When the woman (I forget her name) gave away exclusivity for so little, why did sugar not instantly sack her?.

I am sure the trumpster would have done.

I think it would be good to have a firing from a winning team, but it would be a bit odd for it to be Bianca, when there have been people who were even worse this series, like Sarah in Week 1, surviving just for being on the winning team.

Bianca was the one who goofed.
As her team won there was no reason to fire her; it wasn't the same as Robert who was told clearly to be PM and didn't do it. Bianca just made a stupid decision but if every contestant who did so was instantly fired then many would have gone much earlier than they did.

He kept the "Looker" surprise?

Whether she's a Looker is debatable.

Trip to spectators required I think.

Or even Specsavers.

I agree though - no real lookers this year IMO. Jemma was the closest for me, if you ignore the accent (sorry Brummies) but it isn't a classic year in that regard. Things are a bit "meh" on that front, like this series as a whole. Its just one of those things I guess - the cast is not going to be chock full of eye candy and entertaining characters every year.

If my opinion about this series is replicated and viewing figures reflect that I hope the production team don't attempt to turn things around by means of the infuriatingly artificial twists and blatantly obvious editing that ruined the dreadful series 8. I thought the format was dead after that until they did a remarkable job of resurrecting it last year. The Apprentice lives or dies on the cast - you could have them selling peanuts as long as that side of things is right. IMO it's just a little undercooked this year.

I think for me that Roisin is the best looker for this year. Certainly the episode of the winning team going off to a steam spa pool a couple of weeks ago showed a very pretty figure indeed.
However, none have come close to the wonderful Liz Locke from series 6. http://www.monstersandcritics.com/pe...ictures?page=4

The producers should NEVER allow him to fire someone from the winning team.

The format is that the winning team are ALL immune from being fired and if they contradicted that, the format would be dead and lose a lot of credibility.

But the format also says that about the members of the losing team who are not brought back into the final boardroom, and that has been overruled at times.

Yeah, there wouldn't be much incentive to win the task if you can still get fired. The incentive is the immunity, getting another week to show LS what you've got to offer.

Well from what we saw that mistake didnt cost them any additional sales. As if they had been about to sell to someone else then had to stop because they couldnt do it because of thw exclusivity clause she'd made, you can bet your life that would have been shown, and the team won.

It was a bad mistake personally for her, and if her team had lost would probably have been her fired for it. But it didnt end up being that bad to fire her from the winning team.

You wouldn't ever want to work with someone who would do that.

I never forgot when trump sacked brad, a really good candidate for rescinding his own immunity. Sacked him out of hand just for that.