Eagles Controversial Stadium Move Comes Down to Two Perfectly Clear Options

For 32 years, Veterans Stadium was a unique home for the Eagles and its wildly passionate fan base. To some, to turn away from hallowed ground for a shinier (and admittedly "better'') stadium just felt wrong.

Since that moment, Eagle fans have developed a love-hate relationship with "the Linc."

Some people are upset over the significant price hikes for food and drinks. Others don't like the parking situation. Other fans miss the uniqueness of Veterans Stadium over Lincoln Financial Field, which has a more modern look.

What was sometimes ignored then?

While Eagles fans may have loved Veterans Stadium, it was not, in addition to the usual reasons for a team moving to upgraded digs, a house of success.

Lincoln Financial Field is different. The stadium has seen four trips to the Super Bowl, two victories and plenty of memorable playoff moments.

Fans can be excused for embracing that.

As other franchises around the league look for ways to acquire new stadiums or to make zillion-dollar upgrades to the ones they have — all in search of the additional revenue that comes with more luxury seats and a roof and the rest — the Eagles have begun to tiptoe into the controversy that will come as they imagine what life could be like without the Linc.

Or with a variation of the Linc.

After all, it's crazy to think, but the Linc has been around for 22 years. While that may not be the historic 32 years that the Vet had, it's still not a simple thing to walk away from.

Owners always want the shiny new toy that a new stadium could bring, but Philadelphia must be wary of that.

A new stadium may not bring the kind of success that Lincoln Financial Field brought.

And so it comes down to two perfectly clear options: One, find the money (public funding?) to make a move ... and make more money. Or two, stay true to what the Linc is while embracing tradition.

You know which way this is going, right?