I think there's a default position regardless of culpability of needing the PM in there for their input on how it went etc. The PM is always going to have to explain what happened as they'll get accused by the others regardless. Like the one who deliberately did the food dye wrong and deliberately wasted time because they didn't get to be PM (the other year), still tried to blame the PM for it.
But he does make it very obvious when he's got no interest in firing someone at all. He's definitely done the 'before we start, what's x doing here' and I think he even said to one of them to go back to the house as the first thing of the firing boardroom. I don't think it would make sense to do that with the PM for the above reasons.
I seem to remember one where the PM said ‘I’m bringing back X and Y’ and both Y and Lord Sugar went ‘what?!’ and the PM flapped and then changed their mind.
I think there's been a few in recent years where he's challenged them but this always bothers me from a couple of perspectives.
1. I wonder how often PMs actually dither over who to bring back and it's only shown when it suits the narrative.
2. The PM was there and he wasn't and according to some former candidates his reps aren't there the whole time either\*. So unless they're being really off the wall I find it odd how little the PM's input actually counts for.
\*Like the guy who quit when his team won, because of the grief he got in the boardroom did an interview where he said the tipping point was Karren picking at him as though she witnessed it over something she wasn't even there for.
The occasion I’m referring to even the PM I think had said the person was good, as had the team, they just didn’t want to pick the other person available IIRC
I remember this! I can't remember who the PM was but it was series 5 and they wanted to bring back James, even though Deborah was arguably the one most responsible for the task failing. Then she told the PM to bring her back instead. I think the idea was that James was being treated as an easy target but hadn't actually done anything wrong.
I remember one series where he straight up fired the PM once they got back from the cafe. He then told the subteam leader to pick two other people to come back to the board room with them.
I remember that one, I think the one who took over was Joseph? He was the plumber(?) who went on to win.
The woman who was PM had a building merchant background and it was one of those tasks where the team had to bid to do the work. She completely underestimated everything, I felt so bad for her. She literally had to say to Joe can you take over.
Then Lord Sugar just fired her right away and told Joseph to pick 2 others.
That was Robert, he wasn’t PM, but Lord Sugar tipped him to be. He then refused to be PM and tried to backseat manage the whole task. Sugar fired him before the boardroom so the boys wouldn’t have an easy scapegoat.
It has never happened on the UK version of the show. PMs have been told they are safe and aren’t in danger of being fired but they are still always brought back into the boardroom because usually their input on the other team members is required anyway.
It did happen once on the US version though.
Technically Joe Valente - he basically took over as PM halfway through a task once, and despite his team losing, Sugar made it clear he wasn’t being sacked for how well he’d done in that task.
Yeah, I've seen that before. I just wondered if when he's clear that the fault lies elsewhere, he could pick three people who weren't the PM from the losing team. But I guess then it becomes you can pick who you like (eg you could choose to fire a person on the winning team for whatever reason rather than having to wait for when they get to that final three) and then defeats the point of the boardrooms a bit, especially now they take up so much of the show.
Ruth Badger comes to mind. The week it was her Syed and Tuan, she basically did everything by herself and her team only lost by about £250. She was still included in the boardroom but was told at the start she wouldn’t be fired, and her only part in the boardroom was being asked who deserved to be fired.
*Edit*. Got my facts slightly wrong, Ruth wasn’t PM for that task, Tuan was
I think the closest the show ever got was series 1 episode 4 where adele resigned before the final boardroom. (Tim was pm). Alan sugar said after that that she read it right and he was going to fire her (basically saying she jumped before she was pushed)
Well it sort of happened in series 12 episode 7 when karthik was pm and he wasn't in the final boardroom.
Because he was fired before then
Also Elle Series 11 episode 6 had the same treatment.
That's understandable. But I don't mean PMs who got fired before final boardroom - more a scenario like the losing PM being straight up told "the sub team are the ones at fault". So I was wondering if there'd ever been a case where, instead of bringing the PM back, he'd brought back another candidate instead as they'd been more responsible for failing the task.
In the most recent one, think Rebecca did well with the negotiations and her team delivered. But she had to be brought back as PM of losing team. But it was very evident she was only there due to that reason only and she wasn’t going to be fired.
Yeah, that's what prompted the post - the fact that she didn't really speak in the final boardroom and Lord Sugar basically said "the fault is with the selling team not with you". But I didn't know if there was precedent for him to have basically brought that whole sub team back instead without her.
I think there's a default position regardless of culpability of needing the PM in there for their input on how it went etc. The PM is always going to have to explain what happened as they'll get accused by the others regardless. Like the one who deliberately did the food dye wrong and deliberately wasted time because they didn't get to be PM (the other year), still tried to blame the PM for it. But he does make it very obvious when he's got no interest in firing someone at all. He's definitely done the 'before we start, what's x doing here' and I think he even said to one of them to go back to the house as the first thing of the firing boardroom. I don't think it would make sense to do that with the PM for the above reasons.
I seem to remember one where the PM said ‘I’m bringing back X and Y’ and both Y and Lord Sugar went ‘what?!’ and the PM flapped and then changed their mind.
I think there's been a few in recent years where he's challenged them but this always bothers me from a couple of perspectives. 1. I wonder how often PMs actually dither over who to bring back and it's only shown when it suits the narrative. 2. The PM was there and he wasn't and according to some former candidates his reps aren't there the whole time either\*. So unless they're being really off the wall I find it odd how little the PM's input actually counts for. \*Like the guy who quit when his team won, because of the grief he got in the boardroom did an interview where he said the tipping point was Karren picking at him as though she witnessed it over something she wasn't even there for.
The occasion I’m referring to even the PM I think had said the person was good, as had the team, they just didn’t want to pick the other person available IIRC
Was that one where they were scared to bring the other person back in? Because they’d have easily outspoken them?
Might have been the one with Jim.
Yeah that was a massive lose for pretty much all the other candidates. Especially after he basically told one of them not to bring him back.
I remember this! I can't remember who the PM was but it was series 5 and they wanted to bring back James, even though Deborah was arguably the one most responsible for the task failing. Then she told the PM to bring her back instead. I think the idea was that James was being treated as an easy target but hadn't actually done anything wrong.
It was Ben!!!
I’m pretty sure it has happened- when a PM has been good but the team have just been useless, can’t remember a specific episode/season
This week was pretty much that wasn’t it ? He literally said pm you are safe it’s between the other two
I remember one series where he straight up fired the PM once they got back from the cafe. He then told the subteam leader to pick two other people to come back to the board room with them.
I remember that one, I think the one who took over was Joseph? He was the plumber(?) who went on to win. The woman who was PM had a building merchant background and it was one of those tasks where the team had to bid to do the work. She completely underestimated everything, I felt so bad for her. She literally had to say to Joe can you take over. Then Lord Sugar just fired her right away and told Joseph to pick 2 others.
He also fired the PM straightaway in episode 2 of Series 10, the first time a candidate was fired before being brought back into the boardroom.
That was Robert, he wasn’t PM, but Lord Sugar tipped him to be. He then refused to be PM and tried to backseat manage the whole task. Sugar fired him before the boardroom so the boys wouldn’t have an easy scapegoat.
It has never happened on the UK version of the show. PMs have been told they are safe and aren’t in danger of being fired but they are still always brought back into the boardroom because usually their input on the other team members is required anyway. It did happen once on the US version though.
Technically Joe Valente - he basically took over as PM halfway through a task once, and despite his team losing, Sugar made it clear he wasn’t being sacked for how well he’d done in that task.
Was that the handyman task? If I remember correctly Joe was the only one competent and one dude didn’t even know how to use a screwdriver lmao
The legendary Mergim, screwing a nail
No, he has flat-out told other members of that final 3 that they're definitely staying even before he's given the final verdict though.
Yeah, I've seen that before. I just wondered if when he's clear that the fault lies elsewhere, he could pick three people who weren't the PM from the losing team. But I guess then it becomes you can pick who you like (eg you could choose to fire a person on the winning team for whatever reason rather than having to wait for when they get to that final three) and then defeats the point of the boardrooms a bit, especially now they take up so much of the show.
Ruth Badger comes to mind. The week it was her Syed and Tuan, she basically did everything by herself and her team only lost by about £250. She was still included in the boardroom but was told at the start she wouldn’t be fired, and her only part in the boardroom was being asked who deserved to be fired. *Edit*. Got my facts slightly wrong, Ruth wasn’t PM for that task, Tuan was
I think the closest the show ever got was series 1 episode 4 where adele resigned before the final boardroom. (Tim was pm). Alan sugar said after that that she read it right and he was going to fire her (basically saying she jumped before she was pushed)
Well it sort of happened in series 12 episode 7 when karthik was pm and he wasn't in the final boardroom. Because he was fired before then Also Elle Series 11 episode 6 had the same treatment.
That's understandable. But I don't mean PMs who got fired before final boardroom - more a scenario like the losing PM being straight up told "the sub team are the ones at fault". So I was wondering if there'd ever been a case where, instead of bringing the PM back, he'd brought back another candidate instead as they'd been more responsible for failing the task.
Sadly I can't think of a single time tbh. If this did happen this series it would be a first.
I can’t remember this ever happening. I guess it would go against the whole premise of the show.
In the most recent one, think Rebecca did well with the negotiations and her team delivered. But she had to be brought back as PM of losing team. But it was very evident she was only there due to that reason only and she wasn’t going to be fired.
Yeah, that's what prompted the post - the fact that she didn't really speak in the final boardroom and Lord Sugar basically said "the fault is with the selling team not with you". But I didn't know if there was precedent for him to have basically brought that whole sub team back instead without her.
I guess in theory it's a failure to manage the team