Blown call in CFL game costs woman a million dollars!
- Thread starter kickserv
- Start date
Safeway has been around for years and they aren't going away anytime soon. They don't need any P.R. Of course it wouldn't hurt to give her a little something, like maybe a few thousand dollars of free stuff, but why would they give her the full million dollars when it clearly didn't count as a TD?? It's obvious you aren't a CEO or businessman.
And I'd say it is obvious that you don't understand what the advertising budget is for Safeway or what a Marketing Dep't is for. Just think how much a huge company like Safeway spends on advertising and magnify that by 1000 on what it takes to get a customer (customer acquisition cost), the million dollar cheque to Karen is a no brainer.
1 million dollars is nothing to a 8.7 billion dollar company, the amount of positive PR would be as good as 8000 banners, 189 tv commercials and 10,000 print ads. Grocery chain business in Canada and USA is a brutal cut throat business (price per shelf space is highest among any other retail business). But hey what do I know it is obvious I ain't a CEO or a businessman, nope I have no idea what I am talking about.
1. Nobody said the 8.7 billion dollar company was going to go belly up because of this.
2. When you get shit PR you can turn a bad situation into a positive one. That is Marketing 101.
Why not just dish out just a few thousand dollars worth of free stuff for her instead? They'd be able to accomplish the same positive PR by giving her let's say $50,000-$100,000 as they would if they gave her $1,000,000. And why should they give her the full million if the TD didn't count? Bad call or not, it technically wasn't a TD.
As always, kickserv is on the wrong side of this play.
The real play for Safeway is to launch a campaign to make the CFL pay the million dollars to Karen. CFL blew the call, not Safeway.
The campaign by Safeway calling out the CFL puts the onus on them for the bad call, it costs less than a million in cash (it's Canadian, so I guess what, 19.99 USD?) and it puts Safeway in the spotlight as standing up for the little guy.
The real play for Safeway is to launch a campaign to make the CFL pay the million dollars to Karen. CFL blew the call, not Safeway.
The campaign by Safeway calling out the CFL puts the onus on them for the bad call, it costs less than a million in cash (it's Canadian, so I guess what, 19.99 USD?) and it puts Safeway in the spotlight as standing up for the little guy.
Marine. Please stop posting rational thoughts that make sense. It prevents kickserv from getting angry at the big guy and his mission to protect the wronged. How about pro teams sue the leagues for blown calls because missing the playoffs costs them million in revenue. How about the players when bad calls are made against them? Etc. Etc. Etc. bad calls are a part of sports. Why is this company at fault for something they had zero control over? It was either a touchdown or it wasn't. It wasn't. So no payday.
Hey Kick, what if the blown call had led to her winning a million dollars? Would you expect her to give give the money back?
no
Why should I answer such a dumb question.
Of course nobody would give the million dollars back, now stop asking dumb fucking questions. She would have legally won the money and it is all hers.
You are banned 7 hours for asking a dumb question, and yes there are such things as asking dumb questions, so I don't want to hear there is no such thing as a dumb question.
ban extended to 11 hours.
Someone may need to quote this post because Kickserv has me on ignore ever since I correctly called out he lives at home with his mom.
Your reasoning is laughable. You said "She would have legally won the money and it is all hers", which is correct. Following the same line of reasoning, she legally did not win the money because the play was called back, therefore she is owed nothing.
You can't use one line of reasoning (they need to pay her because it's the right thing to do), and then refuse to use that reasoning on her returning the money (she doesn't have to legally). That's called cherry picking. If the right thing to do is to pay her the money, then the right thing to do would be her returning it on a blown call. Of course, we only need to abide by the legally correct thing to do. No TD = No $$. TD = $$. You are letting emotion get in the way of reason.
Your answer to PF's question completely kills your original argument, which is why he asked it.
I recall another story one time here at MJ's......but my memory fails me a bit......:0003
Kick, you are hypocritical beyond belief.. You want everyone to be open minded, but only about the things you agree with. You then take shots at them (whether you admit it or not) because of what they believe when it contradicts what you think.
You have no interest in open mindedness, unless it's toward things you agree with. That isn't how it works.
You have defined yourself fairly clearly here.
You have no interest in open mindedness, unless it's toward things you agree with. That isn't how it works.
You have defined yourself fairly clearly here.
On the other side but good luck with your play.
I assure you I am more open minded then pretty much anyone on here, if there was an "open minded" Madjack contest I'd finish Top 3 for sure.
And for the record nobody would say "give the money back" if she legally won the money, so fuck off with your "giving the money back" question, I mean come on man.
You can stop proving your a dickhead, we all know. We've known for a while.
Tell your mom's basement I said hello.
