Would you publicly fund another stadium or let the franchise leave Cincinnati?

[*Nately120*]

(01-13-2017, 11:56 PM)Awful Llama Wrote: This is the price of being an NFL city.  If Cincinnati isn't willing to pay it, then another city will.  The question is, will the taxpayers offer up the necessary ransom?  Polls indicated the '96 referendum was headed for defeat, but then Art Model reminded everyone that this is a game played for keeps, and the Browns leaving gave enough folks pause for the referendum to pass the following spring.  Would the citizenry be inspired again?  Personally, I'm up in Dayton, so I'd be happy if you good folks in Hamilton County were to spring yet again for a new stadium (make this one a dome, please!).  But, if you didn't, I'd certainly understand why.  

I agree with the overall notion. I do think LA having 2 teams really takes away that semi-empty threat of moving teams had for 20 years.  I always recall complaints about the tax situation being met with responses of "Ok, well have it your way and we'll be seeing the LA Bengals before you know it!" so either that argument lacks weight now, or we need to change the city in the threat.

So LA has 2 teams, Las Vegas gets the Raiders, and then what is left?  Do teams threaten to move to a recently vacated city or what?