Chicago Barn to Wire BRIS
Home | News | Bloggers | Forums | Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Contact Us | Search


August 30, 2014, 07:43:53 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: If you don't remember your password, email me.

New  registration procedures -- Some ISPs have been bouncing the verification emails.  Please email me to be activated or if you have any problems.  Click Contact Us above.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Magna in Maryland  (Read 4029 times)
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #50 on: February 11, 2009, 08:49:46 PM »


Would you go into business with Stronach, the guy who doesn't even make money at tracks where he has slots?"

given the fact he's in an unsuitable profit-sharing agreement that's commonly assumed to be holding up the bid process, gee. Would you like me to provide the answer you can't?

12 hours ago:

Sun reporter Jay Hancock: Assumed: Staredown between Magna-linked "partners" precedes bid deadline. Magnas claims over zoning worries labeled "implausible."

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bal-bz.hancock11feb11,0,7024899.column


Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #51 on: February 11, 2009, 10:09:01 PM »

given the fact he's in an unsuitable profit-sharing agreement that's commonly assumed to be holding up the bid process, gee.

This story doesn't say anything about unprofitable, or holding up the agreement. All it says is "Magna, which needs a bigger slots payoff to lift it [the entire nearly bankrupt MECA corporation] from financial trouble, has been trying to renegotiate the terms at least since last year."

Quote
Would you like me to provide the answer you can't?

The answer is right there in this article you keep linking. It  spells out quite plainly that the DeFrancis issue is a one symptom of the greater problem, that being that Magna Entertainment is so deep in the hole needs this project to come out hugely profitable (for Magna) to lift the whole corporation out of the pit Frank dug for it. That has Magna "pleading" for better terms with its existing partners and looking for an outside partner to help finance what it clearly can't, resulting in failing to turn in its filing fee. 

It's exactly what I said to begin with: Magna doesn't even have the dough to do this deal, much less finance any new track at Dixon.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #52 on: February 12, 2009, 08:22:12 AM »

Symptom? As an analogy I suppose a fatal heart attack is a symptom of an even greater and more serious problem.

Nowhere does it say Frank doesn't have money.  What is says is he doesn't want to make the deal and we know why.

Are you fabricating? Where does it say Frank needs huge profits? I don't recall seeing that word, huge, in print or other than from you. Where does it say Frank is "nearly bankrupt." These are your words. Terry, Frank has money, he isn't bankrupt, not yet. I'd say, hiring bankruptcy attorneys is a far cry from being bankrupt. And I won't say here my opinion of why they were hired, and even if they were, hired to do what?

What it did print was a comment made by an expert, an attorney prominently involved in the situation, stating in effect, Frank won't enter into an agreement with the state while he is bound to a profit sharing agreement with "partners" who will profit more from the deal than he will himself. 

 medal
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 09:22:49 AM by edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #53 on: February 12, 2009, 09:30:19 AM »

Symptom? As an analogy I suppose a fatal heart attack is a symptom of an even greater and more serious problem.

No, shortness of breath and pain might be a symptom of an impending heart attack. 

Quote
Nowhere does it say Frank doesn't have money.

Sure it does, ed, at least about Magna Entertainment, in the very story you yourself quoted several times, at least, according to your standards of evidence of "fact", namely, some third party's opinion:

"Given reports that it has hired bankruptcy lawyers, one has to wonder whether Magna could even come up with the dough. Its statement, the day after the deadline, that it "has arranged" for funding that "will be placed in an escrow account at a Maryland bank" does not have the ring of silver on the counter."

Quote
What is says is he doesn't want to make the deal and we know why.

It says he made the deal but didn't come up with the money, and the only people so far with any authority who have said "why" is Magna. Your "knowing" is more assumption.

Quote
Are you fabricating? Where does it say Frank needs huge profits? I don't recall seeing that word, huge, in print or other than from you.

Your story again. "Magna, which needs a bigger slots payoff to lift it from financial trouble, has been trying to renegotiate the terms at least since last year." Right there. It needs bigger profits than the current deal with DeFrancis would allow, to lift the whole company from financial trouble. Not just turn a profit and help Marylnd horse racing like Frank promised so long ago, but lift the whole stinking Magna carcass out of trouble.

Quote
What it did print was a comment made by an expert, an attorney prominently involved in the situation

One story printed an opinion by the standard mouthpiece for the Maryland THA who said what he thinks is going on, quoting "common knowledge" that the DeFrancis agreement was an impediment. Nowhere did it say he is prominently or even marginally involved in what thinking or dealing is going on inside Magna or have any specific knowledge, and his speculation about Frank's motivations was unsupported by any facts in evidence. Frank never previously said anything publicly along these lines.

Quote
stating in effect, Frank won't enter into an agreement with the state while he is bound to a profit sharing agreement with "partners" who will profit more from the deal than he will himself. 

That's what one 3rd party, Foreman, stated as what he thinks is going on. That's not what anyone from Magna has stated. It's the same deal and same numbers that were on the table last year when Magna spent millions to take the pro-slots campaign to the Maryland voters and get slots approved. Nothing's new but Magna's increasingly bad financial situation.

You're free to believe anything you want, ed, and interpret the news any way you want. You usually do, and often in very creative ways. However, IMHO this current failure to come across with cash is simply the latest of many "clutching the chest" symptoms of impending heart failure this very sick patient has publicly displayed.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #54 on: February 12, 2009, 09:45:55 AM »


Sure it does, ed, at least about Magna Entertainment, in the very story you yourself quoted several times, at least, according to your standards of evidence of "fact", namely, some third party's opinion:

"Given reports that it has hired bankruptcy lawyers, one has to wonder whether Magna could even come up with the dough. Its statement, the day after the deadline, that it "has arranged" for funding that "will be placed in an escrow account at a Maryland bank" does not have the ring of silver on the counter."

Nice try, but this doesn't mean Frank doesn't have money.

It says he made the deal but didn't come up with the money, and the only people so far with any authority who have said "why" is Magna. Your "knowing" is more assumption.

Nice try again, but according to the Marlyand Senate, you "pay to play" and Frank didn't pay. Ergo No DEAL. Once again it doesn't mean he didn't pay because he didn't have money.

Your story again. "Magna, which needs a bigger slots payoff to lift it from financial trouble, has been trying to renegotiate the terms at least since last year." Right there. It needs bigger profits than the current deal with DeFrancis would allow, to lift the whole company from financial trouble. Not just turn a profit and help Marylnd horse racing like Frank promised so long ago, but lift the whole stinking Magna carcass out of trouble.

Glad you got off the word "huge." Nowhere did it say Frank needed huge profits. Please adhere to the facts.  Nor does it say "to lift the WHOLE company from trouble. It only mentioned "financial trouble", i.e. trouble with it's financial "partners", Maryland Partners (whom you recall you stated a number of times weren't "partners".)

One story printed an opinion by the standard mouthpiece for the Maryland THA who said what he thinks is going on, quoting "common knowledge" that the DeFrancis agreement was an impediment. Nowhere did it say he is prominently or even marginally involved in what thinking or dealing is going on inside Magna or have any specific knowledge, and his speculation about Frank's motivations was unsupported by any facts in evidence. Frank never previously said anything publicly along these lines.

Here we go with "irrelevancies" again. Why would the paper print the opinion of an experienced attorney, as an "irrelancy."  Overruled.

You're free to believe anything you want, ed, and interpret the news any way you want. You usually do, and often in very creative ways. However, IMHO this current failure to come across with cash is simply the latest of many "clutching the chest" symptoms of impending heart failure this very sick patient has publicly displayed.

Be careful, because if this attorneys opinion is an "irrelevancy", and in light of all that's been said, HOW MUCH MORE SO IS YOURS?

« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 10:12:22 AM by edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #55 on: February 12, 2009, 11:09:01 AM »

Nice try, but this doesn't mean Frank doesn't have money.

It means as much as any 3rd party speculation you have presented as proof of anything. That  was the point.

Quote
Nice try again, but according to the Marlyand Senate, you "pay to play" and Frank didn't pay. Ergo No DEAL. Once again it doesn't mean he didn't pay because he didn't have money.

He turned in his application, and later said he "put the money in escrow". He's trying to make the deal ... on his own terms, anyhow, that mean a lot less risk for the money that Magna Ent had to borrow from MID.

Quote
Glad you got off the word "huge." Nowhere did it say Frank needed huge profits. Please adhere to the facts.  Nor does it say "to lift the WHOLE company from trouble. It only mentioned "financial trouble", i.e. trouble with it's financial "partners",

That's not the way the story reads at all. The company has no current financial troubles with these current partners it needs to be lifted from, and the story does not read "with these partners". These partners only get the money if the slots come in, they're not sucking it out of Magna's bottom line now. Please try to adhere to the facts. The story reads financial troubles, period. The writer's assertion was that Magna needs big/bigger profits from this Maryland venture to lift it [the whole company] from its financial troubles [near bankruptcy], and those would have to be huge.

If very large or huge profits are not needed, then what's the problem with a little profit under the current deal? After all, Frank signed those purchase papers with eyes wide open at the time, and the former owners of the MJC are certainly entitled to the deal they signed for. There wasn't anything said about Frank's desire to make a big profit off the slots back in the day. It was all about restoring Maryland racing to its former glory. That's Frank's take on what Maryland slots were all about.

Quote
Maryland Partners (whom you recall you stated a number of times weren't "partners".)

I never said they weren't partners. They are. They have always been. Please try to adhere to the facts. They are not, however, the new partner Magna was trying to find to help it finance this operation.

Quote
Here we go with "irrelevancies" again. Why would the paper print the opinion of an experienced attorney, as an "irrelancy." 

Again, I didn't say it was irrelevant. You shouldn't try to put words in people's mouths. Please try to keep honest and stick to the facts. I said it is merely the opinion of one man, and one who is not part of the intimate Magna inner circle, at that. It is relevant to the discussion because it's his opinion, and it's actually about the subject at hand, but it's his opinion. The things I have called labeled irrelevant in this discussion have been the unrelated junk you keep trying to throw in, like where Greenlight is located.

Papers print quotes from people peripherally involved with issues all the time, just to get their opinion, and offer another viewpoint on the story. Why do they print quotes from people who live down the street from a shooting scene? However, Alan Foreman does not speak for Frank Stronach or Magna. He's the standard Maryland horseman's organization spokesman any reporter goes to when they want a horseman quote on any issue in horse racing. He just happens to be an attorney. (Making him extra truthful, as we know all lawyers are.)   

Quote
Be careful, because if this attorneys opinion is an "irrelevancy", and in light of all that's been said, HOW MUCH MORE SO IS YOURS?

Well, duh.  doh

Your opinion and mine both are both entirely irrelevant. Where do you think we're holding this grave earth-shattering discussion, the front page of the New York Times, or something?

And by the way, once again, please try not to fabricate lies and claim I said Foreman's opinion was an "irrelevancy". Adhere to the facts.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #56 on: February 12, 2009, 11:18:00 AM »

Other than the fact that the map of a Bermuda Triangle SUCKING UP ALL OF GREENLIGHTS MONEY was a joke that went over your head...

Terry, you're no longer making ANY sense.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #57 on: February 12, 2009, 11:32:13 AM »

Terry, you're no longer making ANY sense.

Is that code talk for calling you out on your fabrications, straw men, and irrelevancies?

You think Alan Foreman's version of why Magna didn't turn in the money is gospel and that's all there is. That's your opinion and your right.

I happen to believe otherwise, based on Magna's Ent's long history of severe financial troubles even before the latest economy problems. Magna Ent's seriously in debt, nearly broke, and afraid to take even the slightest additional financial risk, especially with more borrowed money from a parent company whose stockholders who are in open revolt about the money pit that is MEC. It's why they [allegedly] put their deal money in escrow, where they could spirit it away, instead of turning it over to the State like they were supposed to. IMHO.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #58 on: February 12, 2009, 11:41:21 AM »

Is that code talk for calling you out on your fabrications, straw men, and irrelevancies?

You think Alan Foreman's version of why Magna didn't turn in the money is gospel and that's all there is. That's your opinion and your right.

I happen to believe otherwise, based on Magna's Ent's long history of severe financial troubles even before the latest economy problems. Magna Ent's seriously in debt, nearly broke, and afraid to take even the slightest additional financial risk, especially with more borrowed money from a parent company whose stockholders who are in open revolt about the money pit that is MEC. It's why they [allegedly] put their deal money in escrow, where they could spirit it away, instead of turning it over to the State like they were supposed to. IMHO.

Too bad.  Sure, I'll take a published experts opinion over yours.

Code talk? Listen, have you seen a doctor lately?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 11:44:58 AM by edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #59 on: February 12, 2009, 01:17:36 PM »

Too bad.  Sure, I'll take a published experts opinion over yours.

Good for you.

Quote
Code talk? Listen, have you seen a doctor lately?

You should know about that, based on the whacked out alien abduction and world domination conspiracy nonsense from the "experts" you contribute to so many of the threads. There was one addition to a thread the other day so far out and off topic it was beyond response. All one could do was wonder what meds you were off, or maybe on.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #60 on: February 12, 2009, 01:33:19 PM »

Is that code talk ?

Are people talking to you in code? I'm writing very plainly.
Sure. I'll take the opinion of a published expert over yours.

If you think people are discussing things with you in "code", I'm plenty sure you're not mentally fit to represent yourself any longer.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 01:41:05 PM by edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #61 on: February 12, 2009, 01:42:30 PM »

Are people talking to you in code? I'm writing very plainly.

Making up the arguments and what people supposedly said. Yes, your "logic" is quite clear.

Quote
If you think people are discussing things with you in "code", I'm plenty sure you're not mentally fit to represent yourself any longer.

There's the voice of experience. Maybe you could explain your "judges" contribution to the Cullerton thread in the light of day.  screwy screwy screwy
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #62 on: February 12, 2009, 01:49:15 PM »

Making up the arguments and what people supposedly said. Yes, your "logic" is quite clear.

There's the voice of experience. Maybe you could explain your "judges" contribution to the Cullerton thread in the light of day.  screwy screwy screwy

Apparently, in regard to the honesty of Judges we differ only in opinion.* But if you feel people are talking to you in code, that's an entirely different set of circumstances and I'm plenty sure you're no longer mentally able to represent yourself, here.

*See The Corrupt Judge by Joseph Borkin. Joseph Borkin was custodian in charge of seized assets during and after WWII for the U.S. Government.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 01:52:30 PM by edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #63 on: February 12, 2009, 02:28:29 PM »

Apparently, in regard to the honesty of Judges we differ only in opinion.* But if you feel people are talking to you in code, that's an entirely different set of circumstances and I'm plenty sure you're no longer mentally able to represent yourself, here.

*See The Corrupt Judge by Joseph Borkin. Joseph Borkin was custodian in charge of seized assets during and after WWII for the U.S. Government.

Nice, rational explanation and expansion on whatever the hell your special "thoughts" about judges have to do with the new Senate President Cullerton and what gambling-related bills he sponsored.  screwy screwy screwy

Carry on.









Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #64 on: February 12, 2009, 04:08:29 PM »

Frank is in court. Still playing chicken over the bad deal with his partners, claims the Maryland law is constitutionally defective.

No mention of him not having any money. Just as the paper contends regarding Frank's unaccounted for details left to the last minute.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 04:11:06 PM by edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #65 on: February 12, 2009, 04:22:24 PM »

Frank is in court. Still playing chicken over the bad deal with his partners, claims the Maryland law is constitutionally defective.

No mention of him not having any money.

Unsurprisingly, today's news stories say nothing at all about playing chicken or the current partners in relation to this latest lawsuit, because you simply made that part up.  Roll Eyes

What they do say is that the company that supposedly didn't want to do a deal at all because of its current partners is in court today (spending more money on lawyers) trying to keep its incomplete & rejected application alive, claiming that a non-refundable application fee is unconstitutional, and that they really do want to have their application considered, just not give the up front money to the State.

"The injunction request, filed this morning by Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, calls the entire bid process "constitutionally defective" and asks the court to prevent Laurel Park's bid from being thrown out without a full court hearing. The motion also seeks to prevent the commission from taking any action to disqualify Laurel Park for at least 10 days if an injunction is granted.

When it submitted its bid, Laurel Park "protested and challenged the requirement that it pay a non-refundable $28,500,000 Initial License Fee," the Laurel group states in its motion. "(Laurel Park) was at all times, and is, ready, willing and able to submit refundable 'earnest money,' to the State; however (Laurel Park) views as unconstitutional (and otherwise unlawful) the Location Commission's demand that it pay the Location Commission a nonrefundable Initial License Fee in order to submit an offer to do business with the state."

They are scared to death they might lose that borrowed money, on top of all their other losses. The company is teetering on bankruptcy.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/horseracing/bal-slotsbid0212,0,5055703.story
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #66 on: February 12, 2009, 04:48:48 PM »

Unsurprisingly, today's news stories say nothing at all about playing chicken or the current partners in relation to this latest lawsuit, because you simply made that part up.  Roll Eyes

Nope. read it in the newspaper.

What they do say is that the company that supposedly didn't want to do a deal at all because of its current partners is in court today (spending more money on lawyers) trying to keep its incomplete & rejected application alive, claiming that a non-refundable application fee is unconstitutional, and that they really do want to have their application considered, just not give the up front money to the State.

"The injunction request, filed this morning by Rifkin, Livingston, Levitan & Silver, calls the entire bid process "constitutionally defective" and asks the court to prevent Laurel Park's bid from being thrown out without a full court hearing. The motion also seeks to prevent the commission from taking any action to disqualify Laurel Park for at least 10 days if an injunction is granted.

When it submitted its bid, Laurel Park "protested and challenged the requirement that it pay a non-refundable $28,500,000 Initial License Fee," the Laurel group states in its motion. "(Laurel Park) was at all times, and is, ready, willing and able to submit refundable 'earnest money,' to the State; however (Laurel Park) views as unconstitutional (and otherwise unlawful) the Location Commission's demand that it pay the Location Commission a nonrefundable Initial License Fee in order to submit an offer to do business with the state."

They are scared to death they might lose that borrowed money, on top of all their other losses. The company is teetering on bankruptcy.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/horseracing/bal-slotsbid0212,0,5055703.story


No mention of him not having any money.
sometimes I wonder if your head doesn't come to a point.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #67 on: February 12, 2009, 04:56:30 PM »

Nope. read it in the newspaper.

Then you wouldn't mind providing that particular link, would you?

Quote
No mention of him not having any money.

Frank has plenty of money. However, Frank isn't using his own money to finance these boondoggles, he's been using other people's, ever since the company first started, and that's what's come to an end. It's why Magna is so afraid to commit a possibly nonrefundable fee, and why they're fighting tooth and nail not to have to pay it. They claim they have it - as long as they don't have to actually let go of it. The reason for the required fee up front was to weed out the weak financial players, and it successfully weeded out Magna.

Quote
Unfortunately sometimes I wonder if your head doesn't come to a point.

Right, I'm the one claiming they don't want to do this deal at all, while they're in court fighting to keep the deal alive.  screwy screwy screwy
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #68 on: February 12, 2009, 05:05:18 PM »

Then you wouldn't mind providing that particular link, would you?

Not on your life. Not right now anyway. What have you done for me lately? Everyone that's read the paper has seen it. Go find it yourself.

Frank has plenty of money. However, Frank isn't using his own money to finance these boondoggles, he's been using other people's, ever since the company first started, and that's what's come to an end. It's why Magna is so afraid to commit a possibly nonrefundable fee, and why they're fighting tooth and nail not to have to pay it. They claim they have it - as long as they don't have to actually let go of it. The reason for the required fee up front was to weed out the weak financial players, and it successfully weeded out Magna.

Boy thats' a stretch. First you'll say Frank has no money. Then you say he has money. Weaker and weaker.

Right, I'm the one claiming they don't want to do this deal at all, while they're in court fighting to keep the deal alive.  screwy screwy screwy

I never said anything about your so-called claim. Such is news to me. You know, you make no sense.  Are people talking to you in "code" again?
« Last Edit: February 12, 2009, 05:07:03 PM by edwarren » Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #69 on: February 12, 2009, 05:30:22 PM »

Not on your life. Not right now anyway. What have you done for me lately? Everyone that's read the paper has seen it. Go find it yourself.

That's exactly what I thought. You just made it up.

I've read about seven stories on this lawsuit and the rejected app today, surely all the major ones, and there's no mention of "continuing the game of chicken" with the partners. Just another one of your opium dreamer fabrications.

Quote
Boy thats' a stretch. First you'll say Frank has no money. Then you say he has money.

It has never been an issue of Frank's money. It's Magna Entertainment money. Magna Entertainment is who was going to build the track in Dixon that started this whole thread, not Frank Stronach personally. Magna Entertainment owns that land. More likely, MID owns it now. It is not Frank Stronach's personal property. Magna Entertainment is the entity that's nearly broke, and Magna is the organization refusing to pay the application fee. Frank Stronach's personal fortune is not at stake.

Quote
Weaker and weaker.

What's weak is you trying to play games with Frank's personal money, versus the entity that owns and runs the tracks and puts up money for things like slots applications.

Quote
I never said anything about your so-called claim. Such is news to me.

Nothing at all about Frank not wanting to do the deal at all if he wasn't going to be the one making the money. But he'll fight in court for his right to not do it. Riiggggghhht.   screwy

Quote
Are people talking to you in "code" again?

Actually, space cadet, I asked if you were speaking in code, because your gibbering is so continually nonsensical.
Report to moderator   Logged
edwarren
Guest

« Reply #70 on: February 12, 2009, 05:41:26 PM »

That's exactly what I thought. You just made it up.

I've read about seven stories on this lawsuit and the rejected app today, surely all the major ones, and there's no mention of "continuing the game of chicken" with the partners. Just another one of your opium dreamer fabrications.

It has never been an issue of Frank's money. It's Magna Entertainment money. Magna Entertainment is who was going to build the track in Dixon that started this whole thread, not Frank Stronach personally. Magna Entertainment owns that land. More likely, MID owns it now. It is not Frank Stronach's personal property. Magna Entertainment is the entity that's nearly broke, and Magna is the organization refusing to pay the application fee. Frank Stronach's personal fortune is not at stake.

What's weak is you trying to play games with Frank's personal money, versus the entity that owns and runs the tracks and puts up money for things like slots applications.

Nothing at all about Frank not wanting to do the deal at all if he wasn't going to be the one making the money. But he'll fight in court for his right to not do it. Riiggggghhht.   screwy

Actually, space cadet, I asked if you were speaking in code, because your gibbering is so continually nonsensical.


This last rant is beyond contempt.
What the hell are you talking about? GET OUT OF MY OFFICE! No single point here is even worth addressing.

Yo Pointy. You said MEC is borrowing from it's shareholders. Not true. Idiota. I know the difference between Frank and his cos. but for the sake of brevity, for me it's Frank from now on. At this juncture, you must have a real point-on.
Report to moderator   Logged
CLOCKERTERRY
Guest

« Reply #71 on: February 12, 2009, 06:17:58 PM »

This last rant is beyond contempt.

Wow. You start slinging insults and calling names throughout the thread, but when you get it back in kind, you're all in a huff? Get a thicker skin, ed, or behave yourself in the first place.

Quote
What the hell are you talking about? GET OUT OF MY OFFICE! No single point here is even worth addressing.

Oh, sure it is. So I will.

Produce the news story you said talked about Magna continuing its game of chicken with its partners in court. I didn't see it in any of the major news stories, and when I did a Google news search looking for the name DeFrancis, there's nothing from today. But maybe you got that "news" out of High Times or The Daily Growl or Alien Babies or one of those others that beam the real lowdown on world conspiracies straight into your brain. Whatever, I can't find that news out here in the real world. So, link it, pretty please? You didn't fabricate it ... did you?

Quote
You said MEC is borrowing from it's shareholders. Not true.

Well, just like that, there's one "point" you're addressing.

Of course it's true, "pointy". MEC is borrowing the money from MID and depressing MID's performance through lost opportunity and poorly invested funds. That screws the stockholders. Their money that might have been put to more productive purses has been squandered on Frank's hobby. That's what's got them upset. If it wasn't their money they would care less. But it is.

Quote
I know the difference between Frank and his cos. but for the sake of brevity, for me it's Frank from now on.

That's fine. Just so that we're clear, if you're talking about Magna Ent ventures, that "Frank" is out of money. If you're talking about Frank's personal bank account, that "Frank" isn't. Therefore, since he was never planning to build any racetracks with his own money, the original point was valid: The MEC Frank has no money to build Dixon. They apparently don't even have it to file their Maryland slots fee. I'm glad we're finally clear on that.

Quote
At this juncture, you must have a real point-on.

My goodness, what a rant! It's beyond contempt! GET OUT OF MY OFFICE! Waaaaa! Waaaaa!
Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.097 seconds with 14 queries.

Home
Upcoming events
Arlington Million
Horse slaughter in IL
Racing TV schedule
News Updates
Legislation

Galloping Out

Previous stories

Arlington
Balmoral
Hawthorne
Maywood
Chicago Sun-Times
Chicago Tribune
Blood-Horse
Daily Racing Form
Thoroughbred Times
Harness Link
Illinois Racing Board

 

2014

Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2013

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

2012

Breeders' Cup
Hawthorne Gold Cup
Arlington Million
Triple Crown
Illinois Derby

More ebay items

 

Home | News Updates | Bloggers | Forums | Search
Resources | Links | Marketplace | Gallery | Advertising | Contact Us

Copyright © 2000-2014 Chicago Barn to Wire. All rights reserved.
Privacy policy