I despise Blockbuster.
Their prices for rentals border on insanity at times, and their selection of anything other than new movies is pitiful at best. Basically, I try to avoid renting movies from Blockbuster at all costs.
However with a location right beside my residence, sometimes I've given in, especially if I'm looking to see a new release that I didn't get to see in theatres. This was the case recently and during this visit, I was exposed to what is probably the biggest current scam on the planet.
Yes, the "no more late fees" ruse. Hands up for those who know of this "great new deal."
After seeing the commercials and having a tough time deciding between three DVD's I decided "hey, if I don't get to watch them all this week, no big deal because there's no more late fees right?"
Upon returning the movies three weeks later, I found out that because I had not returned them in over a week, Blockbuster had assumed I wanted to buy the movies! In fact, had I not returned them for another week after that, I would have been charged for the movies' full retail price!
HUH? Can someone explain this logic to me? Isn't that sort of like my work assuming that because I wasn't back from lunch at my usual time, that I was never coming back to work for them again?
Never mind, I see. Blockbuster was being squeezed by upstart online DVD rental companies like Netflix, and needed some new way of tricking the public into thinking that they too, had "no more late fees" when instead, they would initiate an even sneakier way to make money.
And did they ever.
Because now, even if you do return the movies within the 30 day time frame, as I had done, you still get charged what they call a "re-stocking fee." Upon learning of this I asked the Tintin look-a-like behind the counter what this fee was for. He explained that it was simply the cost of bringing a replacement product in to the store because I hadn't returned mine on time.
"Oh...you mean a late fee?..."
In any event, once again this was another chapter from the book of "you can't assume anything and need to read the fine print." I guess I skipped most of that chapter, especially when referencing the John Salmons deal...
Yep, great argument Franchise - Salmons is definitely the most important free agent signing in Raptors' history...ASSUMING HE SIGNS.
The NBA is a wacky world. It was only a few off-seasons ago when the Cleveland Cavaliers assumed that Carlos Boozer would honour a supposed "hand-shake" agreement to return to the Cavs for less money in the impending off-season. Instead, Boozer bolted for a max deal in Utah leaving the Cavs reeling and their fans "slightly" upset.
The John Salmons affair isn't on par with "Boozergate." However it does have similar undertones - especially now that Salmons has agreed to a deal with the Sacramento Kings after seemingly being committed to joining both Toronto and Phoenix. As the Toronto Star's Doug Smith correctly pointed out this morning, NBA GM's talk and Salmons' slite won't go unnoticed.
For me, admittedly it's taken a few days to comprehend this situation. As I had discussed in my article on Salmons barely a week ago, I was quite excited to have him on-board as a Raptor. Don't get me wrong, I like Fred Jones' game, but I just saw more upside and a better fit in Salmons. Where my argument from the past article really goes awry now though is during the whole "Salmons choosing Toronto over a contender like Phoenix" thing. Yeah, remember, the whole "beacon of hope?"
Well now it seems like Fred Jones and the recently signed Jorge Garbajosa will have to play the beacon roles. Garbajosa is expected to backup both the 4 and 5 spots and provide an injection of toughness to the club that's been lacking since Charles Oakley left town.
(Speaking of which, can we start up the "Senor Oakley" nicknames yet? I think the "porn player" nickname is going to stick but what about other comparisons to Oak? Will we see Garbajosa chomping on cigars off-court? How about chasing down opposing team players who owe him money prior to games?)