Apparently the only possibilities the owners are voting on, at least for now, are Chargers/Raiders in Carson or Rams/Chargers in Inglewood.

Quote:Vincent Bonsignore
‏@DailyNewsVinny

#Rams alone to Inglewood has been pulled from the ballot

1:15 PM - 12 Jan 2016

Quote:Vincent Bonsignore
‏@DailyNewsVinny

So it's down to #Chargers/#Rams Inglewood vs. #Chargers/Raiders Carson bids

1:19 PM - 12 Jan 2016

Yep:

Fred Roggin ‏@FredNBCLA 1m1 minute ago
#Rams #Raiders #Chargers only 2 proposals on ballot. Rams-Chargers Inglewood. Raiders-Chargers Carson. Chargers move to LA either way.

I think that cements it for Inglewood, if the reporting on anti-Raiders sentiment is true.

Probably a tactical move by Kroenke to take Rams-alone off the ballot. And possibly good for him that the Raiders are still on the Carson proposal. There was scuttlebutt yesterday that Spanos would be willing to ditch the Raiders if that's what it takes to get Carson approved.

(01-12-2016 04:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Probably a tactical move by Kroenke to take Rams-alone off the ballot. And possibly good for him that the Raiders are still on the Carson proposal. There was scuttlebutt yesterday that Spanos would be willing to ditch the Raiders if that's what it takes to get Carson approved.

Is Carson financially viable w/o Raiders? Seems doubtful.

(01-12-2016 04:33 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:30 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Probably a tactical move by Kroenke to take Rams-alone off the ballot. And possibly good for him that the Raiders are still on the Carson proposal. There was scuttlebutt yesterday that Spanos would be willing to ditch the Raiders if that's what it takes to get Carson approved.

Is Carson financially viable w/o Raiders? Seems doubtful.

Agreed. If Carson was financially viable with Chargers alone, Spanos wouldn't have brought Raiders into the deal in the first place. So that sounds like just talk from Spanos, or maybe a bluff.

(01-12-2016 04:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am a banker, and I can offer some insight. First, increasing the term is a MAJOR change in the finance agreement, not minor. Especially anything that exceeds 30 years. Increasing the amount borrower may or may not change the risk factor, depending on how much equity is being put in by the borrower, and if that percentage stays the same i.e. if you go from borrowing $1.5BB and investing $500MM of your own money, to borrowing $2BB and investing $660MM, presuming the expanded debt load is still within the same acceptable range. If you increase the amount you are borrowing, but are not increasing your own contribution nor is the end value of the investment going to change, that is also a significant risk factor increase. It does not matter if the max potential rate of return is unchanged, the odds of achieving the max rate of return are changed, thus you must compensate by having a higher rate. And the longer it takes to repay the terms, while the lender could make more money, the carry significantly more risk of default.

The short the term of the loan, the less risk of default, both because the principal balance is paid down faster, and you have less factors that can influence the outcome. The more equity the borrower is contributing themselves, the less risk for a number of reasons. And roughly for every 5% the debt to income ratio increases, the riskier the loan.

At the end of the day, it all hinges on what the "risk" is determined to be. And it's the entity that stands to gain the most, depending on what the risk is, that determines the risk.

That's the fatal flaw, IMO. Because the bank can just lie, and say that it's a high risk when it's not really a high risk.


I think, there should be laws that risk assessment can not be done by the lender itself and must come from an impartial party.

You are really making things up. You are aware it is the bank's money. Yes in theory they could lie (banks are heavily regulated, that could easily be figured out, they would be sued for discrimination, lose, and be fined, but we will gloss over that), but the Raiders always have the option of... wait for it, going to another bank or lender.

The point is you, speaking on something you have absolutely no knowledge of (this is unfortunately a repeating pattern), claimed there is no additional risk and no reason to raise the interest rate if they change the loan amount or repayment term. That is so full of ****, I really don't even know where to start. But it shows a pure and willful ignorance of basic banking, lending, and investment strategies, regulations, and risk evaluation.

(01-12-2016 04:14 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:12 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:36 PM)bostonspider Wrote:  NFL PANEL BACKS SAN DIEGO-OAKLAND STADIUM
The joint bid between the Raiders and Chargers for a $1.7 billion stadium in Carson, California, has been recommended by the NFL's six-owner committee on Los Angeles Opportunities, according to ESPN and media reports. Conversely, Rams owner Stan Kroenke proposed to build a stadium in Inglewood, California.

I am not seeing this reported anywhere. Did this actually happen?

Was it a meeting that happened this morning, before the big vote, or something?

Not sure when, but in the last hour or so several have reported that the committee voted 5-1 in favor of Carson (Craft was holdout).

It is out there. But as I see it, it appears that it was not a recommendation (as in this over the other one), but more of a "yes this option will work" sort of thing. Now the next one is up.

I assume this means a negotiated deal is forthcoming, but who knows.

Quote:Sam Farmer
‏@LATimesfarmer

First round of votes completed. Rams/TBD in Inglewood gets more votes than Raiders/Chargers in Carson. Nobody at required 24 yet.

2:22 PM - 12 Jan 2016

(01-12-2016 05:31 PM)Wedge Wrote:  I assume this means a negotiated deal is forthcoming, but who knows.

Quote:Sam Farmer
‏@LATimesfarmer

First round of votes completed. Rams/TBD in Inglewood gets more votes than Raiders/Chargers in Carson. Nobody at required 24 yet.

2:22 PM - 12 Jan 2016

Is it weird that his tweet says Rams/TBD? It's gotta be Chargers, right? Why not say so...?

(01-12-2016 05:24 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am a banker, and I can offer some insight. First, increasing the term is a MAJOR change in the finance agreement, not minor. Especially anything that exceeds 30 years. Increasing the amount borrower may or may not change the risk factor, depending on how much equity is being put in by the borrower, and if that percentage stays the same i.e. if you go from borrowing $1.5BB and investing $500MM of your own money, to borrowing $2BB and investing $660MM, presuming the expanded debt load is still within the same acceptable range. If you increase the amount you are borrowing, but are not increasing your own contribution nor is the end value of the investment going to change, that is also a significant risk factor increase. It does not matter if the max potential rate of return is unchanged, the odds of achieving the max rate of return are changed, thus you must compensate by having a higher rate. And the longer it takes to repay the terms, while the lender could make more money, the carry significantly more risk of default.

The short the term of the loan, the less risk of default, both because the principal balance is paid down faster, and you have less factors that can influence the outcome. The more equity the borrower is contributing themselves, the less risk for a number of reasons. And roughly for every 5% the debt to income ratio increases, the riskier the loan.

At the end of the day, it all hinges on what the "risk" is determined to be. And it's the entity that stands to gain the most, depending on what the risk is, that determines the risk.

That's the fatal flaw, IMO. Because the bank can just lie, and say that it's a high risk when it's not really a high risk.


I think, there should be laws that risk assessment can not be done by the lender itself and must come from an impartial party.

You are really making things up. You are aware it is the bank's money. Yes in theory they could lie (banks are heavily regulated, that could easily be figured out, they would be sued for discrimination, lose, and be fined, but we will gloss over that), but the Raiders always have the option of... wait for it, going to another bank or lender.

The point is you, speaking on something you have absolutely no knowledge of (this is unfortunately a repeating pattern), claimed there is no additional risk and no reason to raise the interest rate if they change the loan amount or repayment term. That is so full of ****, I really don't even know where to start. But it shows a pure and willful ignorance of basic banking, lending, and investment strategies, regulations, and risk evaluation.

This is repeating a theme that I started quite a while back in this thread, but you have no credibility: You are a thieving banker.

Well, I only do mortgages.... Wait, I guess that makes me worse...

.....

{sees self out]

(01-12-2016 04:16 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:16 PM)Brookes Owl Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:06 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  That said ... my simpleton mind just does not understand how there's no additional risk from increasing the principle by 33% but keeping the term the same, while there is significant increased risk by increasing the principle by 33% and increasing the term by a couple years.

That's not what I'm saying. If, as you posed in your example mortgage calc, the bank agrees to fund more money at the same rate and same term, they would only do that if they perceive you as a low risk, i.e. your income is more than enough to support the larger payments. I'm saying that I believe the bank would perceive the Carson deal, with a 33% increased principle, to be a significant risk. I don't have inside info, I just think that GS's proposal to raise $800MM is a huge sum. I don't believe GS would be assuming a number that high if they thought revenue would be higher.

I am a banker, and I can offer some insight. First, increasing the term is a MAJOR change in the finance agreement, not minor. Especially anything that exceeds 30 years. Increasing the amount borrower may or may not change the risk factor, depending on how much equity is being put in by the borrower, and if that percentage stays the same i.e. if you go from borrowing $1.5BB and investing $500MM of your own money, to borrowing $2BB and investing $660MM, presuming the expanded debt load is still within the same acceptable range. If you increase the amount you are borrowing, but are not increasing your own contribution nor is the end value of the investment going to change, that is also a significant risk factor increase. It does not matter if the max potential rate of return is unchanged, the odds of achieving the max rate of return are changed, thus you must compensate by having a higher rate. And the longer it takes to repay the terms, while the lender could make more money, the carry significantly more risk of default.

The short the term of the loan, the less risk of default, both because the principal balance is paid down faster, and you have less factors that can influence the outcome. The more equity the borrower is contributing themselves, the less risk for a number of reasons. And roughly for every 5% the debt to income ratio increases, the riskier the loan.

At the end of the day, it all hinges on what the "risk" is determined to be. And it's the entity that stands to gain the most, depending on what the risk is, that determines the risk.

That's the fatal flaw, IMO. Because the bank can just lie, and say that it's a high risk when it's not really a high risk.


I think, there should be laws that risk assessment can not be done by the lender itself and must come from an impartial party.

Not sure whether to or

Because I hit it right on the head. Banks get to make up "risk" for their own betterment.

That is wrong.

(01-12-2016 05:24 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 04:02 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 03:44 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  I am a banker, and I can offer some insight. First, increasing the term is a MAJOR change in the finance agreement, not minor. Especially anything that exceeds 30 years. Increasing the amount borrower may or may not change the risk factor, depending on how much equity is being put in by the borrower, and if that percentage stays the same i.e. if you go from borrowing $1.5BB and investing $500MM of your own money, to borrowing $2BB and investing $660MM, presuming the expanded debt load is still within the same acceptable range. If you increase the amount you are borrowing, but are not increasing your own contribution nor is the end value of the investment going to change, that is also a significant risk factor increase. It does not matter if the max potential rate of return is unchanged, the odds of achieving the max rate of return are changed, thus you must compensate by having a higher rate. And the longer it takes to repay the terms, while the lender could make more money, the carry significantly more risk of default.

The short the term of the loan, the less risk of default, both because the principal balance is paid down faster, and you have less factors that can influence the outcome. The more equity the borrower is contributing themselves, the less risk for a number of reasons. And roughly for every 5% the debt to income ratio increases, the riskier the loan.

At the end of the day, it all hinges on what the "risk" is determined to be. And it's the entity that stands to gain the most, depending on what the risk is, that determines the risk.

That's the fatal flaw, IMO. Because the bank can just lie, and say that it's a high risk when it's not really a high risk.


I think, there should be laws that risk assessment can not be done by the lender itself and must come from an impartial party.

You are really making things up. You are aware it is the bank's money. Yes in theory they could lie (banks are heavily regulated, that could easily be figured out, they would be sued for discrimination, lose, and be fined, but we will gloss over that), but the Raiders always have the option of... wait for it, going to another bank or lender.

The point is you, speaking on something you have absolutely no knowledge of (this is unfortunately a repeating pattern), claimed there is no additional risk and no reason to raise the interest rate if they change the loan amount or repayment term. That is so full of ****, I really don't even know where to start. But it shows a pure and willful ignorance of basic banking, lending, and investment strategies, regulations, and risk evaluation.

Nice try. That's not what I originally said.

I originally said that there would be no decrease in ROI. And I said that because I had the example of home mortgages in my mind, which I showed is correct.

Thanks to more patient, and far less insulting, posters, I now understand that it depends on "risk".

-1 to you for the unnecessary personal insults. Go let off some

There is no decrease int he ROI... if you completely ignore risk, which, you know, is precisely how banks determine an interest. Despite yur claims, not only do banks not make up "risk," banks have detailed guidelines on precisely how they weigh risk. Absolutely nothing you said on this matter is accurate.

By the way, there was no insult levied. You need to learn the meaning of the word "ignorance." It is not an insult: it is a statement of fact, i.e. the root word "ignore." You are ignoring what people who know what they are talking about, are telling you. But you knew that....

In hindsight after yesterday vote it going to be Rams only in answering the poll at the top.

(01-12-2016 08:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  There is no decrease int he ROI... if you completely ignore risk, which, you know, is precisely how banks determine an interest. Despite yur claims, not only do banks not make up "risk," banks have detailed guidelines on precisely how they weigh risk. Absolutely nothing you said on this matter is accurate.

By the way, there was no insult levied. You need to learn the meaning of the word "ignorance." It is not an insult: it is a statement of fact, i.e. the root word "ignore." You are ignoring what people who know what they are talking about, are telling you. But you knew that....

As I had already said, I wasn't aware of "risk" being a component of the determination when I had the example of mortgages in my mind. Hence why I thought that the ROI would not decrease.

It makes sense, if you actually had the patience to understand my viewpoint at that time.


But you'd rather just personally insult fellow posters, like calling them ignorant. Poor form. -1


I don't think further dialog on this matter is warranted.

(01-13-2016 11:28 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  There is no decrease int he ROI... if you completely ignore risk, which, you know, is precisely how banks determine an interest. Despite yur claims, not only do banks not make up "risk," banks have detailed guidelines on precisely how they weigh risk. Absolutely nothing you said on this matter is accurate.

By the way, there was no insult levied. You need to learn the meaning of the word "ignorance." It is not an insult: it is a statement of fact, i.e. the root word "ignore." You are ignoring what people who know what they are talking about, are telling you. But you knew that....

As I had already said, I wasn't aware of "risk" being a component of the determination when I had the example of mortgages in my mind. Hence why I thought that the ROI would not decrease.

It makes sense, if you actually had the patience to understand my viewpoint at that time.


But you'd rather just personally insult fellow posters, like calling them ignorant. Poor form. -1


I don't think further dialog on this matter is warranted.

Actually you never admitted that, even though the dude spent pages telling you about risk, and how it affects the terms you attemped to change. He spelled it out for you clear as day, and you wrote it off as the bank doing shady stuff and making up their own rules.

And for the last time, are you just purposely overlooking the several times I mentioned WHY I used the word "ignorant?" You clearly STILL do not know what it means, despite me lsiting it. It is NOT an insult. In this case, it is a statement of fact. You are "ignoring" pertinent information. That is the definition of "ignorant."

(01-13-2016 11:37 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 11:28 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 08:11 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  There is no decrease int he ROI... if you completely ignore risk, which, you know, is precisely how banks determine an interest. Despite yur claims, not only do banks not make up "risk," banks have detailed guidelines on precisely how they weigh risk. Absolutely nothing you said on this matter is accurate.

By the way, there was no insult levied. You need to learn the meaning of the word "ignorance." It is not an insult: it is a statement of fact, i.e. the root word "ignore." You are ignoring what people who know what they are talking about, are telling you. But you knew that....

As I had already said, I wasn't aware of "risk" being a component of the determination when I had the example of mortgages in my mind. Hence why I thought that the ROI would not decrease.

It makes sense, if you actually had the patience to understand my viewpoint at that time.


But you'd rather just personally insult fellow posters, like calling them ignorant. Poor form. -1


I don't think further dialog on this matter is warranted.

Actually you never admitted that, even though the dude spent pages telling you about risk, and how it affects the terms you attemped to change. He spelled it out for you clear as day, and you wrote it off as the bank doing shady stuff and making up their own rules.

And for the last time, are you just purposely overlooking the several times I mentioned WHY I used the word "ignorant?" You clearly STILL do not know what it means, despite me lsiting it. It is NOT an insult. In this case, it is a statement of fact. You are "ignoring" pertinent information. That is the definition of "ignorant."

Of course it's an insult. And it's further insulting for you to pretend that it's not an insult and claim I'm not smart enough to understand that it's not an insult.

-1 and reported. Pleas stop trolling. This thread can be closed anyway. There are other threads in this sub-forum now that are more updated.

And if you report, they will tell you the same thing, especially since it was spelled out to you in detail the meaning. I am not pretending on anything: this was laid out for you to see