I heard Dave Peacock say something on an interview with 101ESPN. I am paraphrasing, but it goes something like this....the $millions teams use to pay for their portion of stadiums can actually be financed against the revenue generated by the new stadiums so that no money actually comes out of the pockets of the owners. I hadn't thought about it before I heard him say that, but it makes perfect sense.
So, if they can do that in publically funded stadiums surely they can do that in privately funded stadiums. If an team owns the land, pays no rent, can generate revenue from concerts, host lush Hollywood events, charge large amounts for PSLs, Luxury suites, sponsorships, and etc., it would seem that a sharp business person could keep the financed amount to a minimum (let's just say for argument it's a fourth of the stadium cost or $450 million). Throw in a market that has lots of millionaires and has been without a team for 20 years and you have a no lose proposition. SK is a sharp business man and knows how to make money while keeping the money he already has in hand. Not all NFL owners are as sharp as he is, most can't afford to finance half a billion dollars, and not all markets are as lucrative as LA. With one team in LA a stadium can be built with no public money, if you have great borrowing power and great business acumen.
