Thrash Lab

Dumpster Diving for Dates

I’m all for giving every eligible man a chance when it comes to dating because realistically you have no idea who will be your potential mate for life. However should it not be just a common courtesy and common sense that if you don’t have the capability to date, entertain, or even have a job that you should probably take yourself out of the game until you get in a better position. I’m not speaking of college kids who would still live at home but grown people in their “dirty thirties”.

I met a nice gentleman on a temporary assignment I was on and exchanged contact info. After the assignment ended we chatted on the phone and started to get to know each other. I decided after a week of phone calls that no we couldn’t date and just be friends and was open and honest enough to say so BUT of course as luck would have it he wanted to revisit the topic of me dating him, which I reminded him that we had already discussed that. I don’t know how or when I’m going to find my mister right but I’m sure it wont be a gentleman who lived with his parents for the past three years, with no car, no cell phone (not required), no private phone line, and no steady job except for a temp assignment a few times a year. I would rather date someone who works for dumpster rental Pomona, ca, with decent job, has own car, who is independent and responsible enough to shoulder responsibilities and to pay bills. I’m not into looks. I would always consider a established man over some lazy ass men.

What’s wrong with sitting out the game and focusing on yourself? I’ve done it, I’ve watched relatives and friends do it and speak on the issue of not dating due to their situation. It just doesn’t matter how nice you are but since I “date”, meaning I go out on outing and don’t have men come through my pad until I know them quite well. I just can’t see dating someone who doesn’t have the ability or means to date. I’d always have to drive, wait for the phone call ’cause I’ll be damned If I call your house and ask a grown mans parents can I speak to you. I’d feel guilty if you spent a dollar because honestly you’ve got no job. It’s just a sad situation and really looks like someone wants to be taken care of and rescued. Luckily I’m smart enough to not be the one. No, I’ve got no steady job but I keep my own apartment, car, home phone, cell phone (a simple luxury), high speed internet (because you could almost die without it), and let me tell you it’s a constant hustle to keep it all going and at the same time continue to try to get ahead by obtaining an advanced degree to put me in the position for an opportunity when it arises. So at the minimum in order for me to consider to date anyone who is less the wealthy I demand that you have to be supporting yourself or hustling your behind every day try to leave your bad situation behind because calling me at noon saying “I guess I should get out the bed now”, speaks volumes about how serious you take you life.

Who Pays $290 Million for Bankrupt Blockbuster Video?

With Netflix, Redbox, Hulu, and Amazon in the video business, who would pay $290 million for Blockbuster video and its failed business model? That is what one bidder is offering in Blockbuster’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy case.

A bidder called “Cobalt Video Holdco” has offered an initial bid of $290 million to purchase Blockbuster out of bankruptcy. Rival bidders will have to come in with higher numbers if they want to acquire the failed video chain. [Source: Wilking, Rick. “Blockbuster gets $290 million ‘stalking horse bid,'” Reuters, 2/21/11. Downloaded from: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/21/us-blockbuster-idUSTRE71K5SO20110221]

But why would anyone want to acquire Blockbuster for over $290 million – or even for a lower amount? Just this week, Hulu announced that it’s $7.99 per month streaming video service will now feature films from the Criterion collection. For a few bucks, viewers will be able to watch many of the greatest movies ever made. [Source: “Classic Films To Debut On Hulu Plus,” imdb.com, 2/16/11. Downloaded from: http://www.imdb.com/news/ni7792397/.]. And Netflix’s subscriber base grew by 63% last year. [Source: Martin Peers. Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). “Netflix Epic Turns to ‘Short’ Story.” New York, N.Y.: Feb 16, 2011. pg. C.14].

Why would someone want to take on these new service providers, not to mention Redbox and Amazon, by operating Blockbuster’s archaic chain of brick-and-mortar stores (for $290 million!)? As it turns out, there are a few potential reasons:

First, the acquiring company would not have to operate Blockbuster. It might be able to liquidate some or all of the company’s assets in a profitable way. Unfortunately, Blockbuster does not seem to have a lot of valuable assets. Its locations are generally good, though, and could be valuable to another chain store.

Second, the acquiring company could turn Blockbuster around with a new strategy. For example, an acquirer could retain Blockbuster’s kiosk business and compete head-to-head with Redbox, using Blockbuster’s name recognition, but dispose of its other assets in a profitable way. Another option would be to make Blockbuster a pure retail store, selling dvd’s, video equipment, and associated merchandise

Third, one of today’s video superstars (e.g., Redbox) could acquire Blockbuster to benefit from its movie inventory and relationships with studios (to the extent such relationships still exist). An existing giant might even see an advantage to having brick-and-mortar locations. For example, what if Amazon.com bought Blockbuster and operated its store locations as Amazon.com stores, providing free overnight pick-up for any customer order, as well as drop shipping for Amazon sellers? That probably will not happen, but it would be interesting.

The bottom line is that acquiring Blockbuster could make strategic sense for someone, and of course the price tag would be high – higher than $290 million. A comparison can be made among the bankruptcy attorney san diego available at the firms. The charges of the lawyers should be under the funds of the person to cover the financial loss. 

Scroll To Top