Originally posted by captveg:Originally posted by Furlow:You've been pretending to know what you're talking about when it comes to this, just stop.
Fine. My reasoning was based in some conversations I had a few years ago about similar liabilty of a business, but if I was misinformed then so be it.
If Janitor had simpy made a straightforward point about this instead of lording it over me and laughing in my face in order to be the big dog I likely wouldn't have kept my defenses up and been so stubborn about it. But the defenses were mine and I own that. I still say it was obvious that "impossible" was clearly in context of the liability claim of the team, not at all meant in a physical reality sense. But this will be my final word on this aspect of this matter.
Originally posted by Furlow:I remain shocked at how many people there are that blindly defend billionaires and their shady/greedy business practices.
See, this is my main source of frustration about this - this argument of "they're just cheap" would be great if it wasn't so muddled by other aspects. If there was consistent cheapness and avarice about these things by the 49ers I would agree with you. But I can't reconcile that argument with other factors.
As Young2Rice suggested, the team may be holding onto a more expensive-than-misters non-solution. That doesn't fit neatly into the "they're just cheap" narrative.
Then there's the lowering the bottle water price, which goes against that narrative. If they were just about the bottom line in the quickest and easiest way, they'd gouge water prices by raising them even higher, right?
Then there's the money spent in the last couple years on non-heat concerns, such as overhauling the food services. Obviously this is more profitable in the long run, but usually the opposite - quick fixes to save an immediate buck - are the symptoms of a wholly cheap philosophy. Keeping all fans cool and comfy would fall under the long-run profits philosophy, which is the opposite of just being cheap for cheap's sake.
Which brings us back to Al Guido's statement about misters not being a viable option for them. There's clearly something there that is giving them pause.
If it was the quick, money-saving miracle solution many of you are suggesting then a cheap, money-saving owner should be jumping at the opportunity to install them and boast about it, not disgruntle the fanbase further by making something up as to the reason for it not being viable. There just has to be something else - something practical and/or legitimately unappealing financially - for either the cheap or impractical to make any sense.
And it could end up being either one of those possibilities. I'm simply suggesting neither adds up with the information we have at the moment. If someone has some actual insight into what it may be - on either side of that pendulum - then I'm all ears. But just saying "they're cheap" doesn't work for me here. It's too vague and too contradictory for reasons I stated above, at least without further relative information.
Gets timeout, comes back and throws shade in the first post.
Stay classy
