The

(01-14-2021, 01:17 AM)HandsomeRob86 Wrote:

(01-13-2021, 09:08 PM)Upper Wrote: Doing lot J before the stadium would have made lot J a massive weight around the neck of the city in negotiations. A heavily taxpayer funded development that is dependent on NFL games being played next door is quite a bargaining chip for Shad and Lamping.

"Give us (yet another) preferable deal with the stadium/reno or we walk and lot J loses most of its relevance but none of its price tag"

Agree, rejecting lot J the way it was being presented currently was the right call. We just did major renovations to the stadium several years ago. We need protection if we are going in on lot j.

I agree except for the bold. I know the video boards, locker rooms, club section layout, pool, dog park, and daily’s place  cost quite a bit. But to me those were all bandaids that may look nice but ultimately don’t solve the main problems with our stadium. They seem more like small touch ups that will make things look a little better and make people forget how bad we need a stadium for a season or two, but quickly wear off and the problem remains.

It’s like putting a ton of touch paint around a house to get you through the holidays when you know you will have to completely repaint everything when the family leaves.

^^ oddly specific but that’s what I’m actually having to do at my house LMBO

---