SoFlaFish

Best Minor League cap is the "old school" Pawtucket Red Sox cap.

EXCUSE ME! BUT IS ANYONE ACTUALLY QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THIS SOURCE!?!?!?!? HELLO!!!!!!!! Quoted in an "article" by "Emily" (no last name) from a publication called "onlinecasinonews.com". I'm sorry, but this is not a reason to celebrate anything. If I posted something using just my first name on SoFlaFishnews.com would you all be running and cutting and pasting stuff from it (well, maybe CapeFish would). C'mon, you've all been taken HOOK, LINE, and SINKER!

I promised when I had the pictures available I'd post them for you to enjoy. Here's Little SoFlaFish throwing out the First Pitch at the Yankees-Hammerheads game of 5/13/05:

I don't like it, why is it most teams have names of states, we will be one of the lonesome teams with a city, very odd, but it's alright aslong as they stay here, so I approve. 778112[/snapback] "Most Teams" have state names? I'm confused. Out of 32 NFL teams only four have "regionalized" names (Arizona Cardinals, Tennessee Titans, Carolina Panthers, Minnesota Vikings). Out of 30 NBA teams only four have regional names (Golden State Warriors, New Jersey Nets, Minnesota Timberwolves, Indiana Pacers). Out of 30 NHL teams only five have regional names (Florida Panthers, New Jersey Devils, Colorado Avalanche, Minnesota Wild, Carolina Hurricanes). And finally, MLB only has four regional team names (Florida Marlins, Texas Rangers, Minnesota Twins, Colorado Rockies). I just don't understand your reasoning that "we will be one of the lonesome teams with a city". Perhaps my sarcasm meter is turned off. But if you were serious, what I wrote above disproves your point. As for my opinion, the team should have been the Miami Marlins from the beginning. That was the historical name for baseball teams in this area for over fifty years. The "Florida" name, in my opinion, was just Huizenga's plot to not have anything named "Miami" in any of his teams because he really doesn't like Miami (being that he's a "Broward Guy").

The Hammerheads beat the Yankees"]17[/b] Wow... 17 innings. I feel bad for those who stayed for the fireworks. I wonder if this was the game SoFlaFish's daughter was going to pitch in. 772575[/snapback] Yes it was, my daughter was the little one in the giant lime green t-shirt they made her wear. We left in the 13th inning after we found out that a Jupiter City Ordinance prohibits any fireworks show after 10:30 p.m. (it was 10:15 when we finally decided to leave). Good game, though!

comdem more land and build more parking space 768698[/snapback] That doesn't save more money. Do you actually think that condemnation is free? Condemnation means that the City will be buying land, and usually after lengthy negotiations and litigation. So whatever parking space you build and generate funds with, will only go to pay the "more land" you just condemned.

For one, local governments are authorized to raise sales taxes more than one percent.? I live in Tallahassee, and we have a local tax of 1.5% plus the state tax of 6% so I would assume that's not an issue. Also, since it's not accross the board it doesn't matter anyway.? They could call it a "tax," but if it is in actuality not legal then they could simply act as if it were just a hike in ticket prices.? I think this sounds like a good idea, but the problem arises when economics runs its course.? Higher ticket prices means less people attending games. 767573[/snapback] NOPE, for starters, only counties are authorized to implement sales surtaxes and only for those purposes specifically listed in Section 212.055, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, Dade County is already dipping into two of those listed purposes which does not allow the rate to exceed the combined 1% over the State Sales Tax rate of 6%. The only additional tax rate permitted is on the sale of food and beverages in specified areas under Section 212.0306, Florida Statutes, but that tax money is what Miami-Dade County earmarked already for the stadium (that's where the County's contribution comes from under Section 212.0306(3)(a), Fla.Stat.). Both statutory provisions are linked for your pleasure (a little "bathroom reading" anyone?).

Before you start spending the guy's money, you have to stop looking at this in a vacuum. Not only is Loria's $192 million already the biggest piece of the pie, he is also on the hook for any cost overruns, which potentially could run another $10-20 million depending on when they actually start construction and a million other unforeseen problems that might/will arise in a project of this magnitude. Personally, I think the way to deal with this is a surtax at both Marlins Stadium and the OB in the range of 1.5%. Based on ticket sales of approximately 30,000 a game and an average $25 per seat, it would raise in the neighborhood $1 million a year at Marlins stadium and about half that at the OB. If such a tax were to be applied to food and other concessions, the $$$ money needed could be generated exclusively at the stadium complex and from my perspective be the fairest way of handling the shortfall. It would also undermine all the "don't tax me to make some millionaire richer" naysayers because the enduser (the fans) is paying the tax and no one else. For example, a $25.00 ticket, now taxed at 7% actually costs $26.75, that number would increase to $27.13, or a 38 cent increase, which is insignificant. If the Marlins are smart and they are, they should also bounce TicketMaster and bring those services in-house, which would also be an additional source of revenue because of TM's service charges. Basically what is going to happen over the next couple of months is the parties are going to look for other ways to skin the cat and I suspect a ticket surcharge will be one of them. . 767455[/snapback] Can't be done. By law (and I believe it's a constitutional mandate) the sales tax in Florida cannot exceed 6% (with the local government's authorized to add up to 1%). Adding such a "surtax" would run the sales tax for those uses to approximately 8.0% (6.5% + 1.5%).

why dont they just something down by the homestead complex. they have all that land and a spring training facility already built there. i got to play there in a couple of h.s. tournaments and the field is great and the stadium is really nice. for those of you that dont live in florida you can see the homestead complex in the movie any given sunday with al pacino and jaime fox, they used it as there training facility in the movie. you can tell its a baseball field cuz the field has a baseball scoreboard in the background. 767562[/snapback] Homestead? Homestead?? For heaven's sake, it's easier to get to Las Vegas!

Palm Beach County has shown interest in the Marlins, it's the Marlins that have declined interest in PBC. 767542[/snapback] Palm Beach County government has shown NO interest in the Marlins. Also, the cities of Boca Raton, Delray Beach, and West Palm Beach have shown no interest as well (as a matter of fact WPB has been trying to get a Spring Facility built downtown to no avail). The Don King deal was a privately backed deal in which the County had no say (especially since the King property is in the Town of Mangonia Park). And if you think the OB site was bad, the fronton site would be a nightmare for a stadium. Plus, dealing with the local government in Mangonia Park is a nightmare (I speak from personal experience). The only government that showed any interest in the Marlins was the City of Boynton Beach where Commission Muir Ferguson suggested building the stadium at Quantum Park off of Gateway Blvd. and I-95. That was years ago, Quantum has almost been built out and Ferguson has been quiet on that front.

I have to brag to you some of you guys, my "close and personal friends." I got an e-mail today from the Jupiter Hammerheads telling me that my daughter (Little SoFlaFish) has been selected to throw out the first pitch at a Hammerheads Game as part of their "Kids First Pitch" promotion. I was given a list of games to choose from. My daughter is kind of excited that she's going to get to throw a baseball on a real baseball field. As a matter of fact, she's begun practicing by aiming real MLB baseballs at her little brother's head! It looks like this may be a go for May 13 vs. the Tampa Yankees. If not that date, then sometime in June. I'll be sure to post pictures of the occasion when it happens.

Guys, Frank Cerabino is the Palm Beach Post's equivalent to Dave Barry. His columns are pure satire all the time. You read Cerabino to laugh, not to get news or information! You've got to know Cerabino's columns to know that.

BTW, the feeling is that construction will begin and that they will keep returning to get funding next year. However, this year is not over yet and the chance is there. It would cost more to move than wait 3-4 years to secure the extra funding. Remember that the funding would be nice to have in place at the start but they could seek it anytime during the next 30 years. 758637[/snapback] Source? 758705[/snapback] Logic. 758709[/snapback] Logic?!?! For starters, the use of the words "the feeling is..." implies that he has spoken to someone in the Senate (highly unlikely) or that he read somewhere that the Senate is "feeling" one way or another. If it were his "logic" then he should say "my feeling is", then we can qualify his answer knowing that it is probably less than 10% true. However, starting a multi-million dollar construction project with a shortfall in funding is a disaster. That's like saying you got a "construction loan" to build your house for $500,000.00 and deciding to go forward with a project that you know will cost $750,000.00 with the hope that the bank will give you more money in the future, even though there are no guarantees, or that maybe your great-aunt left you $300,000.00 somewhere in her closet. The real world just doesn't work that way.

BTW, the feeling is that construction will begin and that they will keep returning to get funding next year. However, this year is not over yet and the chance is there. It would cost more to move than wait 3-4 years to secure the extra funding. Remember that the funding would be nice to have in place at the start but they could seek it anytime during the next 30 years. 758637[/snapback] Source?

The information I got from an incredibly reliable source (none other than the Florida Senate Minority Leader and a partner here at my firm who I shot the breeze with for about 1/2 hour last week after his committee vote), the measure is facing a tough time in the Senate. He explains that the Sentate still has a bad taste in its mouth from the fact that Huizenga has TWO rebates for Joe Robbie Stadium and they are wary of handing out another rebate to the Fish. Furthermore, the Broward and Palm Beach delegation (in listening to their constituents) are not in favor of floating Miami-Dade County money. He told me that the opposition to this is coming from "monied interests" and "professionals" in their respective districts. He told me the only way that he would support the rebate was if the money to Huizenga for the Marlins was stopped and transferred into the current rebate package to the Marlins. He also told me that the prevailing attitude in the Senate is that this deal can get done without the state. They are $30M short and he said there is no way a deal can get scuttled over that "small" of a difference due to the rising real estate costs and the potential for redevelopment in the area. Rising real estate costs would be able to cover the $30M shortfall.

The information I got from an incredibly reliable source (none other than the Florida Senate Minority Leader and a partner here at my firm who I shot the breeze with for about 1/2 hour last week after his committee vote), the measure is facing a tough time in the Senate. He explains that the Sentate still has a bad taste in its mouth from the fact that Huizenga has TWO rebates for Joe Robbie Stadium and they are wary of handing out another rebate to the Fish. Furthermore, the Broward and Palm Beach delegation (in listening to their constituents) are not in favor of floating Miami-Dade County money. He told me that the opposition to this is coming from "monied interests" and "professionals" in their respective districts. He told me the only way that he would support the rebate was if the money to Huizenga for the Marlins was stopped and transferred into the current rebate package to the Marlins. He also told me that the prevailing attitude in the Senate is that this deal can get done without the state. They are $30M short and he said there is no way a deal can get scuttled over that "small" of a difference due to the rising real estate costs and the potential for redevelopment in the area. Rising real estate costs would be able to cover the $30M shortfall.

I hate bandwagon people. During the playoff's in 2003 for an example. For all of the games they had like 62,000 people. Were those the 8,000 fans that sat in the stadium watching a game in 1999 or 2000 when it was 100 degrees and the Marlins won like 2 games all year! NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :thumbdown 739313[/snapback] So would having 8,000 "hardcore" every night instead of 20,000 fans make you feel better about the baseball stadium? Or would you then be posting here about the fact that attendance is the worst in the league. If you want a successful baseball franchise you need the bandwagonners. That's not just for here but any other baseball franchise except the Cubs, Red Sox, Yankees, and Cardinals!

Who has the best CAREER BATTING AVERAGE for the Marlins? 733894[/snapback] If I remember it's either Luis Castillo or Cliff Floyd.. 734058[/snapback] It's Cliff Floyd with a career .294 average.

Winningest Manager: Rene Lachemann: 221 wins Best Winning Pct. (MGR): Jack McKeon: .552 Who has the best CAREER BATTING AVERAGE for the Marlins?

Who threw the first pitch in Marlin organizational history? 732797[/snapback] John Lynch for the Erie Sailors of the NY-Penn League

According to the family they are 1 vote short. That one vote is Ms. Nancy Argenziano who is considering voting for the law based on new evidence sent to her and the idea that the law returns to the way Florida treated cases like this for most of the last 100 years. In your legal opinion as an officer of the law, if the bill is passed similarly to the current one*, could it force the court to have to consider it and the executive branch to enforce it? *By this I mean in the legal proceedings and vote that the current law was passed. 718295[/snapback] For starters, your sources are dubious being that they came from an unnamed "press conference" citing three votes to pass, especially when your own sources and the other news outlets are showing Republican members of the legislature changing their votes on this issue. Further, the change in the law may create a quasi-constitutional crisis with the Legislature overstepping the Judiciary (especially when you read the clause in the bill pertaining to existing litigation). The constitutionality of the Act would immediately be put into to question and you'd probably get a stay of enforcement of the Act pending the outcome of the litigation. Then again, maybe not, but the Act, in my opinion, could be eventually overturned as unconstitutional.

Based on the text in the bill, the intent is to specifically overrule the court decisions in the Schiavo case. However, it is apparent that there are insufficient votes to get this bill passed.

http://news.findlaw.com/cnn/docs/schiavo/32205fjord.pdf[/url] shows in detail that a de novo review was not held and that the Judge said no to the injunction so that he could continue to review the case even though she may die due to the lack of a feeding tube during the time of review. Just stating the facts. The court did not conduct the hearing as ordered by Congress, the court acknowledges that and the court says they will not give a time period for a ruling and they will not insert a feeding tube to preserve Terri until the case is decided by the court. You can argue from here, but those are the facts. The judge argues that Schiavo and Greer's points are being reviewed but Terri will still stay without the feeding tube. If she dies while the case is being decided, it will be dismissed. 718227[/snapback] Your interpretation of the law is INCORRECT. For starters, the constitutionality of the Act has not been examined or adjudicated because that is not the subject matter of a hearing on a temporary injunction. In my legal opinion, the Act is unconstitutional as it is a specially made law which confers standing on only one or two persons and is not within the enumerated powers of the Congress pursuant to the Constitution. However, the District Court was not to rule on that because they are to presume constitutionality when ruling in a temporary injunction proceeding. The temporary injunction failed because a party must show a "substantial likelihood of success on the merits" in order to get a temporary injunction issued. The Schindlers failed to do so, therefore, the temporary injunction failed. In due course this Act, or any other like it, will be ruled unconstitutional as well. This is a State issue and not one for the Federal government to intervene. Where are the true conservatives to echo these bedrock principles of conservativism?!?!

I would just like to see all of the evidence, rulings, and records from this case presented formally in a hearing in Federal Court. 718187[/snapback] WHY!?!?!? And if the parents' side doesn't get a ruling they like from the Middle District of Florida and the 11th Circuit, are they going to keep forum shopping until they get a ruling they like? This is making a mockery out of our judicial system, a system that I am an officer of when I took the oath of attorney eight years ago! The courts of the State of Florida have decided this matter pursuant to Florida law. This is a state matter to be decided by state courts. There is no subject matter jurisdiction for the Federal Government to come dabbling in. If you believe that every state matter needs to be re-litigated and re-legislated at the Federal level, then FEDERALISM IS DEAD and we should just rip up the constitution because it will have NO MEANING! There is no basis for Congress to intercede in a domestic dispute between a person's parents and spouse. Legally speaking, if the parents are allowed to overrule the wishes of their adult children, think of the precedent that may set. It won't matter if you're over 18 if your parents can come at anytime and overrule your wishes. That could include entering into contracts, marriage, or even parental notification of an abortion to be performed on a 26 year old! Are we so ready to give up our RIGHT TO DIE or, for that matter, THE RIGHT TO LIVE if we can't speak for ourselves. The law in Florida allows for hearsay testimony to be accepted in cases such as Schiavo's. The federal government has NO JURISDICTION to overstep that decision of the Florida legislature and Florida courts. It's called the Tenth Amendment (The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people).

Yeah, usually it's at Roger Dean Stadium between 12:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. Admission is $7.00 for a bleacher seat, and just bring a baseball, card, or photo, or even a jersey.