Skip to content

Jerry Richardson throws support behind Carson project

AP

It’s been believed for months that, in the race to Los Angeles, influential Panthers owner Jerry Richardson (a leader on the league’s L.A. committee) supports the Chargers over the Rams.

On Wednesday, Richardson made that crystal clear.

I support the Carson project,” Richardson told reporters on Wednesday outside the NFL’s headquarters in Manhattan, where some owners had gathered to hear presentations from the three cities that hope to keep the teams that hope to move to L.A., via David Hunn of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

Asked whether he supports the Carson project more than the Inglewood project, Richardson was blunt: “You can’t support both.”

Richardson’s comments lend credence to the PFT report from late September regarding the opposition of Richardson to a relocation of the Rams: “Richardson and other owners view the Chargers and Raiders as more eligible to move under the league’s relocation policy, especially since it appears that St. Louis has cobbled together a viable plan for building a new stadium and keeping the Rams in the place they’ve been for the last 20 years.”

The real question is whether only the Chargers or both the Chargers and Raiders would make the move. Previously, it was believed that the owners didn’t want to put two teams in L.A. absent a high level of confidence that both would be successful financially. The promised involvement of Disney CEO Robert Iger in the project helps tremendously, especially if Iger eventually parlays his role into a minority stake in the Raiders, giving owner Mark Davis the partner he needs to secure the faith of his peers.

Permalink 43 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Chargers, Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
43 Responses to “Jerry Richardson throws support behind Carson project”
  1. shackdelrio says: Nov 12, 2015 11:08 AM

    “We will have a team (or two) in Los Angeles by next year.”

    -NFL owners every year since 1995

  2. mt10425 says: Nov 12, 2015 11:15 AM

    Nice move. Support the team with the least history in LA and worst community-involved owner. I wonder what Richardson has against Los Angeles?

  3. upperdecker19 says: Nov 12, 2015 11:17 AM

    Problem is, most of LA doesn’t support the Carson plan. It’s a former dump!

    So the NFL naturally will make this less popular option happen.

  4. realdealsteel says: Nov 12, 2015 11:19 AM

    Here’s a win/win solution for everybody:

    Let the Rams owner sell the Inglewood land he bought to the Chargers & Raiders for that stadium to be built. Because the Inglewood location is a better location then the Carson location.

    Then, the Rams can stay in St. Louis and St. Louis can then honor their new found commitment to the Rams. So Kroneke (Rams owner) makes a profit by selling the Inglewood land to the Raiders/Chargers; Rams get their new Stadium in St. Louis. Everybody happy.

  5. cajunaise says: Nov 12, 2015 11:20 AM

    At this point, it seems like the impetus for putting a team in L.A. is so that the powers who’ve been making claims of it happening can say “we told you so”. And that, instead of celebration, it’ll be more like an anti-climatic sigh of “okay, it’s done…now let’s get on with the mediocre fan support, game play, and eventually leaving again.”

  6. mdd913 says: Nov 12, 2015 11:20 AM

    this dirtbag would.

  7. Fake French Accent says: Nov 12, 2015 11:21 AM

    As fans, whether we support any of these plans or not, we will at least have the pleasure of watching this train wreck week after week.

    I mean, the LA Raiders? C’mon guys. This is going to be HILARIOUS.

  8. darcrequiem says: Nov 12, 2015 11:21 AM

    This whole situation is hilarious. You have one onwer (Kroenke) that has the money and has already started building his stadium in LA. You have two owners that don’t have the money (Spanos, Davis) and haven’t even broken ground yet. It seems to me that the owners don’t want Kroenke to move because, God forbid an owner actually pays for his own stadium. Despite all the posturing, they legally can’t stop Kroenke from moving the Rams. See Al Davis vs. the NFL from the 80s.

  9. deftspyder says: Nov 12, 2015 11:23 AM

    Whatever it is, these teams better put a good product on the table. This isn’t some snowed in town with no entertainment options.

  10. screamingsheep69 says: Nov 12, 2015 11:25 AM

    I think it comes down to St. Louis has a plan that probably could work for a stadium. If you move the Rams, you still have to find a way to get something done in San Diego and Oakland.

  11. scrp2 says: Nov 12, 2015 11:35 AM

    Beggars can’t be choosers. St. Louis Chargers.

  12. harrisonhits2 says: Nov 12, 2015 11:39 AM

    Hey if there’s a way we can extort another billon or two from the sheep I’m all for it !!!!!

    No welfare for these greedy, scummy owners.

  13. jfkelly1 says: Nov 12, 2015 11:43 AM

    Have Irsay call Mayflower moving, and move his family’s team!

  14. 23rdusernameused says: Nov 12, 2015 11:54 AM

    its gonna be the raiders to LA, again.
    Just like before. Then after a few futile years, they’ll probably move back to Oakland.

  15. Silver and Black attack says: Nov 12, 2015 11:57 AM

    This is what I have said all along. The Raiders and Chargers NEED new stadiums and their respective city’s are struggling to help get it done. The Rams WANT a new stadium, not necessarily need one and their city is providing the most support to get a new stadium. So if you vote to let the Raiders and Chargers move together to Carson, then you solve two of the worst stadium situations in the league in one shot. I don’t see how the owners can vote for the Rams to move when the city of St Louis is bending over backwards to provide them a new facility. Hell, Kronke has the money to build his own stadium in St Louis if he wanted without the city’s help.

    If the league deems the Raiders/Chargers plan is solid as far as financing/Management/land/Construction/Permits then I don’t see the Rams getting the required votes to move.

  16. deacon85 says: Nov 12, 2015 12:03 PM

    I haven’t been following this issue closely, but I always subscribe to the theory of “follow the money.” Whichever plan will result in more revenue for the NFL is the plan which is going to get adopted. Other plans might make more sense or reward loyal fans, but those aren’t the bases on which the NFL makes decisions like this. It all comes down to the money.

  17. granadafan says: Nov 12, 2015 12:12 PM

    Funny how the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders are able to magically able to privately finance stadiums in LA, yet are crying poor and demanding/ threatening hundreds of millions from the taxpayers in their respective cities.

    We in LA refuse to pay one single cent of taxpayer money for multibillionaires. Shame on St Louis for caving into Kroenke and the NFL. Kroenke is one of the wealthiest people in the country and acts like he’s on the verge of needing food stamps.

  18. radrntn says: Nov 12, 2015 12:14 PM

    time will tell, but it sucks supporting the Raiders all these past years with season tickets, and now they are getting a good foundation of young players, a good coach, and they want to move……that is what frustrates me off the most.

    They owe it the Oakland fans, to enjoy a few victories for awhile after a decade of defeats.

    Is what it is….bottom line Go Raiders.

  19. 6250claimer says: Nov 12, 2015 12:20 PM

    Kroenke will be there, come hell or high water. We already know that. Votes? He don’t need no stinking votes, the legal precedent to move without “approval” was already set by Al Davis. So NFW you can put both the Chargers and Raiders in LA too. Heck 2 teams won’t work, 3 would be an outright catastrophe. Just let Stan do his thing, and let the Raiders and Chargers situations sort themselves out. Voila, team in LA, NFL is happy. Or are they? No more LA leverage. Whoops.

  20. gridironmike says: Nov 12, 2015 12:23 PM

    If Richardson supports the Carson project so much, then why doesn’t he just move his team there?

    #lapanthers

  21. Marshawn Lunch says: Nov 12, 2015 12:32 PM

    Aren’t there problems with having division rivals share the same building?? And wouldn’t this move make a division shakeup more necessary? What could Richardson have to gain by changing the divisions?

    I love the idea of having the St. Louis Rams move to LA, thus bringing the NFC West that much closer together. And, like the Jets/Giants stadium deal, it’d be a Rams/Raiders AFC/NFC partnership. And the alliteration is there too!

  22. RaiderfansAreMentallyRetarded says: Nov 12, 2015 12:43 PM

    FACT:Carson, California is named after the late Johnny Carson…Weird wild stuff HYOOOOOOOOO

  23. jimbo75025 says: Nov 12, 2015 12:43 PM

    Here is a solution since the Chargers seem to be moving regardless-
    Kroenke sells the Rams to Spanos. Kroenke buys the Chargers from Spanos.

    Kroenke gets his team in LA with the Chargers while cash poor Spanos gets the Rams in St Louis with the Rams along with a basically free stadium.

    The relocation fees for the Chargers moving to LA are paid by Kroenke and used to finance the stadium in Oakland. The Raiders share Kroenkes stadium for a couple of years while the new stadium in Oakland is completed.

    One city-San Diego gets screwed instead of three and becomes the head of the line for the next expansion. While that sucks it gives them a few years to get the money together for a new stadium and all of that stuff. Let them keep the Chargers name and records on hiatus as was done with Cleveland and Kroenkes new LA team is rebranded as a new franchise.

    Makes way too much sense for the NFL

  24. vipod4ever says: Nov 12, 2015 12:55 PM

    jimbo…that’s exactly what I was thinking! Similar to MLB shell game between the Nationals (Expos) – Marlins – RedSox a few years back!

  25. sindiegosage says: Nov 12, 2015 12:59 PM

    This isn’t necessarily support FOR the Carson project. It’s more likely a case of Richardson’s disdain for Kroenke and the Inglewood project.

  26. mwcarolina says: Nov 12, 2015 1:10 PM

    honestly, the reason i support the Chargers to LA over the Rams is because the Chargers are already in California, so the move won’t be as tedious while the Rams are in Missouri.

  27. angrypurplebirds says: Nov 12, 2015 1:13 PM

    So the AFC West would be the L.A. Chargers, the L.A. Raiders, the Denver Broncos and the KC Chiefs. How lame. Why not just let the Rams move too and and have 3 team in L.A. ?

  28. pantherpro says: Nov 12, 2015 1:23 PM

    Does LA really want Raider trash?

  29. tomtravis76 says: Nov 12, 2015 1:33 PM

    The next question would be what NFL team will be targeted by St.Louis if they lose the Rams? Sure seems like this is lining up the way Kahn had always wished.

  30. Dogsweat says: Nov 12, 2015 1:36 PM

    Raiders coming home!!!

    Go L.A. Raiders 2016!

  31. thegame2love says: Nov 12, 2015 1:37 PM

    Leave it to LA to be choosy. We don’t want the stadium here, we want it here. We don’t want team A or B we want team C.

    For a place that has not had NFL football in over 20 years and now stands to have two teams in a 2 billion dollar stadium I would think you would be thrilled.

    No wonder all three teams left previously.

  32. jm91rs says: Nov 12, 2015 1:48 PM

    I’d be pretty pissed if I were Kroenke. Here’s my way out there theory…Kroenke does not at all care about the Rams or LA, but he needs his team to be very valuable. When Pat Bowlen dies (His health is not so good I hear), he’s going to try and trade franchises with whoever takes over that team. This kind of thing has happened a few times in several major sports, and I have no doubt Kroenke would love to own the last piece of the Denver Sports puzzle. Anyone would take an LA team over Denver if they didn’t have Denver ties, simply because the money to be made is far greater in LA. Not sure the same thing could be said about a St. Louis team.

  33. kenrobinson12 says: Nov 12, 2015 1:51 PM

    Has the NFL ever stopped a move?

    If Kronke is building then he will move. The other two options do not have a stadium to move to.

    Seems simple to me. Right now it’s the Rams or no one.

  34. pastabelly says: Nov 12, 2015 2:40 PM

    Giving the LA keys to Spanos is about as smart as the decision to put an expansion team in Jacksonville a little over 20 years ago. Kroenke makes the most sense because he has his own capital.

  35. mogogo1 says: Nov 12, 2015 2:46 PM

    You know the NFL must be praying every night that Kroenke gets (and accepts) a new stadium in St. Louis. Because they have basically no ability whatsoever to stop him from moving. He’d have them in court the second they tried and they’d go down in flames just like when they tried to get in Al Davis’ way.

    And the most intriguing part of the whole deal is Kroenke seems so dismissive to St. Louis even as they scramble to get him a new stadium you can imagine a scenario where they’d go to hand him the keys and he’d still pack up and leave for LA. What would happen then? Would we end up watching the St. Louis Chargers?

  36. kwjsb says: Nov 12, 2015 2:51 PM

    I don’t care where the owners go or how you arrange them but I would make these moves with the names

    1) Rams to L.A.
    2) Cardinals to St. Louis
    3) Jaguars to Arizona
    4) Colts to Baltimore
    5) Ravens to Indy
    6) Chargers name stays in San Diego
    7) Raiders Stay in Oakland
    8) Texans become the Oilers
    9) If you have New York in Your Name Play in New York !!

    The space time continuum returns to it’s natural state….

  37. bigbenschancre says: Nov 12, 2015 3:14 PM

    So Spanos cannot afford to pony up for a stadium in SD and need taxpayers to do it, but suddenly can offer owner’s equity for the Mouse CEO? Not that we believed you anyway Dan, but this shows your true nature . . . “He’s a small man after all . . . he’s a small, small man.”

  38. FlintBeastwood says: Nov 12, 2015 3:53 PM

    Wrong Kenro.

  39. mrba4775 says: Nov 12, 2015 5:07 PM

    The powerful NFL Owners Jerry Jones, Robert Kraft, Mr. Rooney, the Maras, York, supports the Hollywood Park project, enough said.

  40. richdogg231 says: Nov 12, 2015 7:09 PM

    Kroenke despite being a Missouri native sees the Inglewood project as his dream development. He also sees his equity in the franchise skyrocketing with a return to the LA market. Don’t think he is going to back off this one.

  41. raiderluv says: Nov 13, 2015 12:48 AM

    I’ve been a Raider fan all my life and I live in Illinois. Even if they were talking about coming here, I would prefer they stay in Oakland. That’s where they began, and where they should stay. Whatever happens, I will always be a Raider fan. But, I hope something happens where they can figure out a way to stay. Sure, they can generate more revenue in a bigger market and get more exposure. But how cool would it be for them to get a Super Bowl win some day being the Oakland Raiders? To me, very cool. The Packers are in a tiny market and the last time I checked they are doing fine and not planning on leaving any time soon.

  42. boltdaddy says: Nov 14, 2015 12:15 PM

    This is not about football or even stadiums for that matter, as far as the Chargers are concerned it is about the market value of the team in LA versus SD. Once Sterling sold his LA Clippers valued at $800 million by Forbes for $2 billion the light in Spanos’ head came on and decided he would be worth an additional $1 billion (about 2x the value is SD) by moving to LA. Enter Stan with his team, land, and money and Spanos responds with an all out attach against SD’s ability to deliver a stadium, which has the benefit of being true. That is why there is a race to LA it is about the gain in team value pure and simple.

    The question is can the NFL stop Stan? I don’t think so and I don’t thing they want two stadiums or three or even two teams until one is established since failing in LA…again is not an option

  43. boltdaddy says: Nov 14, 2015 12:17 PM

    This is not about football or even stadiums for that matter, as far as the Chargers are concerned it is about the market value of the team in LA versus SD. Once Sterling sold his LA Clippers valued at $800 million by Forbes for $2 billion the light in Spanos’ head came on and decided he would be worth an additional $1 billion (about 2x the value is SD) by moving to LA. Enter Stan with his team, land, and money and Spanos responds with an all out attack against SD’s ability to deliver a stadium, which has the benefit of being true. That is why there is a race to LA it is about the gain in team value pure and simple.

    The question is can the NFL stop Stan? I don’t think so and I don’t thing they want two stadiums or three or even two teams until one is established since failing in LA…again is not an option

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!