.... when Alan ends up only employing the people who do well at the interviews anyway.

Winning the tasks accounts for nothing and the 3 interviewers seem very bias, they seem hellbent on trying to get an argument and whoever has the most ruthless attitude gets the job.

The mouthy fat interviewer seemed to want to get an aggressive reaction out of Lohit, Amstrad clearly only like employing gobby people.

It means your team members have the certainty of not being fired that week. If you win every week, you're only chance of getting fired is at the interview and the final.

The show seems a bit of a shamble, why not just go straight to the interview if they are going to totally dismiss the results of all the tasks.

I think the accolade of winning the Apprentice is far greater than the job that is on offer.

I'm sure most of the winners move on to better things.

The only reason that Tre is not through is because he didn't go to Cambridge! What is the point of the tasks? Those interviewers didn't let him finish a sentence.

About this international global thing, we never hear him say he is operating an international global company. Those are the words of the interviewers giving us the impression that his is talking rubbish.

I can't see any reason why Simon and not Tre is in the final. A Kristina vs Tre final would have been great. But now we know that Simon is going to get the job despite Kristina being more capable.

They always seem to hire the younger person. Didn't Badger win the final task last season but they gave the job to the younger person.

Heres an example -

James from series 1 won 7 - lost 3 - board room 1 never picked for final 2

Syra won 4 - lost 6 - board room 4 times - Runner up

===================================

Paul from series 2 - won 8 - lost 2 - board room never - never picked in final 2

Ruth won 4 - lost 6 - board room 4 - Runner up

===================================

Tre series 3 - won 7 - lost 3 - board room 3 times - never picked

Kristina won 5 - lost 5 - board room 3 - Final.

Thats a serious mashed up pattern there.

The interview part seems to ruin the whole series.

The interviewers are always bias from when they first lay eyes on the contestents and they moreorless have the final say.

All 3 of them think they are something special and always talk down to te contestents.

i didn't like the fat guy, he seemed to think he was something special wen he was just a cockney ****

but they do need to be grueling. It is useful, but you cannot say tre should be there because of his winning, he is distruptive and could of gone in first few weeks and we would of never battered an eyelid

The problem with not getting in the boardroom or very rarely is Sir Alan doesn't get a chance to see the person stand up for themselves which is what helps him with his decision.

I think Lohit only made it to the last five because he was quiet, uncontroversial, did his best for the team and let everyone else screw up.

The fat interviewer looked like he wanted to grill Lohit as soon as he layed his eyes on him.

Even though the interviewer claimed it was the first time he met Lohit, he knew Lohit was a quiet and a good person, how did he know this?

Why did he try to get an argument out of Lohit by winding him up? Why do they insist on getting a loud and ruthless person to be the apprentice.

The underlying problem is what is the Appentice going to do - learn or do. The answer seems to be do.

Tre had real flashes of brilliance which an apprenticeship would have tried to tame and refine. Simon had fewer, more flashes of stupidity but looks more refined. A good teacher might make more of Tre.

The girls could get on with it without being taught anything much.

Then you have the job thats available which tends to need certain people and skills regardless of what happens on the show - Michelle fitted the last job even if she was smart enough to realise it was a silly concept.

Another question is why the Apprentice's never stay. They either move or like Kendra in the US and Ruth here use it to add TV and lecturing work to their existing careers. Its an apprenticeship to something else.

And people criticised Katie for apparently being disparaging towards Northerners?????

Er Tim and Michelle were loud and ruthless??? I don't think so.

I think the title of being the Apprentice is far greater than the job Alan gives them. It's probably a bit of a mundane job which is why people quit sharpish.

I'm sure there are many companies who would snap up the winner and give them more than 100k per year.

lol. Nick and Margaret are the only quiet ones. They sit in a corner off the staff room in their breaks playing Scrabble.

I most wholeheartedly agree. I've said all the way through this series that the game is being played in the BR. Lohit said as much last night in "You're Fired", with his comment if he had been in the BR maybe then SAS could have seen his aggression when put into a corner. Unfortunately for him SAS only saw it once when he questioned Tre as to why he was there and not Simon.

So how come Simon stayed then? He'd only been in the board room once.

If Tre is that disruptive, how did he manage to be in the winning team 7 times?!! You can't be a team player if you are disruptive. Throughout the show we only see him argue twice with his team mates: 1- with Jadine when she made a mistake when she decided to pull them out of their pitch in the first task. If they went to the boardroom, she was the one to be fired. 2- with Rory, Don't let me start on him.


The interviewers believed that Simon must have business acumen because he has a 174 IQ! The other reason is that the interviewers thought that if Cambridge accepted Simon as a student, why should they be so fussy and not let him be the apprentice!

I believe, based on performance and business acumen, Tre should be in the finals instead of Simon.

Blimey either I must've dozed off during the programme or you know more than I do. When did they say Simon must have business acumen because he's got a high IQ? When did they say that as Cambridge had accepted him, then they wouldn't need to be so fussy?

Well this is my interpretation of the end result! Can you give yours? I just can't find any reason why he is through when other candidates who won more and contributed more than Simon are fired?

OK if it's just down to interpretation. then I interpret things thus:[LIST][*]the tasks are to whittle out the weak ones, leaving you with the final strong 5[*]some people may have been on more winning teams than others, but that is not necessarily a reflection of their own personal abilities as there are other people in the teams and the teams differ[*]some people my appear to add more value to the teams, but that could also be down to editing preferences[*]some people may appear to be more confrontational, but again that could be down to editing preferences[/LIST]
based on the editing preferences my interpretation of Tre is as follows
[LIST][*]Task 1 - On winning team? Yes. Pros - Tre was right about the location of the coffee point. Cons - his confrontational stance and profanity towards Jadine (the PM) didn’t help with team mechanics[*]Task 2 - On the winning Team? No. Pros - can't think of any. Cons - Tre was again confrontational and profane towards his PM. Admittedly Rory was a jerk, but there are ways of dealing with jerks other than swearing and being aggressive[*]Task 3 - On winning team? Yes. Pros - He was PM. Cons - yet more aggressive and profane language used to handle team members[*]Task 4 - On winning team? Yes. Pros - Good at selling lollies . . . to fat people (oh wait has there been an uproar on this slighting fat people? No there hasn’t because Tre’s insults are acceptable to everybody) [*]Task 5 - On winning team? Yes. Pros - did he actually sell those pictures he was bullshitting about? Cons - derogatory about the artists (again using profane language) and yet at the same time easily offended by nudity (but not his own profanity – strange hypocrisy)[*]Task 6 - On winning team? Yes. Cons - insulted women by inferring that Jadine’s mood was due to her time of the month – if so, then what accounts for his permanent state of aggression?[*]Task 7 - On winning team? Yes. Cons - Got £1 off the price of a leather jacket.[*]Task 8 - On winning team? Yes. Pros - came up with the Streets idea and the concept of giving something back correctly advising that it should be a percentage of profits and not sales. Cons - sulked like a school boy at every effort Simon made to contribute to it. As if it wasn’t his idea then he wasn’t interested. Also if you see the blog tape he was constantly interfering with the video shoot and was labelled by Margaret as a nightmare[*]Task 9 - On winning team? No. Pros - He was PM. Cons - even SAS said he’d cocked up[*]Task 10 - On winning team? No. Pros - was right about trampolines being outdated Cons - didn’t offer alternative product suggestions to those chosen by Naomi. Terrible at presenting.[*]11 - On winning team? N/A. Cons - became very defensive about the true nature of his global business and even aggressive. Didn’t google SAS or Amstrad.[/LIST]
I don’t know whether he contributed more than anyone else other than in winding a lot of people up.

Kristina certainly wasnt in the boardroom three times. She went back in once, in the France week, and was by far the best candidate in hergroup that week. Twice if you include last night.

He did contribute more than anyone else and specifically Simon. If he was winding people up as you say, why most the candidates fired respect him. Can you also please list Simon's contributions in the same way?! Just to decide who should be in the final

I don't think its Tre's performance that left him out of the fianl its his disruptive character.

My point is if Tre is that disruptive how can he win 7 times? Either he was not disruptive or his behaviour didn't affect the performance of the team!

The fact is he wasn't disruptive at all when Ghazal, Lohit, Kristina, Simon were PMs. He did argue with Jadine and Rory and in both cases he argued against wrong decisions.

He was didn't argue with Jadine until she splitted him and Simon and asked him to work for what he had lost!!! which was completely unacceptable because she was the one who pulled them from their location.

With Rory, Tre asked to ring the focus team before going with that rediculous strap and Rory was just saying "shut up!".

In both cases he was arguing for the benefit of his team. He wasn't afraid like the others from being taken to the boardroom in case the team lost the task which shows that he puts the interest of the team first. Most of his other comments were to the Camera and I haven't seen him disruptive at all apart from those two cases.

This just confirms to me that there is no point from winning the tasks.