, and her his, and he's going to be the one in the firing line.

Lauren is being set up as the fall guy this week. If Tenacity loses, Mark and Daniel know she is vulnerable with his Lordship.

I feel a bit sorry for Lauren. Last week she wasn't allowed to speak. This week when she explained how she contributed she was ignored and the perception she contributed nothing was unaffected. This week she was the only person to be fired, and I think it is accurate to say she was singled out.

Actually she did get to speak last week, she did defend herself. It's not as if she was gagged. The thread title is misleading. Anyway we only see a tiny bit of the boardroom discussion.

As for this week, whether she really didn't do much or not, she wasn't very influential in the task. I don't think she was singled out. Nick and Karren usually point out "porkies" being told by candidates, so if Mark falsely claimed she did nothing and she really did a lot it would come up for discussion.

Every time she spoke in the boardroom, someone talked over her. She was not allowed to speak without being contradicted whilst she was talking, which I think was unfair. Lord Sugar should have said, 'Lauren, why should you stay?' and not allowed anyone else to speak whilst she was speaking. There's an argument that that didn't matter as she wasn't fired last week, but I feel that she left the boardroom under a cloud, and that influenced the way she was viewed this week.

Of course, it is entirely possible that she did speak uninterrupted and that was cut out, but I think you have to assume that you're being shown something accurate. Whilst it is inevitable that certain parts of the conversation will be cut out, the editors should treat each candidate fairly, and it was edited in a way that suggested that Lauren was never allowed to speak. If she was, that should have been shown, and the fact that it wasn't leads me to the not unreasonable assumption that she wasn't able to defend herself at all.

If she let herself be talked over then that's her own fault. It wasn't a case of her not being allowed to talk. She's a lawyer so she should be able to argue her case, even when the person she's arguing with is trying to shut her up. She did speak uninterrupted at least once and made a good point. She might have felt it was better to not try and push her defence more forcefully. That's fine when your actions speak for themselves, but in her case her actions have not been very obvious.

The editing this series has shown quite a lot of overtalking in the boardroom arguments. Maybe that's what they want to show. But we know these sessions can go on for hours. It's very hard to imagine that she was talked over every time she tried to speak. Don't you think that Lord Sugar, Karren and Nick would want to hear her side of things and make sure they did?