IF you took the current identified franchises out of the mix, and played "God" - or "best interests of the NFL" for a minute - this is how it appears to me:
1. Two franchises in LA, AND a franchise in San Diego, is basically unworkable. There should either be two franchises in LA, sharing a stadium but each in a different conference (NFC and AFC), as there is currently in New York/New Jersey; OR one team in LA, one team in San Diego; anything else would be unfair, either to the teams in LA, or to a remaining team in San Diego.
2. Regardless of the history of a team in Oakland, IF there are to be three franchises in California, rather than 4, the Bay Area should have only one of those franchises. The Raiders are a national franchise - as they were when they were in LA - but locally, the Niners dominate; there's marginal fan base for two franchises, but ample fan base for one. That's not an NFL issue - it's a Bay Area issue. (MLB has FIVE franchises in CA; question is whether they should have 3 or 4 NFL franchises).
3. St. Louis doesn't NEED a team; they've gotten along without one for years, and regardless which NFL franchise might be in St. Louis, it'll play second fiddle to the best organization in baseball, the Cardinals. Consequently, NFL support in St. Louis will be directly related to team success, maybe even more than in many other markets.
4. Regardless of #3 above, St. Louis is either the 19th largest or 21st largest market in the US. Metro San Diego is even a bit larger (3million vs. 2.8million), but they have Mexico 20 miles to the south; the behemoth of Orange County and LA 120 miles to the North; and the Pacific to the west. Those are all huge assets, but at the same time, somewhat restrict a potential San Diego market. St. Louis is not similarly restricted; closest competing NFL markets are KC to the west (an AFC team); Chicago to the north; and Indianapolis to the east. None of those markets impinge or share in the St. Louis market; and two (KC and Chicago) are long-time natural rivals; unlike in San Diego, a team in St. Louis would ADD to the value of those teams (particularly KC), rather than detract from that value.
5. The war-of-words between two LA suburbs - Inglewood and Carson - in my mind is rather unseemly to the NFL; clearly secondary to the larger "best interests of the NFL". A stadium is a necessity, as is attendance; but the NFL has already "sold its soul" to television; to the point of adding Thursday games; nurturing Fantasy Leagues; starting its own network and ancillary networks (e.g., NFL Red Zone); etc. NFL franchises are affiliated with cities because they HAVE to be located somewhere, and because of current sport tradition; but to the NFL, location is less important than the league brand, and than the brand of a franchise. It can vary by location (e.g - affiliated with a State, the Minnesota Vikings; or even a region, the New England Patriots; needn't be in the city (new Niners stadium is 45+ miles from San Francisco; or even in the same State (the Giants and Jets); but location is less important than development of national brands.
6. The NFL is dominant at present; but that dominance is very dependent on continued good will of the American public; and that good will has taken some hits of late. That includes everything from domestic violence, to issues related to concussion and injury, and to issues of what constitutes cheating (deflategate). Protection of that good will in public perception is a dominating issue in how the League deals with LA; possibly even more so than who's building a stadium; whether public or private financing; etc. I believe this has been a difficult time for the NFL in the public perception; so they want to handle LA in a way that doesn't further diminish the League's stature.
7. The NFL "protects the shield" even more than do other major sports leagues; which are more attuned to the local market. They share money equally (apart from Jerry Jones, anyway), which is why they can maintain a team in a smaller market, like Green Bay. But that also means individual teams are or are not "national" teams, more so than affiliated with the local market alone. There's a reason that ever team wears pink at about the same time, to recognize the battle against breast cancer; but it's clearly a national issue, not local.
8. The NFL in general is attuned to the fact that all this television presence, all of this "national branding", is or might soon negatively impact on the "fan experience" of attending games. I think the NFL collectively knows that the popularity of their brand is in part related to the fan experience; everything from the "12th man" in Seattle; to the crowd noise battle currently in play between Kansas City and Seattle; to the "dog pound" in Cleveland; to the Cowboys cheerleaders; to the "Redskins band" in DC; to the "frozen tundra" of Lambeau Field. The NFL NEEDS a passionate fan base to show up for it's games - both for the experience itself - but even more so to make sure they still have an appealing product to sell on TV.
9. The NFL wants to "grow the brand". Why else would they move games to London? Can't they find enough fans in the US? Does TV viewership of games in London increase significantly in the US? Hell, no! They want people in Europe to watch, too - and the best way is to give them a rooting interest.
10. I think the NFL perceives LA as a way they can personify some of the above issues. A two-team stadium - maybe with NFL studios nearby, a year-around "NFL experience" - or whatever - is probably very appealing to current owners. Fox already has it's studio programs in LA; not sure of the other networks - but I think they perceive LA, because of it's recognized role as a media and entertainment center - as "more than the sum of it's parts". It's a rare opportunity for the League; they want to maximize it; and these overarching issues are more important than the interests of Inglewood; or Carson; or even Stan Kroenke or the owners of the Chargers and Raiders.
Unless current NFL owners have a personal interest - be it financial, or a matter of friendship, whatever - I think these are the issues that most predominate in how they handle Los Angeles (both Inglewood and Carson); and San Diego; and Oakland; and St. Louis. And I think how Roger Goodell leads the owners through this process - or fails to do so - is critically important to his position as commissioner. This is "where do we see the NFL in 2020?"; everything else is just quibbling. Local plans - whether those of Inglewood, or Carson, or San Diego, or Oakland, or St. Louis - must be "good enough"; but probably are not determinative.
That's how I see it.
