I didn't understand Gary's idea. It was very vague and even if Gary had a good idea then he ruined his chances of winning in the party planning task

I personally do think that Sophie deserved to be fired when she was. She contributed hardly anything of positive note and sealed her fate by rattling off a list of skills in the boardroom that were not her specialty. Though I see your point, as neither Natalie or Uzma were competent after that task, with the latter even being fired a week later. I;m not sure that I ever bought that Myles stitched Alex up, though that was likely down to me not thinking that Alex could win anyway.

Never really looked at it that way before. But the edit implied that we were going to have a male winner quite early on, only to find that the last three were all women. I thought Neil had it in the bag until the interviews, where his poor business plan us unearthed.

The only ones that I found to be invisible of all of them were Gary, Sanjay, and Howard at a push. I felt that Jenna especially was quite prominent, even though that may have been me remembering her for having that, should I say, 'distinctive' voice. I'd personally argue that Felipe had a tendency to fade into the background.

I wouldn't say that it's a particularly popular opinion. I think Tom P., Lee, and even Simon are widely considered to be worse winners than her.

Oh Alex was stitched up big time. He had a good idea but deadly dinners was forced down his throat. Remember how Alex started popping the packaging during Myles's pitch?!

I didn't think Pantsman Philip was that unlikable. Lorraine definitely deserved to be fired the week Philip was fired and Sandhurst Ben was much more unlikable that series

Even if Alex was stitched up, did it really matter that much? Neither him nor Myles were ever going to win, both were dead men walking by that point. Even Alex himself admitted that he deserved to be fired. Oh yes, I remember vividly. It was pretty cringeworthy, but it could be said that it spruced up a pitch what was, as Leah dryly put it, dull as dishwater.

I couldn't stand Philip, nasty shouty man who could start an argument by merely looking at his own reflection! I didn't really rate Lorraine either, but I think it could be said that she was the top seller on her team that week, though that may be faint praise. Sandhurst Ben was awful. I'd have fired him after the Cedarwood/Sandalwood fiasco!

I didn't really like Margaret, found her a bit rude and very overrated on this forum. Much better without her I reckon.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. She was a rubbish interviewer too.

But Margaret as interviewer brought us that exchange with Baggs!

Baggsy's interview with Claude was much more compelling. I don't think she served much of a purpose other than to gurn after reading out bizarre statements!

In this series, Jenny shouldn't have gone based on the fact she didn't buy anything in the France task. She was completely right when she said if she'd said she would get the manure she would still be in the competition. Most candidates lie in the background for the first few weeks and come into their own, Joseph did, Vana did, it was only really Richard who was prominent every week and that was the producers forcing him on us.

I think if she had been PM for a week, that would've been the turning point and we'd have seen just how good she was. David was my other strong candidate, I feel he'd have wiped the floor with his business plan.

Claude was brutal to Baggs!

Maybe Jenny did have more to offer than Elle. But I'm not sure she would have been a good PM. Jenny and Sam as well weren't suited to the show because of their backgrounds as students and were inexperienced

Yes David would have had an excellent business plan but Lord Sugar didn't seem to like him

"You're not a big fish! You're not a big fish! YOU'RE NOT EVEN A FISH!"