I agree but none of those other cities have a viable stadium plan or public funds. If you relocate the Chargers and Raiders you are still able to reach to one of those other fan bases from LA. If the Rams move then the team that get left out in the cold will more than likely not get a new stadium forcing them to relocate. Losing the original home market and then you have to start over. Since the Rams have a strong fan base outside of California and what appears to a viable stadium plan it make more sense for the Rams to work it out in their current market. The success of the NFL is predicated on doing what is best for the league not individual teams. That is why the share revenue and imposed a salary cap. This model has produced the most balance and competition across the league. At face value if the Rams relocate you are effectively screwing one of the teams in essentially hurting the league.
The problem is that the stadium plan is contingent with Stan agreeing to it. If he doesn't want that plan then it's no longer viable to the Rams. It's easy to say "Well it's acceptable to NFL standards, so therefore he should take it." but if he doesn't want it then he doesn't want it. The plans that San Diego or Oakland have/are putting forward might be acceptable to another owner, should they be forced to stay to? Everyone can make that argument if that is the case. The fanbase outside of California means nothing, the Rams didn't have a fanbase in St Louis when they first moved there in 95, that didn't seem to stop them. You say if the Rams move then one of the teams needs to relocate because there's no threat, but if Inglewood is open not only is that a threat, but it's a more credible threat. Not only are they thinking about moving, but there's a stadium there for them. And if the Chargers go anyway, then there's a deal in St Louis. And if there's no deal in St Louis anymore, there's a deal in Portland, or San Antonio, or Toronto.. There's always a deal somewhere if need be. LA isn't the only city in the US that can have an NFL team.
The NFL wants public funds and when teams are having difficulty getting those funds the magic bullet they use in the treat of relocation. If the NFL walks away from public money then why would those cities take the threat of relocating seriously? TB, Jax, and Carolina are the next group of teams that will angle for upgrades or a new stadium. While Jax is in the lease until 2030 they have outs after 2020. I am in no way saying that the teams will not accept public funds, I am saying that those cities will be more likely to refuse to provide funds. If I am a city that is being leveraged I am going to use the fact that the NFL walked away from public funds in another stadium
But those teams have been having issues for a while, and it hasn't helped. If anything having a city with an open proposal on the table (much like St Louis did after losing out on the expansion bid for the Stallions) it makes threats more credible. As I said before, it's not just "oh we're gonna move, watch me park my team jet at an airport." there's "We have a city right here that is willing to take us."
And if the Raiders move to St Louis, then again, there's always threats. If cities just give up and decide not to offer any public assistance against the threat of relocation, because the team might leave anyway, then they weren't going to offer it anyway, so what's the point? If anything it can help strengthen their leverage. It's not just that they need to offer up something to the table, they need to offer up something good, something that the owner wants. Take Spanos for example, say he was independent of all this and the Rams left. Now he could go to San Diego and say "See? They didn't make the right deal and they lost their team. So you need to make that Downtown option work."
Versus the message that "Yeah, as long as you make something, no matter what the owner wants we'll make sure they can't leave." Now that puts the owners in a hard place, and that's not what they want.
