Quote:
Originally Posted by youtalkfunny
Wow, last part of the series was terribly written. "Charities make $75k less because they pay an extra $250/day"????? That's ridiculous (I hate that word, it's so overused, but I can't think of a better one to use here, it's a ludicrous conclusion).
In the Facebook news page, the employees were saying the charities were getting stiffed because Puck was misappropriating their money. It's important to note that no evidence of that was offered here.
I also see no problem with Cheers charging more for operating expenses. It's a massive building, much bigger than Chasers, much nicer than Seabrook (I've never been to BBC, can't use them in my comparisons).
This is a four-part series, with three hard-hitting parts, then one big pile of nonsense....or as Sammy Hagar would say, "A really cool movie with a really bad ending."
Agreed, the last article seemed like an afterthought. Like when you tried to finish a school project the night before it was due that your had a month to do.
However, I don't agree that Cheers is justified in charging more. They may be larger but they've never come close to the numbers that any of the other rooms have. Should have started off charging less then increase the fee as business grew, rather than having charities walk away with zero.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk