Los Angeles or Las Vegas

[jamrock]

To the 1st question: Dean couldn't let the Raiders take LA. Raiders had/have a fan base in LA. L.V. would have been a harder sell for Dean. If he's having a hard time filling Dignity... imagine trying to fill a new stadium in LV. However, if his goal was to increase the value of the team, then moving to LV would have been the better choice. The Raiders have increased their value by 1.5 billion, according to Forbes. While the Chargers value in LA has barely moved the needle. Controlling the revenues, via controlling the venue, seems to be the factor that adds value to a team.

To the 2nd question: Yes, mistakes were made. Many mistakes...

Dean did fine with the Raiders and rams both in La for a decade. Letting the Raiders come to LA wouldn't have hurt the Chargers in SD. That was all smokescreen

[Boltnut]

Dean did fine with the Raiders and rams both in La for a decade. Letting the Raiders come to LA wouldn't have hurt the Chargers in SD. That was all smokescreen

I agree. Out of respect to Bolt-O and others, I left SD out the equation.