So, I don't normally start threads on specific issues on the show - normally, I'm quite content to comment on other threads, but this week, I felt compelled to write something as the firing of Katie didn't sit right with me and actually annoyed me a lot more than I thought it would. I know a lot of you may think I'm a bitter Katie fan, but actually, I've been pretty solidly behind Solomon and Roisin this season. Anyway, here's what annoyed me.

I don't think there was any real justifiable reason to get rid of Katie at this stage. Lets look at the task. Yes, you could criticise Katie for not getting the flavours absolutely spot on in production, but the edit glossed over the fact that Katie got two out of the three flavours correct and it was only the saffron that got any criticism. However, most of the issues weren't really with the taste (In spite of what Karren said) but more the fact that saffron costs so much. Personally, though I think its a bit rich of the show to criticise Katie for not thinking about costings in a task like this when three years ago it let Jedi Jim get away with a £1 million+ order with an unlimited marketing budget.
The real reason that Tenacity lost the task was Mark's fluffed pitch to Tescos and the fact that the packaging didn't match up to the premium product. If we are looking at who to fire based on the task, then Mark should have been the one to go (As he messed up two aspects of the task) with Sanjay as a back-up/in case Lord Sugar was pressured to fire two.

But OK, we're at Week 10 of the process. We shouldn't be firing people based solely on the task any more. I'm pretty happy for past performance to be taken into account. On this basis, Sanjay should definitely have gone as he hasn't performed anywhere near the level of Mark and Katie so far in the process. If a second had to go between Mark and Katie based on PAST PERFORMANCE alone, I think that Katie actually had the edge over Mark on the basis that she's had a good win and proven herself as PM before, whilst Mark hasn't really done that, but granted it would be pretty tight.
So, in my view, in both the task performance and past performance, Katie would be the last person who you'd fire in both instances.

Anyway, this leads me on to my main point, which is a) Why are we looking at business plans before Week 11? and b) How could Lord Sugar really get enough information based on the brief snippet of information that he got in the BR to justify firing Katie over either of the other two?

The first question is the one which really annoys me. I'm happy for certain candidates to win even if they haven't necessarily been the best task performers if they get to the end fair and square and they have the best business plan. This is why I didn't have an issue with Tom winning in Series 7 and why I was firmly rooting for Leah last year by the time interviews rolled around. The tasks have been sold as a way to root out candidates who are not suited to Lord Sugar as they fail in general business situations, whilst interviews onwards are more about who has the best business plan. But, There should be no overlap. Just as much as the winner isn't decided by who was the best overall task performer any more, business plans SHOULD NOT dictate who is fired in the pre-interview weeks. Otherwise, it just makes a mockery of the whole process and makes it seem, rightly or wrongly, that Lord Sugar is firing based on favouritism, as well as, as other people have pointed out, making candidates like Katie being there in the first place utterly pointless.

The other issue is that if Lord Sugar can accurately rate Katie's business plan, without the interviewers looking over it, then what's the point of interviews in general? Just gather them in the boardroom and ask about their plans. There is no way, IMO, that Lord Sugar can say that Katie's plan wouldn't work without the interviewers looking over it, UNLESS he knows all of the business plans inside out from the start. If that's the case, then he's just wasted the time and effort of poor old Katie who's slugged for a couple of month, doing well at the show, but being fired for reasons irrelevant to the tasks. I simply don't see how he can justify firing Katie at this stage, when last season he didn't fire Jordan for the same reason, in spite of Jordan's idea being blatantly worse than Katie's.

I apologise if I've not been that clear, but the firing annoyed me and I just wanted to make my points. Thoughts?

Well this is the time, there's 3 programmes left. 1 is a "lets hear about the final 5" thats on Monday, then there's next weeks interviews, then the final. So its about right to start drilling down on the BP's. My problem is that Katie should of used her proposed BP on the task. After all the most unhealthy thing we maybe eat is puddings, so why not demonstrate her BP by making 3 traditional puddings in a healthy way. Had she won, LS would of seen that maybe there's a market for her idea. Had she lost slightly again she would of demonstrated a "Working Idea". But as it was all she demonstrated was a total lack of culinary skill and then try to use that as an excuse as to why she failed, well sorry your the one who said "I'm going to the kitchen, as I know what I'm doing".

But you can't make a healthy pudding on task. Karen would pop up and point out there was no proof it was healthy - or even a calorie count. Katie also isn't going to be writing the recipe or cooking the product and it won't be thrown together in a day either. It would test something that was irrelevant - if look, taste and costs mattered.

Your point is a good one - but only if they were explicit and consistent about claims , costs and tastes .

If they were consistent, taste and cost wouldn't matter -as Roisin' s product also needed "adjustments". All Katie had to do was take saffron out. But the show is entirely random on this. Zoe lost with nasty tasting biscuits, Yasmina won with nasty tasting chocolates. It was assumed Yasmina could alter her taste, but not that Kate could alter her costs. Jim won claiming A list stars would endorse his biscuits. Lord Sugar seems to decide whats fatal and whats trivial randomly.

If taste and cost don't matter, you could just sell your concept and assume it was possible to produce, wouldn't cost too much and tasted good. Katie then could have gone for healthy puds, and been marked on the concept, presentation of it and the advertising.

The hidden problem is that Roisin and Katie do present their project in week 10 - whats left for them to do in the final? It would mean probably that both , or one of them can't be there.

I suspect the major problem is that he was pushed into doing a double firing, which wasn't really warranted based the overall performance of Tenacity on the task, by the constricts of the format. Especially compared to others (*cough*COACH TRIP**cough). I'm not surprised his reasoning seemed more spurious/unfair than usual. I suspect if this task had happened in Week 9 we would have been seeing Sanjay off on his todd and Katie told to buck her ideas up.

i agree with all that. But its probably all worse even than that.

Cooking your product in a day in no way tested either proposal. Both would employ professionals and time to produce their optimal product

Both teams seemed to be steered straight to food options with strong flavours on offer - it seemed set up to produce taste issues. Its not a masterchef taste test, or a what spice do I know test. . Some of the finalists on masterchef also stayed after getting one meal wrong.

The Apprentice is totally confused on criteria - taste and cost are either fatal problems , or minor factors that can be adjusted. Basically what matters is random, and allows his Lordship to moan about one issue - while the supermarkets deem another similar issue amendable and order anyway. With Katie you just take the saffron out, and if the meals cost too much, you change the recipe.

On record Mark has the worst of all - no PM wins. 7 losing teams, major issues identified. Roisin has one more team win than Katie, but a lot fewer clips of her making sound business judgements. Bianca has a better record than Roisin, but big howlers and less impact. Daniel and Solomon lag well behind on positives, and Daniel has a ton of negatives. Mark had just failed at presenting - when sales and presenting had been his show strength. Mark should go on either the task performance where his packaging failed , or on his presentation, or on his record.

There's no excusable reason for switching to judging business plans for just two people at this stage. Logically, all of the other contestants let through could have worse plans coming up. as you said these two plans haven't been investigated in depth, at the interview stage - so how does he know whats viable? is he an expert on Sunderland, restaurants , or Katie's mailing list?

To make it even more perverse, Mark never identified his proposal (at least not on air) He just made astronomical claims for it. So - in a battle of of the business plans- someone went through without theirs being presented.

There's not many alternative conclusions you can draw from this.

The first is that his Lordship just makes it up randomly as he goes along and invents reasons, devoid of much logic. . In this case, Mark may have repeated Bagg's success by dangling pound signs under his nose.

The second is that he wants nothing to do with the words Sunderland or restaurant, and he has a list already of the projects in the order they appeal to him. He has to know he has something better coming up, or sending anyone home on their plan is nonsensical.

The implication of the second is that most contestants need not have applied. He's not interested in anything that produces most small businesses or services. He's not looking for task performance or innate talent, but big bucks. He's not interested in restaurants, fitness, dance, bridal shops, art galleries, bakery, or swimming clubs. Hedge funds and call centres are too politically difficult - but cosmetic surgery is OK . He's not even interested in making something more risky, or difficult happen - someone with a nailfile patented, or an existing recruitment agency to expand, or a medical qualification on the wall - all ready to go - is far better. He's also so far had very limited geographic range. It will be a first too if a proposal based far away from the M25 ever wins under the new rules.

i agree. He had to fire two this week - however good they were.

But then you have to ask why did he keep Daniel last week . Daniel thought Felipe's idea was as good as Felipe did. And he then tried to pretend otherwise. If one went , both should have. The double and triple firings either just randomise the process by making sure people don't go when they should the week after one, or do go when tehy shouldn't but someone has to.

There's also the question why did he move Daniel this week ? The claim was difficulties in the team - but they had worked together better the week before. Daniel was the only one who gained from that swap - as it was less likely he would go in the bigger team ,and, in the event Sanjay went instead of him.

There's also a question why have that task in a week when teams are unequal and one is down to three. That determined that one team can't let its PM do her marketing, and that only one team has a second person to test taste the food. It would be a fairer task with equal teams of 3, or 4.= it would have been 3 if Daniel had gone last week.

I think that if he was determined to fire two no matter how the teams did (which is a distinct possibility, given that the interviews would be a bit stretched with six) that should have been part of the formula. He should have said at the briefing, 'Two of you in the losing team will be fired', and then it would be transparent. As it is, we're all muttering about how that's the real reason that Katie was fired, and personally I wouldn't feel so cheated about that if the show was not making a secret of that fact.

I see Jack's point, and I partially agree. I don't actually mind business plans being talked about before the interviews, because it is ultimately down to that. On that basis, I'm happy for Katie to have gone if Lord Sugar didn't think that her business plan worked - in Episode 10 last year, I wanted Myles to go in the whole episode, and in the last couple of minutes I changed my mind and wanted Jordan to go instead. It still annoys me that he didn't, Myles (or indeed Alex) could easily have claimed his place in the interviews. Having said that, I don't feel that his assessment of Katie's business plan was altogether fair. Her performance on the task didn't reflect her business plan at all - her business plan was about healthy meals, the task was about puddings. She admitted that she was intending herself to be the business brains behind the project, but not the person practically behind creating the food as she is no cook - reasonable, if she employed decent staff to do those things. If someone proves on tasks that they are not capable of employing their business plan, or if a business plan turns out to be fundamentally flawed (as happened with Jordan) I am entirely happy for them to be fired prior to interviews - Lord Sugar said himself that he knows the basic ideas, but not the technicalities, so the latter situation is absolutely possible. Neither of these situations were the case with Katie. Lord Sugar tried to make out like the first situation applied, but it didn't really, for reasons that I have explained.

I feel like this has been a problem with this series - the tasks have apparently been entirely related to the business plans of certain candidates, and they have been fired for messing them up. That's fine if that is actually the case, but a lot of the time it really isn't. The situation with Ella Jade springs to mind - Lord Sugar was saying, 'This is your business plan! Why didn't you do a better job?' Well actually, it wasn't her business plan at all. Her business plan was about documentaries, the task was about viral YouTube videos, which are entirely different - she said herself at the start that she has experience in the actual filming and editing, but not in YouTube, social media or comedy. Ella Jade was admittedly not an especially good Project Manager and there was a case for her firing, but not for the actual reasons that were given. In addition, it especially annoys me that she was fired in the same episode as Steven and Sarah, because she was in no way in the same category as them - neither of them had any particular shining moments, whereas Ella had seemed to perform very well in all of the previous tasks.

As for Jack's suggestion of axing the interviews - I have to admit that had not occurred to me, but in fairness it is not a bad idea. They aren't needed that much, as Lord Sugar has his own ideas about what can work. They were more appropriate for the job opportunity than for the business plan. They didn't have interviews on Young Apprentice, which had a smaller investment but still an investment, and they didn't go into the actual business plans that much onscreen. I suspect Lord Sugar talked to the finalists about them in a lot more detail behind closed doors before making his decision, but it showed that having four interviewers isn't really that necessary to determine the winner. Having said that, I do enjoy the interviews as we get to learn more about the candidates from them, but I wouldn't especially mind if they were taken out. Maybe they could have an episode where they all just had a one-on-one with Lord Sugar, Nick and Karren instead - or if that wouldn't fill a whole episode, they could put the videos on the website.

I know it runs counter to what happened on YA, but the interviews on the main series do serve a purpose: they provide a way for the process to 'fairly' result in the two finalists Sugar finds to be the most investable without having to rely on the outcome of a task. (Come to think of it, it was a task-based outcome that led to Harry H being fired in YA, didn't it?) It's a bit like playing Find the Lady - it looks like a fair game, but in reality there's sleight of hand involved to ensure the person in control of the game (in this case, Sugar) is able to manipulate the outcome without people noticing. There's nothing wrong with that, really, it's just a way for Sugar to get the investment he wants in a way that feels satisfactory from a narrative perspective - rather than him just saying "Right, you and you are in the final."

Well, in Series 7 and 8 the final and the interviews were one and the same. I have no doubt that it would be possible to do a similar thing without having them at all.

Here's an idea. The series runs as it does normally (16 at the start, one double-firing at some point, but that can be got around if need be) and the strengths of business ideas are allowed to be considered a reason to fire someone, but only within reason (none of the 'this task was basically your plan' when it wasn't, and the candidates always have the opportunity to attempt to defend any flaws that may arise, or themselves if Lord Sugar feels them incapable of running it). In Week 11, rather than having interviews or a normal task, they are given some sort of task, but it is either individual or they are all merged into one team, and instead of a normal boardroom, everyone is there no matter how well they did. At that point, Lord Sugar fires everyone bar two candidates, and the remaining two launch their businesses the following week.

I'm not sure how the Week 11 task would work, but I think there would be ways to do it. If there wasn't a task that was appropriate (and I haven't thought about that bit in detail) then we could just have each candidate having a one-on-three with Lord Sugar, Nick and Karren as I said, to go through the business propositions in detail - they'd have already been through them, but not in detail.

To be honest, I'm okay with the format in its current form, especially if the final is - as it was last year - effectively a task for the finalists to launch their own businesses. I think no matter which way you cut it, there's no perfect way to run the process so I don't really see the need to change it.

My point generally was just that interviews are a good way to manipulate the outcome to ensure two strong finalists. Some may consider that unfair, but I think it works as the best pragmatic solution. (And, as I've said over on the spoiler thread, having now watched the interview episode I think it's actually a very good one. I'll be interested to see if people agree with me on Wednesday.)

I don't actually consider it unfair. I'm happy with the interviews, and it wasn't my idea to axe them, it was Jack's. I just thought the idea was good enough to give consideration to, because he makes a good point in that they may not be entirely necessary.

Yeah, I know it was Jack's idea. It's not a bad idea at all, to be fair, just one I considered interesting but unnecessary.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying I'm unhappy with the format or advocating a change per se, but I'm just objecting to the fact that the entire boardroom were based, not on the task, not on the candidates record, but on the business plans and that this was the only criteria that Lord Sugar could have fired Katie on. If he had suddenly decided to base it on the task (As with last week) then Katie would have been safe. Thought she certainly deserved a stab at the interviews at the very least.

Understood. I do think it was a shame Katie didn't make the interviews, although ultimately her plan was revealed to be a weak one. Even though she's decided not to follow it up, it could work as a standalone business, but not as a £250,000 investment.

On a related note, while, as some have pointed out, it's not necessary for her to be able to cook, it's hard to see what role she would play in the business other than it being her idea. When you start up a business you generally have some specific skills or experience that make you invaluable to the business. Otherwise you're just dead weight on the payroll. The argument that, say, the CEO of McDonald's doesn't need to be a chef simply doesn't wash - comparing a small start-up business to a multinational corporation isn't like for like.

In fairness, no one ever opens a restaurant chain several stores at a time. It has to grow gradually and gain popularity. We didn't find out enough about the business plan to know, but I don't see why Katie couldn't have started off in her hometown and gradually grown it, using the investment (which is drip-fed) along the way.

That's true, but the biggest issue was Katie's lack of expertise in the area. If she had more direct knowledge/experience, Sugar would have been more convinced that the first restaurant could succeed. Then, as you say, there would have been the potential to open up more sites. But that's a huge 'if'.

Could one restaurant succeed and be a viable business? Yes. Would it ever return enough to justify an investment of up to £250k? No. It would need to scale up to a decent-sized chain to deliver the kind of returns to make it worthwhile for Sugar. And the odds of making a new chain succeed from scratch are pretty small in what is a very competitive sector. It's hard enough for a single restaurant to succeed, let alone create a chain.

The problem isn't the need for restaging events or dropping bits of the process. . Its inconsistency in the criteria applied, following the format there is, and the disconnect between 10 weeks of tasks and the result. The interviews ought to be when the plans and Cvs are discussed in some detail. If you do away with the interviews, his Lordship has even more scope to intruduce unproven "facts" any week he likes . He can just sit there and say your project isn't viable you're fired . The interviews at least give people a chance to argue back, the interviewers to bring up a few specifics, and the producers can play their game of showing a picture that doesn't match what his Lordship is saying or rewarding. We at least get to see whose CV is fiction, and whose figures fall apart. He can still pick someone who has been poor all series, and discount viable projects - but at least we know a bit more than if he just picked who he liked.and invented reasons for it alone.

The idea would seemingly be to stress the healthy eating aspect. That uses one of her usps, that she's known locally (and nationally) for assorted fitness schemes, knows that industry, knows how to advertise to that market, and has a client data base and contacts to work from. Given the enormous local publicity from doing the show , I can see it working .His issue isn't that it would cost too little, or too much. Its that the returns are too low for him- but that tells you more about him than her business.

I don't think she's bringing less than Roisin to the party. Roisin isn't a cook either. and she's more reliant on Sugar's contacts. Katie sells herself to her smaller market, but can leave more things to a good chef, and acountant after startup . Roisin may have more to do - beyond doing the accounts. Roisin just may offer bigger returns - at, one suspects, greater investment cost, and more risk , and with more difficult customers to please..

There is an issue in that Katie may well want to have this as a sideline to her existing fitness business. It won't get , or need, her full attention after start up . But the businesses are complimentary, and he's not going to have much to do either.

The real issue is that he's not interested in projects with normal returns, and consequently not interested in most fields small business owners will set up in. He also hasn't shown any interest so far in anything based outside greater London. if those are his criteria, there's very little chance of most candidates ever winning - even if they are competent, or even outstanding, and they have a decent proposal . Their gain is solely , that if they don't crash and burn, they get a ton of free publicity for whatever they do want to do next.

A good comparable plan was Leah's.

Also started off with one store and Leah was to grow the business slowly according to her business plan.

Here are some reasons why Leah's was a better investment compared to Katie's.

1: she was the expert in her business idea. A qualified doctor with relevant quals to actually work on the shop floor. I've no doubt Katie has the business skills to run a restaurant successfully although she hasn't done it before (bar waitressing)but she's not going to be the expert, really that's the chef. Saying she wouldn't cook was her downfall. What on Earth is she needed for then, the plan could easily run without her whereas Leah's couldn't (or would take a lot of effort to find someone suitably qualified to replace Leah).

2: Growth; Leah had a clear expansion strategy- start in London, work on shop floor, make money, train a new manager, leave manager in post and open the next one. We heard no such strategy from Katie and tbh a restaurant couldn't afford that strategy, even if it was her plan, Leah's was an attractive prospect because she planned to open the first set herself, showing a clear brand identity with DR Leah.

3: Returns: Leah's business could make far far far more money than Katie's in a very short space of time.Less staff are needed, less variables, less risk.

I don't think Katie's idea isn't workable or a great idea, it just doesn't actually need Katie, and not only that, the success of it won't actually rely on her, but rather, a chef and nutritionist. It is too risky a project for LS I guess. The restaurant biz is notoriously difficult.

She's certainly not the first to get this far and be rejected on business plan.

They all know the deal. In the same way with the job if he didn't "get" you you wouldn't get the job regardless of record, if he didn't like your biz plan it doesn't matter what your record is.

The key is to have a good business plan to start with. People know the score when they apply. It's a calculated risk, but you clearly can't turn up with a half baked biz plan and hope to scoot through on task performance.

As I've said elsewhere, what an investor - any investor, not just Sugar - would consider "normal returns" from an investment of this nature is higher than what you or I would expect from, say, a savings account. That's not greed, it's standard risk/return economics practice!

I agree with you on everything else, in particular the risks associated in Roisin's plan, which I outlined in my episode review over on my blog. If the result this week had been reversed, I am convinced Roisin would have been asked many of the same questions as Katie. Her tea ingredients were also expensive (not as much as saffron, but still budget-breaking, I suspect). And she also has no experience in the food industry.