Indeed. he's not been much good at doing anything, and, without minders like Katie, or being excluded by people like Felipe and Mark, he would have done more damage.However, others have created real howlers - like Syed's chicken per pizza, or Tom's biscuit- which he decided to make cheap, and nasty - in a task where costs didn't matter. There's also been the logical nonsenses - like Tom's emergency biscuit, or Pantsman ......and complete foul ups like Marrakesh.

There's also been quite a few finalists/semi finalists with something in common with Daniel - he's just gor more of those traits.

I think Daniel is a very poor candidate, but for me he is just marginally stronger than Sanjay in this series.

This series has been entertaining but other than 3 or 4 of the candidates the standard has been low

People with London knowledge don't always do well. Remember Syed? He arranged to meet someone at Wandsworth Bridge (a major crossing point on the River Thames) and went to an ordinary railway bridge over Wandsworth Road, thinking that was it. With most people that wouldn't be a major error, but Syed had gone on and on about how he had grown up in the area, so he really should have known that.


Actually, the business plan was criticised very heavily by Claude for being full of errors. It was a nice idea to prevent back pain, but it needed a lot more work, and in the end they decided to abandon it and go with something else. I think Lord Sugar was more interested in Susan's business than Tom's, as a matter of fact.

Felipe and Sanjay are both worse

Tom's plan rested on the very dubious idea- that employers would buy very expensive chairs- in case any of their workeers had a bad back - it was carpeted for relying on an unrealistic assumption. Tom though had a production line ready product that met Lord Sugar's requirement for minimal risk, and a good return on a small investment. He won with something he never offered. Susan's proposal looked good to me , but was knocked back on her figures- which couldn't be supported. It made little sense, unless you assume that the risk looked too high until someone had looked in detail at the figures. However ,you would think there was time to look intensively at the figures in any series where there's a gap between something being questioned at interview, and decided at a later final boardroom.

I'm sure he had some people whip her proposal into shape before he invested in her. Her not winning meant that he wasn't bound by the rules of the show to invest £250,000 in her, either, so he could have invested less.

Lee I thought was a very strong candidate outside of his slight temper problem and poor public speaking, and the fact that people usually have to haul "HE DID A PTERODACTYL IMPERSONATION!" out of mothballs to find something to disparage him for is very telling. There was an awful lot of snobbery that series brought out by the fact that the public's favourites were both upper-class twits and Lee got the worst of it because he was very rough and unpolished.

If we're talking Final 8 then I'd throw Samuel, Ghazal, Laura Moore, Natasha and Leon out there on top of the names already mentioned.

Yep, although as I understand it Sugar isn't committed to invest £250,000 cash in the winner's plan. The fund is for up to £250,000, and it's not necessarily all cash - I'm sure it's been said somewhere before that some of it can be payment in kind, such as the provision of services or 'consultancy'.

I think the pterodactyl thing is pathetic. Was it Claude? I think so, and will assume so for the sake of this re-enactment:

Claude: I hear you do a pterodactyl impression.
Lee: That's right.
Claude: Please do it for me, now, as I'm in a position of power over you and if you don't do what I ask I will report back to Surallen that you don't do what you're told.
Lee: Wrarrk
Claude: I will now report back to Surallen that you don't know what is and what is not appropriate in a business environment.

It was a trap, pure and simple, and no matter what Lee did, he'd have received a bollocking.

I didn't realise that it could up "up to" £250,000, thanks, although I assumed that it wouldn't all be cash.

So he could offer them 10p. I wonder how that works out in equity terms. Because, surely, if the deal is that Sugar owns 50% of the business, then whatever he invests in to it should be half of what he estimates the business is worth. I don't know how that works out in legal terms and whether the candidate could insist on more money, or even refuse the investment for not being good enough. It's an interesting question.

I think this is a very fair assessment. The interviewers adopt a hostile, "I don't believe a word you say and by the way we've done background checks on you" attitude. I've never experienced anything like it (though my experience at being interviewed is a bit limited) and I certainly never interviewed in that way, nor did one of my colleagues (who had previously had a very senior role in personnel at the Foreign Office). It's all part of the fun though - it's only a TV game show, not a real business show. Can't wait for Claude & Co to sink their fangs into some of this year's hopefuls.

Knowing Mark's he's already doing the rounds "telling the other candidates about the interviewers" he's probably even dropped Claude a line to bring him up to speed.

IIRC it was Paul, who always managed to pull off the seemingly impossible task of making Claude look fair and measured by comparison.

Yeah, he asked Lee to do the impression, and then attacked him for doing it, as it was "supposed to be a serious interview" (lol). I guess he was hoping to be the new Claude, but it never really happened for him. Still, at least he wasn't as bad as the "internet service protocol" guy.

Was there any difference between that and Jordan being asked to do a Rubik's Cube in the interview last year?

In all fairness, Lee should never have put that on his application at all, it's not very professional. But you can hardly blame him for doing it when he was asked to.

Yes, because the interviewer didn't criticise Jordan for attempting the Rubik's Cube after he'd just asked him to.

You have to remember that it's not an application for a job, it's an application to be a contestant on a reality TV show. I'd bet that every contestant who's ever been on has had something like that on their application, and I'd also be prepared to bet that there are questions on the application form which are designed to get answers like that (like, say, "what is your most audacious party-piece?").

Well, actually at the interviews they treat it as an application for a job (well, they did before the format changed). Ricky Martin was actually very direct about it - he said to an interviewer that he was thoroughly committed to getting the investment, but in order to get into the process in the first place, he had to stand out as a character, so naturally he put a few things on his application form that he would not have done for most other opportunities. He didn't use those exact words, but that was the gist of what he said. I admired his honesty there, most candidates bat around that kind of thing. I think it earned him respect with the interviewers as well.

I don't think the Interviewers are that hostile, the candidates are in the interview 20-30 minutes plus with each Interviewer, we only see about 5-10 minutes of the that, i remember one occasion the interviewer tearing the candidate apart when the candidate come out of the interview they quipped "what a nice man".

At the end of the day the candidates themselves make a rod for their own back with daft claims, or business plan on their CV, forgotten who it was but one candidate was kicked out by Claude because he didn't own the business, & was offering 15% of the business which isn't the deal, the deal is 50% or don't bother.

The fact that the interviewers treat it as an application for a job when it was actually an application to be a contestant on a reality TV series only serves to highlight the disconnect. The main job of the interviews is to make good TV by finding things to tell the candidates off for.

Would it have mattered if he was arguing or not, week on week he was on the losing team and performed poorly!!

Daniel has at least won some tasks

Was Tom frequently brought into the boardroom though?

He hardly played the jewish card, he just used his knowledge to procure a kosher chicken at a knockdown price that was praised by Nick

Imagine the Daily Fail outrage if a halal chicken was on the list.

The male gigolo himself <snort>

He was a rancid little horror wasn't he?

I don't think Daniel is that bad but I'm just completely distracted by how much he looks like Ronnie O'Sullivan and has the same Essex wide boy kind of patter as well.