New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,734
You want out of a rotten neighborhood for your kids bad enough you'll use the equity in one house to buy another in a better neighborhood. Then you rent the other out to cover costs. I know, I had to do it. And I'm sure Stan has pulled far worse on his way to a billion. Normally I'd agree with those who want a lawsuit or some sort of vote. Problem is, forces outside of Missouri's control have made that type of delay impossible. If you want the team, the revitalization, the high paying construction jobs, and the revenue you do what's best for the state and the city and then let the legislature do what it wants in regards to future scenarios. That's my opinion.
And the problem with that is that the new house you bought had no liability to that loan. So in theory, you could have stopped paying on it and the new home would be safe while the previous home all the fiscal responsibility.
Not a good deal for the lender, nor the previous note. But good for the new home.

Again, not illegal, but not true to the intent of the loan and thus shady
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Can you please elaborate?


If the bonds were extended it would be well past 50 years.

The original bonds for the Dome were issued in 1991 and were broken Down into 3 series. Series A (state)- 50%, Series B (St. Louis County) – 25%,
Series C (City of St. Louis)-25%.

Series A and C are the ones that will be refinanced. Series B from the County won't be refinanced but they're still responsible for the payments on them.


It comes down to wording of the bill.

If it only authorized the construction of the Dome then they can't extend the bonds for a new stadium but it if it didn't specify then they may be able to extend them.


"Created by Missouri State Statute 67.650-
67.658 RSMo. – 1988M

Enabling Legislation authorized the Authority
to raise funds for land acquisition and
construction of the Dome through the issue
of Municipal Bonds.

The Dome was completed in 1995 on
budget and ahead of schedule at a total
cost $300 million (bond capital plus interest
revenue)."
 

ramfaninsd

UDFA
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
43
none of these folks working for getting stadium deals done are going to publicly say their plans have hit snags until they must.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Sports consultant Marc Ganis, who has chatted about NFL relocation and the Los Angeles situation several times with The Press Box, was quoted last week as saying Chargers owner Dean Spanos would win if the two LA stadium projects came down to a popularity contest. Ganis came back on The Press Box Wednesday to discuss the latest he’s hearing on the Rams’ future and the two Los Angeles stadium projects.

Listen to Ganis Interview

==========


More on last week's "popularity contest" quote:

"If it's a pure popularity contest it's Chargers owner Dean Spanos by far. He's (been very involved with the league), he's a good soldier. He's a person who is both well liked and trusted."

How is Stan Kroenke perceived amongst owners?

"Stan is perceived as a very successful, very wealthy businessman...He has not been anywhere near as active as Dean has been on various committees. The ownership committees are quite important because most of the work is done at the committee level. Stan's been on a few committees...But he's not been on nearly as many as Dean Spanos."

If there's three bad stadium situations, all three would be corrected if Carson is successful and the St. Louis stadium project is approved, right?

"Yep, that's one of the scenarios that works."

You believe the NFL will make Stan Kroenke abide by its bylaws, right?

"I believe they will make every team owner abide by the relocation rules and what a team has to demonstrate and the process they have to go through."

What stadium project do the owners like better: Inglewood or Carson?

"Had you asked me a month ago, I would say Stan Kroenke's Inglewood plan. But it's gotten a lot closer. Both plans are viewed as viable. There's going to be another (LA relocation) meeting coming up shortly and there will be much more discussion...and hear from Carson and Carmen Policy as both the Raiders and Chargers have hired him to lead their cause. It helps their cause significantly. He has great credibility and is a person who's done this before numerous times."

What about the San Diego and Oakland stadium plans?

"They still have time. Oakland is clearly...they have the highest desire to keep their team. But they also have the least amount of resources. San Diego has had opportunity after opportunity to put together a stadium plan. They've had political problems there...You'd think that's a market that would step up, but it has not. Whether they will change now or not, we'll find out. In the case of St. Louis, you've got the governor who has stepped up and taken a leadership position. Certainly St. Louis' plan is by a wide margin more concrete than the other cities."

What do you think is going to happen?

"My prediction is the options are going to narrow as we get to the decision-making time. And the right option are two are going to be self-evident by the decisions made by others. I think the right solutions are going to be self-evident as we get closer to the end of the year."

How awkward would it be for Rams owner Stan Kroenke to come back to St. Louis?

"At the time it looks awkward. (Like Adrian Peterson) coming back to the Vikings. It doesn't take long to get over that. These are challenging situations today. And they look like they've created a lot of animosity. But once things get resolved...you'd be surprised how quickly those things dissipate."

What's the timetable?

"I think the early fall will be the time we start to get answers. St. Louis needs to continue moving forward with all aspects of its stadium."

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...atest-on-Rams-Future-LA-Stadium-Projects.aspx
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,627
Name
Stu
Wow, is starting a war between KC and St. Louis really in the Governor's best interest?
That's what I was thinking. Seems like a very non-Governor type thing to be doing. And aren't at least a couple of the reps in the lawsuit from the St Louis area?
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Rams’ contracts hint at relocation

St. Louis Rams’ annual contracts with some employees and advertisers have run from May to May.

But this year, while the team is rumored to be eying the Los Angeles market, those contracts have been changed, and now coincide with theNational Football League’s deadline to submit relocation bids, according to people familiar with the matter.


SPONSOR LISTING


NFL teams have between Jan. 1 and Feb. 15 to submit relocation bids. Kroenke appears set to submit such a bid now that he has assembled land and plans to build a stadium as part of a $2 billion development in Inglewood, California.

The Rams did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Davis said he noticed the changed dates, and asked the Rams about it.

Rams officials told him the team was changing its contracts to coincide with the end of the playing season, according to Davis. The Super Bowl is held in early February.

A Rams employee who works on an annual contract said it was also changed, and now expires at the end of February 2016.

“To me, right away, it made sense,” said the employee, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals. “As a business, they have to notify the league in February if they are moving, so why would they want to pay people beyond February? They didn’t say that was why, but I put two and two together.”

In mid-May, the NFL announced plans to shorten the period for submitting relocation bids. It is currently scheduled to be six weeks. It also said the time period could be moved up from Jan. 1.

A prospective summer owners meeting would largely revolve around the proposed St. Louis stadium, which would be built for about $1 billion along St. Louis’ north Mississippi riverfront.

The new stadium would be funded using a $250 million extension of the state’s and city of St. Louis’ bonds, originally issued to build the Edward Jones Dome, and more than $150 million in tax credits and other public funding mechanisms.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/06/03/rams-contracts-hint-at-relocation.html?ana=twt
 

RAGRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
1,150
How awkward would it be for Rams owner Stan Kroenke to come back to St. Louis?

"At the time it looks awkward. (Like Adrian Peterson) coming back to the Vikings. It doesn't take long to get over that. These are challenging situations today. And they look like they've created a lot of animosity. But once things get resolved...you'd be surprised how quickly those things dissipate."

I don't see any way that St Louis forgives Kroenke, it's easy to say "yeah he'll be forgiven" but people have long memories and that knife wound in the back will take an incredibly long time to heal, especially as the knife has been twisted a few times and will be a few more.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
That's exactly my point. Situations are different and if ST Louis loses this team, it will be under complicated circumstances as well. It will have no bearing on a future team if the money's right and there is ownership here.

Agreed, it wouldn't be St Louis's fault. There will be plenty of woulda's, coulda's, and shoulda's, but ultimately if they leave it will be because the owner wanted to, and in the NFL money talks.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
How awkward would it be for Rams owner Stan Kroenke to come back to St. Louis?

"At the time it looks awkward. (Like Adrian Peterson) coming back to the Vikings. It doesn't take long to get over that. These are challenging situations today. And they look like they've created a lot of animosity. But once things get resolved...you'd be surprised how quickly those things dissipate."


I don't see any way that St Louis forgives Kroenke, it's easy to say "yeah he'll be forgiven" but people have long memories and that knife wound in the back will take an incredibly long time to heal, especially as the knife has been twisted a few times and will be a few more.

The difference is that the fans liked AP before he had all the problems.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
I don't see any way that St Louis forgives Kroenke, it's easy to say "yeah he'll be forgiven" but people have long memories and that knife wound in the back will take an incredibly long time to heal, especially as the knife has been twisted a few times and will be a few more.

Build a new stadium and put a winning product on the field no one is going to give a rats hairy behind who the owner is.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,734
Which
I don't see any way that St Louis forgives Kroenke, it's easy to say "yeah he'll be forgiven" but people have long memories and that knife wound in the back will take an incredibly long time to heal, especially as the knife has been twisted a few times and will be a few more.
which imo is crazy. If the end result is that St Louis gets the new beautiful downtown stadium, possibly a Super Bowl and a possible MLS team? All because shrewd Stanley pushed hard?
Kroenke can turn around and say he was never gonna leave that he just used LA as leverage. Then he's a hero
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
18,000
I don't see any way that St Louis forgives Kroenke, it's easy to say "yeah he'll be forgiven" but people have long memories and that knife wound in the back will take an incredibly long time to heal, especially as the knife has been twisted a few times and will be a few more.

Start wining and no one will care about the owner. People will come like sheep once that happens.
 

RAGRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
Mar 14, 2015
Messages
1,150
Which

which imo is crazy. If the end result is that St Louis gets the new beautiful downtown stadium, possibly a Super Bowl and a possible MLS team? All because shrewd Stanley pushed hard?
Kroenke can turn around and say he was never gonna leave that he just used LA as leverage. Then he's a hero

That requires the assumption that people are idiots, which to be fair a lot of people are, but I wouldn't believe a single word that comes out of Stan's mouth at this point, the only reason he'll remain in St Louis is because he can't move the team, no amount of political bull shitery is going to change that.

Build a new stadium and put a winning product on the field no one is going to give a rats hairy behind who the owner is.

Don't get me wrong people will show up to watch a winning team in a brand new stadium, but I can't see people's opinion that Stan is an ass will change whilst doing so.

That of course won't matter to Stan, as long as he gets money he won't care if the people giving it to him hate him personally.
 

Sum1

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,604
The original bonds for the Dome were issued in 1991 and were broken Down into 3 series. Series A (state)- 50%, Series B (St. Louis County) – 25%,
Series C (City of St. Louis)-25%.

Series A and C are the ones that will be refinanced. Series B from the County won't be refinanced but they're still responsible for the payments on them.




If it only authorized the construction of the Dome then they can't extend the bonds for a new stadium but it if it didn't specify then they may be able to extend them.


"Created by Missouri State Statute 67.650-
67.658 RSMo. – 1988M

Enabling Legislation authorized the Authority
to raise funds for land acquisition and
construction of the Dome through the issue
of Municipal Bonds.

The Dome was completed in 1995 on
budget and ahead of schedule at a total
cost $300 million (bond capital plus interest
revenue)."


So where is it pointed out the length of the plan?
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
22,925
Name
Dennis
Build a new stadium and put a winning product on the field no one is going to give a rats hairy behind who the owner is.

Marion Berry & George Corley Wallace....Enough Said!
 

Sum1

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,604
That's what I was thinking. Seems like a very non-Governor type thing to be doing. And aren't at least a couple of the reps in the lawsuit from the St Louis area?
I didn't see it that way at all. I saw it as Nixon putting it in perspective. The person pushing this narrative the hardest is Rob Schaaf who is from St. Joseph (KC area)...he's stating that there wasn't an issue from him when state funds were going toward his team/side of the state and that it was important for Missouri to help the Chiefs and the KC area just like whats happening in St.Louis is important for the state.

If you look at the things Rob Schaaf has been saying it's clear who is trying to create a divide...and it isn't Nixon (at least not on this issue...lord knows Nixon has some flaws on other issues!).
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
Yeah I dont see the whole adjacent thing either. The bonds were drawn for the purposes of the Dome and if they are extended it should be to make the improvements to the dome. The CVC has acknowledged it could use upgrades so the whole thing seems shady to me.

Shady, but not necassarily illegal.

I mean somebody could refinance their house, pull out equity and use that to buy another property. Not in the spirit of what the equity is to be used for, but not illegal either. Not the same thing, I get that but somewhat similar

I'm not sure they're similar at all (as I don't know much about bond extensions). But I do know about mortgages (I've been in the mortgage business for over 34 years).

Provided a borrower qualifies for a certain Home Equity Line of Credit (amount), a lender is prohibited from limiting what that borrower can do with the money.

In fact, using the proceeds to purchase a vacation home/income producing property is a fairly common reason.
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
Not illegal but depending on how the loan was originally set up the lender could accelerate the loan and demand repayment.

Shady is definitely the word for this
Not true at all.

The only reason a lender acclerates ("demands") a loan is for default.

Yes, fraud is also a reason... but using proceeds from a loan to purchase another property is not fraud.
Remember, the equity portion of the equation is accounted for, as is the debt service
 

rams2050

Starter
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
588
I was always in Kroenke's corner, at least before his latest crap. And, should he stay, I would be in his corner again.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.