Wheaton Grand Theater

123 N. Hale Street,
Wheaton, IL 60187

Unfavorite 17 people favorited this theater

Showing 226 - 250 of 369 comments

Life's Too Short
Life's Too Short on August 25, 2005 at 7:41 pm

A homosexual affair with a minor?!? Paul, you have outdone yourself. Are these people liars as well?

View link

The pattern I thought I saw a few months ago only seems to be getting reinforced: you charm your way into a community which has emotions tied to a historical theatre, find a way to scam them out of some money through theft, deception and legal action, then disappear. Can’t say for sure. But that’s what it looks like.

And that’s why I give you a hard time Paul. Finding new use for classic American theatres is difficult enough without having to contend with the issues that seem to follow you around (and this latest information seems to date them back to the 60’s rather than the 70’s!). I think that an enthusiastic group might lose heart for the cause after dealing with scandals of this nature. If you really do the things people say you have done in all these places where you have worked, you are perhaps the greatest enemy of theatre preservation in the United States. At least you can see a greedy developer for what he is.

mnovelli
mnovelli on August 24, 2005 at 7:00 am

kza347,

Let me answer by saying what we would not do. This may put our strategy in perspective. 1) We won’t limit our programming to one small demographic (100% adult focused programming). 2) We won’t be content with one state or other grant. 3) We won’t configure the theatre in a way that restricts program capabilities. 3) We won’t primarily focus on presenting high cost performances. 4) We won’t implement a restoration plan that does not preserve the historical elements (marquee, lobby ceiling, dome, proscenium arch, or the internal and external fascia). 5) We won’t try to constantly compete with bigger more established theatres. 6) We won’t begin a restoration without a well thought out plan that ensures for long term success. 7) We won’t make unrealistic promises to the community.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. I’d be happy to present our ideas/plan in greater detail. Perhaps we can arrange a meeting for those interested. Please let me know.

Thanks,

Mike Novelli
President, Grande Venues, Inc.

goaway
goaway on August 24, 2005 at 5:52 am

Interesting reading here:

View link

kza347
kza347 on August 24, 2005 at 4:20 am

So let’s say that GVI is chosen to restore and run the theater. And let’s say that GVI was able to market the grants to get the 1.75 million dollars. How does GVI propose to pay off the the other 2.35 million dollars loan for restoration and how long would that take to happen? We’re all pretty sure that GVI doesn’t have 2 million dollars burning a hole in their pocket. It doesn’t sound like GVI has plans to market subscriptions. And what guarantee does the community have that GVI’s plan would be any more successful as Shepardson’s? Thanks.

mnovelli
mnovelli on August 23, 2005 at 5:18 pm

Dear Neighbor,

This is precisely the debate that needs to take place. Is Mr. Shepardson’s plan realistic where enough subscriptions can be sold to afford top talent. In the town of Wheaton and surrounding towns, I should say not. I urge you not to give up now!!

You are correct that the more donations that are made the less number of subscriptions need to be sold. But again even if a grant of $1.75 million (this is not a given) is obtained a balance of $6.25 million over 15 years still remains. That equates to a whopping 1736 subscriptions needed to be sold per year. Totally unrealistic!!

I am not here to debate the quality of programming that the Wheaton Drama puts out. Nor am I of the belief that the Wheaton Grand cannot present a better variety of quality programming. It can. But to say that our relatively small town can draw crowds similar to the Chicago and Cadillac Theaters is a tremendous stretch.

Yes, some storefronts may need to be brought into the fold. But with any restoration plan, additional space will be needed for larger bathrooms, concession area etc. You may not agree with removing any storefronts (as you may occupy one now) but it is inevitable with any plan.

We heard several months ago that the Mason’s may be interested in selling their building. We never spoke with the Mason’s so I cannot go beyond what we heard. Again, the Mason building is not part of our primary plan.

I don’t expect you to join us right away, but please take time to consider the facts I present. My interest in the theater is not just business. I live in Wheaton and want what’s best for the city. What’s best in my opinion is that a true Community Center of Arts be constructed where all types of entertainment are available for all ages. I’m sorry but I don’t see this happening in Mr. Shepardson’s plan.

Thanks for the discussion,

Mike Novelli
President, Grande Venues, Inc.

TheNeighbor
TheNeighbor on August 23, 2005 at 4:11 pm

Mr. Novelli:

I am afraid I am not able to debate you on the issue of what could/could not be sold insofar as subscriptions. I believe that what would be available at The Grand would be far more interesting than what is available at Wheaton Drama, and more valuable to a different and more diverse group of people. This is based upon what I, myself, and others that I know would be interested in. It is certainly an off-the-cuff type of assumption, but there it is.

It is, however, my understanding that the vast majority of financing that the Grand is planning is through Grants, not Loans. Considering that they are already eligible for 1.7 million in grants, this seems not so very far-fetched as it may have been before the building was recognized as a historical landmark. If that is the case, then the money would not have to be paid back and such a horrendous amount of money would not have to be raised to do so. That should greatly reduce the number of subscriptions that would need to be sold, wouldn’t it?

As far as the “on-premise” restoration, I’m assuming that you are including the now existing store fronts that are part of that building? You would be, in essence, eliminating 4 separate businesses who would or would not be able to find comparable space elsewhere in downtown Wheaton.

If the Mason Lodge is an option, does that mean that you have spoken with someone as far as the purchase of that land?

In the meantime, I think I will let others more qualified debate other statistics.

I am still going to maintain my stance on this until all the information is collected. I’m afraid the character of your business partner has seriously injured my ability to join you. I’ve tried to remain objective, but truthfully, his reactions to me have tainted my opinion and its best that I admit that up front. I would very much like to give you the benefit of the doubt as you seem much more reasonable and level-headed. I hope that I am correct in that evaluation.

Thank you for responding calmly and intelligently to my questions.

The Neighbor

mnovelli
mnovelli on August 23, 2005 at 11:17 am

I respect your position to disagree, however I wouldn’t be so quick to disagree until you have all the facts. One major flaw with your argument (Shepardson’s plan) is that by ignoring the Wheaton Drama subscribers the Wheaton Grand would then have to sell an even higher number of subscriptions to an even higher amount of people at an even higher cost. This is truly an unrealistic projection given the existing and potential market characteristics do not support these numbers.

Let me try to put this into perspective for you, if the Wheaton Grand financed 100% of Shepardson’s estimated restoration cost of $8 million dollars over 15 years it would take approx. $533,000 per year or approx. 2,222 annual memberships costing $240 a piece, to pay back the loan. If he is lucky and is able to obtain donations for one-half ($4 million) the Grand Theater will need to sell 1,111 subscriptions consistently per year. Even if he were a magician and only financed one-third of the total restoration cost, the Wheaton Grand would still have to sell 694 subscriptions year after year to just honor the loan. At its best the Wheaton Drama, who has been around for years is only able to sell 250 subscriptions per year. Add the exorbitant cost of marquee name performances, operational expenses, advertising, etc., its fantasy financing. The Wheaton Grand will need multiple streams of revenue combined with a more economical plan to survive…period.

From a realistic marketing perspective, Shepardson’s plan is not attainable. I really urge you to speak with PJ at LHAT to get his perspective. He is extremely knowledgeable when it comes to what is really happening in the theater restoration world.

The Mason Lodge is purely an option if ever there was a need to expand the lobby. Even if the Mason Lodge were to become part of the Wheaton Grand, it would not interfere with other local businesses operations.

Our $4.1 million dollar plan involves 100% on-premise restoration. It also was co-created and approved by Mr. Clark’s staff of Engineers.

Hope this helps neighbor!

Mike Novelli
President, Grande Venues, Inc.

TheNeighbor
TheNeighbor on August 23, 2005 at 10:09 am

Mr. Novelli:

I believe we are going to have to agree to disagree on the subject of whether or not Wheaton Drama and Wheaton Grand would share subscribers. I believe that under the current proposal, the two would have completely different offerings. Many people are not enthusiastic about live theater, particularly when it is run-of-the-mill local theater with little or no creativity. I am not saying that the actors themselves are not talented; merely that the presentations are not what I would consider particularly inventive. Theater such as “Annie” and “You Can’t Take it With You” (their last two productions) are limited in scope and audience. As much as I might enjoy them (“You Can’t Take it With You” being one of my particular favorites), they are out of touch with modern audiences. I do believe that, based on what has been proposed so far by the current management, the entertainment being brought in to the Grand would be of a much different, and in my mind, wider and more profitable variety.

Also, I believe that if you look into current statistics both at-home DVD sales and away from home movie venues are on an extreme downslope. Hollywood is simply not generating much (if anything) of interest these days. Add that in to the expense of movies…with ticket cost and those very same “premium concessions”, the average joe is finding it far too expensive to go out to the movies. I know I do! I can buy the DVD for under $10 most times, and sit in the comfort of my own home without children screaming, and eat whatever I please for far less than the cost at a concession stand.

As far as the other programming you are proposing, I really do not see that the types of people that would come into town for those shows would do my business any good at all. In addition, I see Kza’s point as far as three auditoriums causing a great deal of confusion and difficulty.

My other question would be; in your plan, what do you expect to acquire/demolish in order to provide these things? You mentioned the Mason Lodge. Is it for sale? Would the current construction in the parking lot behind the building interfere with that plan? Isn’t Egglectic in the way? How would they feel about being overshadowed by the increased size of your proposal? Would you extend along the other side, therefore putting all other businesses on Hale Street out? Or does your plan allow for growth purely within the confines of the building itself.

I would also like to know whether with all this planning on both sides of the fence, either side has taken their plans into to an architectural engineer to analyze the probability, stability and safety of any of these constructs? Often what architects think and engineers will approve are completely different subjects.

The Neighbor

mnovelli
mnovelli on August 23, 2005 at 7:08 am

With all due respect kza347, there are many reasons the Wheaton Grand did not make it as a movie house. The main reason is that the theater has an old musty feel with no modern amenities such as, modern bathrooms, high-back or auditorium seating, digital surround sound, and premium concessions. Also, there was never any consistency of the type of movies being shown (i.e., first run or off the break, or classics). If you research why Rice Theatres closed you’ll find that it was not due to the lack of moviegoers. It had more to do with business deals and management.

As far as the dome in the Wheaton Grand, in our enhanced 3 theatre plan the dome would be fully exposed in the main theatre with little to no re-design necessary. This would be accomplished by moving the back wall to accommodate a balcony and additional space for the dome. The total cost to preserve the dome in relation to our modest $4.1 million restoration plan is very minimal.

Your last point does not add up from a marketing perspective. When you think of a market in the form of a pie, there are only so many pieces to be distributed or sold. In this case where the Wheaton Drama Group owns 100% of the pie (250 subscribers) the Wheaton Grand would need to sell subscriptions to these 250 subscribers to gain customers. As I said in my last posting, it is most difficult to sell something to someone who is loyal to a competing service. Given the difficulty of winning these customers combined with the added difficulty of selling subscriptions to new customers is an almost impossible task. Where some get confused is when Shepardson says “they have a different kind of program.” Well, I disagree. Both venues would be presenting live entertainment on the weekends. Unfortunately for the Wheaton Grand, the finite group of customers apt to buy subscriptions is now owned by the Wheaton Drama Group.

Mike Novelli
President, Grande Venues, Inc.

kza347
kza347 on August 22, 2005 at 3:32 pm

Wheaton Grand has ‘been there, done that’ with the three movie theater concept. That’s why it is in the state it’s in now. No owner could make a profit showing movies. And with the division beams and cables through the dome it now makes it much more expensive to restore thanks to that little plan. If that isn’t enough then reconsider the closing of the Rice. If they couldn’t make money with their modern new theater how is the Wheaton Grand going to do it?

My understanding of the Shepardson plan is that Wheaton Drama would get the plays and the theater would pretty much pick up everything else. If there is some crossover then all the better.

mnovelli
mnovelli on August 22, 2005 at 8:48 am

Please allow me to throw out some objective details regarding a one venue vs. multi-venue house;

It’s a fact the Wheaton Grand will have stiff competition. Their competition is not just the Paramount Theatre or the Rialto, but right next door, Wheaton Drama. This is a well established group that has been performing for many decades. Over the years they have established a loyal membership of about 250. When I asked Mr. Shepardson about the competition next door, he shrugged it off and said, “they have a different audience.” I don’t understand this. These are exactly the people the Wheaton Grand needs. Loyal members who continually buy subscriptions for quality live entertainment.

First, if anyone knows sales, the most difficult type of sale is to win over a customer already using another service. In this case Mr. Shepardson is banking on winning over many of the Wheaton Drama Groups members. Additionally, he is forecasting he will sell an additional 500 subscriptions per year.

Please believe me, in the marketing world this is a pipe dream. If the Wheaton Drama Group, who by the way are very talented, can only get 250 subscribers per year, how is the Wheaton Grand going to immediately secure 750 subscriptions year after year.

Secondly, it’s a fact (Rand Report) our youth participation in Performing Arts has been significantly declining over the last 20 years. Some may not think this important. But when you look down the road 20-25 years they will be the Wheaton Grands target audience. If the trend continues to exclude these youngsters, the Wheaton Grand will indeed become a mausoleum. The programming Mr. Shepardson is suggesting is solely targeted to adults.

We (GVI) want to see the Wheaton Grand prosper, contrary to what some believe. Since we live theatre every day we see what is working and what is not. That is why we are so passionate and opinionated about the GTC plan. It doesn’t add up. It doesn’t add up from a marketing perspective. It doesn’t add up from a target audience (youth) perspective. It doesn’t add up from a business standpoint…multiple revenue streams make more sense than one revenue stream.

One last bit of info. With the closing of the Rice movie theatres in Wheaton, a new opportunity presents itself. If the Wheaton Grand were divided into three venues, one or all could legitimately be used for movies. Our architect has created a design where each theatre is sound proof. A variety of shows could be held simultaneously without distraction. This is good business!!

Please understand, I am not interested in desparaging anyone or anything. I am only interested in the successful outcome of the Wheaton Grand.

Sincerely,

Mike Novelli
President, Grande Venues, Inc.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on August 22, 2005 at 8:45 am

The reason I asked my question is that I wanted to know if the Somerville Theatre could be used as a model of how to move forward.

Its original 900-seat auditorium has been restored, complete with balcony, and is frequently used for concerts and other live events. (Just a few weeks ago, it hosted a political debate.) Four new smaller cinemas were added to other parts of the building that formerly contained retail or other non-theatre uses. This was done without in any way cutting into the original auditorium. The multiple simultaneous events don’t cause any “confusion”, and in fact make the venue ideal for film festivals.

Could both sides possibly agree to a plan like this?

lynnz
lynnz on August 22, 2005 at 7:44 am

Paul,

Do you ever read what you have written? Obviouly not or you would recognize how small minded, petty and egotisitcal it sounds. No intelligent person can believe anything you have to say after all the lies and nastiness that spew forth from you on this board.

In regards to a three venue plan, that is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. You will lose seating capacity & increase confusion with multiple programs running simultaneously to name only a couple of problems off the top of my head. Were you ever in the original theatre before it was trashed by splitting it up? I was and it was beautiful. Restoration means to “restore” to its original beauty/use. Why would you replicate a dome that already exists? What you are proposing is renovation into another “cookie cutter multiplex” type structure. That is totally unacceptable to those of us who have known the beauty of the original and want to RESTORE the Grand to that beauty.

I have lived in Wheaton my whole life and have been a patron of the theatre whenever possible. It makes me very sad that charlatains like you have been allowed to file frivolous lawsuits, and try to rehabilitate your reputation at the cost of hard working HONEST people whose only interest is to RESTORE the theatre ot its original beauty.

How many times do you have to hear that YOU ARE NO LONGER A PART OF THE WHEATON GRAND RESTORATION PROJECT? Your services have been terminated and you are not in any way associated with the theatre except to critisize and demean the current board. You have no right to present any kind of plan for the theatre, YOU ARE NO LONGER ASSOCIATED WITH THE GTC. Please stop wasting everyone’s time and energy with your delusional ravings. The WGT is a not for profit corportation and you are not on the board and not likely to ever be, so just SHUT UP and take your delusions of granduer somewhere else.

rroberts
rroberts on August 22, 2005 at 7:09 am

Finally! Thank you for asking. Our primary plan, brilliantly drawn by architect Douglas Clark, AIA, is to utilize the current three theatre spaces to provide multiple sources of revenue in multiple venues. This clearly works for Wheaton as we could show a movie in theatre one, have a girl scout program in theatre two and a rock concert in theatre three. Our plan features a 500 seat Vaudeville style theatre, with balcony, that REALLY highlights the proscenium and dome—the two most significant architectural elements in the building. The sides of the theatre were (forgive us) boring and repetitive but we repeat the big theatre motif in theatre one and two WITH a dome that replicates the great dome in the vaudeville theatre. Our concept highly encourages programs for kids, seniors, groups, camps as well as professional musicians, theatre productions and collaborative efforts to work with Wheaton Drama—our next door neighbor! Perhaps one large musical each year?? On the horizon the possibility of acquiring the Mason lodge provides additional theatre space, rehearsal space, green rooms, storage, set construction areas, costume and property shop, and meeting space. We will present our plan at a public forum in September. Stay tuned.

JLoster
JLoster on August 22, 2005 at 5:45 am

Mr. Newman – The one auditorium plan will have 800 to 900 seats. The plan does not currently include additional structures.

Ron Newman
Ron Newman on August 22, 2005 at 3:02 am

I’d be interested in hearing some details of each of the two competing plans here. What is the seat-count for the proposed single theatre? If instead three houses are to remain, how many seats does each one have? Is there any possibility of building additional venues in adjacent structures while restoring the original auditorium to a single venue, thus getting the best of both plans?

TheNeighbor
TheNeighbor on August 21, 2005 at 9:04 pm

Although I have said I will not comment, I must at this point at least point out that I am not now, nor have I in the past been a “shill” for Mr. Loster. Your insistence and ignorance on this point is exactly what lost my interest in you.

I have met with Mr. Loster because there was a point in time where he was no longer (and rightfully so) posting on this board. In order to find out the answers to the many questions I have posted, I sought him out. He was extremely informative. I gave you the same chance here on the board. You ignored all of my questions, and continue to do so. In addition, you seem to think that I am the figment of someone’s imagination. I assure you that is not the case.

I have knowledge of his leave from the board, and although I do not know the exact circumstances, I do understand it completely. It is unfortunate that you are less forgiving. It is a black mark on your character.

I am not ignorant or ill informed. I have seen the plans and the proposals, and have spoken at length with other members of the board in regards to the current plan. I was at the meeting. You were not.

There will be no real public debates with you because you do not share facts and figures. If you would like to share some of these facts and figures with those of us who have “mundane minds”, I would love to see them. But please keep it on the list. Again, I do not want to meet with you in person because of the before mentioned concerns as far as your behavior and your overall attitude towards people who do not immediately embrace your ideals. I am sorry, but I need concrete evidence and hardcore facts before I am going to jump on your bandwagon.

Why you insist on believing me to be a “shill” for the theater is beyond me. All I have asked from the beginning is for you to answer simple questions so that I can better understand your proposal. You have evaded my questions time and time again. How can I possibly see your side of things if you do not give me any reason to? How could I “side” with anyone other than the current theater board when it has become apparent that you are just slinging empty threats around needlessly? If that is not true, then back it up. Show us something of interest. Show us something positive. Then I might be willing to listen to you.

In the meantime, I will reiterate what has been said before. You are sadly mistaken if you think anyone wants you riding in on your white horse to save the day. You are not currently needed. I have no reason to believe otherwise as you won’t supply me with any of the information that I would need to come to that conclusion. So I will have to assume that you simply like frustration and wasting taxpayers money and the time of our judicial system. Until I see some sort of basis for your rantings, I will have to maintain my point of view.

I do wish I was able to resist this temptation and that I were strong enough not to rise to your bait. Its obvious that you like a certain amount of argument in your life. I really don’t care for it myself, but when you accuse me of things that simply are not true, I feel like I have to defend myself. There are people who might know who I am, and I would not have them believing the lies that you are tossing about in order to irritate me. I know there is no convincing you; you had made up your mind the moment I said that I was a woman.

The Neighbor

rroberts
rroberts on August 21, 2005 at 8:29 am

Then goodbye, “Indefinite Pronoun” Neighbor. You and WGTluver (both of you shills for the board and Loster) have proved your ignorance once again. $1.7 million? You are dreaming or are ill informed. That money is NOT available under any plan written by the GTC. Where is THIER plan? Ours is available. You meet with Loster but not with me? Who is ignorant? Who is the ostrich? Loster is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Ask why he has quit twice before? Ask about his habits in the theatre a few years ago. If the going gets tough, he will quit again. You will see other GTC board members quit soon as our lawsuit goes forward. The heat is on for honesty and they can’t take it. Wait until the REAL public debates. I can’t wait to take our great plan to the people, the banks and the preservationists!

TheNeighbor
TheNeighbor on August 21, 2005 at 5:17 am

Sorry; in editing my previous comment, I apparently screwed up the grammatical text.

I had meant to compliment WGTLuver on catching Mr. Warshauer…

If the National Registry recognition had occurred during MR. WARSHAUER’S watch, HE would have been bragging about it to the four corners of the universe.

Those darn indefinite pronouns.

Sorry again,

The Neighbor

Wheatongrandluver
Wheatongrandluver on August 19, 2005 at 9:58 pm

Repetitive comments don’t help prove your point Paul.

Wheatongrandluver
Wheatongrandluver on August 19, 2005 at 9:57 pm

Repetitive comments don’t help prove your point Paul.

TheNeighbor
TheNeighbor on August 19, 2005 at 8:41 pm

First, WGTLuver:

You has a point; if the National Register entry had occurred during your watch, you would have done the utmost to see it promoted to the hilt and bragged about it to the four corners of the earth. Well called, WGTLuver!

Mr. Warshauer:

This is the LAST comment I will address to you because I have no interest in being dragged through this over and over again.

Insulting those of us on the board with “mundane minds” is not likely to garner any sympathy for your cause.

I have, to my knowledge, not called you a liar. You are verbally aggressive and an active finger pointer, always blaming someone or something. I believe that is what I have said, although I admit I did not just now page through every one of my (sometimes lengthy) posts to see for sure. I did say that you have not answered my questions.

I do not wish to meet in person with you. I want everything to be kept open on this board so that all answers given are from your own hand, not second hand accounts from me as to what you have said. I will admit to having a fair bit of distrust in the idea of meeting you; your extremely hostile and demanding remarks make me think that you are no doubt slandering people all over Wheaton. I have no desire to drag my name nor the name of my partners into the muck that follows in your wake simply because I disagree with you.

As far as I understand it, the National Register status allows the theater board to immediately be eligible for 1.7 million dollars toward restoration. I do not consider that a worthless gesture. Also, if spun correctly, it would garner an additional amount of news exposure, and possibly more corporate funding as a direct result. Both of these things are wonderful, and should not be so lightly dismissed.

I am not as stupid as you would like to believe. I am not myself involved in theater. I have been around people involved in theater all of my life. I have friends currently involved in theater, one who graduated with a bachelor’s degree in stage productions. I have other friends involved in live theater in Evanston. I have worked in the entertainment industry, although not in theater. I was employed WRITING about theater as well as other entertainment pieces. So I do have some idea about what you are talking about. I also have several friends in the music industry, including a couple of people who have placed rather highly on the Christian charts. Not that I need to or want to submit my resume to you. It is in the interest of sharing this with other people on this board that I write these things, so that they will know what background I am coming from, and as a defense against your accusations.

As far as income, etc. for the theater, I understand the need to keep it viable. I am, however, interested in my first priority, which is keeping downtown Wheaton viable. The programs you have proposed over and over again are losing propositions as far as any helpful income for my business, so I would have to disagree with you as far as their usefulness to me. I am far more interested in the types of entertainment Mr. Loster has proposed.

Your discussion at this point is completely irrelevant. Your contract was terminated. You are no longer desired. Your services are not necessary. Whether you agree with the one venue plan or not does not matter in the least. Quite honestly, I doubt that you do know what you are talking about as you cannot answer simple questions. I have distrusted you since you proved your character to me very early on; you are not the type of man who can admit to a mistake, you are uncharitable, unkind and rude.

I have had occassion now to speak to Mr. Loster in person, and as I mentioned in a previous post he was far kinder to you than you have ever been to him. He is by far your apparent superior, being in all things a gentleman. Whether or not the information he received was accurate in the Garvey situation is difficult to ascertain, but I believe he honestly did believe it and that is enough for me.

You don’t have to debate these real business elements with us. I, in fact, will not do so ever again. The answer is simple. Please, go and pay attention to the theaters that agree with you, with the ones who want your services. Why you feel it necessary to beat your head against this is beyond me. Whether or not I agree with you in any other fashion, I will say that either you so completely believe in this that you can’t give up; or perhaps you are to egotistic to believe that your services are truly not wanted. I don’t know how it could possibly be explained to you any other way. Which is why I will try very, very hard not to respond to any more of your rantings.

I can’t promise, of course. I am only human after all.

The Neighbor

Wheatongrandluver
Wheatongrandluver on August 19, 2005 at 6:13 pm

You can’t hold a candle to John Loster! He’s a decent honest man! And yes Paul, getting on the register may not be THE issue but is an issue and your mad because it didn’t happen under your management! And for a grown man so opposed to name calling you sure do blow a lot of hot air!

rroberts
rroberts on August 19, 2005 at 6:04 pm

Honesty is relative folks. How honest is John Loster? He appears to have lied to me, Ben Garvey and hundreds of others. No one calls him a liar. Without all of the pertinent information at your disposal how in perdition do you have the gaul to be judge, jury and executioner against us? The reason the Grand Theatre will never work as a single theatre is elementary economics. Perhaps you would like to discuss multiple season booking, marketing, promotions, school matinees, ticket prices, parking, audience movement, accountants, bathrooms, ADA requirements, concession stands, liquor licenses, profit and loss statements, booking data, construction costs, architectural fees, royalties, movie schedules, fundraising, the real cost of performing artists and their expenses…shall I go on or do you have any idea of what I am talking about? Are there no other professional theatre people on this site??? Why can’t we debate these simple elements with the GTC guru, Ray Shepardson? Listing on a “Register” is NOT THE ISSUE: Get over it! Making the theatre viable IS the issue. Why must I discuss and debate real business elements with mundane minds? Someone else, please?

Wheatongrandluver
Wheatongrandluver on August 19, 2005 at 5:45 pm

Excuse me but I would love an answer to this question: How can one sue because they care? And for that matter who sues because they know they will win? And I agree with the Neighbor whole-heartedly, they are not taking cheap shots at you, they are being honest. And how dare someone who takes offense at name calling turn around and call the GTC preschoolers? And on a final note, I don’t understand why you insist on keeping the Grand chopped into three when it could be a majestic single-venue theater. I also don’t know why getting on the national register is no big deal? How many theaters have you helped get on the register, Paul?