No there isn't though. There's not a strong enough link between 'he wants Geno' and 'he actively approached Square Enix asking for his inclusion and was refused'.
There doesn't need to be a link. Because you're making it sound like it's impossible, when it's highly possible, and so far the only explanation with merit.
If you had actually replied to my point being made, and not cherrypicked a small bit of the message, you'd have seen that. Try actually replying properly. Cause really, you actually think that holds any merit when your explanation is "I don't know" at best? That's not an explanation that holds any merit. Of course we don't know. That doesn't make the factor of SE any less likely. It just means it's not confirmed. It doesn't have to be confirmed to be the most likely, which considering the lack of any other better explanation right now, keeps it where it is; "the most likely explanation, though it is possible for another reason". When Sakurai actually explains what happened in Brawl, and says he didn't even approach SE, other explanations will be taken more seriously. But it's hard to take stuff seriously that doesn't hold any water, whereas him approaching and failing to get a character(he failed to get Sonic the first time, after all. Sega eventually called back and said yes. In this case, it shows there's evidence he definitely has talked to and failed to get characters right away. It's still somewhat conjecture, but it shows that it's highly possible it happened). Where's the actual evidence he dismissed the character idea in any way? He's never spoken actual ill of Geno, unlike, say, Heihachi. Where's the evidence of what the budget is(no details on it). Where's the evidence that Nintendo could be why(again, we have nothing of their involvement known outside of Smash 4 and Ultimate in some way. Obviously they would be involved in negotiation for a character, but we have nothing to show that they could be a remote reason for SE saying no Or that they said no. We don't have showings of their failings at all to get that idea).
So we have evidence of a company saying no. We have evidence that SE can and will say no to ideas as is. We know they are hard to work with. We have no evidence of Nintendo being an issue. We have no evidence of Sakurai dismissing him in any way. We have no evidence of a budget issue(though I will admit it's the only example I brought up as a possibility, and it is a legitimate one, which could easily apply to Smash 4 DLC, which explains the lack of actual FF content due to costing too much. But the fact we got effectively the same content amount in Ultimate shows the budget is too low or SE is still very stingy). The budget however is very hard to use as evidence during Brawl as we barely saw two characters, with quite a few trophies, stickers, and music. That means the budget was evidentally not a known issue that we can remotely tell.
So while there's no straight link, there's some actual evidence that points towards it being the reason. Including the fact Sakurai has been turned down before and that SE is stingy. There's a serious lack of any evidence for another explanation among the ones given. If you have other possible explanations(which you aren't giving for some reason. I'm not sure why you cherrypicked my message instead of looking at each point made. Because right now your reply is very lacking and ignoring a ton of context being said of why it's still more likely than the other current ones), do tell. Otherwise you're trying to prove something as impossible yet not providing another possible explanation that has stronger merits than SE saying no. Right now it still has more evidence, and the "link" isn't the key evidence. For that matter, people aren't asking for evidence right now of SE saying no. They consider it the most likely explanation because the other explanations are far less likely. So having a link won't matter unless a better explanation comes along. We can all say "correlation isn't causation", but that doesn't much matter if you can't find something better to think of. If there's another explanation, either Sakurai will say it or a better and more realistic theory will be said. So again, since you're trying to push it as impossible, what's your better explanation? I've already gone over why certain explanations hold no real merit right now. Got something that isn't covered?
Basically, put your money where your mouth is. Prove that something else is remotely possible. If people are dismissing other ideas, there's a good reason for it. Nobody is saying remotely this is the only guaranteed explanation. If you think that, then you need to really read our messages better. People are however saying it's the most believable explanation right now. Of course others are possible, but it doesn't mean they have enough merits to be taken seriously. You shouldn't be dismissing a potential explanation if you're not willing to actually explain why it's impossible. I agree that we shouldn't outright believe it entirely, but there's little reason to believe in another possibility, as the other possibilities are severely lacking.
Last thing I'll say is that when you make a claim, you should be willing to outright back it up. If not, don't expect people to take it seriously. For the record, I did read and reply(though not quote you) about the claim of "he only cares about icons", but that holds little merit. Bayonetta has clearly proven that. He was never forced to put a character on, as he still chose Corrin in the end after being convinced, and that was directly Nintendo's overall suggestion. He also explained for Ultimate's DLC(especially the fighter's pass) that he still makes the final decision in the end. Now, I'm not sure if you were trying to say this, but that Sakurai at the time of Brawl only wanted third party icons in, then yes, I can fully believe that. He did say that among his "rules" at the time. If that's what you meant, anyway. That said, I hope you see the last bit.
I get very passionate, too, so it's all understandable!
