50 / 50 ?? - Page 2

doithink · 05-11-2004, 05:35 PM

Normally, I'm content to lurk, but this season of The Restaurant has really got me wondering. Enough so, that a post is in order.

First, everyone is acting as if they have no idea where Rocco is, what he is doing, and he is never there. Yet, he has a staff of at least two. No one picks up the phone, Laurent??, and confers with Rocco's assistants to coordinate schedules and ensure that he makes an appearance at the place everyone goes to see him?

Second, Chodorow, regardless of who is put in Rocco's to report back to him, actually has that meeting in front of the staff? I cannot possibly fathom how that would happen, how a professional businessperson would do it, and cannot fathom Chodorow's lawyers not screaming at him for even proposing such a plan.

Chodorow wants to drive down costs, but wants to put the staff on medical insurance AND match 401K contributions? Those two are mutually exclusive of each other any way you analyze it.

Drew, the intern? A professional businessman allows an INTERN anywhere near that situation?

Now, we get to the lawsuit. An operating agreement was never signed on a $4 million deal? How does Chodorow not force the agreement to be signed? He has way too much money not to protect himself. No way he predicts that this is going to happen and thinks that not signing the agreement will work to his advantage.

I strongly suspect that these parties know that the lawsuit is never going to go anywhere, the show will be long over before anyone would ever have been deposed. I know that faking a lawsuit is pretty serious business. However, if you can reach on "out of court settlement" before anyone has a real chance of getting wise to what is going on this would be one hell of a good way to drive ratings for a show and diners to a restaurant.

None of this makes any sense at all, and that smoking gun excerpt reads more like a drama than a legal filing that would/should reference revisions, sections and paragraphs of the drafts/agreement, etc. Plus, DiSpirito is referred to by his first name (rather than "The Dispirito Parties" or "The Plaintiff") multiple times.

Something doesn't smell right to me.

Google · Sponsored Links

Sarahkins · 05-11-2004, 05:48 PM

Doithink, I agree, something smells funny. I mean, filming is already done and they still haven't settled things legally. I also spot from my novice eye, a ton of editing and some of these cell-phone calls, at-home calls, and his discussions w/Yvonne etc. could all have taken place last week for all we know and then just added in. I thought the first season was much more "real".

decan · 05-12-2004, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarahkins

Doithink, I agree, something smells funny. I mean, filming is already done and they still haven't settled things legally. I also spot from my novice eye, a ton of editing and some of these cell-phone calls, at-home calls, and his discussions w/Yvonne etc. could all have taken place last week for all we know and then just added in. I thought the first season was much more "real".

You guys quick to forget there is going to be a big twist in the end when everyone gets a million dollar check prize and live happily ever after.... hey it's a Mark Bernett show isn't it? *snickers*

queeny · 05-12-2004, 11:05 PM

I read the smoking Gun papers about the current law suit JC vs Rocco. Question- from which side is this transcript from. It sounded like it was coming from Rocco camp? any ideas out there.
I know that just because it is writen on paper or reported on the news(et al) that it is not necessary the truth. (hello, the star, the inquirer....) The SG states that the information is 100% true, but from whos pespective. Just from reading other posts I have been given more information and insight to this very unfortunate turn of events in this partnership. I'm not sure who is to blame, but it looks more like 50 - 50.

senrik · 05-12-2004, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by queeny

I read the smoking Gun papers about the current law suit JC vs Rocco. Question- from which side is this transcript from. It sounded like it was coming from Rocco camp? any ideas out there.
I know that just because it is writen on paper or reported on the news(et al) that it is not necessary the truth. (hello, the star, the inquirer....) The SG states that the information is 100% true, but from whos pespective. Just from reading other posts I have been given more information and insight to this very unfortunate turn of events in this partnership. I'm not sure who is to blame, but it looks more like 50 - 50.

well unfortunately, in the eyes of the law, there is no such thing as truth, merely one side which is better able to convince people.

decan · 05-13-2004, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by senrik

well unfortunately, in the eyes of the law, there is no such thing as truth, merely one side which is better able to convince people.

Well yeah you're probably right.... but still it just seems so ungrateful to me when someone (perhaps your friend) is willing to help you out financially and is investing in alot of capital to help you make your dream come true, yet when things go downhill, you not only ignore the problem but become disrespectful and confrontational towards your financier... I mean from what I've seen so far (at least what has been shown on national TV) never once did Rocco even "try" to work things out with Jeffery.... there's always some ridiculously childish behaviour often started by Rocco himself and things get predictably ugly as a result. Just look at the staffing problem, even if Jeffery isn't there to take charge of it, Rocco should be addressing that problem asap... even in the first season, the issue was handled poorly by him. And don't get me started with the "books" under Rocco's watch.... jeeze what a mess! He doesn't even know if the joint is making money or not?! The excuse that Rocco had for not knowing because he claimed Jeffery didn't sent him the monthly statements (or something like that) is so ridiculous..... even the manager (hired by Rocco in the first season) knew.... what poor excuse

***John*** · 05-13-2004, 08:19 AM

The papers you're reading on TSG were filed from Rocco's side, I believe.

And I guess I'm of the personal opinion that it would be almost criminally negligent to NOT know that you've lost $100,000 per month since the doors opened.

Hunnyoil · 05-31-2004, 11:40 PM

I still don't get it!

If Rocco didn't own 50% then how can he make any decisions about the joint?

museumguy · 06-01-2004, 07:15 AM

The language of the smoking gun document appears to be a statement of grievence rather then actual documents re:the lawsuit...and even there you can see Burnett's hand in it.....There is so much plot description in this paper that I can see the lawyers...Both Roccos and Burnetts thinking they are going to lose for the lack of pro forma...

and The crux of the suit is stated in just two claims....

One is Roccos contention that he has a de facto right to trademark the name of the Resturant....and the other is Roccos claim that he and he alone is the sole party to the Burnett contract and all that money....

It may be costing $100,000 a month extra thanks to the TV show and since its Chodrows money thats paying for alot of that is...

but the arguement has to be made that Jeffrey is there and has been filmed at the request of Burnett and with his approval....because nothing happens on an MB show with out his approval and/or manipulation......

and yes John surely Rocco should have known about the losses....

museumguy · 06-01-2004, 07:44 AM

One last thought on this....the reason for the use of the word parties is that a suit and a countersuit have been filed....and therefore it would be confusing to call both sides plantiff/defendant....They are parties to a disagreement..and that part...though not the plot description hidden in the legalese.....sounds legit.....

05-31-2004, 11:40 PM	#18
Hunnyoil FORT Regular Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Moscow, Idaho (don't laugh) Age: 48 Posts: 64	Asta Pasta I still don't get it! If Rocco didn't own 50% then how can he make any decisions about the joint?

05-11-2004, 05:35 PM	#11
doithink FORT Newbie Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Ohio Posts: 15	Normally, I'm content to lurk, but this season of The Restaurant has really got me wondering. Enough so, that a post is in order. First, everyone is acting as if they have no idea where Rocco is, what he is doing, and he is never there. Yet, he has a staff of at least two. No one picks up the phone, Laurent??, and confers with Rocco's assistants to coordinate schedules and ensure that he makes an appearance at the place everyone goes to see him? Second, Chodorow, regardless of who is put in Rocco's to report back to him, actually has that meeting in front of the staff? I cannot possibly fathom how that would happen, how a professional businessperson would do it, and cannot fathom Chodorow's lawyers not screaming at him for even proposing such a plan. Chodorow wants to drive down costs, but wants to put the staff on medical insurance AND match 401K contributions? Those two are mutually exclusive of each other any way you analyze it. Drew, the intern? A professional businessman allows an INTERN anywhere near that situation? Now, we get to the lawsuit. An operating agreement was never signed on a $4 million deal? How does Chodorow not force the agreement to be signed? He has way too much money not to protect himself. No way he predicts that this is going to happen and thinks that not signing the agreement will work to his advantage. I strongly suspect that these parties know that the lawsuit is never going to go anywhere, the show will be long over before anyone would ever have been deposed. I know that faking a lawsuit is pretty serious business. However, if you can reach on "out of court settlement" before anyone has a real chance of getting wise to what is going on this would be one hell of a good way to drive ratings for a show and diners to a restaurant. None of this makes any sense at all, and that smoking gun excerpt reads more like a drama than a legal filing that would/should reference revisions, sections and paragraphs of the drafts/agreement, etc. Plus, DiSpirito is referred to by his first name (rather than "The Dispirito Parties" or "The Plaintiff") multiple times. Something doesn't smell right to me.

05-11-2004, 05:48 PM	#12
Sarahkins Sarahkins Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Iowa Posts: 32	Doithink, I agree, something smells funny. I mean, filming is already done and they still haven't settled things legally. I also spot from my novice eye, a ton of editing and some of these cell-phone calls, at-home calls, and his discussions w/Yvonne etc. could all have taken place last week for all we know and then just added in. I thought the first season was much more "real".

05-12-2004, 11:05 PM	#14
queeny Queeny Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: toronto Age: 46 Posts: 334	I read the smoking Gun papers about the current law suit JC vs Rocco. Question- from which side is this transcript from. It sounded like it was coming from Rocco camp? any ideas out there. I know that just because it is writen on paper or reported on the news(et al) that it is not necessary the truth. (hello, the star, the inquirer....) The SG states that the information is 100% true, but from whos pespective. Just from reading other posts I have been given more information and insight to this very unfortunate turn of events in this partnership. I'm not sure who is to blame, but it looks more like 50 - 50.

05-13-2004, 08:19 AM	#17
*John* The race is back! Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: On the mat Age: 39 Posts: 40,434	The papers you're reading on TSG were filed from Rocco's side, I believe. And I guess I'm of the personal opinion that it would be almost criminally negligent to NOT know that you've lost $100,000 per month since the doors opened.

06-01-2004, 07:15 AM	#19
museumguy Embracing the Inner Geek Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York Age: 48 Posts: 3,602	The language of the smoking gun document appears to be a statement of grievence rather then actual documents re:the lawsuit...and even there you can see Burnett's hand in it.....There is so much plot description in this paper that I can see the lawyers...Both Roccos and Burnetts thinking they are going to lose for the lack of pro forma... and The crux of the suit is stated in just two claims.... One is Roccos contention that he has a de facto right to trademark the name of the Resturant....and the other is Roccos claim that he and he alone is the sole party to the Burnett contract and all that money.... It may be costing $100,000 a month extra thanks to the TV show and since its Chodrows money thats paying for alot of that is... but the arguement has to be made that Jeffrey is there and has been filmed at the request of Burnett and with his approval....because nothing happens on an MB show with out his approval and/or manipulation...... and yes John surely Rocco should have known about the losses....

06-01-2004, 07:44 AM	#20
museumguy Embracing the Inner Geek Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: New York Age: 48 Posts: 3,602	One last thought on this....the reason for the use of the word parties is that a suit and a countersuit have been filed....and therefore it would be confusing to call both sides plantiff/defendant....They are parties to a disagreement..and that part...though not the plot description hidden in the legalese.....sounds legit.....