The Anti-Sonic Burger

re #24 Let me help you out here, surfpup. When founder Harry Snyder died in 1976, his son Rich took over as Pres., with older son Guy as VP. In December of 1993 Rich and the COO were killed in a plane crash coming into land @ SNA. I remember it; it was rush hour on a Tuesday and I flew over it coming back from a long weekend @ my gf's in SFO. Esther Snyder took over as Pres. That left Guy as the heir when Ester died. Rich and Guy both worked on expanding the company. When Guy od'd on pain killers in 1999, that meant his daughter, then 17, was the sole remaining heir(ess) in the event of Esther's death. The guy that sued was actually a vp of real estate and one of the estate trustees. The lawsuit wasn't really about expansion, that was just an excuse. It was really because he thought the daughter and some of the other execs were trying speed up the daughter's takeover and force him and Esther out.There was also an accusation that real estate vp diverted construction materials and crews to his own property and charged the work to the company. Long story short, there were suits and counter suits, Esther died a few months later, a settlement was made and the company severed all ties with the vp. The daughter got 1/3 of the company when she turned turned 25, gets 1/2 30 and the rest by 35.
— November 4, 2009 8:13 p.m.

SDGE Lobbyist Said to be Innocent, Reinstated

Re # 97, surfpuppy, what about an Alford plea? I know that the system treats an Alford plea like a guilty plea so it goes on your criminal record and it can be used against you in future criminal cases. But since you are pleading to a charge without admitting guilt, can it be used against you in civil proceedings?
— November 4, 2009 5:17 p.m.

The Anti-Sonic Burger

Gringo, when you lived in LA, did you ever eat at Fatburger? When I was a kid, probably between 10-13 yrs old or so, my dad and both of my grandfathers would go up to see the Lakers once in a while. They would take me sometimes and I can remember going to a Fatburger close to the Forum sometimes. I don't remember if it's the same one that's at Manchester and Crenshaw or not. I had eaten at In-N-Out but I remember liking Fatburger better although it could be the fact that I could get onion rings there and In-N-Out doesn't have them, cos I'm an onion rings kind af guy. I remember they had good shakes, too. We would get our food then go to the Forum about an hour early and eat while we watched the teams warm up. I always thought that was cool. Haven't eaten at FB for a long time; too many are franchised and aren't of the same quality. That's why I like In-N-Out; they're all company owned and you know what to expect.
— November 4, 2009 2:50 p.m.

The Anti-Sonic Burger

Surfpup, You can take a drive over to the Phoenix area to get your WH fix. I think there are about 5 or 6 in the area. We go occasionally when visiting a cousin in the area. If you're up in L.A., check out Roscoe's chicken and waffles. Better than WH, I think. Unless something has changed recently, In-N-Out buns aren't made on site, but they are made fresh every day in their commissary in Baldwin Park. That's where all their ingredients are shipped from.
— November 4, 2009 1:41 p.m.

More ballpark lies from Oregon this time

response to 37 re point 1, I am not refering to anything. If you read my post, you will see that came from literature regarding the Hartford Concention Center; It had nothing to do with a football stadium and I was pointing out that the area from the stadium has been successfully redeveloped As for point 2, my assertion was that Kraft didn't go to Ct. for a stadium deal, but that instead they came to him. I have read the entire agreement and there are escape clauses in it, so obviously both sides were aware of that possibility. I believe the lawsuit was to be for breech of contract, not extrotion. I also was disagreeing with your statement that Kraft paid for it. From the info that I have looked at, it is apparent that the NFL financed about 1/2 of the stadium, give or take, not including infra structure. I know it doesn't sound like much, but when another entity, in this case the NFL, decides to kick in almost 1/2 the projected cost some $150 million, well it's hard to say somebody paid for it themselves. Neither one of us knows for a fact whether the Hartford deal was a scam to "extort" the funds from Ma or not. You are the one who declared "The New England Patriots adventure was a study in intelligent government." How can that be so if Kraft "extorted" the funds from Ma. Sounds like a contradiction to me.
— November 1, 2009 7:53 p.m.

More ballpark lies from Oregon this time

I believe that Kraft paid the state of Ct. $2.4 million. The area that had been proposed is called Adriaen’s Landing. It has been developed and is where the Hartford Convention Center is. From their literature: Hartford's primary advantage is its location, within 100 miles of more potential convention delegates that any other U.S. city besides new York. The 23 million people within a two-hour drive of Hartford are ranked in the top five percent nationally in per capita income and educational attainment. My original post had to do with the fact that Ct. courted Kraft, not the other way around, and that it was the state not the city of Hartford paying for it: http://www.cga.ct.gov/ps98/Act/pa/1998PA-00001-R0… The total cost was about $460 million. I believe that the NFL ponied up $150 Million and Kraft got $120 for the naming rights(that was the original deal with CMGI over 15 yrs, no info on how much Gillette assumed) So counting the naming fee, Kraft is paying less than half. I think I read somewhere that the seviceable annual debt is $25 million, but the revenues are $58 million. Everything to do with the NFL AND Ma conspiring to keep them in Boston is irrelevant to the point I was proffering in my post. And as surfpuppy said, the Ct. deal wasn't a bad deal, especially when Vt. has extra cas of about $300 million at the time. If the state of Ca. would would have had the money and come to SD a few years ago, the Chargers would have jumped at it. BTW, I forgot to mention earlier that as far back as 1995 Kraft had been looking to build his own stadium, in south Boston, which the mayor at the time supported. When the neighborhood ptotested againt it, the back out of his support backed out fearing it would ruin his chance at re-election.
— November 1, 2009 2:54 p.m.

More ballpark lies from Oregon this time

All I can tell you Don is that then Gov. John G. Rowland is the one who negotiated the deal with Kraft. He is the one who signed the bill that was approved by the Connecticut House of Representatives. And the stat of Ct. is who filed a suit against Kraft when he backed out. No one I know back their has ever heard anything about the city being involved.
— October 31, 2009 8:09 p.m.

More ballpark lies from Oregon this time

Obviously Don, we have differing opinions . I'm just curious about one thing though. You have refered several times to Hartford and aluding to it's small size and lack of incomes being a factor keeping them from being able to pay for it. I'm curious because the funds were not coming from Hartford. The state was going to fund it and they were the ones guaranteeing the income. The city of Hartford was not involved in the negotioations. Just wondering.
— October 31, 2009 5:48 p.m.

More ballpark lies from Oregon this time

response to 16,18 In this case, I find that I must disagree completely. The Hartford deal was at the time one of the richest stadium deals any sports team owner had negotiated. In addition to Ct. building him a $350-million stadium in Hartford, Kraft was guaranteed up to $17.5 million a year in sales of luxury seats, he got to keep all stadium profits without paying any rent and Ct. even was going to pay the insurance for the complex. I find it hard to believe Kraft was running a scam on the state of Mass. in which he would give all of this up in exchange for paying to build the stadium himself instead. No construction costs, guaranteed money over the course of a 30 yr lease vs spending $150-200 million of his own money. We've been to the Boston area numerous times in the last 15 yrs or so to visit family, and I've never read or been told anything other than the move was a serious deal. And I don't really see the corporate welfare Don's talking about since he paid for most of it himself. It's just my opinion, but in this case Don, I believe you to be incorrect in your assertions.
— October 30, 2009 10:58 p.m.

More ballpark lies from Oregon this time

response to #12: So what you are saying Don, is that Kraft was running a scam all along. That he never intended to move the team at all? Am I correct in my assessment ?
— October 30, 2009 4:35 p.m.