Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Truckers Drive on the Super Big Gulp, Not Meth. Who Knew?

Jangler

By Jangler,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Jangler Newbie

Jangler

Posted
Posted

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/super-big-gulp-fan-says-7-eleven-duping-1161022.html

Paul Sunby, 50, a biologist with an environmental consulting firm who is all over 7-Eleven for "trying to dupe people" over the actual size of its Super Big Gulp fountain drink. Sunby said the convenience store has reduced the size of the drink from 44 to 40 ounces in a sneaky way — or as he put it, "cleverly, quietly, and diabolically." Meanwhile, he said, the price remains the same: $1.50.

Paul, who is married to one of our business reporters, Lori Hawkins, said he noticed this transgression last summer when the store stopped selling Super Big Gulps for a couple of months, then started up again with a new cup. The old cup used to say Super Big Gulp on it, along with the 44-ounce size. But the new cup, while saying Super Big Gulp, included no size info, Paul said.

"They still say Super Big Gulp, but they no longer had the 44-ounce size printed on them, making people think they're the same thing," Paul groused.

Sunby said he wouldn't be upset if it just said "40 ounces" on the side of the new Super Big Gulp. "They still called it a Super Big Gulp, when in fact it's no longer," he said. "It's somewhere between a Big Gulp and a Super Big Gulp. It's a Not So Big Gulp. To me, the Super Big Gulp is deceased."

"The Super Big Gulp is an American institution, in my mind," he said. "How many truckers have made it across I-10 because of the Super Big Gulp?"

525.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
    • jfra78
      Are all veterinarians this greedy ?

      By jfra78 · Posted

      Get any shot you can at humane society, so much cheaper
×
×
  • Create New...