Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS
Not really.
One of the defining characteristics of the Jay Feaster regime is that he really had a difficult time understanding the value of assets. Frequently assets were held on for too long, signed to questionable extensions or they were misused.
This was an example of an asset he was forced to deal, but would not have made the deal under optimal circumstances.
|
So, he made the deal when he was forced to, but if not forced he wouldn't have made the deal.
This sounds quite reasonable to me, what's your issue with it? Would you have wanted him making the deal if he didn't have to?