WestHartHusk
$3M a Year With March Off
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 4,601
- Reaction Score
- 13,922
So now we'll have a team in Las Vegas--and none in Oakland or San Diego. Oakland can blame the Raider's moving out on being, well, Oakland; a place Gertrude Stein described as "there's no there, there". As for San Diego, they can blame themselves. The city fathers (and mothers) refused to finance a big new stadium and the Chargers called their bluff. Say what you will about civic financial priorities and the like but once a city loses its NFL franchise (or can't get one--like Portland) it becomes diminished.
First, the city fathers and mothers didn't refuse to 'finance' a new stadium, they refused to subsidize one...there is a huge difference.
And second, you may want to find better examples than San Diego or Portland as cities that are or will be 'diminished' by not having the NFL. It is that type of logic that has lead cities to fork over hundreds of millions of public dollars to billionaires. I hope more cities follow the example of San Diego (and Seattle before them).