(02-01-2017 10:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: To be sure, San Diego seems to be providing even less financing than Oakland while being located in a smaller market, so I highly doubt that will go anywhere in practicality. Whether it's right or wrong, the name of this entire stadium game is PUBLIC financing.
100% correct. Unless you're NYC or LA market, no one is going to sink $1.5B - 2B of private investment for a private NFL stadium.
If you want that NFL carrot, then pay up.
(02-01-2017 10:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: You MIGHT be able to convince the NFL that little-to-no public financing can work in a market that's the size of the Bay Area.
I think the Raiders in Oakland would have to, rightfully, only be allowed to consider the east bay as the market. And then I don't know if it works.
Why the heck they couldn't have just had both the 49ers and the Raiders in the same stadium, with neural color seating, in the south bay ... is beyond me.
(02-01-2017 10:54 AM)Frank the Tank Wrote: It's very clear that such a stance won't work in a market that's the size of San Diego
SD residents cheaped out, so they got what they voted for.
(02-01-2017 11:33 AM)colohank Wrote: Try to imagine a ghost town out in the middle of a remote and damned hot desert that used to have one million residents
Even if the people move away, the casinos will be there. Way too much investment, and way too expensive to move it all to somewhere else. They'll pay to truck in water, and whatever else they need. Dorms for the casino & airport workers, etc.
(02-01-2017 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: If just one team becomes successful there, the NFL could end up moving the weaker franchise again down the road to a San Diego, an Oakland, a St. Louis, or another western city, and still get what they desired from the Los Angeles market (at the very costly expense of agitating and eliminating a market in Oakland, San Diego or St. Louis).
The Rams are in LA, and will be for a long time. That's Kroenke's team and its his stadium. So you're talking about moving the Chargers to somewhere else, if they have a crappy run in LA over the next 10-20/whatever years.
Tough to see voters in SD, STL, or Oakland voting for a publicly financed NFL stadium, when they've been abandoned by the NFL, even if it's 20 years from now.
I would think Portland would love to have a team, but everyone will jump on me saying the Seahawks will veto that. Is it really that easy? Not an NFC team ...
Salt Lake City?
(02-01-2017 11:46 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote: It still bothers me that the Titans got to keep the Oilers history, as I think the city of Houston should have kept that.
In another thread, the comment was made that people in Houston
wanted the Oilers franchise to be retired, because of such crummy history.