That's why bad franchises stay bad.
I am not saying the public should have financed a stadium, but Qualcomm is a dump. They might have the original jumbotron for video screens.
If running a stadium were profitable, then owners would build them themselves.
At least sharing a stadium makes some sense - 16 home games instead of only 8.
Times like this makes one appreciate the publicly owned Packers.
The other two youngest coaches in NFL made the playoffs this year, but ok.
This one does seem excessively young. Making me feel like shit for sorting spreadsheets for a living at 29.
Chargers will be LA's team, we're ready to ditch the Rams after the Goff and having no picks.
The classy ones do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetLife_Stadium
But who really cares? It is 8 to hopefully 10 days out of the year for 4 hours each day. So a max of 40 hours per year that paying fans spend inside it for NFL purposes. If the team is winning, has anyone ever said "nah I'll pass on going to my favorite team's home game because the stadium is old"? Of course not. As long as it has suites or suites can be added on, I've never understood why owners push for new stadiums; they can just jack up the prices at the old stadiums and people will still pay.
It wasn't just old, because watching a game in an old stadium doesn't bother me. It was in terrible shape in my opinion. They could have easily spent a few million to upgrade the video screens. When you are sitting in one end zone and can't really see what the replay is showing on a video screen because it's smaller than the average persons TV with a resolution of 48p, that's kind of a problem.
The Benzie BHole opens this spring for MLS]
But you are still going to show up if they are winning and it will sell out. Rather than pay $1 billion on a stadium to get people to show up, throw $15 million at a top-level coach and GM.