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!

     

Worst or Best Chain restaurants

Kettle

By Kettle,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Kettle Newbie

Kettle

Posted
Posted

I honestly rarely eat at any chains anymore due to Wilmington having so many non-chain options, but that coupon thread was bringing up the subject so I started a thread.

Based on past experiences though.

Worst: A toss up between TGI Fridays and MOST Cracker Barrels. I have eaten at some good ones, but for the most part that chain is a miss.

Best: Is there a such thing as a best chain restaurant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kettle Newbie

Kettle

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I love BWW's...

I've had mostly good experiences with Cracker Barrel.

I also very much like Chilli's.

my in laws went to the one on Market while they were here a couple weeks ago, and said it was one of the worst they've been too. i had the same kind of experience there a few years back, and have not returned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boo7382 Newbie

boo7382

Posted
Posted

Applebees and TGIF is disgusting.

I like Chillis and Texas Roadhouse.

Not sure if Firebirds is considered a chain but it's good.

I would consider Firebird's a chain. I freaking love that place. Never had been there until we went for my sister's 21st last year.....their salads are where its at. They also have an awesome drink menu and great service. Not to mention a couple of my friends work there so sometimes I get the hookup.

Liked it so much we went back for my birthday. Now I wanna go again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kettle Newbie

Kettle

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I eat Carolina Ale House sometimes. Mostly because of the beer selection and Carolina Sports theme. It's a small chain, and the one here employs mostly UNCW kids that don't seem to care to be there. Last time I was there I kept over hearing them trying to get each other to take tables, and complaining non stop about the little bit they had to do. That's the kind of thing that makes chains unappealing to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Panthro Community Regular

Panthro

Posted
Posted

I would consider Firebird's a chain. I freaking love that place. Never had been there until we went for my sister's 21st last year.....their salads are where its at. They also have an awesome drink menu and great service. Not to mention a couple of my friends work there so sometimes I get the hookup.

Liked it so much we went back for my birthday. Now I wanna go again.

If you like salads ( no Im not going there) you should try Crisp.

http://www.crispfoods.com/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
boo7382 Newbie

boo7382

Posted
Posted

If you like salads ( no Im not going there) you should try Crisp.

http://www.crispfoods.com/

Is that the place over at 7th and Pecan? I haven't been there but I have heard its really good. Will definitely have to check it out. Gracias.

I'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing, but I have never once in my life eaten at a Red Lobster. My parents never took us there and I have just never thought to go. I do rove robster though. Ive heard they have awesome cheese biscuits too.

I've only been to Olive Garden maybe 3 times.

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

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...