Why does Mark go for the women? (pick on them, make them feel inferior etc)....what did he contribute in the task? I think LSugar knows he's playing the game and maybe is playing a game back by keeping him in....hopefully he'll get rid of him soon...

I think the ganging up on Lauren this week was sexist, at least in part. I don't know about Mark, he seems to methodically target one person to try and remove them, one at a time. He's a cuckoo. Maybe he's sexist but I couldn't call it, either way I don't like him, I think he plays a very underhand game.

True and then acts all innocent...like he wasn't going to bring Daniel in but it was a very tough decision (yeah my bottom I'm sure it was!) think Lord Sugar clicked on too....

The minute Lauren knew she wasn't to be project manager she should have put herself up to be sub team leader in the UK.

Her undoing was wanting to go to NY.

He's this year's exceptional candidate in my eye, extraordinarily good at what he does (Sales) and very competent manager today (He Reigned Felipe in very well and even Nick commented on how good his management style is)

The problem is he's very ruthless and he smells weakness, and Lauren unfortunately was probably the weakest candidate in the team. There's no sexism imo, he just sees everyone as competition to be got rid of and he's playing the game accordingly. Very Slimy, Very Sly but I have no doubt he'd run a successful business with very little input from LS and that's what he's looking for at the end of the day

Not necessarily sexist, Pamela targeted Lauren last week.

To him he probably thinks being 'ruthless' is the right way but its making him come across as insecure and lacking confidence. He does have skill but that negative side is making me think Lord Sugar may think is this the guy for me? The Guy thats a bit shifty...He won't last long...

You're right Pamela and Mark seem similar. In the way they control the situation and make themselves appear in control of the situation by shifting blame on others.

I don't understand the point your making. The team failed so he had to chose 2 people. Do you usually call it targeting when a PM picks 2 people? Daniel who he also picked commented himself earlier in the show that Lauren contributed nothing and it appeared that way on the show so even if they edited it that way someone else clearly believes it but yes Mark targeted her Hmmm

The barrage of negative posts and threads towards Mark on here is baffling. He's clearly an excellent candidate and if Sugar ever doubted that he knows for sure now what with Nick so positively backing him.

She did nothing this week. She did nothing last week either. Trying to blame someone's actions on being sexist is pretty low.

So what did Mark contribute to the task? I'm glad Nick and Karen backed Lauren up. Mark didn't seem to have an answer at all and instead focused on Lauren apparently contributing nothing. I'm not saying Lauren was right in everything she did (taking Daniels idea etc) but what did Mark contribute?

People much prefer an under-dog. It's why James is still there. Soloman and James were much more sexist and un-professional when picking actresses.

He was PM. He was the one organizing people. He is the one who is guaranteed to come back into the board-room.

In fairness, Mark was actually a rather "good" PM. I don't like Mark but I don't think he is sexist.

He was a very good manager. Nick made sure to tell Sugar this


This is the thing. Mark is the only arrogant one apparently

True I do think he has talent. But in this episode he had an easy ride. Like Lauren said he wanted to his hand held even when having to work on his own....

Sexist? Not really because he gets on well with Katie. Certainly ruthless though picking people off one by one.

I think the TV 'magic' (for want of a better word) of Mark V Daniel for the next few weeks consigned Lauren to the exit doors!

I think Mark's actual "target" for this week was indeed Daniel rather than Lauren or anyone else. He really took a lot of steps to try and set him up for a firing.

The constant "I'm backing you 100%", leaving Daniel in charge of all the creative input (in the hope that it would go wrong) and keeping him in the UK so that he wouldn't have a chance to outshine anyone during the pitch.

Even though I hate Daniel, Mark really did try to do a number on him. I think in the boardroom Mark realised that Daniel wouldn't be going down without the risk of getting fired himself, and after Lauren's exchanges with Lord Sugar and Daniel, Mark decided at the last minute to turn on her.

Actually disagree with that (yeah, Nick, whatever).

He brought the wrong people with him (both because Daniel would have been better and the fact the other two are lawyers; not only disliked by Lord Sugar himself).

Furthermore, he was the one responsible for the whole dull campaign (well, him and Felipe; but the latter wasn't brought back into the boardroom ).

And he also brought the wrong set of people back into the boardroom with him. Yes, he survived, but pick one person from each subteam was very odd (I do agree with Daniel on that).

Besides, the negative attitude towards him on You're Fired (especially Claude, can't see him in the final two now) actually has me thinking that he might actually miss the interviews (it will be between him and Daniel on a guess).

Good point, I picked up on that as well. A kind of 'give-em-enough-rope' strategy. It's a fairly safe bet that, given a creative task, Daniel is going to pull an absolute turd out of the bag. I wonder if Mark is a psychopath? I might check Jon Ronson's twitter, he's bound to know...

I think that Lauren was one of the more credible and likeable candidates this year- I guess Shugsy just didn't like her for whatever reason, as I don't think she deserved to be fired on the basis of how she performed in that task.

Thing is, Daniel was spinning it as he himself choosing the creative role to show he wasn't just an excellent sales-man...


She was likeable but didn't do anything. If this week she had piped up and led the sub-team she may have still been in with a chance. Problem is she wanted to go to New York too much.

I agree. Mark might have a touch of sociopath Jim about him. Targeting others is a hallmark of low self esteem. Maybe Mark isn't as confident about his place in the process as he likes to think.

Lauren was backed into a corner in the boardroom, and as they picked up on YF, the fatal error for her was letting the PM role slip out of her hands.

What she should have done is then declare herself sub-team leader or do something to make her mark on the task. Instead she hovered in the background and repeated other people's ideas, plus the terrible pitch didn't do her any favours. Mark was gunning for Daniel, but when he wasn't backing down, Mark smelt blood and went straight for Lauren. Unfortunately for her, it worked for him and has kept him in the process.

If Lauren had performed well this task, I'm pretty sure it would have been Mark out the door instead. LS seemed to be teetering on the edge when he spoke about Mark's mismanagement of the task and leaving Daniel out of the pitch.

I agree that Mark is really competent. He's very persuasive when selling or pitching, a great communicator, relatively cool, confident, shrewd, tactical, etc.

But I think people are finding it ugly that he may be using his gift of persuasion and intelligence in a tactical way as the competition hots up. The flip side of persuasion is manipulation, and I think there's a tendency, possibly unfairly, for us to perceive intelligent, tactical people as threatening. The GBP would rather someone nice and sporting won, like Roisin or Tom the inventor. Plus he does come out with some very arrogant comments (him not being a joke like Daniel or James makes that arrogance more jarring).

Watching him with the useless Daniel is like watching a cat with a mouse although Im gobsmacked Daniel is still there, and so too I imagine, is Mark. Mark has my sympathy there. But after last week, he knew he had to be PM come what may, and he had to know that Lauren was favourite to go. I don't think people like the slightly dishonest, hellbent way he protected himself this week by pushing to be PM, repeatedly drawing attention to Lauren's lack of contribution (even though roles were limited) and supportively giving Daniel all that rope to hang himself with. Its probably what I'd have done though. What I wouldn't have done is choose to focus the blame on Lauren simply because Sugar had her in his sights, not when Daniel yet again screwed up the task. I suspect Mark knew Daniel could wait though, he's walking the green mile.

But he's in a competition and he's playing that side of the game quite brilliantly IMO...focussing on his performance but with an eye on his contingency plan. It's subtle, it's canny, it's what some successful people do, they don't just promote themselves, they target and eliminate the competition. But I can see why it's not endearing....in a climate of corporate greed and government corruption, the public are hostile to the kind of manoeuvring and ruthlessness we see from politicians and business leaders. And I think that's what people see in Mark. But the public don't have to invest 250k and in that sense, he's probably one of the safest pair of hands in the process (if he's got a good proposition.)

Couldn't that be sexist too? The way women see other women can be just as sexist, imo, as the way men see them.


A very reasonable tendency, since they might turn their tactics on you, were you ever to encounter them.


Yes, some successful people. Fortunately, it's not what all successful people do, just the despicable ones. In this context, we're talking about eliminating the competition on a personal level, not trying to win against other companies in the marketplace, though even between competing companies, using underhand tactics to win is still quite despicable; and it's not the "climate of corporate greed and government corruption" that makes it so. It would be despicable no matter what the climate.

His tactics aren't so subtle that viewers haven't caught on. Perhaps someone in there will find a way to use his slyness against him.

Re the theory that he's a good manager, would you want to work for or with someone like that who might use sly tactics against you at any time? I certainly wouldn't. I think a good manager should be able to provide positive motivation and get people to work together, not set an example of using sly tactics so that everyone has to always watch their backs. The people he eliminates in that way might even turn out to be the very people he'd need to devise an innovative new product, to develop more productive ways of working, or whatever.

Unfortunately, tv shows such The Apprentice and Big Brother help establish the idea, in people's minds, that when something's a competition, or a game, all tactics are acceptable, no matter how despicable they'd normally seem.