New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

Here is a break down to how Levi's stadium cost ended up. The large, Stadium Authority group was created, its essentially the same type of thing that owns the Dome. They got their money from borrowing (at interest), PSL, and Naming Rights. City taxes pay back the city tax part, but the city also has to pay back the Stadium Authority part as well, and at interest. Assuming they get some crazy sweetheart 2% interest, thats roughly an extra 20 million from the city.

So if this is the model they want to use, you say 800 million from the teams and the G4 loans. That leaves 1.2 billion left from outside sources. Since they're not doing a tax increase, its 1.2 billion dollars that the stadium authority im Carson has to pay back with interest.

Frankly I don't see how even with a stadium Carson can pay that without taking serious hits to different programs that their tax dollars should go through. Sure they'll "make" money from the stadium, but it will all funnel right back into Goldman Sachs, and the other banks. Carson won't enjoy it. Then if/when it comes time for upgrades, they're on the hook. They probably put the Stadium Authoriry on the hook for toxic maintenance as well, another 2-300K a year.

 

[Hacksaw]

I guess television and video games have rotted my brain.



You’re right it might not be a struggle but Stan kind of seems like a D-Bag when it comes to business and the fact that he was in ligation with previous partners for so long it really doesn’t seem like he’s the type of guy that is going to just hammer this out over a couple of beers. This would be his stadium and he is going to want as much of the pie as possible including the crust. Now he may be more agreeable if it is his only way to LA but I just don’t see an agreement going well. Plus since he wants to be there for at least a season alone that means the second team will have to endure a second possible lame duck season in a less than desirable stadium. I don’t think the owner of that team is going to be happy about it.



Everything I have read has indicated they will finance the deal. Andy Strickland of CBS Sports radio 920 AM in St. Louis reported Friday that according to high-ranking officials in St. Louis, Chargers owner Dean Spanos has a deal in place with Goldman Sachs to build a stadium in Los Angeles, and the NFL asked him to hold off from announcing or releasing those plans (Hall 2015). Now I am not sure how they will provide the money and through what avenue but as far as the NFL goes they know the money is coming from GS. And that is all they care about. Goldman Sachs will finance the Chargers’ move from San Diego and also cover any losses sustained by the franchise in the first few years in Los Angeles, the Sports Business Journal reported Monday (Fox 5 2015). The fact that not only is GS going to finance the stadium but cover any losses is big and very telling IMO.



Well that is a lot of what ifs. I think the financing is solid. And as far as the cleanup goes according to Emad Yemut of the Toxic Substance Control Department “It is safe”. The site still needs a series of extraction wells to remove methane and other gases which can be installed in 6 months. The property, which includes an additional 11 acres outside the landfill, is already equipped with wells that pull out groundwater fouled with industrial solvents, he said. The water is then treated and piped into the sewer system (Pringle 2015). The land is as good as sold. It has not been reported that is has been finalized so I will concede that much but Fabiani has stated on many occasions that they have to sell and we have to buy. “The project is subject to a binding purchase and sale agreement,” Fabiani wrote in the email. “All parties are bound by the agreement.” When NBC 7 first reached out to Fabiani he said, the "land has been purchased through a binding agreement with the seller." (Walsh 2015). Now Walsh reported that back in February and the agreement was supposed to be finalized in March. I don’t think it has been reported one way or another if that land has been secured yet.

I think Carson could win out over Inglewood if STL comes through with a plan and the other markets don’t which looks to be the case as we sit here today. The Carson project would provide the two California teams with a solution in the California market, the Raiders and the Chargers have been working on stadium solutions much longer than the Rams, and you aren’t allowing a team to move back to LA that abandoned that market effective diluting the market while vacating another. Of course we are dealing in hypotheticals.

Reference:

Hall, Mathew T. Goldman Sachs shows Chargers are serious about sharing Carson stadium with Raiders. U-T San Diego, February 20, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb/20/goldman-sachs-chargers-raiders-stadium/

Fox 5. Report: Goldman Sachs offers to finance Charges move to LA. Fox 5 San Diego, March 2, 2015. Retrieved from: http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/03/02/report-goldman-sachs-offers-to-finance-chargers-move-to-la/

Pringle, Paul. State says Carson site ready for construction of NFL stadium. LA Times, February 21, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-nfl-carson-stadium-20150221-story.html

Walsh, Lynn. Chargers Carson Stadium Land Purchase Not Finalized. NBC San Diego, February 20, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...um-Land-Purchase-Not-Finalized-293108931.html

Nice work Goose. Sorry to put you through that.

SAN DIEGO -- Goldman Sachs, the longtime investment banker of the San Diego Chargers, is committed to cover any operating losses suffered by the team in the first few years of a potential relocation to Los Angeles, along with any costs for renovations necessary to a temporary venue, according to the Sports Business Journal.
"We are in a hypercompetitive environment regarding Los Angeles at this moment, and so we won't be releasing specifics on our work with Goldman Sachs," Fabiani said. "The bottom line is that we, along with Goldman Sachs, are completely confident that the Raiders/Chargers L.A. stadium proposal can feasibly be financed."

I believe they are the broker, not the lender. The fact that they draw a distinction between covering operating losses / temp renovations is the tip. Also they are certain it can be financed, which sounds like they aren't the ones funding it or there would be no question mark.
In the grand scene of things that doesn't really matter where the money comes from and they say they can get it.
To the underscored, who knows what these guys have agreed to, and GS admits to have not released any comments about the stadium financing.

Your point about keeping California teams in CA is valid although those who don't live here don't get the demographics or the massive size of this state.
I pointed out the other day the distance between these cities.
Where I can understand an argument being made for the Chargers and their proximity to LA. Oakland isn't even in the same state. For example if you add the distance in miles from San Diego to LA , then add entire width of the sate of Missouri, the sum of the two would be the equivalent of the distance from Oakland to LA. So adding a former team back into the "state" of SoCal, would be doable. It always worked before and Spanos is freaking dreaming if he thinks he has some sort of right over the LA region. You won't find any Chargers gear or fans around here.
What the league thinks or prefers, I dunno.

As far as the toxicity of the Carson site. Goose honestly, I can't believe anyone would want to build anything there except a fwy or a refinery. It is an awful area and the geology is very suspect. Besides the $3.6 mm a year just to capture and pump the methane out from the TOXIC landfill in the area, they would have to pump water out from under it constantly and in the event of an earthquake (which CA has been known to have) the mass of a stadium could easily slip or sink a little through a process known as liquefaction. Unless they drill 100's of caissons down to actual bedrock to support the footings and foundation, basically suspending the stadium over the landfill, I can't see any municipality approving the engineering plan. Of course the municipality who might have at least the local say has much to gain from the stadium so who knows.
Perhaps this is why the NFL abandoned this site in the past. ?

Is ESK a -----? Not sure but he's acting like one. He has created fear and animosity in StL, provided a reason to divide the old and new fan base, freaked out Spano's, put 100's of people to work on possibly impossible processes and all so he can make more money. This sentiment can't be lost on all parties involved and he knows it.

This is one the strangest times in NFL history that this 50 year long NFL fan has ever experienced. Where a very settled league suddenly becomes a battle off the gridiron between football teams to be the first to cross the bottom line,, not the goal line.

Cheers Rambro!

 

[Goose]

I think people are seeing 'financing" and "loaning" as the same thing, and that's where they're seeing things wrong. Goldman Sachs will help get financing in order, they'll loan some money out, and then take it back. The projections need to come out at least close, otherwise they won't just hand over 2 billion dollars. They're loaning it out and making a ton from interest, taking a nice cut.

One of the articles was posted back in February of 2015, and since then the "deal" has been announced, its the same one we're familiar with, Goldman Sachs is going to help secure the financing in Carson.

GS is financing this project. They are not helping secure the financing they are the financing. Goldman Sachs will finance the San Diego Chargers’ prospective move to Los Angeles (Kaplan 2015).Not only are they financing Carson but cover losses and renovations to the temporary venue. Goldman Sachs’ commitment goes beyond simply financing the proposed new stadium, though. The Chargers, the sources said, expect to play several seasons in either the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum or the Rose Bowl Stadium before that new stadium would be open, and the team expects that it might be called on to make any renovations required before playing at one of those venues (Kaplan 2015).

Reference:
Kaplan, Daniel. Goldman to bankroll Chargers' move. Sports Business Journal, March 2, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/03/02/Finance/Goldman-Chargers.aspx

 

[bluecoconuts]

GS is financing this project. They are not helping secure the financing they are the financing. Goldman Sachs will finance the San Diego Chargers’ prospective move to Los Angeles (Kaplan 2015).Not only are they financing Carson but cover losses and renovations to the temporary venue. Goldman Sachs’ commitment goes beyond simply financing the proposed new stadium, though. The Chargers, the sources said, expect to play several seasons in either the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum or the Rose Bowl Stadium before that new stadium would be open, and the team expects that it might be called on to make any renovations required before playing at one of those venues (Kaplan 2015).

Reference:
Kaplan, Daniel. Goldman to bankroll Chargers' move. Sports Business Journal, March 2, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/03/02/Finance/Goldman-Chargers.aspx

My April trumps your March.


The stadium will be privately funded with Goldman Sachs providing the financing following a plan the company used to finance the 49ers’ new $1.3 billion Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara. The stadium will be paid off with revenues created by the venue. The Chargers and Raiders also expect to receive $200 million each from a special NFL stadium fund.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-656469-nfl-million.html


They're forcing the city/team to take loans, and then making a killing off the interest when they're paid back.

 

[Hacksaw]

Goldman Sachs is going to finance that stadium is the way I understand it. They are going to front the money and make it back through the same ways that Levi Stadium was done.

And Goose, they are the broker not the lender. They are financing the move, not the stadium.
Their relationship is not new.

 

[Hacksaw]

My April trumps your March.


The stadium will be privately funded with Goldman Sachs providing the financing following a plan the company used to finance the 49ers’ new $1.3 billion Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara. The stadium will be paid off with revenues created by the venue. The Chargers and Raiders also expect to receive $200 million each from a special NFL stadium fund.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-656469-nfl-million.html


They're forcing the city/team to take loans, and then making a killing off the interest when they're paid back.

Goldman won't invest in anything that they don't see a return on in a big way. They smell blood.

And how does the league offer the G4 when LA is not the home market for SD or Oak? Or are thy going to do the impossible and bend their own rules? lol

 

[bluecoconuts]

Goldman won't invest in anything that they don't see a return on in a big way. They smell blood.

And how does the league offer the G4 when LA is not the home market for SD or Oak? Or are thy going to do the impossible and bend their own rules? lol

I'm assuming the plan calls for the NFL to remove that restriction.

 

[Hacksaw]

I'm assuming the plan calls for the NFL to remove that restriction.

Wait, what? The NFL bending their rules? ha ha.

 

[Goose]

My April trumps your March.

You are one craft poster Mr. Cocounts. I understand what you and Hack/saw are saying. I get they they are brokering the deal but that doesn't make is any less strong that the money will be there. I go through a broker to get a mortgage on my house I am still going to have the money to purchase the home. The fact that GS has the financial ties and backing to ensure financing. I am sure they have it all lined up.

 

[Goose]

As far as the toxicity of the Carson site. Goose honestly, I can't believe anyone would want to build anything there except a fwy or a refinery. It is an awful area and the geology is very suspect. Besides the $3.6 mm a year just to capture and pump the methane out from the TOXIC landfill in the area, they would have to pump water out from under it constantly and in the event of an earthquake (which CA has been known to have) the mass of a stadium could easily slip or sink a little through a process known as liquefaction. Unless they drill 100's of caissons down to actual bedrock to support the footings and foundation, basically suspending the stadium over the landfill, I can't see any municipality approving the engineering plan. Of course the municipality who might have at least the local say has much to gain from the stadium so who knows.
Perhaps this is why the NFL abandoned this site in the past. ?

Hack/saw I know that you very familiar with the area and have stated your concern about the clean up and maintenance before. I believe you know what you are talking about. The NFL has studied the site for a long time and it has been in consideration before so I am sure they are aware of the risk. I just don't see this as just leverage or a bluff. Especially since it appears at this point that the City of SD are calling it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

You are one craft post Mr. Cocounts. I understand what you and Hack/saw are saying. I get they they are brokering the deal but that doesn't make is any less strong that the money will be there. I go through a broker to get a mortgage on my house I am still going to have the money to purchase the home. The fact that GS has the financial ties and backing to ensure financing. I am sure they have it all lined up.

Yes, at this point the money certainly has the potential to be there, that of course assumes that either Goldman Sachs will be able to secure larger loans if the G4 money isn't made available, the PSL's don't make as much, and the naming rights deal isn't as large. Otherwise they need to make it elsewhere. So if its the city on the hook (and it certainly appears that's how they're leaning) what happens when that comes into play? I'm not sure Carson even knows what they're getting into at this point.

I still think it's more of a bluff than Inglewood is. It certainly has the ability to get done if they can't figure out things back home, but its a lot trickier and more complicated than Inglewood, and that's without throwing another team into the mix. It also offers less to the NFL, and looks like there's more potential issues there. Inglewood is cleaner in a lot of ways.

 

[Goose]

ST. LOUIS NFL STADIUM TASK FORCE TO MAKE PRESENTATION TO NFL OWNERS COMMITTEE NEXT WEEK IN NEW YORK
#STLNFL Task Force

Posted on Apr 16th, 2015

ST. LOUIS, April 16, 2015 – The task force appointed by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon to lead the NFL stadium project on the North Riverfront of Downtown St. Louis has been invited by the National Football League to make a presentation next week at NFL league headquarters in New York City.

Led by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz, the task force will meet with league officials and a committee of six NFL owners appointed to oversee the process of exploring the NFL’s potential return to the Los Angeles market. The task force will provide an update to the NFL on stadium design, project schedule and efforts underway in St. Louis.

The task force will refrain from comment until it has returned to St. Louis following the meeting in New York.

http://lockerdome.com/7475583080735553/7593884129834001

 

[blue4]

Yes, at this point the money certainly has the potential to be there, that of course assumes that either Goldman Sachs will be able to secure larger loans if the G4 money isn't made available, the PSL's don't make as much, and the naming rights deal isn't as large. Otherwise they need to make it elsewhere. So if its the city on the hook (and it certainly appears that's how they're leaning) what happens when that comes into play? I'm not sure Carson even knows what they're getting into at this point.

I still think it's more of a bluff than Inglewood is. It certainly has the ability to get done if they can't figure out things back home, but its a lot trickier and more complicated than Inglewood, and that's without throwing another team into the mix. It also offers less to the NFL, and looks like there's more potential issues there. Inglewood is cleaner in a lot of ways.

I don't agree that it offers less than Inglewood. It offers the same. Two teams in LA. As far as the NFL is concerned, why would they care about any other type of development around the stadium? Why would they care which two teams? Why would they care how the financials were set up as long as they are? Private financing, public finances, it's all LA profit to the other owners. The only wild card from the NFLs and the other owners perspective is the which market steps up to keep their team. Oakland or STL. Do you allow Stan to abandon a perfectly healthy market and force Davis to stay in a sick one? Why would, say, the owner from Buffalo vote that way, as it's no longer in his best interest to vote for Stan in that scenario. If Carson and Inglewood both make the deadline prepared it may very well come down to Oakland or STL to make that decision.

 

[Goose]

I still think it's more of a bluff than Inglewood is. It certainly has the ability to get done if they can't figure out things back home, but its a lot trickier and more complicated than Inglewood, and that's without throwing another team into the mix. It also offers less to the NFL, and looks like there's more potential issues there. Inglewood is cleaner in a lot of ways.

To be fair I don't think Inglewood is a bluff at all. I think it is definitely leverage but not a bluff. As we sit today I'd have a hard time making an argument against your statement.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't agree that it offers less than Inglewood. It offers the same. Two teams in LA. As far as the NFL is concerned, why would they care about any other type of development around the stadium? Why would they care which two teams? Why would they care how the financials were set up as long as they are? Private financing, public finances, it's all LA profit to the other owners. The only wild card from the NFLs and the other owners perspective is the which market steps up to keep their team. Oakland or STL. Do you allow Stan to abandon a perfectly healthy market and force Davis to stay in a sick one? Why would, say, the owner from Buffalo vote that way, as it's no longer in his best interest to vote for Stan in that scenario. If Carson and Inglewood both make the deadline prepared it may very well come down to Oakland or STL to make that decision.

The NFL has said they want to do LA "right" they want to ensure long-term success. The Inglewood stadium can likely attract more fans, due to the proximity as well as the surrounding area having more do. It also allows the NFL a place for different events, which is all nice and compact.

Not having to pony up 400 million (600 if you count St Louis) is also nice, as well, so they do care about financing in that regard.

The NFL isn't going "I want two teams, that's that." They want to account for everything, which makes more money, which is better suited for long term success, which is more likely to attract more fans? Which is easier for teams? Right now all signs point to Inglewood. Reports are projecting Inglewood will make just a little less with one team than Carson with two. So how much more does two teams make?

While its never preferable to leave one market while a weaker one stays, but if Stan leaves, Davis can easily occupy St Louis. If he stays in Oakland, then Carson wouldn't work anyway.

 

[RamFan503]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levi's_Stadium
In December 2011, the Santa Clara City Council voted for an agreement that calls for the city’s Stadium Authority to borrow $850,000,000 from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America and U.S. Bank. This will cover most of the construction costs, with the remainder to be made up via funding from the NFL, a hotel tax and city redevelopment funds. Interest, fees and terms for this loan have not been disclosed.[61][62] The $850,000,000 building loan, plus interest and fees will be assumed by the City's Stadium Authority, where additional interest and fees will be applied. On February 2, 2012, NFL owners approved a loan to the 49ers of $200,000,000, for use in constructing the new stadium, and to be taken from a new G-4 stadium loan fund.[63] Terms of the loan were not specified, but under the previous G-3 plan, money was repaid directly into the league's account from the borrowing team's share of gate receipts from road games.

This was my understanding from an article I read in a Bay area paper. The city of Santa Clara is essentially paying for the stadium through their newly created Stadium Authority which is similar to the CVC.

I've heard and read reports that Goldman Sachs is going to secure funding for the construction of the Carson Stadium ala Santa Clara. Well something is seriously missing from that idea. The city of Carson is supposedly not paying for the stadium so there has to be a completely different funding mechanism. From my understanding, the city of Santa Clara put the stadium issue to a vote and will be paying off the loans through bonds. Bonds that total almost a billion dollars (in reality over $900 million last I heard) of the stadium's construction costs. In the case of Carson, the loans would have to be paid off by Spanos and Davis - right?

So how do owners with a combined WORTH of about $1.6 billion get loans for almost their entire net worth? I am guessing that there will have to be outside commitments in order to secure the loans. Fabiani himself said about GS funding the move and any losses.... that Goldman Sachs is doing what they do in exchange for interest and fees that they normally charge - nothing strange or unusual here (I think that was pretty much how he put it.). He did not say in that interview that GS was funding the construction of the stadium.

I don't know if they have the funding actually in place but I would like to hear it from them instead of a reporter that I think is getting his stories mixed up. And after listening to Fabiani whack on everyone outside of the Chargers organization, I really don't trust a word he says nor do I think putting that yap dog in place as the team's attorney and mouth piece is just asking to piss others off. You guys think SK is bad. I have heard for years what San Diego fans think of Spanos. If he leaves San Diego it will be because he himself, wore out his welcome.

This of course is just my opinion but I also know quite a few SD fans and they simply can't stand the guy or his yap dog and think the city has actually offered him workable deals on a couple different occasions. I just have to wonder if he hasn't taken any of them because it would mean leveraging his team in order to secure the funding for his half should he stay in SD. Now he sees the real possibility of Stan building in LA and he wants to lay claim LA and SD as his kingdom and only wants to allow someone like Davis into HIS market because Davis is only worth $500 million and poses no real threat - unlike someone with the chops of SK.

I can tell you that growing up in LA as a Rams fan, I hardly knew anyone who cared at all about the Chargers. It was only after the Rams left that some of the fans jumped ship and started cheering for the Bolts. I have to guess that Spanos realizes that if the Rams move back, he will lose those fans back to the Rams.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Carson holds 67,000 I think. Inglewood holds 80,000.

It has a clear roof.

Inglewood has a 6,000 seat theater perfect for the draft. Radio city music hall in NY where the draft had been held forever seats 6,000.

Supposedly the NFL network will relocate there, the commercial and office buildings around the stadium is perfect for it.

It will also have the worlds biggest billboard. They could slap the NFL logo on it and tourist flying over will see it and the NFL with attract more fans.

After the Inglewood stadium design was unveiled people were in love. Even Bernie and Jim acknowledge it could be the worlds best stadium and most high tech. I think will see some more surprises with the stadium. They're not revealing a video yet or complete pics.

No one felt the same for the Carson design and they even have a video.

These are the differences.

Again all this could change. Next week Carson might come up with something else and I might go like hey I want the Rams to play in that stadium in Carson. As of right now you can't compare the two.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

This was my understanding from an article I read in a Bay area paper. The city of Santa Clara is essentially paying for the stadium through their newly created Stadium Authority which is similar to the CVC.

I've heard and read reports that Goldman Sachs is going to secure funding for the construction of the Carson Stadium ala Santa Clara. Well something is seriously missing from that idea. The city of Carson is supposedly not paying for the stadium so there has to be a completely different funding mechanism. From my understanding, the city of Santa Clara put the stadium issue to a vote and will be paying off the loans through bonds. Bonds that total almost a billion dollars (in reality over $900 million last I heard) of the stadium's construction costs. In the case of Carson, the loans would have to be paid off by Spanos and Davis - right?

So how do owners with a combined WORTH of about $1.6 billion get loans for almost their entire net worth? I am guessing that there will have to be outside commitments in order to secure the loans. Fabiani himself said about GS funding the move and any losses.... that Goldman Sachs is doing what they do in exchange for interest and fees that they normally charge - nothing strange or unusual here (I think that was pretty much how he put it.). He did not say in that interview that GS was funding the construction of the stadium.

I don't know if they have the funding actually in place but I would like to hear it from them instead of a reporter that I think is getting his stories mixed up. And after listening to Fabiani whack on everyone outside of the Chargers organization, I really don't trust a word he says nor do I think putting that yap dog in place as the team's attorney and mouth piece is just asking to pee pee others off. You guys think SK is bad. I have heard for years what San Diego fans think of Spanos. If he leaves San Diego it will be because he himself, wore out his welcome.

This of course is just my opinion but I also know quite a few SD fans and they simply can't stand the guy or his yap dog and think the city has actually offered him workable deals on a couple different occasions. I just have to wonder if he hasn't taken any of them because it would mean leveraging his team in order to secure the funding for his half should he stay in SD. Now he sees the real possibility of Stan building in LA and he wants to lay claim LA and SD as his kingdom and only wants to allow someone like Davis into HIS market because Davis is only worth $500 million and poses no real threat - unlike someone with the chops of SK.

I can tell you that growing up in LA as a Rams fan, I hardly knew anyone who cared at all about the Chargers. It was only after the Rams left that some of the fans jumped ship and started cheering for the Bolts. I have to guess that Spanos realizes that if the Rams move back, he will lose those fans back to the Rams.

That's the problem, Carson has too many holes as of now. Again it could alllll change but as of right now it's apples to oranges. The land hasn't even been bought yet.

 

[RamFan503]

Why would they care how the financials were set up as long as they are? Private financing, public finances, it's all LA profit to the other owners.

Because if the Carson project is indeed to be modeled after the Santa Clara project, they will be required to go to a public vote in order to issue the bonds that would be required to pay off the construction loans. The project is supposedly going to be funded with ZERO public funds. Now there seems to be some hedging going on to where the city will somehow be on the hook to pay off some of the debt? I think the NFL cares.

 

[blue4]

The NFL has said they want to do LA "right" they want to ensure long-term success. The Inglewood stadium can likely attract more fans, due to the proximity as well as the surrounding area having more do. It also allows the NFL a place for different events, which is all nice and compact.

Not having to pony up 400 million (600 if you count St Louis) is also nice, as well, so they do care about financing in that regard.

The NFL isn't going "I want two teams, that's that." They want to account for everything, which makes more money, which is better suited for long term success, which is more likely to attract more fans? Which is easier for teams? Right now all signs point to Inglewood. Reports are projecting Inglewood will make just a little less with one team than Carson with two. So how much more does two teams make?

While its never preferable to leave one market while a weaker one stays, but if Stan leaves, Davis can easily occupy St Louis. If he stays in Oakland, then Carson wouldn't work anyway.

I had a long response to this ready to type out, but the short version is that I kinda feel this is all wishful conjecture. 1 team makes almost as much as 2? With half the home games? Not buying it. NFL caring about after game surrounding nightlife? Not buying it. NFL reluctant to use loan money despite the fund being designed to keep teams in their markets? Not buying that either. I still think Stan has a really good chance to be allowed to move, but it will be because he got his shit together faster or the deal in Carson falling apart. Not because of stuff like fans having more to do.