Every year he goes for the wishy-washy people over the ones who actually display business acumen. First he employs Tim over Saira, who wiped the floor with him on the shopping channel task outmanoeuvring him and outthinking him, then last year he employed Michelle who was completely outperformed and outclassed by Ruth Badger, now he gives a job to a flippertigibbet who actually fell to pieces on a number of tasks, and given his love of performing seems to be the most likely candidate for the one who's only doing it to be on telly.

It makes a mockery of the tasks if the people who don't perform in them can then argue that they need "molding" or whatever. If they're going to use that reasoning, they should send the winners of the tasks home each week, leaving the loser as the most obviously "moldable" candidate.

I knew Simon would win this year because Sir Alan never ever gives the prize to the most competent and capable. Of course maybe Simon worked that out too, and acted the idiot in the hope it would get him the job.

Agree completely. I just can't believe the hypocricy of Sir Alan. He says every week how important it is to be a good leader and in most cases he fires the leader of the losing team as they messed up and couldn't manage the task.

Then for him to sit there and say to Simon "You're not a good leader" but still hire him astonishes me. I guess you don't have to perform well but suck up to Sir Alan and aspire to be like him to win.

Simon is a wally but I do believe that he will "work his socks off" for Sir Alan. Easier to mould than Kristina as well.

But didn't Sir Alan fire Jadine because she wasn't the finished product and he didn't want to mould her? He said she needed more experience and then he goes and hires Simon. Such a hypocrite.

What is this moulding stuff? They're going for a senior managerial role. Like I said,if they want somebody mouldable then give the *losers* the job and be explicit about it. I've never heard in any other type of job situation the quality of mouldability being one that is desirable in any position other than graduate entry, and £100k a year is definitely not graduate entry.

Normally business positions require people to be able to perform and deliver results and make money. Mouldability doesn't come into it.

This is why I don't really like the final task. It seems to have no bearing on the eventual decision, but this seems largely because there isn't the kind of battle that usually occurs in the boardroom. If the teams had properly reported on the ability and conduct of the PMs and if they had had to battle against each other as to why they were better than the other, I think Kristina would have won because Simon seemed such an ineffective PM as SAS recognised. The flaws in performance simply don't come through enough. I thought the final task itself was also not going to be very revealing about the candidates skills this time. It didn't seem as challenging or needing as many skills as other finales have demanded, particularly on the Apprentice USA.

As a matter of fact, on her own, she outmanoeuvred and out-thought two of them together: Tim and Paul, I think it was. Superb. I love that Saira. She is so intelligent and always learning. She was great when she appeared on Question Time too. So glad to see she is also presenting programmes on TV.

A cliche! A cliche! Nothing else. It's a bit like those cries of Fake! that always come up on BB. And about as illuminating.

Sugar isn't the patient, 'moulding' type anyway. He is the epitome of those impatient, demanding men in business who speak a language that always includes cliches such as 'self-starter' at the top of their list of demands. As if they were after a motor car or a perpetual motion machine.

Heaven knows how Simon is ever going to get started!

This article pretty well sums up my opinion of Sir Brillo Beard the Shouter:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...7&in_a_source=

I wouldn't put up with a boss like that, would you?

Didn't Tim do okay working for Sir Alan? Didn't he extend his year's contract to two years? Nobody could have known what was going to happen with Michelle - how do we know that Ruth would have lasted the year?
None of us yet know how Simon is going to fare - give him a chance, most people have written him off before he has even put his cotton socks on.

There are more holes in this programme than a swiss cheese - SAS fires a candidate one week for one reason and then fires the next candidate for the completely opposite reason the week after. But... for the first time, last night on 'You're Hired' there was a glimmer of understanding as to why S'ralun chose Simon when he talked of him captivating the room with the presentation. Given the job Simon is going to do e.g. property, presentations, superficial, glossy, posh bloke, Cambridge, Westminster etc. maybe, just maybe, the choice was not quite so outrageous as I first thought.

He fired Jadine for not being the finished product and hired Simon for it.

He fires the rubbish team leaders yet 30 seconds before he hired Simon he told him "You're not a good leader"

He fired Lohit for not having enough fire in his belly when Simon doesn't either.

He fired Ghazal for being all talk and no action when he hired Simon who's basically the same.


We've been misled throughout the whole series and that is the sole reason that I disagree with the decision.

These people never seem able to tell the truth. Simon didn't get a 'double first' at Cambridge 'a year early' - you can't graduate a year early, and he got a 2:2.

If SAS is looking for a certain type of person, with specific business skills, it may be a good idea that we know from the start, otherwise someone who appears to be totally useless may be just the person he needs.....I think he had Simon earmarked for the job form very early on in the show.
Like others I feel a bit cheated that we were all looking for an all-round solid business person with excellent leadership skills - apparently not!!

Sooner or later we'll get a candidate who tells Sugar to f-off. It's impossible to tell from watching the program whether any of the candidates are hard working or talented. All the highlights show are them riding around in taxi cabs bickering with each other on mobile phones. Then they moan and whinge and spout cliches to save their skin in the "boardroom". It's all about image not substance. Sugar probably made the right choice for once by hiring the cleverest guy with the best qualifications who stood out the most in the interview stage.

I would never expect Simon to get a job if he behaved that way in an interview.

Simon is clever but somewhat lacking in common sense.

He seemed to like Simon for the very same reasons he slagged off Lohit, Gazhal, Naomi (when he fired her I knew that he favoured Simon to be his apprentice) etc.

It makes a mockery of the show when SAS has his 'favourite' and then makes the other candidates compete in tasks which show their weaknesses and then hire the middle class boy anyway, despite his clear inability in most of the tasks.

It wasn't just Kristina who was robbed, but most of the others too.

Like Tre for instance

I don't think he would of won, even if he did reach the final.

One thing that the recent BBC2 spin off show proved that he's better working on his own.

Cos it gets us all foaming at the mouth and we discuss it for ages until the next one comes along.

Except that he isn't a boss like that article portrays?

One particular irony of that article is the "Though he says he values his family, he seems to hold the belief that family life and being a good businessman are fundamentally incompatible" - I don't think I've ever known anyone more devoted to his family or who understands how much more important employees families are than the job!

Cliff (who's worked with Alan at Amstrad for the last 23 years)

"In sharp contrast to Donald Trump, who hosts the U.S. version of The Apprentice (on which the British show is based), Sir Alan seems to be past it - an old man who is constantly on the defensive. "Nobody's gonna make a fool out of me!" he shouts demonically, often out of the blue and to no one in particular."

The last bit made me laugh out loud

It made sense if it was true. But Simon's presentation style was very child like - its all super, amazing, outstanding, five (or any other random number) times better than anything else.

If SAS really wanted someone who looked right, could be trusted not to foulup and sounded right, and who was obviously smart enough to be credible to present to a rich southern audience of property people, his shortlist is pretty short. Simon (too much like Private Pike) or Paul (looks and sounds just right but made cras decisions) or Naomi (who presents far better ) or Kristina ( who can sell) or Katie who ticked all the boxes. Naomi actually does everything as well as Simon and the age argument against her applies to Simon too. Kristina had just as many ideas in the series as Simon did. Katie looked as posh as Simon,was smart, had similar academic qualifications, was more practical and experienced and presented better than anyone but possibly Naomi.

It looks as if Simon gets it because Katie isn't there and has ruined her case outside the tasks, Kristina doesn't fit his posh and well educated desires and Naomi suffers from the Michelle factor.

I can't see him doing two year's courses in one year either - the courses would have to be so thin to tell you something else if it as true.

He obviously confused a double second with a double first. There wasn't a first class mind in there.