Sure, it's only my opinion, didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I know we only see a little of what they do, but by the same token it can't be used to prove my point isn't a valid one. After all, the same has been true since the first series.

I'm not sure if they did, to be honest. It's difficult to predict what combinations will be combustible. Sometimes people who you'd think wouldn't get on do and those you'd think would don't.

Hardly. He over-spent on the pub-food task. He shirked responsibility on the photo task. He was weak at negotiating on the Morocco task. He didn't sell very well on the Wedding task. On the advert and car tasks he undermined Lucinda to the pointer where she was unable to contribute. On the perfume task he failed to research the costs of the bottle, which was pretty much the only mistake they made.

For me, sneakiness aside, he was a very poor performer through-out.

Perhaps so, but on all these tasks, either his team won or there were others who performed worse than he did. I can't see any basis on which he deserved to be fired before he was.

I don't think he could have complained too much had he been fired in week 1 or week 4, tbh. Both weeks it was a toss of a coin over who deserved to go.

Whatever. I don't like him enough to be bothered arguing his case any further

Then I would say his luck on the first task continued on the other tasks. Which isn't the same as saying he went from strength to strength. For me the only task where he appeared strong was the car task, where he did get good sales.

Shazia, Sara, Simon and Reaf were wrongly fired

Who was the common denominator in three of those wronful firings

Alan Sugar?

Yes, that's the only commen factor I can think of?

How about Michael- wasn't he spared with three of these firings

I can't find the common dominator unless you mean SurAlun

Shazia - Jenny C made sure she went instead of her

Sara - Yes Michael made sure she went but to be honest it was six of one ... half a dozen of the other - both Sara & Michael were dreadful in that task

Simon - Claire caused his downfall

Raef - Yes Michael was a little to blame but Raef forgot what the task was about so was equally to blame (loved you tho Raef )

Just my opinion though

He wasn't even on the same team as Shazia though and had nothing to do with Simon being fired....

I think he should have been fired in place of sara and raef considering his lack on contribution overall, but two out of four is really the best you can make out of it.

Funny how we see things differently. With the exception of Lee, I thought Alex was the most consistently high performer. As for sneakiness, there is no sneakiness in saying things to people instead of about them which appeared to be the specialty of many of the other candidates, not Alex.

Anyway, how did he overspend on the pub food task? That was Ian and he was fired. I don't even think Ian should have been fired that week. It should have been Kevin. If you appoint yourself Chef, you are responsible for everything you and others do in that kitchen and what eventually comes out of that kitchen.

He didn't shirk responsibilty in the photograph task. Very astutely, he must have sensed they were onto a loser the second Simon was made PM and quite rightly didn't want to be in the line of fire in the face of almost certain defeat.

How can you say he didn't sell well in the wedding task? What show did you watch?

In the advertisement task, he was PM. It was Lucinda who was undermining him with her usual childishness, just like she did to Lee in the car task. Lucinda was unable to contribute in those tasks for the same reason as she had failed to contribute in any task that she wasn't in charge of; a control freak with inferiority issues.

In the perfume task, the product was popular, the advertisement was good and in real business, the packaging would have been revamped if it was too expensive. It would certainly not ose you a deal. There is a task each year that highlights what is wrong with this show; that it concentrates on and judges purely on money making and uses no other barometer to measure the ability and skills of the candidates. This year it was the perfume task.

Since brangdon went to the trouble of backing up his argument with some examples, maybe you could do the same. The only week I think he did well really was the car task.

eta: I see you have now edited some in.


In otherwise he shirked responsibility but had a less than honorable reason for doing so. Also I fail to see why they were 'on to a loser' because Simon was PM, since Simon was the strongest performing candidate for the first three weeks.


Much like he and claire were undermining Simon in the aforementioned photography task you mean? And even if what you say is true, that does not tell us anything that Alex actually did well in that task, although it does perhaps reaffirm that Alex is rubbish at managing people, as per episode one.


But Alex and Helene failed to do even the most basic of costing, and Alex was shown to basically lie his way through the questions about costing during the presentation. The costing was one of the key parts of the task, and should not have been seen as an after thought. Seriously, in real life costing comes before all the other stuff, not after it.

[quote=ibeca;24693010]
In the perfume task, the product was popular, the advertisement was good and in real business, the packaging would have been revamped if it was too expensive. QUOTE]

That would be the bottle suggested by and designed by the Designer himself (IE neither Alex or Helene)?

Even Kevin had more to do with the bottle design than Alex and Helene did....

The overspend on food was matched by the overspend on everything else. "Everything else" included the menus and other materials Alex got printed. The menus were £1 each and the other stuff would have been priced similarly. It was too expensive. The voice-over mentioned he went to a very high-priced print shop. You don't need expensive menus because by the time customers see them they are in the pub and sitting down and more or less committed to eating there, so the money was virtually wasted. Especially as it was a one-day task so the menus wouldn't get reused.


He did. Remember Margaret saying he stepped so far back he almost left the room? He also denied doing it in the boardroom. He was sneaky; you couldn't rely on what he said.


He thought Simon was doing to him what he had done to Nicholas and Raef in ep1. That's not astute, that's sneakiness. (And projection; Simon was trying no such thing.)


He took all day to sell three dresses. It's better than nothing, but not really that great, is it? Even Helene sold two. It's not like they were expensive ones like Claire was selling.


Alex is the common factor there. Lee and Lucinda worked well together until Lee got all buddy-buddy with Alex. He's very manipulative, and has no time for her. Her ideas got ignored or stolen.


The other bits are irrelevant as Alex didn't do them. The issue wasn't so much that the bottle was too expensive, but that Alex had not properly researched the cost, a core part of his job. And it wouldn't have been easy to revamp later as the whole campaign and "dual" concept was based around the two bottles. Insofar as the task could be lost by what they did on the task, Alex lost it.

In the cases of whether the person we disliked was a bully, then yes, they deserve to fired for being a bully as even from a business POV they are a liability to the company if anyone sues them for bullying if they are hired.

Regardless of how competent or not any bullied candidates were, I feel the people who bullied them behaved in a far worse manner and deserve to be fired just for being bullies.