Reeks of arrogance to me. Lord Sugar knows more about business and projecting a profit than anyone on this forum.

Happens too often on this forum, who knew it was full of business experts after watching the show? I'd love to see your company results !

"Sir Alan doesn't always get it right, you know."
- Sir Alan (now Lord) Sugar, The Apprentice: Why I Fired Them, 2008.

You're absolutely correct. Alan Sugar has never made a mistake in business. It must have been someone else who made the E3 Superphone. I've never understood why there's not one in every home.

He did say once that there's no money in software, hardware is where it's at as the fledgling PC saw the light of day, you'd thin the emailer was from 1995 but it made it into the 21st century.

He has made lots of mistakes in business, as have the Dragons, Richard Branson etc. Only difference is he's got far more right than he's got wrong.

Personally I think he most certainly picked the far better candidate, but to suggest that people cannot question or even directly and/or vehemently disagree with his opinion is ludicrous.

Yep, show my a businessman who hasn't gone or nearly gone bankrupt, never produced/made a bad product, they all do from time to time, they take risks, thats why some end up as millionaires and the rest of us work for them.

I'd say our opinions are perfectly valid. If they aren't, why do business people bother with consumer research?

Or the Amstrad GX4000 - possibly the worst games console ever made (priced the same as the Sega MegaDrive / SNES, but with inferior hardware, and charging £25 for cartridge-based versions of existing games that were already available on cassette tapes for a fiver!). He obviously didn't understand the fact that games consoles are sold at loss, with profit being made on the software (probably due to his "hardware first" mentality, as mentioned above). Although in fairness, 3DO made the same mistake a few years later

Most billionaires significantly underestimate the contribution of luck to their overall success.

When you've accidentally made a million (stumbled upon the right market at the right time) it's hard for most people including yourself to question your own business acumen - which is why some will openly do so.

It's not a disgrace to mess up from time to time. Clive Sinclair had a mixture of huge success and dismal failures and Richard Branson's record isn't 100% either

His insecurity does amuse me, he's currently twitter trolling the main TV critics who don't see his latest series as quite the success as he sees it.
If he wasn't so insecure he wouldn't insist people referring to him as Lord Sugar and previously Sir Alan.
If a contestant bought themselves a title he's have to refer to them as Lord or Lady wonder how he'd cope?

Isn't it more arrogant to say that people can't have opinions on a discussion forum?

I'm glad he's finding out that this series was a poor one as hopefully they'll improve things for the next one, rather than sit there patting themselves on the back for it. The show's becoming more and more of a parody of itself.
He is a bit of a nutter on twitter, I can never tell if he's serious or not. If it's in a jokey way then he's not half as funny as he is on the show, maybe his lines are actually scripted for him? lol

Is the series being criticised in the press? I haven't read any of the critics myself.

He's talking about the TV critics on his twitter, displaying his usual tact and charm by going on a big rant about it.

Articles in The Mirror and Daily Mail seem to have jarred him. Even if they are 'bitter losers who have hated him all season' (his words) then drawing attention to the articles is just getting them further exposure.

He doesn't insist on being called Lord outside of the programme. He uses a cycle shop in Essex where he's plain Alan.
Most of us know he's playing a part in the Apprentice.

Personally I feel it's more the "volume" of people criticizing the decisions made that makes this issue seem far worse than it really is. Think of it like constantly being accosted in the street by charity workers, yes, it's for good causes and all but the overkill will eventually grate.

Let's also not forget the time that Alan Sugar (incorrectly) predicted that the Apple iPod would be "dead within a year". That alone should hopefully be proof that he doesn't always get it right!

See: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1093470/

What's the point in having a forum at all if it's not to give our opinions?

And how do you know how much expertise some posters may have? Firstly, no one is required to put their CV on here. Secondly, there's a million and one factors involved in personal success and different ways of measuring it so not all of it comes down to "he's famous for running a successful business so by default he's better than all of you".

You say it's arrogance. I think your post is blinkered and antagonistic.

Seems to me that errors and inconsistencies in logic and statements are there whether you have a billion or 10p, and many people can spot them. If you are going to mark and evaluate people on air, you have to expect people to comment - including many who know how to do it..

And many of the problems with the show are not that he makes wrong choices for himself . Its that he ignores talent elsewhere, sets very limited criteria for his winners ,and ends up with a ahow where winning no longer has much to do with the TV series that came before it You can now have the worst show record and win. Along the way, he seems to create a gulf between what the show claims to be about - like raw talent, entrepreneurial skill, competence , risk taking and new ideas, and what it looks like - a search, as he says, for mega bucks, from low risk options, ending with , London based, candidates. winning.