Phil Mickelson, Pro Golfer & Waffle House Owner
by Ryan Ballengee on Jul 23, 2009 11:01 AM EDT
Email
PrintYahoo!'s Devil Ball Golf has a post up quoting a report in the Tennessean that Phil Mickelson has put in a bid to buy 105 Waffle House locations. As part of a three person groups, the bid was to bail out a bankrupt ownership group at around $20 million - chump change for the world number two.
Mickelson nor his partners have any experience in running a restaurant. I imagine that running a Waffle House is a lot like managing a college cafeteria. The food is best consumed when drunk, or just barely sober. The customers are generally juvenile and things get a little crazy late at night. Lefty has no intentions of actually serving the food though. His group would hire experienced managers.
So, why now? Why Waffle House? Well, Mickelson declined an opportunity to buy into the very lucrative world of sports teams when he decided to not pursue a minor ownership stake in the San Diego Padres. In other words, Mickelson is saying that he would rather own a restaurant chain known for clogging more arteries in one day than the number of fans that would pay to watch the Padres all season.
Ouch.
What's more is that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. And seeing as though Mickelson has claimed to have grown an inch or so in the past few years - due largely to stretching, he says - Lefty is still quite the growing boy. What better way to ensure the all-critical breakfast than to roll into your own restaurant.
12 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
WOW ! now there's the overgeneralization of the year...
Do you not have Waffle Houses in Maryland ? Have you ever BEEN to a Waffle House ? I don’t mean to jump down your throat on this – but your imagination needs a bit of a tune up.
Waffle House may not be a Central Park steak house, but the food is generally decent – it is what it is – affordable and quick. Waffle Houses across the country have taken care of truckers, cops, travellers, locals, old and young. In many places, Waffle House is a family tradition on a weekend morning for pancakes or a waffle with the kids.
Of COURSE there are the occassional drunken frat boy groups that pass through on a weekend night – they are open 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, but your imagination is way off on this one.
Waffle House is a hard working company with thousands of honest, hard working employees. This is a level of snobbishness that really shocks me coming from you, RB.
And yes, it’s a better investment than the Padres and that overpaid bunch…I just hope Obama doesn’t get mad at someone else doing a bailout…especially when this one has a better chance of succeeding.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Court, I’ve been to Waffle House at least a half dozen times. I’m not saying the food stinks at all. Otherwise I wouldn’t go there. C’mon, get real.
But the food is diner food. Some of the locations are kinda run down. It’s not snobbish, it’s fact. And I love Waffle House despite those flaws.
And back at you, what’s the point of slipping in an Obama reference? You were against the bailout of financial companies, but ok with the bailout of a Waffle House ownership conglomerate? That’s plain inconsistent.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
Psst – of COURSE it’s diner food…..it’s a DINER !!!!!! :-) Half a dozen trips to Waffle House in 30 years ? You’re not even a novice. :-)
Read the Obama line again – it’s a shot on the Obama plan.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Ok – let me ‘splain – there is a HUGE difference between the Mickelson’s spending their own money to buy a bunch of restaurants, and thre President of the United States taking illegal and unConstitutional steps…spending TAXPAYER money to bail out private sector companies. He is stealing from us – the Mickelsons are spending their own money. HUGE difference.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I saw the word bailout and thought you meant financial bailout – which was really more of a Bush/Fed thing. You mean the health care plan?
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jul 23, 2009 1:38 PM EDT up reply actions
I picked up “bailout” becase you used it in your original post. Technically, it IS a bailout of sorts – picking up the restaurants.
No – ALL of what Obama is doing – the corporate bailouts (filled with hundreds of billions in pork) AND this health care debacle – none of it is under any sort of Constitutional authority to the president. He has become the Loan Shark in Chief. Bush did the same thing – then Obama took it to a new level. In one month, Obama spent more of our taxpayer dollars than Bush did in 8 years…and our great grandchildren will still be paying off that debt – And Obama isn’t even close to being finished, so the USA is very close to being foreclosed on by one or more communist/socialist countries…plus a few Muslim nations. basically – we’re screwed.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I wouldn’t say that Obama has outspent Bush yet. Bush has us in the hole about $2 trillion on the two wars and countless billions on the tax breaks he supplied – using a projected $1 trillion surplus.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jul 23, 2009 2:54 PM EDT up reply actions
ok – first off – you don’t lose money by cutting taxes – cutting taxes puts MORE money in play which puts more money in government coffers. Even JFK understood that.
second – yes – Obama spent more money in the first month in office than Bush did in 8 years. It’s not an opinion. And we haven’t gotten to Obama’s missing 2 trillion dollars and the almost 4 trillion he wants in a budget.
All this and the media STILL refuses to ask a serious question or do any sort of serious investigation into this guy or the consequences of his plan or even the Constitutionality of it.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
I know we’ve argued about the merits of tax cuts before and has the JFK tax cuts were actually completely different than the Bush ones because our tax system was much more penal on the margins in the 60s than they are today. (Reagan used the same excuse for tax cuts and deficit spending.)
You are actually stating an opinion about those 8 years. Bush’s budgets over his 8 years toppled almost $10 trillion – and that was just what he reported in budget bills, not including supplementals, war budgets, etc.
Constitutionality of it really isn’t in question anymore. The powers granted to the Fed and the Congress pretty much ensure that everything he is doing is completely legal.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jul 23, 2009 3:15 PM EDT up reply actions
TAKING powers is not the same thing as being granted a power by the Constitution. Several states are passing bills against the Obama health slavery plan because it is the right of the state to countermand a presidential decision. What Obama is doing is not legal – but nobody in congress or the media is calling him on it.
Reagan’s tax cuts worked – the problem was Congress. They were supposed to cut spending, but instead, they raised it when they got sight of the extra money coming into their hands.
Ok – you tell me – how do you “pay” for all this crap when 1% of the population pays 70% of the taxes and 10% of the population pays almost 90% of the freight.? It can’t be done.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Like I said, what Obama is doing is completely legal. Would love to see the precedent you’re using to say it’s not.
Reagan actually cut deals with Tip O’Neal for those tax cuts and spending packages. Did so also on the Social Security Act. Both were culpable for deficit spending. The macroeconomics behind what made Reagan successful were the combination of deficit spending, tax cuts, and massive foreign direct investment in the USA.
Paying for this is multi-tiered. (And I’m not saying I am 100% behind Obama on this.) Tax hike on the rich. Taking waste out from the system. Republican ideas that would help are a cap on malpractice lawsuit awards and lawsuits. Better medical information systems. Elimination of HMOs.
Email me any comments or questions at ryan@thegolfnewsnet.com.
by Ryan Ballengee on Jul 23, 2009 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions
Here – this might interest you – check out the Constitution of the United States…you might be surprised. What Obama is doing is NOT legal and is NOT granted to him in the Constitution.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html
Reagan cut deals – to CUT SPENDING – that was the plan. When the money started rolling in, those agreements went right out the window.
That was a trick question – the government doesn’t PAY for anything. What it does is control by the force of a gun, which is the power that the government has over us that we do not have unless there is a violent revolution. The government has the power to take, by force, our possessions and liberty – but we are supposed to break a law for them to be able to use that power – clearly, Obama has disregarded that.
"this ball will fit in that fairway"
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Have a golf story tip? Contact editor Charles Boyer and he will follow the story! Thanks!
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
