Skip to content

L.A. solution may now turn on Carson vs. Inglewood tug-of-war

Kroenke Getty Images

It’s becoming easier and easier to read the L.A. tea leaves. For now, though, the leaves reveal only who’s leaving their current home. The leaves don’t say where they are leaving for.

The effort by Cowboys owner Jerry Jones to pull apart the proposed canine/feline cohabitation by the Raiders and Chargers and to hot weld the Chargers to the Rams quickly has emerged as the best path to 24 owner votes regarding the teams that will land in Los Angeles. But now the question becomes whether the two teams will live in Inglewood or in Carson.

As noted earlier, the Chargers claim to have “zero interest” in Inglewood, but owner Dean Spanos already has said that he’ll abide by whatever the owners decide. This inherently contradictory position gives the Chargers perfect cover to jilt the Raiders — especially since it’s now clear that the Raiders will emerge from this dance with enough money to build their own dance hall, somewhere. If 24 owners tell the Chargers that, if they want to move to L.A., they’ll be moving to Inglewood, it’s hard to imagine the Chargers saying, “No thanks. We’ll stay in a dilapidated stadium in a city that doesn’t really want to help us build a new one.”

This doesn’t mean the Chargers won’t try to leverage the same sentiment that may have kept Rams owner Stan Kroenke out of L.A. from keeping him from getting his way as to the preferred location of a stadium. Disney CEO Bob Iger will be attending Tuesday’s ownership meeting with the primary objective of selling the Carson project, and trashing the Inglewood proposal.

Sure, he’ll couch the thing in terms of the Raiders and Chargers, but the focal point now is Carson vs. Inglewood. And before the Chargers go along with Inglewood, they’ll try to get along with Carson, relying on Iger to persuade the owners that Carson is the much better location.

Looming over the back-and-forth is the possibility (small as it may be) that Kroenke will say, “Screw it. I’m building my stadium in Inglewood. Try and stop me.” In theory, that could result in both stadiums being built, with Carson officially sanctioned by the league and Inglewood as Kroenke’s rogue project.

This remains highly unlikely. Still, fears of Kroenke defying the NFL and moving to L.A. without approval have helped create momentum for both the Chargers and Rams returning to Los Angeles. Concern that he’ll ultimately do what he wants could move the needle toward Inglewood, too.

Permalink 61 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
61 Responses to “L.A. solution may now turn on Carson vs. Inglewood tug-of-war”
  1. sd5547 says: Jan 12, 2016 9:31 AM

    Dean Spanos would rather be the Rams bitch than work with the city of San Diego to build a stadium? What a fool.

  2. azjam says: Jan 12, 2016 9:31 AM

    Charges and Rams to Inglewood is the best solution and can be a win/win for both teams especially if Kroenke makes a deal with Spanos.

  3. iamtheoven says: Jan 12, 2016 9:32 AM

    So you can’t water your lawn in SoCal, but you can build a billion dollar stadium that’ll just take a few gallons to mix with all that concrete. Got it.

  4. nightryder10 says: Jan 12, 2016 9:40 AM

    Raiders have to be happy about this turn of events.

  5. mjc56 says: Jan 12, 2016 9:41 AM

    If Deano decides to snuggle up with Kronke in Inglewood, it will be the ultimate pimp and prostitute situation… with Deano of course being the prostitute and Kronke being the pimp. Don’t be surprised if Deano is going to be the idiot that he is, give in, and be the 2nd fiddle while he sleeps outside the bedroom on the street looking in at Kronke’s palace. He is now yours LA!

  6. scrp2 says: Jan 12, 2016 9:42 AM

    Chargers/Raiders is still as ridiculous as when it was first proposed. One team has to move to the NFC and you throw out all the decades of rivalry between them.

  7. truths4all says: Jan 12, 2016 9:49 AM

    This is turning out to be the perfect situation for the Raiders.

    With a Raider boat-load of league money, if the Raiders leverage that with monies St Louis already has on the table for the Rams if they stayed, the Raiders could end up with a stadium that would rival and outshine the Cowboys stadium.

    And to top it off, the St Louis area has more than its share of criminals based on its crime rates so those bad guys automatically will become the new core of crazy, outrageous, and dangerous Raider fans.

    Its a perfect fit for the Raiders and a high crime area that needs a NFL team.

  8. dontouchmyjunk says: Jan 12, 2016 9:50 AM

    What? Find me one person in LA County who would prefer Carson’s toxic landfill over Inglewood. One person with disposable income, that is. The Forum, the Airport, the infrastructure. It’s already there. Plus the design of the Inglewood project is better and more useful to the community by a long way.

    Get used to it, Spanos. You are to LA what the Jets are to NY. NY is Giants town. LA is Rams town. You can win the fan’s affection by winning games but you will never be #1 in our hearts. It’s the same with the Lakers and Clippers. They share a building but everyone knows who’s #1 around here. Even with the recent success of the Clippers.

  9. wawa33 says: Jan 12, 2016 9:50 AM

    The Los Angeles Cowboys….Jerrah’s dream!

  10. pinkmist4 says: Jan 12, 2016 9:55 AM

    The real winner here sounds like it would be the Raiders and their fans. Team stays in Oakland, and gets enough cash to build their own stadium……

  11. spiffybiff says: Jan 12, 2016 9:56 AM

    Kroenke isn’t going to share profits with Spanos. Spanos doesn’t want to be a tenant,….. Otherwise he is better waiting it out in San Diego. All about owning your stadium

  12. liquidzoo says: Jan 12, 2016 9:56 AM

    From an outsiders perspective, the Inglewood project sounds like the better project for 1 reason: Kroenke is building it without public money.

    The Carson project, despite all the billions owned by Spanos and his hangers-on (like Iger, for whatever reason) is being publicly funded. If I had a vote, I would vote for Kroenke simply because his plan doesn’t burden the taxpayers.

  13. jimmyt says: Jan 12, 2016 9:57 AM

    Who are your sources? I’m hearing it’s going to be the Carson project that gets recommended by the LA committee. I also finally heard what Spanos said about “abiding by what the league says” and it can be put in a number of different context based on the sound of his voice alone but it sounds like he knows they will vote in his favor.

  14. ramfanmatt says: Jan 12, 2016 10:03 AM

    St Louis did the most to keep their team, but yet will lose their team. The NFL doesn’t care one bit about us. I hope we pull our offer and keep the NFL out of the city. I don’t want to be used as the next extortion city for the NFL to use to get other cities to pay up for new stadiums. It’s almost criminal that billionaires get giant stadiums built by tax payers.

  15. bubbybrisket says: Jan 12, 2016 10:06 AM

    I’m sure the league is eager to play “Conference Shuffle” in order to satisfy the Chargers/Oakland plan. Now, who goes to the NFC? My guess it’d be Oakland for Seattle.

  16. jimmyt says: Jan 12, 2016 10:11 AM

    Bob Iger has more juice than Kroenke.

  17. jgedgar70 says: Jan 12, 2016 10:15 AM

    ramfanmatt says:
    Jan 12, 2016 10:03 AM
    St Louis did the most to keep their team, but yet will lose their team. The NFL doesn’t care one bit about us. I hope we pull our offer and keep the NFL out of the city. I don’t want to be used as the next extortion city for the NFL to use to get other cities to pay up for new stadiums. It’s almost criminal that billionaires get giant stadiums built by tax payers.
    I hate to rain on your parade, but that’s exactly what will happen. Assuming the LA deal goes down as described here, the next city with a team that needs a stadium will be told to fork over the public money or their team will move to St. Louis, San Diego or London.

  18. demolition510 says: Jan 12, 2016 10:19 AM

    Rams and Dolts to LA
    Raiders get money for their own stadium in Oakland.

  19. dryzzt23 says: Jan 12, 2016 10:24 AM

    Free market capitalism at its best. Let the sites fight it out for the best offer to get a team or teams.

    The only downside is how much the taxes get jacked up b/c Lord knows that California liberals will tax ANYTHING and EVERYTHING….unless it benefits them of course, then they are exempt.

  20. realdealsteel says: Jan 12, 2016 10:25 AM

    Inglewood has and always will be the more viable option in Los Angeles.

    L.A. residents do not want to pay for any stadium and won’t pay for any stadium in any way, shape or form.

    Kroenke is fronting all the money; has room for one more tenant; Has office space for the NFL headquarters and NFL network also…..what’s not to like??????

    Everyone stop over thinking the situation and just award the Rams and Chargers the Los Angeles area relocation rights and be done with it.

    The NFL can partner with the Raiders and the city of Oakland to build a new Stadium in Oakland. If not, the Raiders can move to San Antonio.

  21. dryzzt23 says: Jan 12, 2016 10:27 AM

    I wish the Koch brothers would buy an NFL team, THAT would be fun to see them, and Fox News, rip ABC, NBC, CBS, and ESPN for their biased coverage b/c all media outlets (except Fox) loathe the Koch brothers.

    But those same media outlets would be fine with George Soros or a Saudi sheik owning an NFL team.

  22. powpow042 says: Jan 12, 2016 10:31 AM

    Carson has ALWAYS been a joke. It was a Fabiani smokescreen to try and leverage Inglewood and San Diego.

    It’s really pathetic that the Chargers are being awarded LA for being bad citizens in San Diego and being beated to the punch by Kroenke.

    Says a lot about Spanos and Fabiani. This will not go well for the Chargers in LA. Very toxic.

  23. dolfan1 says: Jan 12, 2016 10:36 AM

    So glad the Rams are returning to where they belong…. Go LA Rams!

  24. omegalh says: Jan 12, 2016 10:37 AM

    Why can’t all 3 move to LA?

    The NHL has 3 teams within 10 miles of one another in New Jersey, NY Rangers, and NY Islanders.

  25. realfootballfan says: Jan 12, 2016 10:37 AM

    Besides no one ever saying Carson’s landfill site is a better location than Inglewood except people who are taking sides for other reasons, this shouldn’t even be a conversation because one guy is proposing building his stadium with his own money, and St. Louis fans cry me a river because I’m pretty sure you took that team from Anaheim 20 years ago. What goes around comes around. The Inglewood proposal is the best solution, and who cares if Spanos is on board with it. He’s a buffoon anyway. There was a reason Eli Manning and his father didn’t want him to play there and rightfully so. Plus, the Raiders and their owner who has no money would allow for one of the league’s flagship teams with real history to stay put where they rightfully should be in the Bay area.

  26. blakeden says: Jan 12, 2016 10:38 AM

    32 huge egos….These guys/Gals are used to getting there way…Would love to be a fly on the wall…Or at least Jed Yorks teddy bear on his lap

  27. bryonneufeld says: Jan 12, 2016 10:42 AM

    Owners can move their team wherever they want, but the NFL can remove the team from their league. The NFL is under no obligation to have the Rams stay in their league.

  28. powpow042 says: Jan 12, 2016 10:45 AM

    Going to be a delay. Be back at it in Feb.

  29. stealthscorpio says: Jan 12, 2016 10:49 AM

    The majority of Carson land is admitted to be contaminated by the landfill. The NFL really wants that liability? Bet on Inglewood.

  30. bubbybrisket says: Jan 12, 2016 10:50 AM

    All of you on here who decry the “greedy owners” must realize that in a free market, they can do w/e they want. I find it so funny you all are ready to decry the greedy billionaires yet in the same breath defend Capitalism.

    You can’t have it both ways. They’re greedy b/c of the free market, the same one YOU defend.

  31. youngbloodsfibula says: Jan 12, 2016 10:54 AM

    This is all about money and power. Kroenke has more of it and will be able to do more in the Southern California for both his franchise and the league.

    I read a news blurb yesterday saying an influential owner who has not yet made public comments as to his allegiance stated Inglewood is a better project than Carson “and it’s not close”.

    As a native and lifelong Southern Californian, I hope the Rams move back alone. When Al Davis moved his Raiders into the vacant Coliseum years ago, having the 2nd team fractured the market. That said, if it is the Rams and Chargers, the Chargers would be wise to re-brand themselves and leave their name, logo and colors to San Diego.

    I and many others are only waiting to officially say… welcome home Los Angeles Rams!!!

  32. dasmol says: Jan 12, 2016 10:58 AM

    Will the money for the Raiders include a budget for state of the art tarps?

    Oh that’s right. They’re playing better and winning some games now. The fairest of the fair weather fans are sure to return.

    It’ll be the Rams and chargers in Inglewood. This whole dog and pony show is a lot more orchestrated than we’re being led to believe.

    It’s the NFL. Just follow the money, or what could make the most money. That’s what plan the owners will adopt. Nothing else matters. Just money.

  33. stl45fan says: Jan 12, 2016 11:06 AM

    All this for property in a smog city with no water that’s about to slide into the Pacific ocean!

  34. gbartell22 says: Jan 12, 2016 11:08 AM

    Instead of worrying about the perception of the nfl from its players with all that burfict nonsense how about they look to themselves and these shenanigans that really do hurt fans in markets. It’s disgusting.

  35. frenchysgoldfish says: Jan 12, 2016 11:09 AM

    Bob Iger/DISNEY owning part of an NFL team, along with ESPN? Does no one see the problem with the TV network that “covers” football, (badly to some opinions) leave themselves with such a conflict of interest. How about Chris Berman and Darth Vader (they own Star Wars too) coming out for the coin toss?

  36. pbeddoe says: Jan 12, 2016 11:09 AM

    Keep dreaming ladies, it’s the L.A. Raiders, done deal, just deal with it…

  37. jayhawk6 says: Jan 12, 2016 11:14 AM

    JJ’s input has one simple reason–he does not want the Chargers to end up in San Antonio, which might dilute his fan base.

  38. bubbybrisket says: Jan 12, 2016 11:14 AM

    In no way am I advocating for Socialism because that’s a flawed system. I’m simply saying I have no problem w/ what the owners do.

    Let them be greedy, it’s there right as an American. I think some of you are jealous of their wealth.

  39. raiderlyfe510 says: Jan 12, 2016 11:17 AM

    That Carson project is mentally challenged(being politically correct).

  40. jonathankrobinson424 says: Jan 12, 2016 11:21 AM

    …when this is all said and done SAN ANTONIO will be the new LA threat…..if it hasn’t happened all ready. Bring back the USFL San Antonio Gunslingers !

  41. dickrummy says: Jan 12, 2016 11:23 AM

    But, in fact, no teams go to LA. Ever.

  42. ravensfan56 says: Jan 12, 2016 11:24 AM

    People thought Mark Cuban was crazy when he said the NFL was going downhill. When you have a moron like Goodell in charge, overrated QBs like Matt Ryan making $20+mil/yr, and idiots like Vontaze Burfict and Pacman Jones playing, you are in for the continued demise of the NFL. I am not enjoying this at all. I love football, but it has become unwatchable recently.

  43. Silver and Black attack says: Jan 12, 2016 11:27 AM

    Tired of all this hear say bull crap..holler at me after they vote.

  44. bubbybrisket says: Jan 12, 2016 11:28 AM

    That Carson project is mentally challenged(being politically correct).

    That Carson project is retarded. Fixed it for you.

  45. 6250claimer says: Jan 12, 2016 11:37 AM

    So Rams & Chargers get “golden ticket to LA” while Raiders get free money to help build a new yard in Oakland – and somehow anybody thinks the Rams & Chargers are the “winners” here? The Raiders, with a new home, and IF they keep tickets affordable, will pack the joint and be the clear winners, especially as long as the Yorks own the Niners, the Raiders would quickly rise to the top of the bay area NFL ladder. 2 teams in LA? Guaranteed to fail! It would be shocking if ONE team makes it in LA, after the last 2 both failed. This is going to be fun to watch. I hope Mark Davis has the last laugh.

  46. igglesfan83 says: Jan 12, 2016 11:38 AM

    What I don’t get in all of this is why LA? They’ve twice had a team come and go. Why is it that now they can support 2 teams?

  47. purpleguy says: Jan 12, 2016 11:38 AM

    I just don’t see why the NFL is risking 2 teams in LA at once, when in prior years 1 wouldn’t even work. I’d say keep Oakland and the Rams where they are and move the Bolts. If the Rams can’t work out a stadium in a year or two, and the Bolts are successful, then move.

  48. davikes says: Jan 12, 2016 11:50 AM

    I think it’s ironic that Kroenke will probably pay for the Inglewood stadium, and the NFL will pay for the Raiders new stadium. The NFL extortion game just ended. None of the remaining markets (St. Louis, San Antonio) are big enough to be a viable threat for a relocation. “I’m going to move my team to St. Louis” just isn’t a threat. I am NOT dissing the Rams fans – the city just doesn’t have the money.

  49. spiffybiff says: Jan 12, 2016 11:56 AM

    When you consider San Antonio as a market you must also consider Austin which is an hour away and plenty of land between the 2 and I-35 for a new stadium. Combined it’s over 4 million people and the hottest real estate market in the country with tons of tech dollars. It’s more than viable

  50. williamwallacewouldhavebeenaraider says: Jan 12, 2016 12:05 PM

    sd5547 says:
    Jan 12, 2016 9:31 AM
    Dean Spanos would rather be the Rams bitch than work with the city of San Diego to build a stadium? What a fool.
    I thought I read that hes worked with them for 2 decades to no avail. Either way im pretty sure hes not in the same boat as my Raiders and he can afford to build a stadium on his own

  51. mogogo1 says: Jan 12, 2016 12:05 PM

    What does it say that Jerry Jones was more in tune with reality than the NFL on this? Kroenke is moving regardless and since he’s willing to spend his own money it’ll be extremely tough to vote against the Rams without the league looking like total thieves robbing the taxpayers blind.

  52. drunkraider says: Jan 12, 2016 12:06 PM

    Hope this works out, Raiders stay in Oakland. plus everytime they play the Rams or Bolts in LA its like another home game.

    no matter what they do, there is still way more Raider fans in SoCal than there ever will be charger/rams fans combined.

  53. jimmyt says: Jan 12, 2016 12:10 PM

    Please stop with this “out-of-Kroenke’s-own-pocket” nonsense and look up what TIFs are. Tax Increment Financing whereby the city and state will, over time, pay back every cent of the entire project not just the stadium to Stan and his partners. I’m not against TIFs but make no mistake about it, if built the taxpayers will be the ones paying for it in the end.

  54. vanmorrissey says: Jan 12, 2016 12:15 PM

    Rams and Raiders truly belong in LA, everyone there knows that. Chargers are/will be a second class citizen. Sure Dean, take your money and run, but you’ll never have the same prestige and respect you once had in SD. Then again, money talks and BS walks, walk away Dean, the Spanos way.

  55. greggfletch1 says: Jan 12, 2016 12:32 PM

    I said this three years ago, I think it will happen even more now. Meet your St. Louis Raiders. If Kroenke can build without owners permission, and now it sounds like the Rams are a shoe in for one of the LA spots. I know Davis said he wouldnt move to St. Louis, but if the owners say do it he will do it. No more money is coming to build in Oakland unless Davis puts it in himself. It will be strange to see Oakland in the NFC but there it is.

  56. aaaegs says: Jan 12, 2016 12:33 PM

    Can’t wait for pos Kroenke to start lying to LA

  57. granadafan says: Jan 12, 2016 1:20 PM

    bubbybrisket says:
    Jan 12, 2016 11:14 AM
    In no way am I advocating for Socialism because that’s a flawed system. I’m simply saying I have no problem w/ what the owners do.

    How ironic that you don’t advocate “socialism” yet the very success of the NFL is very “socialist” mixed with good old capitalism and the league is much better for it. Look at the mess of baseball.

    * There is revenue sharing (TV rights, London, NFL sponsorship, ticket sales, etc) so that the small market teams can compete and not be dominated by big market teams like baseball or the European soccer leagues.

    * The worst teams are rewarded with the first crack at the best players.

  58. beerbudsnbevo says: Jan 12, 2016 2:07 PM

    Bloods vs. Crips

  59. padvcd080974yahoocom says: Jan 12, 2016 2:17 PM

    If the Chargers/Rams brotherhood seems like the perfect solution for the “who gets to go to L.A. problem, why not pair up the Raiders with the 49’s in Santa Clara???

  60. stlouisfan says: Jan 12, 2016 2:51 PM

    Hey LA you are getting TWO teams ! you should be happy you are getting any team. Stop complaining about who you get. BTW….The Raiders are the best team of the three. ( if you care about winning ) Maybe Stan would sell the Rams name to one of the teams if they don’t leave STL. Im sure if he could make a little something from it he would sell it . Means nothing to him. In fact I heard he will have a new logo on the helmet …. $…… That’s the logo. so the Rams logo and name might be available.

  61. richdogg231 says: Jan 12, 2016 7:07 PM

    The Chargers would basically be the new Clippers in LA if they accepted the arranged marriage with the Rams from the NFL.

Leave a Reply

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