none of your other rich friends wants to go in with you on the investment because you happen to occupy a city that doesn't really attract much in the way of stadium revenue by comparison to other markets.

Which is why the city of Arlington provided over $325 million (including interest) in bonds as funding to the Dallas Cowboys to build at&t stadium, Because the Dallas Cowboys don't attract enough revenue to build their own stadium. Sorry but if you look at the history of the NFL it's just rife with examples of billionaire owners reaching into public coffers because ... well why would you spend that much of your own money when you can get someone else to foot the bill? Exteriorizing costs is the most basic level of business.

Al Davis moved the team back to Oakland in 1995 after Los Angeles refused to answer his demands for stadium renovations. The Rams moved to St Louis for basically the same reason.

Nobody needs an NFL team but you're out of your goddamned mind if you think it's unwanted. Myself personally, I dream of the day where I can drive a few miles up the 405 with my son and catch a game and this plan, above all the others, seemed like the most intriguing to me. Traffic is bad, sure, but much less so on Sundays when professional football games are usually played.

I'm not saying nobody wants a NFL team. I'm saying that Los Angeles is better off without a NFL team. The Chargers are less than 3 hours away, if you can afford the tickets you can afford the road trip, if not there's always USC and UCLA.

Also, if you think Farmer's Field in downtown or the Inglewood site are any better than where this one would be you need to reevaluate your commute friend.

I think you miss my point, I don't want to see a nfl team in LA. Even the Raiders (my team) should probably just stay where they are.