NFL Team and Public Funds

In the example in “NFL Talks at Impasse Over Use of Public Funds” (Aug. 3) of selling the NFL team in 10 years for double the original purchase price, who says the new buyer would keep the team in Los Angeles? Maybe another city would make the owner a better offer then. Sounds like a “great” deal for L.A. The team owner has an appreciating asset (the team), while the city is stuck with a depreciating asset (the newly renovated stadium).

Why do you think NFL league rules bar municipal ownership of franchises? Team owners don’t want any more Green Bay Packers. The Packers will never leave their town of origin.

ROY ULRICH

Santa Monica

*

If the NFL is unhappy with the deal to bring a team to L.A. it can take its football and go home. We’ll play soccer.

JOSEPH NERI

West Covina

*

Re Mike Downey’s July 28 column, “L.A.’s Still Waiting for a Committed Relationship”:

Three mega-millionaires want to have the state put up $150 million of our tax dollars so that they can buy into a business that has abandoned the L.A. market twice before. To make it more interesting, they want to locate this enterprise in a facility run by a political commission whose history of broken promises and fiscal intransigence has “mismanaged” to run off the Raiders, Rams, Kings, Lakers and Bruin football. Forget a committed relationship. Anyone who falls for this screwy proposition should simply be committed.

ROBERT J. ABERNETHY JR.

Santa Monica

*

Until every man, woman and child has health insurance in California, every child has access to smaller classes and teachers receive a decent salary, not one cent, certainly not $150 million, should be spent on a football team.

JAN MURPHY

Anaheim