And this brings up an interesting and rather disturbing point; from what I have read, the contract the city of St. Louis signed with the Rams included a provision that compelled the city to keep the Rams in a "top tier" stadium presumably, for the duration of their stay in St. Louis. If this is true, then the Rams gave themselves a loophole the size of a mac truck with which to use to facilitate their exit just about anytime they wanted.
BTW, there is no way a 20 year old stadium, no matter where it is or how nice, could be called "state of the art" or even "top tier". Kroenke seriously hosed St. Louis.
And, since Kroenke is financing this thing himself, count on the tickets being even more expensive than in cities with partially publicly funded stadiums.
Ironic, really. The team that most desperately needs a new stadium (the Raiders) is the only one that isn't moving? #doesnotcompute
My question is; in light of the fact you state above (and it is a fact), why were the Chargers given right of first refusal to also move into the Inglewood site and not the Raiders? I have been looking for an answer to this question and haven't seen anything yet. The Chargers have no fans in L.A. and no one wants them. I'm at a loss here.
Finally, I have to give major props to, of all groups, officials of the city and county of L.A. They never knuckled under to the NFL and steadfastly stuck to their guns with regard to NO PUBLIC MONEY. They realized that L.A., being the second largest media market in the nation, is a powerful enough bargaining chip that an offer of public money is not necessary. Years ago, the franchise that went to Houston and became the Texans, would have gone to L.A. IF L.A. had been willing to include public money. That was a big "no", so we went another 10 years without a team. Worked out rather well in the end.
Chargers, stay home, (uh, "second home").
