It basically just boils down to whom SAS likes best, not who is the most competent or professional.

I think he was talking bollocks when he was supposedly "explaining" Sara's firing at the end of the episode - saying something about how he's "given her enough chances". How many chances has she needed? She was incredibly active and successful in the first few weeks. She was direct and usually got results, was a very good project manager and even handled the tirelessly difficult Claire rather well.

I thought it was very unfair to oust someone with so much potential over an arrant failure like Michael - who has cheated, moaned and generally displayed very odd and unappealing behaviour.

Then you've got Helene, who is an aggressive liar.

Terrible, terrible decision. Oh well, moral lesson from SAS: cheats and bullies get further in life.

Michael should have gone. The other big mistake he has made this year was to fire poor Shazia in ep 2 - Jenny should have gone

I am beginning to doubt SAS's judgement and morals based on some of the decisions he's made, Micahel has shown appauling behaviour and attitude. How he's still there I don't know.

have you just only learned that?

Sara was an awful contestant always moaning and suggesting ideas which were not constructive then playing the guilt cards in the boardroom.

I agree with the OP.

Sugar is basically a barrow boy and blagger and he doesn't like academic or intellectual types.

He likes people who are noisy, very sociable, wheeler dealing, lively, very interactive, upbeat etc. And Sara failed on some of those counts.

He sacked Karen year before last because despite being very good she was too intellectual and generally competent and not likely to run around full of adrenalin enthusing others.

Sugar is mostly looking for some sales team motivator as his apprentice. Dick!

Uh, there was approximately one instance of this, I believe. Her plus points and good performances have far outweighed her negatives and bad performances.

Last week Nick said that Sara was a "revelation".

Michael? He ran around making chicken impressions, not knowing what kosher was and sabotaging the other team's tennis rackets.

Pathetic that Sara had supposedly been given "enough chances" but Michael was allowed some more.

It was obvious he was just waiting to fire her ever since she walked into the boardroom. She was making logical arguments but he wasn't listening. I thought he should have fired snake eyes Helene

Good decision.

I was almost yelling at the screen when he cut her off in the middle of a rational explanation to give Michael Dearest the chance to do some more sulky-faced, whingy-voiced "I was wrong please forgive me" grovelling.

I just don't understand why he fired Sara this week, when it was blatantly obvious that either Michael or what's her face, bug eyed Helene should have gone.

Alright her style of hard selling on this particular product left quite a bit to be desired. But she was nowhere near as forceful as Michael, what a total prat that bloke is.

With regret siralan, your fired, for very poor lack of judgement !

I don't think any of the 3 apprentices he has picked so far fall into this category. The loudmouths (not being rude but e.g. Ruth Bager and Saira Khan) get near the end but he never picks them - the quieter more measured types have always won so far.

Like Tim? Like Michelle? Think before posting in the future if this is all that you can muster.

I was the same. I think it's her voice which is quite annoying. Nobody would listen to her in the boardroom at all. She made a rational explanation and Sralan wouldn't listen.

I thought Michael's selling technique, punctuated by aggressive gestures was very off-putting. Sara was certainly no worse a candidate than this arrogant, greasy liar.

But at least Sara could quit with her head held high, knowing she hadn't descended to grovelling to SAS. ' Oh, make me the team-leader next time, pleeese,pleese. I'll show you what I can doooo. Oh, pleeese, Suralan, pleeese.'
Pass the sick-bag.

On You've Been Fire Sara came over as very self aware - she said she had the wrong strategy in the boardroom of attacking her team mates rather than defending herself and that she has learned a lot about herself from the programme.

I doubt the same could be said about Michael but I just have a feeling he is being made to feel he is invincible and Siralans favourite but is actually being set up for a very, very big fall. Or maybe I am just clinging on to that hope.

That Michael bloke surely deserved to go. I haven't been watching Srralan very long but that Michael bloke was such a little brown-noser. I wanted to shout at the TV when Srralan fired Sara.

I could understand him firing Sara if it she`d be in the BR against Lucinda, Lee, Raef, Claire or even Alex but having Michael sitting there with his past performance record and that stupid sullen pouty look on his face, firing Sara just didn`t make sense to me whatsoever!

Helene - horrible woman should have gone - she made all the decisions - especially about the cheaper dresses - she is a nasty piece of work!

I wouldn't worry, Michael's days are numbered anyway.

She is absolutely hellish. What does she offer to each task, except for standing in the background watching everybody else do all the hard labour?

I wouln't have got rid of Sara; it was between Helene and Michael for me.

I still can't fathom it out. I mean, it's not rocket-science. You're faced with a lying duplicitous, ineffectual biyatch; a moronic lying duplicitous innefectual nonce; and somone who has shown good leadership and was singled out for praise the week before...
So you fire the latter.
Sir Alan- you're fired!

I don't get why SAS said he was tried of Sara's mouth going on and on, when in previous weeks she hardly said anything and was the quietest in the whole group. Also this week it seemed she wasn't allowed to defend herself and SAS accussed her of making excuses, so she couldn't win either way.

Their obvious abilities in a wide range of areas couldn't be outshone by the stall holder mentality of others that Sugar favours.

If you can't see that in general Sugar favours a noisy, chavvish, blagger in preference to straight competence I suggest you do a bit more examination of the evidence before you comment.

Indeed, it was clearly an excuse. He usually likes the noisy types which make a good case for themselves and others, but Sugar chose to interpret this attitude as moaning etc. The biggest and noisiest moaner who has had least to moan about and can't even moan about relevant issues has been Claire, but he seems to like the chav.

It makes better TV to leave Helene and Michael in.
Obviously Sara is far more competent than them, but she is not as loud and entertaining ( in a car crash way ) so off she goes.
It's obvious that SAS fires people based on their entertainment factor for the show.