Probably explains why it sounds 'better' to me, haha.
I didn't read the article, no pictures, I was going off what I remembered. I also didn't say anything about a source being invalid. Not sure where that came from. I recall one of the candidates saying it's irresponsible to spend money on something unneeded when we could use money for this, or that and the other thing. I don't remember anyone saying it was too costly, but rather the political candidate saying that amount should be used elsewhere instead. That's how politics ruined it. It wasn't because it cost too much. As the initial post states, the Packers bring in TONS of revenue. Renaming a sign shouldn't be an issue and once the election garbage is over, it'll probably happen within a year or two of the elected's term.
Originally Posted by: Zero2Cool