[Dr. Sivana]

LA couldn't even support one team, much less two.

I am a lifelong Rams fan, and know that statement is not true. Of course L.A. supported two teams for over a decade, the Rams and the Raiders. Both teams moved for better stadium deals.

Because the NFL revenue sharing deal is largely socialist in the way TV contracts and even basic gate receipts are passed around, cities compete almost solely on new stadiums and the special revenues luxury boxes, etc. can bring in.

Los Angeles wisely decided that they weren't going to spend the taxpayers' money on a new stadium. That's why there is no team. Take the same stadium, and place it in Los Angeles, Jacksonville, Carolina, Baltimore, St. Louis and Miami (assuming no team in those cities), and see where it would be placed. If revenue sharing weren't in play, LA would beat out all but the largest and most football obssessed cities (NY, Chicago, Dallas, Denver).

[dennisw]

The age of taxpayer funded stadiums is over. The twin peak was in NYC with two new billion dollar stadiums for Mets and Yanks. Back in 1968 Shea Stadium (Mets) was built for $20 million and I’ll bet it was privately paid for

Miami is the last sucker city. They just shelled out for a new Marlins baseball stadium