that's right...the $100 million was for naming rights. but Enron did loan $5 million interest-free to the county for the purchase of the land where MMP sits. that's a pretty nice contribution. http://www.hchsa.org/news/enronloan.html
interest free. let me know the next time you're able to secure $5 million interest free...i'd like to partake.
When I see crap like that I think of it being a PR move. I highly doubt that the free interest was what tip the scales for Astros to stay in town. I'm no accountant but I also figure that interest free loan turns in to some sort of tax right off.
You're one of two things, a willfully vile liar or a galactic imbecile. Enron BOUGHT THE NAMING RIGHTS to the ballpark. Please stop embarrassing yourself by trying to turn that into a "contribution". The idea that Ken "Douchebag" Lay would EVER involve himself in a financial transaction in which he or his corporate cronies didn't profit financially is laughable and only believable by the dullest of wits. Enron was to pay for the naming rights over 30 years making annual payments of $3.7 million. Once the Douchebag was done stealing whatever he could lay his hands on, Drayton and the Astros couldn't distance themselves from his thieving a$$ soon enough. They actually PAID Enron $2.1 million to BUY BACK the naming rights. Some "contribution". Very telling that, despite his kind words about the Douchebag, Drayton hadn't spoken to the layer of the foundation since...well, since we all discovered what a douchebag he was. Oh, except when he appeared at his trial which ended with the Douchebag being convicted of multiple felonies. Enron held the naming rights for 2 years so at most they PAID (not "contributed") $7.4 million for the right to name the stadium after the most corrupt corporation in history. Subtract the $2.1 million they got back and Enron paid just over $5 million in naming rights. Additionally, the naming rights agreement had nothing to do with the the stadium being built. Yet another willful lie, huh, Aces? The referendum to build the stadium passed in November 1996. The naming rights deal wasn't signed in 1999. Furthermore, the difference in the price of the stadium was made up by Astros ownership and a $35 million, interest free loan. NOT the naming rights agreement. But, somehow, in neocon fantasyland this is spun into a "$100 million contribution" without which the MMP "would never have been constructed". You can remove your head from your a$$ now.
But it's not "$100 million", it's not a contribution, and it wasn't just Enron. Weren't there 14 companies involved in making that loan? I guess that gives 13 other corporations the greenlight from vile liars like Aces to w**** their employees.
maybe they do. and maybe it's PR. you can make that argument about every philanthropic move by a company. the point is, we the taxpayers didn't have to pay the interest on loans to build a new stadium. a group of companies, led by enron, stepped up and did it. that doesn't exonerate them from anything. i'm not suggesting that. but because they did a ton of crappy stuff doesn't mean they did nothing that was worthwhile or good. the world just isn't that black and white. ken lay built a YMCA out in Katy. single mothers drop their kids off there for affordable day care. he wasn't darth vader. he was a broken man, to be sure. and he screwed a lot of people. a helluva lot of people....i'm all for accountability for that. but you can't demonize so entirely as to remove from memory everything he might have done with a good intention. i certainly don't want to be judged by that standard.
i didn't say it was $100 million. i said it was $5 million. the total loan was $34.7 million. $5 million of it came from Enron. and it was interest free. i'm not giving anyone the green light here to do anything.
That wasn't meant to indict you, but rather to highlight the outlandish lie that Enron "contributed" $100 million "to build" MMP. As to the larger issue of The Douchebag, I think we've just got different perspectives. It appears you see him as a philanthropist that broke some laws while I see him as a thief that did some good deeds.
honestly, i don't see that as much different. that's just semantics. we all do things we're ashamed of...which hurt other people. we all do things that others think are "good deeds."
Here's a very well thought out post from a Houston lawyer's blog which I read frequently. Take the time to read it - I agree with a lot of it. http://blog.kir.com/archives/003264.asp Former Enron chairman and CEO Ken Lay died yesterday of a heart attack and, given the stress that Mr. Lay had endured over the past five years, such a fate is certainly not surprising. However, my sense is that the heart attack was merely the physical manifestation of what really killed this proud, talented and flawed man -- his inability to overcome the Enron Myth and the societal implications of it. By now, we all know the myth -- Enron was merely an elaborate financial house of cards hidden from innocent and unsuspecting investors and employees by a deceitful management team led by the greedy and lying Mr. Lay. The Enron Myth is so thoroughly accepted that otherwise intelligent people reject any notion of ambiguity or fair-minded analysis in addressing facts and issues that call the morality play into question. The primary dynamics by which the myth is perpetuated are scapegoating and resentment, which are exhibited everywhere: 1. The Houston Chronicle's business columnist ridiculing Mr. Lay and calling for his conviction on almost a daily basis throughout the trial; 2. The community outpouring of celebration over the guilty verdict against Mr. Lay and the self-righteous indignation over his continued claim that he committed no crimes; 3. A Houstonian interviewed on radio yesterday contending that she was unsatisfied because Mr. Lay's death had allowed him to escape appropriate punishment; 4. A prominent Houston-based blogger mocking Mr. Lay's death (here and here); 5. Without a smidgen of evidence, a Houston criminal defense attorney suggesting during an interview on MSNBC yesterday that Mr. Lay may have committed suicide to void his conviction. These are but a few examples of the frequent eruptions from the cauldron of societal bitterness over Enron that are palpable reminders of the fragile nature of civil society. The Enron Myth conveniently serves to obscure that which most people do not want to confront. Loss, fear, and anger expose our essential human insecurity -- Christians sometimes refer to it as our "brokenness." The vulnerability that underlies such insecurity is scary to behold, so we use myths and the related dynamics of scapegoating and resentment to distract us. Therefore, a wealthy and powerful businessman who is easy to resent becomes a handy scapegoat. We rationalize that he did bad things that we would never do if placed in the same position and thus, he is deserving of our punishment. That the scapegoat is portrayed as greedy and arrogant -- just as we are -- makes the lynch mob even more bloodthirsty as it attempts to purge collectively that which is too sordid for its members to face individually. As noted in this prior post, even the Task Force prosecutors have admitted that the legal case against Lay was extraordinarily weak. But the power of the Enron Myth and the real presumption in the criminal case against Mr. Lay are such that even presumably fair-minded jurors dispense with critical thinking skills when confronted with supposedly the biggest business conspiracy in the history of federal prosecutions. Rather than seeking the truth regarding that alleged mass conspiracy, the jurors were content with a prosecution that cast Mr. Lay as a liar about Photofete and his company line of credit, and ignored the paucity of evidence of any alleged massive conspiracy or even the true reasons why Enron collapsed. The myth is so pervasive and accepted -- why bother with the truth? The carnage of the Enron Myth and similar myths is now stacked high -- the destruction of Arthur Andersen, the vapid Enron-related Congressional hearings, the shallow Enron documentary, Martha Stewart, Jamie Olis, Daniel Bayly, William Fuhs, Frank Quattrone, Hank Greenberg, Mr. Lay -- the list goes on and on. In the wake of such destruction of wealth and lives, the public is even less willing to confront the vacuity of the myth and the destructive dynamics by which it is perpetrated. In fact, any challenge to the myth is now commonly met with derision and appeals to even more resentment over the Enron failure. Such syndromes are not only an abuse of our justice system, but a serious affront to civil society. Ken Lay was no criminal. Did he fudge the truth? Maybe. But even if so, did his lies justify public humiliation, a physically-draining criminal trial, and a life prison sentence? Not in a truly civil society. Ken Lay's death is a terrible tragedy for his family and friends, and my family's thoughts and prayers are with them. But the larger tragedy is that a myth has again played out as "justice" in our criminal justice system while distracting us from examining what really happened at Enron, understanding the benefits and risks of such a company, and educating ourselves on how to take advantage of such benefits while hedging those risks prudently. Such a sober undertaking is not as easy as rationalizing a financial failure by calling a rich man a crook and reveling in his demise, but it's far more likely to result in a better -- and far more honest -- understanding of investment and markets, as well as ourselves. Posted by Tom at July 6, 2006 05:35 AM
interesting bigtexxx...this part really spoke to me: We rationalize that he did bad things that we would never do if placed in the same position and thus, he is deserving of our punishment. as the article points out...we are all broken. one side of the political fence pleads for mercy for "this sort" of criminal...the other pleads for mercy for "that sort" of criminal. in truth, we're all broken and flawed.
so in one thread in the d&d bigtexxx is all over criminals getting off and in this thread he's defending one that got convicted. and what's the major difference? I'll make you a deal texxx, never bring up oj again, and i'll never bring up ken lay.
Wow. I see it as an enormous difference. A philanthropist or a thief. Like I said, I think we just have different perspectives on this.
no..you're reading it backwards..i'm not saying philanthropist is equated with thief. thief = broke some laws philanthropist = did some good deeds
yeah, but bigtexxx will call barry bonds the scum of the earth for cheating on baseball but he'll defend ken lay. I think his issues run a little deeper.
the money enron used to buy the naming rights to the ballpark is called advertising....... donation!? haaa ha!
