It is currently Sun Nov 24, 2024 5:15 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:02 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2005 1:01 pm
Posts: 7331
Location: County Seat of LaSalle County
pizza_Place: Bianchi's - Ottawa
Easy RPB. The "blown slave" comment is a reference to the I guess not-so-famous slip of the tongue by Chip Carey. Sheesh.

_________________
"Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public." ~ H.L. Mencken


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Posts: 81625
A7X wrote:
Easy RPB. The "blown slave" comment is a reference to the I guess not-so-famous slip of the tongue by Chip Carey. Sheesh.

Yeah guess I missed that one...sorry.


I like AC/DC just fine...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:22 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Score is doomed wrote:

Probably pulled it because he's the one who said that North told him he was a 30% owner of the Webio.


I agree, SID. This is a potentially explosive revelation on Webby's part. If North either was a part owner or was telling prospective employees he was a part owner to shift the focus off of Hernandes, he's going to have very big legal problems on his hands.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:34 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB

Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:29 pm
Posts: 4614
North also knew there was no real money coming in, yet was offering pretty big salaries with 2 year contracts. This has smelled since the beginning.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2008 8:22 am
Posts: 15141
pizza_Place: Wha Happen?
that was entertaining radio with Chet and Tom Shaer. I'd love to have Chet try to take on Bernstein in the talk-over...I think Chet could be good in small doses. He's certainly likely to work for peanuts at this stage...

_________________
Ба́бушка гада́ла, да на́двое сказа́ла—то ли до́ждик, то ли снег, то ли бу́дет, то ли нет.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:53 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Score is doomed wrote:
North also knew there was no real money coming in, yet was offering pretty big salaries with 2 year contracts. This has smelled since the beginning.


So was North luring talent to Webio while knowing it would eventually blow up? Was his hope that he could take over the operation and have easy access to a desperate staff, whom he could then pay at a much lower rate?

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Tall Midget wrote:
Score is doomed wrote:

Probably pulled it because he's the one who said that North told him he was a 30% owner of the Webio.


I agree, SID. This is a potentially explosive revelation on Webby's part. If North either was a part owner or was telling prospective employees he was a part owner to shift the focus off of Hernandes, he's going to have very big legal problems on his hands.


If I'm not mistaken, when he was yammering on Roe yesterday, North said the same thing ... he was offered a 30% stake with no money invested. He alluded to it twice when Roe pressed him for North's role, and North (badly) acted like it wouldn't be polite to speak about it, but then after the subject had essentially passed, North was very quick to talk over Roe to get into the 30% deal.

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:59 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 12:55 pm
Posts: 29461
pizza_Place: Zaffiro's
Don Tiny wrote:
Tall Midget wrote:
Score is doomed wrote:

Probably pulled it because he's the one who said that North told him he was a 30% owner of the Webio.


I agree, SID. This is a potentially explosive revelation on Webby's part. If North either was a part owner or was telling prospective employees he was a part owner to shift the focus off of Hernandes, he's going to have very big legal problems on his hands.


If I'm not mistaken, when he was yammering on Roe yesterday, North said the same thing ... he was offered a 30% stake with no money invested. He alluded to it twice when Roe pressed him for North's role, and North (badly) acted like it wouldn't be polite to speak about it, but then after the subject had essentially passed, North was very quick to talk over Roe to get into the 30% deal.


Interesting. Thanks for the info.

_________________
Antonio Gramsci wrote:
The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:09 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:51 pm
Posts: 7044
Location: Southside
pizza_Place: Baracco's
We need our resident legal scholars here who spent dedicated time on K's to weigh in on this. Will a verbal agreement to allocate 70% to the cash partner and 30% to the expertise partner constitute a valid K?

_________________
"It's not exactly a rocket surgery." D.J.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 6:31 pm
Posts: 6513
pizza_Place: sit down
My Coach Vinny wrote:
We need our resident legal scholars here who spent dedicated time on K's to weigh in on this. Will a verbal agreement to allocate 70% to the cash partner and 30% to the expertise partner constitute a valid K?


Offer/Acceptance/Consideration?

If Image offered Image the 30% stake as an inducement to sign North on to the company, then North joining the company would be valid consideration, provable in court. However, if Image were already under contract and working for the company and Image came in one day and said "how'd you like 30% of this here webio thingamadeal?" without assigning North any extra duties or a longer term contract or anything that North wasn't already doing under North's employment agreement, then it's less likely a court's going to find a valid, binding contract.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 28, 2009 11:10 am
Posts: 42094
Location: Rock Ridge (splendid!)
pizza_Place: Charlie Fox's / Paisano's
Jesus Christ ... :lol: :lol: ... if they'd written word problems in school like NearWessSideHussra just did, I'd be making more money than even JohnKirk and be too busy to write about it here!!!

_________________
Power is always in the hands of the masses of men. What oppresses the masses is their own ignorance, their own short-sighted selfishness.
- Henry George


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:17 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 14, 2004 12:51 pm
Posts: 7044
Location: Southside
pizza_Place: Baracco's
Outstanding! Where on the NWS do you Hussre, NWSH?

_________________
"It's not exactly a rocket surgery." D.J.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 03, 2005 1:04 pm
Posts: 13253
Location: God's country
pizza_Place: Gem City
Phil McCracken wrote:
Yeah I am wondering who Chet is calling up at the SCORE and what he is saying. Maybe he had a few too many cocktails and started drunk dialing
Don't forget the infamous voice mail he left Mac when The Score was just starting up. Pretty nasty. Ironically it led to North stating on the air that he told management that they should never hire Coppock (Chet was out of another job at the time). :P

_________________
“Mr. Trump is unfit for our nation’s highest office.”- JD Vance
“My god, what an !diot.”- JD Vance tweet on Trump
“I’m a ‘Never Trump’ guy”- JD Vance


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22704
pizza_Place: A few...
I also liked the line that Chet laid out about Shaer being self-centered. Coming from a guy who wore (and still might) a full length fur coat.

Aaahhh, you can't beat the big rock candy mountain.

Props to Meat for asking Chet the "anger toward North" question.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 10:12 pm
Posts: 52
Location: Berwyn, IL
pizza_Place: Deep dish, mushrooms, green pepper, onion, extra cheese
Great interview. Was feeling sorry for Chet until I came on this board and found out that he's a self-centered anti-semite. I do have a slight logic problem with one of the points Dan had during the interview. After Chet spewed venom at Tom Shaer for a solid two minutes, Dan sort of defended Shaer by saying, "Maybe he just didn't like you." I'm not passing judgment either way here but I have to ask Dan....does that make it okay? I mean something must be said for integrity and empathy. And yes, you can be empathetic toward someone you don't like. So if Tom Shaer is guilty of what Chet accuses him of, then simply saying "He doesn't like him" is not a good excuse.

I guess I sound naive. But Chet's point throughout was that Tom Shaer is a dick for doing what he did. So even if Tom Shaer didn't like North or Chet, doing what he did STILL makes him a dick, no?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:46 pm 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 6:03 pm
Posts: 4944
Chet came across as the uberdouche. I love this. None of this is North's fault, or the webio employees' fault, but it's the fault of Tom Fucking Shaer. Why not blame Tom Webb for not communicating from the dead about this?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 3:17 pm
Posts: 90
C_Howitt_Fealz wrote:
Chet came across as the uberdouche. I love this. None of this is North's fault, or the webio employees' fault, but it's the fault of Tom Fucking Shaer. Why not blame Tom Webb for not communicating from the dead about this?


It's Al Gore's fault for inventing the internets! :D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 5:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:54 am
Posts: 22704
pizza_Place: A few...
Archimboldi wrote:
Great interview. Was feeling sorry for Chet until I came on this board and found out that he's a self-centered anti-semite. I do have a slight logic problem with one of the points Dan had during the interview. After Chet spewed venom at Tom Shaer for a solid two minutes, Dan sort of defended Shaer by saying, "Maybe he just didn't like you." I'm not passing judgment either way here but I have to ask Dan....does that make it okay? I mean something must be said for integrity and empathy. And yes, you can be empathetic toward someone you don't like. So if Tom Shaer is guilty of what Chet accuses him of, then simply saying "He doesn't like him" is not a good excuse.

I guess I sound naive. But Chet's point throughout was that Tom Shaer is a dick for doing what he did. So even if Tom Shaer didn't like North or Chet, doing what he did STILL makes him a dick, no?


Shaer said he had talked to the FBI and they had told him that they had nothing on him and "sometimes people turn their life around". He said he had no reason to call anyone up because he didn't know they were hired until after the deal was done, plus what was he going to say? "Hey, about 11 or 12 years ago I had the FBI call me about him". Then the response would have been "Sour grapes Shaer, you're pissed you didn't get asked to the party".

And anyway, THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED BY BEBE AND NORTH!!!! If you are going to go into a partnership with someone and are also going to involve your friends/former co-workers, then it is up to YOU OR YOUR LAWYER to find out if your potential partner is on the up and up and has any problems in the past that would throw up a red flag in regards to doing business with him or her. This should not fall on the shoulders of someone who dealt with him/her a decade ago.

Way too many people are giving North a pass because of the Madoff angle. And what happened to "the code of the street"? I guess it doesn't apply when North ends up looking like the dumbass. Then it's every man for himself.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 6:12 am 
Offline
1000 CLUB
User avatar

Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 8:04 am
Posts: 2251
Good attempt Spiegs but you guys let him off the hook on not blaming North. Chet seems desperate and sounded like someone that will now be drinking every waking hour.


Sorry Dan but you should have told Chet the naive virgin excuse wont fly.

Good chemistry guys! Should be a good show.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2008 7:16 pm
Posts: 3414
pizza_Place: Gino's East.
Mac - you're no longer a C-List Celebrity.

The trib is streaming your show http://www.chicagotribune.com/webio


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 80 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group