Charleine, I believe, would've won if the opportunity was with simply a job, as the interviewers never criticised her, just her plan

Maybe they were just being kind.

They certainly could have criticised her .... like pointing out that she can barely string a sentence together, and struggles to pronounce words of more than two syllables.

Difficult to say, because different people would;ve applied.

I don't understand your obsession with Charleine. Joseph, Vana and Richard all performed better than her. I don't actually think the Final 2 would have been that different if there were no business plans. Richard instead of one of them perhaps?

Hard to say. Maybe corporate G , would have been a good fit for working within one of Alan's companies and wouldn't have been given such an invisible edit in the first few episodes and we'd all have reasons to think he was really competent and dynamic.
You can bet if someone different had made the top 2, the edits would have been adjusted accordingly.

If it was simply a job it would have been Richard. But his business plan was pure spin and identical to the business he had with his brother. For someone so impressive in the business tasks given to him he showed himself to be an utter idiot / scoundrel in the business plan. Chalk and cheese.

It looked like it would have been Richard and Joseph, if Richard had generated a feasible business plan rather than complete tosh / plagiarism of his & his brothers existing business. Only Richard's brilliance in the earlier rounds got him to the final three.

Depends on what the job is. If its what Simon got, she can sell houses - its a question of if she fits the buyers in mind. Joseph doesn't get Simon's job . Not sure if you would send a plumber, or her, to sell amscreens on the tube, None of them could do Michelle's job because it required particular expertise - a technological background and experience negotiating contracts overseas. . Several of them could have done Stella's job - because there didn't seem to be much of one her year, or the year before.

Not many of this year's people though could pitch or speak well though - which would Vana a strong advantage for a lot of other jobs.

If you measured the results on task performance, its probably one of Charleine, Vana , and Joseph for me. I suspect the one who will earn most money went a lot earlier - apart from Vana, there was only one corporate high flyer there, and her CV was already looking good.

So do Joe, Gary and Richard. Charleine sells better. She's also more energetic.

Cahrliene would never have won. Too emotional, a loose cannon, inarticulate, uneducated. You have to be able to talk the talk at that level and she's not worth a six figure salary. Saying that, Lee McQueen won and he was a douche.

I reckon tricky Dicky would have won if it was still the old format.

Who was that? Selina?

Depends on the job, could well have been one of the early firees, who got the shove because their business plan was garbage

Joseph Richard final I reckon.

"Obsession" is a rather strong word

I just think she's been underrated this series. Like she started as a real contender and she dipped in the middle, but she she still sold well and such. I think she might've been edited to appear worse than she was, whilst it's obvious Joseph and Vana have had better edits.

I think the final two may have been different, actually. Gary would've still been out of the question, but I think Vana would too - controversial opinion here, but despite her education, she came across as quite cold to the interviewers, and I think the'd pick up more on her track record (loss in week three, etc.) Charleine/Richard/Joseph would be the final three, but I don't know who he'd pick from them.

She's a marmite character, that's for sure...

Richard.

https://uk.linkedin.com/in/jennygarbis Look at what Kate Walsh and Liz Locke are doing now......

I agree - he's never taken on a loud forceful female who argue back - let alone one wth flashes of emotion - ask Ruth , Saira, Clare, Debra, Luisa..........

But on the other hand he's never employed a rags to riches, Sugarlike, success like Joe either, or gone for a very high risk option like Vana's.

He's never employed people he had a trust issue with though either, from memory and he used the word with Richard. .

Of the last five candidates, the most likely winner of the old format is Vana, followed by Gary.

Lord Sugar was always a sucker for sales superstars but at the end of each series he'd remember he was not looking for a sales rep or indeed the next Alan Sugar but for someone who could work for him, and for a handy cut-out-and-keep reminder of people who'd worked with him for decades, look who sat next to him in the boardroom: Nick and Margaret; quiet, considered and educated.

Vana is posh but this is disguised by her American accent; cosmopolitan (we've seen her speaking French, Chinese and Spanish already); she's also got an MBA from Oxford. And to stereotype the assessors, Claude will like her brains, and Karren champions women.

Definitely not. She's one of the candidates who was more suited to the show's current format, as she's not remotely corporate. The interviewers accepted she was a very hard worker, but none of them were that complimentary about her business acumen. She was too naive.

If the show still existed in its old format, the final 3 would've still been Joseph, Vana and Richard I think.

Eh? Nobody got fired for that reason. The only early firee that might have lasted longer under the old format was Mergim, since Sugar thought he was too young and inexperienced to cope with running his own business, and even then he might have also thought he was too young to handle a big business role.

Vana wouldn't have won - he never hired someone without at least one win on their record as PM under the old format, and there's no underdog sympathy vote angle in her background to overide how thoroughly mediocre she was throughout the process.

Richard wouldn't have won - he's even more of a child of privelege than Vana and he and Sugar would have had clear personality clashes. Even though he was by a country mile the best candidate based on the tasks, I think it's obvious that Richard wouldn't stick to being a desk monkey for Amstrad for more than about 5 minutes before getting bored.

Joseph wouldn't have won - they'd be unlikely to find a job that fit him given that he's got no experience of working within any sort of corporate structure whatsoever. The winners under the old system were to a man desk jockeys, and Joseph didn't fit that at all. In fact the entire process was changed, I think, to find more winners like Joseph and less like the bunch of suits that won before.

Charleine wouldn't have won - although she probably would have made Final 2 as the foiler candidate for the winner, as a loud outspoken controversial woman whose talent was almost entirely in sales, she fits only too easily into the Saira/Ruth/Claire mould.

The only possibility really, if we look at the final 5, is Gary. In which case I would imagine he would have got a much kinder edit in terms of foregrounding him and making him look good and highlighting his contributions.

Of course most of these candidates wouldn't have applied under the old system.

It is funny how you manage to play that card, while both Gary and Charleine made the final five

Gary and Charleine at least managed to lead a team to victory (admittedly Gary...slightly more convincingly than Charleine did).

The OP seems to love Charleine lol. All these threads about her
It would still be between Joseph and Vana, and possibly Richard.

Lol
nah, I just think she's been underrated this series. I do like her equally as much as Vana, but everyone seems to like Vana.

LS didn't really see much of her abrasiveness, I don't think. He describes her as vivacious in the final five, and I think he really admired her enthusiasm.

Vana's been overrated, I think. She was so bad in the first three weeks she was lucky not to get fired.