New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

How can we have any kind of reasonable discussion with a moving "yeah but what if" constantly?

In defense - BC has mentioned this many times throughout this thread. The reasoning - and I can see it - is that Stan pretty much owns the venues his teams play in. It's his M.O. It may not have been discussed by anyone publically, but I wouldn't be surprised if this happens if LA falls through for Stan.

It would be one thing if we had some real information that would suggest that this is something Stan might do but with absolutely ZERO words coming out of his mouth that is a purely fabricated speculation based on nothing.

Certainly no words as SK hasn't really said diddly squat about either LA or STL. But based on nothing isn't entirely correct either. Stan has a history to go on. It's still obviously just grasping at straws for all of us though.

This would have only worked if Stan had any intention of staying in the first place.

And LA has lost three teams and are getting one again. Outside of the public/private money discussion this deal will have the same effect on future deals like previous ones have had on this deal. None. Nothing at all. If the deal is right, the owner's rich enough, no one cares what came before.

Exhibit A being the Cleveland/LA/LA live from Anaheim/St Louis/whoops back to LA Rams.

First off, the Chargers were here as a stopping point. I believe the idea was always to put them in SD. Either way, they were an AFL team - not an NFL team at the time and were in a temporary venue for one year. I think it's a little rich to consider them a team that LA lost.

Second, I don't see any of the larger markets offering a lease like what brought Georgia home to St Louis and I don't see St Louis doing it again for another team. With that being the case, does it make financial sense to put another team there? I don't know but I suspect it would put them behind some other similar sized markets.

My thought is that St Louis needs to hold onto the Rams or have something worked out before they leave town. Preferably, I am going to St Louis years down the road to watch the home town Rams play.

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.

Will the money be right?

I think that may end up being a big part of the problem still to be resolved. Is Stan's $450 million investment going to pay off for him in a similar fashion to other markets? Would the Rams even be there if not for an absolutely ridiculous lease? Does the beer and hot dog tax eat (no pun intended) into Stan's profit margin on concessions by making people eat and drink before the game rather than during it? When someone is spending that kind of money on tickets, they are no doubt less likely to buy a hot dog or beer that costs $8. He won't receive any of the PSL money. Apparently parking goes to the city/state.

It's a fair question to ask. Will the money be right? Not by our standards but when comparing it to other NFL franchises. I don't know but I sure see potential problems there.

For myself personally...I've stated before, I've got a vested interest in the Rams but more than anything I want to see what is best for my city. Keeping the NFL and building this stadium has so many more net positives than negatives it is entirely comical to me to see arguments against it.

Couldn't agree more. I realize it looks like a lot of money that could have been spent elsewhere. But in reality, it is being paid for mostly through tourism. And the region's tourism trade is making a shit load more than the tax is costing them. Let the Rams leave. Then see how much that money was worth. I get what you mean by comical but it makes me angry and I don't even live there nor have a vested interest.

The other thing is that the cost of keeping the Rams is SO much less than trying to get another team to move there. I really wish the powers that be would have started demonstrating this to the public long ago. I'm sure the product on the field (not Stan's fault BTW) didn't help but they still could have been pushing this thing politically. I realize it sounds like hundreds of millions of tax dollars being spent on a billionaire's play toy but it is in reality a very good investment in drawing outside money that is spent and re-spent and taxed and re-taxed.

 

[RamFan503]

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.



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.

Pretty funny. You just pretty much answered your own dilemma. Stan = mean rich guy..... Fan + Winning Football = Happy ticket holders.... Stan + Happy Ticket Holders = Happy Rams owner = Stan WHO?

 

[dieterbrock]

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.

I didn't say it was unlawful but it is shady.
As a lender it's not something we endorse because there's no mortgage liability.
Also allows for tax benefits that may or may not be on the up and up.
I'm not saying it isn't or can't be done.

 

[The Ripper]

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

If your talking about the original plan the 50 years was spelled out in Section 67.653.1 of the MO State Statutes. The 1991 Financing Agreement between the County, City and State talks about how the bonds were to be issued and for what. If you're talking about the duration for the proposed bond extensions, that has been addressed in a number of different articles.

 

[RamFan503]

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

Not the way 2nd mortgages have always been worded in the past. Lenders may not care if you spend the money elsewhere but they can call in the entire loan if they are concerned about the first mortgage and you went against the wording of the loan. If it is an equity loan based entirely on the equity of your first home and your personal credit history, then the credit line may be written differently.

Where it can come into being actually illegal is with taxes. You receive tax breaks associated with your primary residence that are not the same as with a second property or income property. Ain't it ironic that the government could come after you for this minor subversion of the law - yet they essentially want to do it themselves?

 

[Rmfnlt]

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

If you qualify for a equity loan of $200K (qualifying, meaning you have the equity in the collateral and have proven you can handle the payment - debt ratio - associated with the $200K loan), then it doesn't matter about liability tied to the new house. You would have paid "cash" for it from the equity from your existing house.

But, let's say you only used some of the $200K on the second house. You'd have to go get another mortgage on that second house and that lender would make you go throught the same qualification process.

In both scenarios, the lender isn't going to hurt themselves and there's absolutely nothing "shady" about the transactions.

I've underwritten hundreds of home equity loans. If the borrower qualifies, the lender is not concerned about "intent". They've underwritten the loan (hopefully) to mitigate risk.

You are just not correct in what you are saying.

 

[RamFan503]

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

Where do the tax ramifications come in?

 

[Rmfnlt]

Where do the tax ramifications come in?

Since the loan is a lien on your primary residence, the taxes (as a general rule, we always tell customers to seek professional advice on the subject) are deductible.

 

[RAGRam]

Pretty funny. You just pretty much answered your own dilemma. Stan = mean rich guy..... Fan + Winning Football = Happy ticket holders.... Stan + Happy Ticket Holders = Happy Rams owner = Stan WHO?

Yeah I suppose it may be clearer if I explained it in terms of Peterson, most Vikings fans are still going to turn up and watch the team regardless of who they put out there. Peterson isn't going to give a damn either way as long as he gets payed. But a lot of fans are still going to view him as a child beating piece of shit who they'd rather see have a career ending injury than bring them success on the field (or at least that's how I'd feel if he was a Ram). Forgiveness would be actually supporting him, buying his jersey etc.

In real terms theres no difference between forgiving and not forgiving, and if you don't care what people think of you, which I don't think Stan does then there's no difference at all.

And I'm not comparing Stan to Peterson, that would be ridiculous.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I didn't say it was unlawful but it is shady.
As a lender it's not something we endorse because there's no mortgage liability.
Also allows for tax benefits that may or may not be on the up and up.
I'm not saying it isn't or can't be done.

I don't think you understand how mortgages work.

I own a house (house "A").
It's fair market value is $1,000,000
I have a $400,000 mortgage on it.
Assuming the lender's equity limit is 80% loan-to-value, they will lend me $400,000 ($1,000,000 X 80% - $400,000)
Assuming I qualify from a debt-to-income perspective and my credit qualifies, I get $400,000.
The lender really doesn't care what I do with that money.

I go out and purchase a rental property (house "B" - a 3 family income producing property) for $300,000 and use the proceeds of my home equity loan to buy it.

How is that "shady"?

If I default, the lender accelerates my the loan on my primary house (house "A") and they foreclose.

The rental (house "B") stays the same (no lien and income producing). In fact, if I defaulted on my primary house, maybe the rental income will help me make ends meet (assuming I defaulted due to some financial hardship).

Again, nothing shady about it... in fact, smart use of primary home's equity.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Lenders may not care if you spend the money elsewhere but they can call in the entire loan if they are concerned about the first mortgage and you went against the wording of the loan.

I don't think I understand what you're saying... can you give me an example?

 

[RamFan503]

I don't think I understand what you're saying... can you give me an example?

In loans that I have taken out there are generally clauses that state that if you violate the terms of the loan, the loan becomes due (Readers Digest version). Home equity or second mortgages used to be for the improvement of the primary residence listed in the loan. They have since morphed IMO so that lenders could make more money on more borrowed money.

As far as the taxes go, using tax deductible loans on anything but your primary residence is - as it was explained to me - illegal. If you don't deduct the interest on your 2nd, you are ok though. Doesn't look like the state or city is planning to play by those rules.

 

[The Ripper]

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

Like is said depends on the terms of the loan. If it's a line a credit your correct but if it's a construction loan and you use for another property then the one you got a loan for then that's fraud.

 

[RamFan503]

Is this what they call digressing?

 

[Rmfnlt]

Like is said depends on the terms of the loan. If it's a line a credit your correct but if it's a construction loan and you use for another property then the one you got a loan for then that's fraud.

I agree. But that's not how the example was presented. The poster said if you pull money out of your house and use it to buy another house. Under home quity laws, that is perfectly permissable.
Construction loans (or Home Improvement loans)? Whole different ball game. Yes, then the proceeds are directed (and closely controlled BTW).

 

[Rmfnlt]

In loans that I have taken out there are generally clauses that state that if you violate the terms of the loan, the loan becomes due (Readers Digest version). Home equity or second mortgages used to be for the improvement of the primary residence listed in the loan. They have since morphed IMO so that lenders could make more money on more borrowed money.

As far as the taxes go, using tax deductible loans on anything but your primary residence is - as it was explained to me - illegal. If you don't deduct the interest on your 2nd, you are ok though. Doesn't look like the state or city is planning to play by those rules.

Yes, way back in the day when I first started in the busines (early 1980's) the money was restricted for home equity loans (back then, called second mortgages but that had a bad connotation to they became home equity loans).

But that changed over the years and the proceeds have been free to use as the borrower wishes for quite some time.

Well, you can decduct taxes on any property you own.

On your primary residence, it's a deduction via schedule A. Interest is also deductible for as many liens/loans as are on the property.

If you own another home, you'd deduct the taxes on schedule E, under expenses.

My issue was with saying that taking equity out of your primary residence to buy another property is somehow shady... that's false.

Maybe a better analogy could have avoided this digression.

But, since it was brought up, thought you ought to have the facts.

 

[Goose]

More Land Deals to Clear Way for New NFL Stadium in St. Louis
Kevin Killeen (@KMOXKilleen)June 3, 2015 4:30 PM

ST. LOUIS (KMOX) – Backers of a proposed new NFL stadium on the riverfront in downtown St. Louis continue to buy property in the path of the development, despite a lawsuit seeking a public vote on the project.

Chairman of the Regional Sports Authority James Shrewsbury was asked if anyone is refusing to sell, or playing hard ball.

“That’s confidential information, but we are making serious progress,” Shrewsbury said. “We are ahead of our schedule, and I feel good about acquiring property.”

The St. Louis Rams had shown no interest in staying in St. Louis, but Shrewsbury expects the NFL to make a decision later this year on whether we will remain an NFL town.

“And so, we’ll just have to hope and wait until the fall when they make a decision, but in the meantime, we’re showing them that we’re taking the steps necessary,” Shrewsbury said.

A lawsuit seeking a public vote on the stadium is still pending in Cole County Court.

Shrewsbury said the lawsuit doesn’t help St. Louis’ chances with the NFL, but he doesn’t think it’s a deal killer.

Shrewsbury declined to take a stand on whether he thinks voters should have a say in the project, but he repeated his argument that a new stadium would be good for St. Louis.

“The thing you have to remember is these teams generate a lot of tax revenue for the city of St. Louis and the state of Missouri,” Shrewsbury said. “They also are very attractive to companies considering locating here.”

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/06/03/more-land-deals-to-clear-way-for-new-nfl-stadium-in-st-louis/

 

[The Ripper]

Help Wanted: Judge, to hear stadium funding case

25 MINUTES AGO • BY DAVID HUNN

Updated at 3:58 p.m. with news on the removal of Judge Joan Moriarty and her replacement, Judge Thomas Frawley.

ST. LOUIS • The suit to sidestep a public vote on stadium funding now has its third judge in nearly as many days.

The first, David Dowd, removed himself. Around midday Wednesday, attorneys removed the second, Joan Moriarty.

By late afternoon, her replacement, family law Judge Thomas J. Frawley, had the job.

The public board that runs the Edward Jones Dome filed suit last month against the city of St. Louis. Its beef: A 2002 city ordinance that requires a public vote prior to the use of tax dollars on a new stadium. Dome authority attorneys argued in the suit that the city law is “overly broad, vague and ambiguous.”

On Friday, Dowd removed himself from the suit. He had cancelled the first hearing on the issue, scheduled for last week. One of his assistants said then that he was “under the weather.”

On Monday, the St. Louis Circuit Court’s presiding judge, Bryan Hettenbach, reassigned the case to Moriarty. Hettenbach said on Wednesday that Dowd is home under a doctor’s order, and will be for two weeks.

Dowd isn't trying to get out of hearing a contentious lawsuit, Hettenbach said; he is simply unable to handle the case in a timely way. “This is not something either party wants continued indefinitely,” Hettenbach said.

Moriarty was next in line to take the case, he continued. She and Dowd were both assigned to the “equity/pre-trial motions” docket at the start of this year.

Then, just after 11 a.m. Wednesday, the attorneys for the Edward Jones Dome authority requested that Hettenbach remove Moriarty, too.

Wednesday afternoon, Hettenbach reassigned the case again. He said he called the judges to see who was taking vacation and who had time to hear a case. He drew names from those who said they were available, and picked Frawley.

Bob Blitz, attorney for the Dome authority and a member of Gov. Jay Nixon’s new stadium task force, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

His firm is asking the court to rule that the city law requiring a public vote on stadium tax funding doesn’t apply, conflicts with Missouri statutes or is unconstitutional.

City tax dollars are key to the $985 million stadium funding plan, and could help sway coming National Football League decisions. Nixon’s two-man task force is counting on at least $250 million from the state and city, not including extra taxes, tax incentives and seat license fees.

Mayor Francis Slay’s staff said in April that, despite the mayor’s support for the stadium, city attorneys would energetically defend the public-vote ordinance.

A few weeks later, St. Louis University law professor and legal clinic supervisor John Ammann filed on behalf of three city residents who sought to intervene. His filings say city ordinance requires a fiscal note, a public hearing and a public vote. He said the three residents fear the city will provide money for the stadium without fulfilling those.

Moriarty had ruled on contentious cases before. Last year, she prohibited Lyft ride-sharing cars from operating in the city before a hearing that summer.

Two years ago, she slapped the hands of city jail administrators after they errantly charged a man with 10 fingers instead of the correct suspect, who had only eight.

 

[blue4]

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

Its only shady if you don't hold up your end. And I did my homework before I did it. The idea that one would have escaped unscathed by not paying off the old loan is simply not true. The loans were also thru the same credit union. They knew what was happening. If that's shady, then what the average corporation does every day is pure evil.

 

[blue4]

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.

This.