All I am saying is that if a team wants something financial from the public, then the public should receive an equity interest in the team. In other words, I don’t believe in welfare for billionaires. I know that there are some people who believe that government’s most important function is to assist the wealthy, but I don’t view government that way. If the price is right, I have no problem with the state purchasing an equity interest that will return a profit.
>>All I am saying is that if a team wants something financial from the public, then the public should receive an equity interest in the team. In other words, I don’t believe in welfare for billionaires. I know that there are some people who believe that government’s most important function is to assist the wealthy, but I don’t view government that way. If the price is right, I have no problem with the state purchasing an equity interest that will return a profit.<<
You are morally correct but the only team that has shares to the public is the Packers and the shares are now considered ceremonial (but worth a bundle on the open market).
So long as people clamor for a team to have some meaning (or to have something to do in the Winter), the stick-em-up game will go on.
L.A. is different because we are the most devastating fans: if you don’t win WE DON’T CARE. That is why the Rams left — no one gave a hoot.
Likewise none of the electorate in L.A. (city or county) cares whether there is an NFL team there or not.
So they are back to the “how much will you pay us, NFL” game combined with “not a dime of taxpayer money will go into this.”
But L.A. is the exception.