New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

Why did they dismiss the one judge? I heard that they wanted to essentially stack the deck with a judge that would rule in their favor, but at this point if you're revolving judges, doesn't that look worse, after there's already murmurs of foul play? Pick a judge and keep them....

First one was "sick" and the 2nd apparently is a ball buster.

 

[Loyal]

Let's Clear the Decks at Page 405....So what does your gut tell you? Rams leaving or staying? Is St Louis' endgame really just getting "A" NFL team that's not necessarily the Rams?

 

[RamFan503]

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.

The HELL?

 

[OldSchool]

Why did they dismiss the one judge? I heard that they wanted to essentially stack the deck with a judge that would rule in their favor, but at this point if you're revolving judges, doesn't that look worse, after there's already murmurs of foul play? Pick a judge and keep them....

One was sick and the 2nd they didn't think they'd get a favorable decision from.

 

[RamBill]

Jay Nixon goes on the offensive on St. Louis stadium project
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...-on-the-offensive-on-st-louis-stadium-project

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- With a pending lawsuit hanging over the head of and threatening to slow down progress on a new NFL stadium on St. Louis' north riverfront, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon went on the offensive Tuesday afternoon.

Speaking to 101 ESPN radio in St. Louis, Nixon addressed a variety of topics related to the proposed stadium project and came with no shortage of urgency in his responses as he and his task force work toward trying to keep the St. Louis Rams in town.

Catching the bulk of Nixon's ire is a recent lawsuit filed by six state legislators attempting to stop him from unilaterally extending the bonds on the current Edward Jones Dome to help pay for the new stadium without a public vote at the city or state level.

Nixon took direct aim at the six politicians bringing the case when asked if he was concerned about the lawsuit.

"These are the same folks that tried during the entirety of the legislative session to get amendments passed and bills passed to stop this because they knew that the law favored continuing the way that this process has been set up," Nixon said. "That's one of the reasons why we had the task force report Jan. 9 so that the legislature would have the entirety of their session to look at this and if they wanted to change the law so that this transaction wasn't possible, they would have the opportunity to do so.

"And there was a lot of debate about it. But when the dust settled at the end of the session, they did nothing to slow down the legal authority of the RSA and us to move forward and now this incredibly small group of legislators trying to insert themselves at the last minute to get attention is not of great concern to any of us. And clearly an opportunity just for them to make a little name for themselves back home in places a long way from St. Louis."

Nixon went on to say that many of those involved in the suit are actually fans of the Kansas City Chiefs and pushed for funding for a new training camp facility the Chiefs use at Missouri Western University in St. Joseph's, Missouri. Per Nixon, that explains their lack of concern about the ability of St. Louis to keep the Rams or get a different NFL team.

"Well most of them were at Chiefs games clapping when they were thinking about filing lawsuits, let's just put it that way," Nixon said. "Everybody understands. "Let's not forget the geography of the folks [in this suit]. Everybody understands there's only 32 NFL cities in the world and everybody understands that an important hallmark. And everybody knows that St. Louis doesn't need to lose that designation as one of the 32 great sports cities in the world."

Nixon, who appointed the stadium task force led by local businessmen Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz in November, said he has been in contact with the league and Commissioner Roger Goodell consistently and repeatedly received positive feedback. Nixon was part of the group that traveled to New York to present the St. Louis stadium plan to the Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities. He believes that much of the expedited timeline for voting and discussing the relocation issue has been spurred by what's taken place in St. Louis.

"They have been really really pleased at the professional, direct way that we have presented a strong economic case here as well as concrete progress in an amazingly short emount of time," Nixon said. "Dave and Bob brought back their initial recommendations here Jan. 9 of this year and here we are now with the NFL moving up its decision process, a potential special owners meeting in August, a decision making meeting in October and a vast majority of that is because we said we are not going to sit around and see St. Louis lose this status as an NFL city."

No matter, Nixon seemed wholly unconcerned with the lawsuit and its possible effect on the stadium project.

"Absolutely it does not [slow things down]," Nixon said. "We've kept in constant communication with the NFL, I have talked personally to the Commissioner a number of times, this is not concerning to them. The fact that we are making the progress we are making and we have fundamentally moved up their deadline because of the aggressive work of our task force and our team here, that's more exciting than worrying about something like this."

 

[The Ripper]

Let's Clear the Decks at Page 405....So what does your gut tell you? Rams leaving or staying? Is St Louis' endgame really just getting "A" NFL team that's not necessarily the Rams?

That's a hard one because there has to be a reason why St Louis is still in this with the anemic proposal. There's about 40% in public money which can be debated whether it is less than 30% so that in itself should be a deal killer since SD is over 50% and that's DOA. I am thinking that the revenue split on the stadium is extremely favorable to the Rams and that's one of the reasons why the revenue splits haven't been released. The lease is just as important as the financing in order for the proposal to be approved by the finance committee.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Let's Clear the Decks at Page 405....So what does your gut tell you? Rams leaving or staying? Is St Louis' endgame really just getting "A" NFL team that's not necessarily the Rams?

My gut tells me that the NFL feels St Louis is doing enough to deserve an NFL team.

However I feel that Kroenke has the better LA project on a few different levels, with money to make it work and stay working. I also feel he'll have a good enough argument why St Louis isn't necessarily a viable option for him.

How the owners vote, I usually sway between 55-65% the Rams leave. Carson, while not as good, is still a viable alternative, and St Louis is offering up something good. However I don't see why Kroenke would be in a rush out of the lease. If the Riverfront stadium happens, I don't think its with the Rams, and I think there's a less than 5% chance anything happens this year in terms of building the stadium, even if Kroenke is denied.

If I'm forced to make a guess, after some sabre rattling from Spanos and Kroenke, eventually they make a deal to play in Inglewood. I'm pretty 50/50 on it, but the strength of Inglewood, and word of how Kroenke is a good negotiator who typically gets what he sets out to achieve makes it hard to bet against him.

 

[WillasDad]

Let's Clear the Decks at Page 405....So what does your gut tell you? Rams leaving or staying? Is St Louis' endgame really just getting "A" NFL team that's not necessarily the Rams?

Rams leave for LA to play in the new Inglewood stadium alone. St. Louis see the Rams as a lost cause and look to steal...err....convince a team from another city to play in St. Louis....watch out for Jacksonville.

The Carson stadium plan slowly goes away as environmental issues plague the project. Realizing the LA leverage plan fails as a deal in Oakland for a new stadium is pie in the sky, Raiders pull out of Carson. Without its moving partner, Chargers is left to deal with SK as they lack the ability to pay down the loan needed to pay for the Carson stadium on their own.

Spanos realizes he'd have to negotiate a move into the Inglewood stadium with SK having the upper hand and like a little *****, he asks his NFL owner buddies to send enforcers to talk some "sense" into SK. The NFL warns SK that he'll have to "cooperate" with the Chargers for the Rams to have any chance to make the move to LA. SK is amused at the NFL's feeble attempts to force co-ownership of the stadium with the Chargers and tells them to pound sand. NFL realizes they've got nothing to win playing this game of chicken with SK and back out.

Playing second fiddle to the Rams in the Rams stadium, paying SK rent, seeing SK's smug face at all the owners meeting knowing SK got the best of him, is too much to bear and Spanos realizes that LA is not meant to be. He negotiates a better deal with SD, stays, and all is well in the NFL until the following year when the Raiders announce their move to San Antonio. The end.

 

[blue4]

I think there's a 30 to 40 percent chance there is football in St Louis in 2016.

 

[Moostache]

Let's Clear the Decks at Page 405....So what does your gut tell you? Rams leaving or staying? Is St Louis' endgame really just getting "A" NFL team that's not necessarily the Rams?

I will continue to believe this until an official announcement contradicts it:

MOST LIKELY - Rams stay in St. Louis, Kroenke sells to local ownership group or just decides to bide his time to sell when other opportunities open up in Denver; Raiders and Chargers do end up in Carson as a joint venture.

LEAST LIKELY - Rams and Chargers partner in Ingelwood, Raiders end up in Santa Clara.

MOST INTRIGUING POSSIBILITY - Chargers stay in SD, Rams stay in StL (under different ownership), Raiders are sold to Kroenke (Davis is financial liability in league's eyes and lacks the ability to do what Kroenke can - finance a stadium project) and Inglewood happens with the return of the Los Angeles Raiders.

There are obviously dozens of possibilities and combinations still out there, but like many others I am simply burnt out on the whole thing and just want it to be finished before the season so this up and coming team has some certainty to its future. I am also 100% certain that if the Rams leave St. Louis under any circumstances - except the city and state pulling their support of the stadium (which would make it our fault) - that I will drop all interest in the team and become a very passive NFL consumer at best or completely disinterested at worst. The league will be dead to me and the Rams worse than dead....they would be the equivalent of a gay son to a homophobic fundamentalist.

 

[RamBill]

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon was on The Hollywood Casino Press Box Wednesday to discuss a variety of topics surrounding the St. Louis stadium project and the Rams’ future.

Listen to Nixon Interview



==============

If the St. Louis stadium project comes to fruition, do you think the NFL will enforce its bylaws and make the Rams stay?

"I like the position we're in and I think talking to both (NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell) and the deputy commissioner...that the league believes a stable league is a good thing and that if we meet our burden we're going to be in a good position vis a vis the NFL."

Has Goodell ever intimated he'll make sure St. Louis remains an NFL city if the stadium project is finalized?

"At each step of the process...we've been very transparent with them. Quite frankly, at the meeting we had (where Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz presented the project to the sub-group of owners appointed to look at the financing of this operation), even the Rams were a part of that. So we have been open and transparent not only with the NFL but the Rams as well."

Have you had any face-to-face conversations or direct emails with Stan Kroenke?

"No I haven't had any direct conversations or emails with Stan in 16 or 17 months. We've certainly had good conversations with the league...and the president of the Rams."

What are your thoughts on the six Missouri legislators filing a lawsuit claiming extending the stadium bonds without a vote is illegal?

"These are the same folks who stood up there during the legislative session and tried to pass bills saying we needed to change the law in order to prevent us from moving forward. They couldn't get it done during the legislative session. So they file a lawsuit a couple weeks later. They said they needed to change the law...they were unsuccessful at doing that. Then they had to go to the courts to say 'Well you change the law.'"

Where does the lawsuit stand?

"The bottom line is they filed that action in Cole County. It's not something we see as an impediment to progress."

Missouri Rep. Robert Schaaf (R-St. Joseph), the plaintiff in the lawsuit, didn't have a problem getting a facility for the Chiefs?

"We were working very hard to get the Chiefs training camp in Missouri (on the campus of Missouri Western University in St. Joseph). That happens to be in the district of one of the plaintiffs (Schaaf) of the lawsuit. They certainly didn't have some complaints about us doing that and I think it's a good deal."

How St. Louis' efforts are being perceived by the NFL:

"I don't think my single actions control the NFL. But I do think our aggressive actions here, especially when you look back (at how quickly we've done this). All of the concrete progress we're making I think has accelerated the timelines. They're talking about the potential of a meeting in August. They appointed a sub-committee which we met with of six owners. They've scheduled an owners meeting for October. All of that is a faster timeline than was originally thought and I think it's all extremely positive for St. Louis remaining an NFL city."

You think you can have the stadium financing in place by August?

"Yeah, the financing of this is...not that complicated. You've got a public commitment here of...the bonds are about $229 million, you've got some clean-up of the site...that's about $100 million. Once again these are long-term payments. Then you have the ticket tax, which is about $50 million. On the private side, you've got $600 million, which is made up of the (NFL G4 fund), the team owner about $250 million and you got the stadium licenses, which is about $150 million. The structure of that has been something that's been open for a great deal of time. We're not going to spend a bunch of money building a stadium if we don't get a committment. So this (timeline) acceleration helps us. Because we're depending a commitment and a long-term lease."

What would the area look like if there is no stadium?

"It will look like it does now. Fifty-three buildings are unoccupied. They'll see a decrepid St. Louis as opposed to a great new stadium."

Are you concerned with Stan Kroenke remaining owner of the St. Louis Rams?

"Look, we're an NFL city. We have a lot of private money. We've got the strength to do this. Our goal is to be an NFL city and not get overtly involved with personalizing this. Instead work directly with the NFL to stay in that very special group of 32 NFL cities."

Guessing you're a fan of Carson and their project?

"I think clearly the NFL is going to do something in LA. I don't go to other states and say bad things about them. I know the NFL likes this market. I know it hopes our profile around the world. IF we lose this team, we lose millions of dollars in actors-entertainers tax. That doesn't even count the local economic impact. Our job is to make sure we keep what we got."

What's the next hurdle in the project?

"Finishing up all the land acquisitions and getting the issues lined up. There is some stuff down on the riverfront...we're going to have to clean up some sites. So that we can meet the aggressive contrcution guidelines with the commitments I think we're going to get."

How did your meeting go with the MLS commissioner last week?

"It was one of the more interesting meeting I've ever been a part of. They clearly see St. Louis as a next tier option for them. The commissioner (Don Garber) thought the meeting was terrific. They were engaged, energetic and extremely positive about the St. Louis market."

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...-Stadium-Project-Lawsuit-and-Rams-Future.aspx

 

[Rmfnlt]

I'm totally correct in what I'm saying.
Not securing a mortgage instrument to the intended property is skirting rules for one intention or another.
Not true at all. The security instrument is tied to his primary residence in the example I gave. There are no laws (implied or otherwise) that say the proceeds of a cash out loan on your property cannot be used to purchase a vacation home... or a rental property. To say there are is making a false statement. I know, I've been doing this for decades.

Like you said, it makes the purchase of said home a cash buy or a free and clear property which on paper is true but in reality is not.
The reality is that the home was bought with cash from the equity of the primary residence, which is perfectly legal and done every single day.

For one, the owner on the free and clear property doesnt require title or property insurance where if there was a mortage attached they would.
The "owner" is the same person who owns the primary residence. The transaction associated with the purchase of the second home gets done the same way any real estate transaction is done. Title insurance (to protect the seller against potential missed liens) is sill required. As far as property insurance - since the property will be free and clear, and there is no lender in the transaction, no insurance is required.
It's up to the new owner (in this case, the same person who owns the primary residence and took the equity out to purchase this property) to get insurance. This is the same as a person who, after 30 years, pays off their mortgage and it's now up to them to keep insurance on the property (for obvious reasons).

Also, if the purchased property was to be an investment property the owner would be screwed if they were carrying the debt on their primary, and the tennant (or multiple tennant) werent paying and they couldnt keep up on the bills. The owner wouldnt be afforded the opportunity to negotate with their lender on that property.
No offense intended, but this sentence doesn't make any sense. How is the owner screwed? They are carrying the debt on their primary residence.
As far as debt service, follow me here:
The owner of the primary residence makes $10,000 per month
The required debt-to-income ratio (lender decides) is 40%
As long as the total monthly debt (all debts, including the first mortgage on the primary residence, any installment debt, credit cards AND the payment associated with the home equity loan) does not exceed 40% of the income ($4,000 monthly), the person gets the loan. It's how lenders ensure the borrower can afford not only the debts before the home equity loan but ALSO the debt associated with the home equity loan.
As far as the borrower not being able to keep up with bills because the tenants aren't paying, no lender ever underwrites a loan based on ANTICIPATED income.
When the home equity loan is taken out, the rental property hasn't closed (can't, because the home equity loans proceeds are needed to purchase that property).
So, those rents would be anticipated income and wouldn't be used to qualitfy. The ability to pay is based SOLELY on the income at the time of the home equity loan closing.
So, since none of the anticipated income from rents was ever counted on to qualify, even if the tenants didn't pay, the owner ought to be able to pay his debt service.
Everything has been accounted for.
The only reason the borrower might default is due to some life changing event (loss of job, divorce, etc.). Not because the renters failed to pay.

Again, its off the beaten path but in reality the reason for pulling from a primary in order to buy a 2nd is to skirt the system. Which is shady
I don't understand why you continue to say it's shady. The reality is that it is not, never has been and is done every day.
Like I said, I've been doing this for over 34 years... I've underwritten hundreds of home equity loans. I've been asked to testify in court as an expert on these things.
Again, not to offend you, but you have this all wrong.

As for the home equity piece, if somone applies and they allege their intent is to make sturctural improvements to the home, they likely will be turned down, so yes there are instances where intent is relevant.
Again, this isn't making sense to me. If a borrwer proves that he/she has the means (we used to call it the three "C"s - credit, collateral, capacity) to take out a $400,000 loan, the lender doesn't care what they do with those funds.
If there was some structural damage to the primary residence, a lender MIGHT approve the loan "subject to" repairs being done.
In those cases, estimates are obtained, a contractor selected and funds are put in escrow for the repairs. Then, after the repairs are verified as having been done correctly, the funds are pulled from escrow and the contractor is paid. Everything is controlled.

You make it sound like lenders are reckless and shady.

Personally, I take offense to that as it is insulting to the industry and myself.

I'll chalk it up to you not being familiar with how these things work.

No worries...

 

[Rmfnlt]

You basically have answered your own question. If said person is so qualified, why not take out a loan to purchase the investment property?

Well, no, I didn't answer my own question. We seem to be having a communication problem.

For one thing, it's easier to go Home Equity proceeds.

Doing a "purchase money mortgage" has a lot more hoops to jump through. Cash deals are a lot easier. Since buying the second property would be a cash deal, that's one reason.

However, rates and terms on a home equity loan are not as attactive as purchase money. That being said, rates, terms and qualifications are more restrictive for a non-owner occupied property because the borrower isn't going to live there. It's riskier for the lender.

That's why many people go the home equity cash out route when buying a second property. Of course, you have to have enough equity to do that... not a lot of those customers left now-a-days.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Are you referring to taxes or interest?

Both.

Check out a schedule E.

It's basically an income statement.

Income at the top, expenses, then bottom line profit or loss.

On a rental property, that's pretty obvious.

But even a vacation home you rent out part of the year. Whatever income you derive minus expenses, which includes taxes, insurance, utilities, all of it.

Bottom line is usually a loss... that carries forward to offset your total income... reducing your overall tax liability!

 

[OldSchool]

Let's Clear the Decks at Page 405....So what does your gut tell you? Rams leaving or staying? Is St Louis' endgame really just getting "A" NFL team that's not necessarily the Rams?

Most likely is the Rams are playing in the Colisseum next year waiting for the new Inglewood stadium to be built.

Chargers get a deal done in San Diego and stay put as Spanos fully steps down and turns control over to his son to work on the teams standing with the community.

Raiders remain in Oakland and are purchased by tech billionaire Mark Zuckerberg.

This allows to continue using LA as leverage with cities because Stan is willing to let another team rent from him as the new stadium will be built for dual tenants but not have them from the start.

 

[Goose]

 

[dbrooks25]

Let's Clear the Decks at Page 405....So what does your gut tell you? Rams leaving or staying? Is St Louis' endgame really just getting "A" NFL team that's not necessarily the Rams?

Thinking with my head and not my heart, as long as Carson remains viable and the Stl Task Force nails down the financing and land acquisition I have no doubt that the Rams will stay in St. Louis and the Chargers and Raiders will be in L.A. If Carson fails for whatever reason, then things will get a little murky. If St. Louis doesn't get their funding in place, then the Rams will be going to L.A., no doubt. In the end, I think Rams in Stl while the Chargers and Raiders move to L.A.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Let's Clear the Decks at Page 405....So what does your gut tell you? Rams leaving or staying? Is St Louis' endgame really just getting "A" NFL team that's not necessarily the Rams?

Right now?

I'm leaning toward the STL stadium being built. That's all I feel somewhat confident about right now... and that could change this afternoon.

I am not confident about Carson at all. Reports of the mess that it's supposedly being built on make it sound to me like it's a long shot at best. And now, Carson can't produce any documents surrounding the negotiations? Something's rotten in Denmark (no offense to any Danes here ).

Inglewood? I dunno know right now... not much news coming out of there lately... at least nothing significant to me.

STL seems to have momentum, they have the Governor on their side, the team is professional and equipped to get to the goal line... they have the NFL's ear...I have confidence in them getting the job done.

Will the Rams stay or go? That is uncertain in my mind right now.

 

[The Ripper]

Right now?

I'm leaning toward the STL stadium being built. That's all I feel somewhat confident about right now... and that could change this afternoon.

I am not confident about Carson at all. Reports of the mess that it's supposedly being built on make it sound to me like it's a long shot at best. And now, Carson can't produce any documents surrounding the negotiations? Something's rotten in Denmark (no offense to any Danes here ).

Inglewood? I dunno know right now... not much news coming out of there lately... at least nothing significant to me.

STL seems to have momentum, they have the Governor on their side, the team is professional and equipped to get to the goal line... they have the NFL's ear...I have confidence in them getting the job done.

Will the Rams stay or go? That is uncertain in my mind right now.

I can see the STL stadium being built but besides the financing there are 2 big questions, what are the revenue splits and the market surveys. The home markets have had the surveys for a couple of weeks and nothing real has come out. The NFL said that they can be shared but besides a couple of articles downplaying the results there's been nothing.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I can see the STL stadium being built but besides the financing there are 2 big questions, what are the revenue splits and the market surveys. The home markets have had the surveys for a couple of weeks and nothing real has come out. The NFL said that they can be shared but besides a couple of articles downplaying the results there's been nothing.

I don't know why... but the survey doesn't have me concerned. Just a gut (that is, what is being asked about, right? )