Skip to content

Report: L.A. committee recommends Carson over Inglewood

cd0ymzcznguwzdbhnduynddiytjhm2yyzthlmtjjotqwyyznpwqwmjrkntrimmixmmqxmdq2yzlkmjfhmwy5otk3nmvl AP

The full ownership might decide to go a different route.

But the NFL’s Los Angeles committee has spoken, and they prefer Carson to Inglewood.

According to Sports Business Daily, the league’s six-owner committee on L.A. Opportunities has recommended the Carson project which to this point has been presented as a Chargers-Raiders partnership, instead of the Rams-backed Inglewood site.

According to the report, it’s unclear if the lean toward Carson is the same as a preference for the Chargers and possibly Raiders, as the notion of Chargers-Rams pairing there remains possible.

But frankly, it’s the owners, so anything’s still possible when you put 32 very rich and powerful people who aren’t used to hearing “No ” in a room together.

The Carson project was presented by Disney CEO Bob Iger, who was recruited to the effort by committee member and Panthers owner Jerry Richardson.

The other committee members are Steelers owner Art Rooney, Giants owner John Mara, Chiefs owner Clark Hunt, Patriots owner Robert Kraft and Texans owner Bob McNair.

It’s unclear if the recommendation was unanimous. It will take 24 votes to approve any relocation, and this is clearly still a very fluid situation.

Permalink 107 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers, Top Stories
107 Responses to “Report: L.A. committee recommends Carson over Inglewood”
  1. isnotreality says: Jan 12, 2016 1:09 PM

    Kroeneke’s goin’ Rogue…

  2. metalman5150 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:10 PM

    1st world problems

  3. ctiggs says: Jan 12, 2016 1:10 PM

    Both are no good I would put it in Orange or Ventura county

  4. reptar310 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:11 PM

    Back when the Raiders and Rams were in LA they played in terrible stadiums. Almost every NFL team was getting a new (and in some cases 2nd) stadium since the Raiders/Rams had been in LA. The owners pushed the city for new stadiums. The City refused. The owners knew the NFL would never let a successful team making big money move, so the 2 owners made the decision to strip down the teams to bare bones and suck so fans wouldn’t want to see them. With bad teams and low attendance, it made it easy to move.

    Los Angeles stood up to the NFL and said no public money for billionaire owners to build stadiums and lost their two teams for that stand. St Louis bought a billionaire a new stadium in 1994 and look where that got them today. Only dumb and naive fans make fun of LA for losing their two teams, but LA did what no other city has had the guts to do since. LA knew the NFL would come crawling back eventually, still with no public money for a stadium.

    The Dodgers had a 20 year playoff drought, the Clippers were awful until lately, and the Kings never won anything until a couple years ago. The last place Lakers are still supported, and have a 3 year wait for season tickets. All of them were supported during bad times… The LA “only supports a winner” is a myth.

    Cities with failed NFL franchises who now have teams again:

    Cleveland Bulldogs, Rams, Browns
    Boston Redskins
    Chicago Cardinals
    Dallas Texans
    Oakland Raiders
    Baltimore Colts
    St Louis Cardinals
    Houston Oilers

    The Rams were in Los Angeles for 48 years. That is longer than 8 current franchises have existed.

  5. kevpft says: Jan 12, 2016 1:12 PM

    I guess I thought this would all turn out neatly, even with some plans being thwarted.

    Now I’m starting to wonder whether this will actually end up being a huge mess.

  6. realdealsteel says: Jan 12, 2016 1:12 PM

    So???

    Anybody with any sense can see the Kroneke deal is the better deal.

  7. dwoofer says: Jan 12, 2016 1:13 PM

    Can we move the Rams into the AFC so the Cardinals don’t have togo play in the musty cellar every season?

  8. DerekCarrsGoldenArm says: Jan 12, 2016 1:13 PM

    As a Raider fan living in Chicago, the best play for the Raiders is to vote for the Carson project with the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium there and the league helping build a smaller, football only stadium in the East Bay with the relo fees.

    The only loser in that scenario is Kroenke. He wants his team in his own stadium on his land. He still gets LA but not on his terms.

  9. 80sbroncofan says: Jan 12, 2016 1:14 PM

    It was just a recommendation. It doesn’t mean that is what everyone will vote.

  10. steelbreeze676 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:16 PM

    What’s funny? LA won’t even support 1 team, never mind 2.

  11. awdlmd says: Jan 12, 2016 1:19 PM

    As much as that Disney guy is being paid he should not be allowed to take side jobs. He should be personally packaging BB-8 toys in his spare time.

  12. 3menandablog says: Jan 12, 2016 1:19 PM

    So LA only wants the Rams.

    Inglewood is the better location. With a better venue plan.

    So let’s do Carson and rip the hearts out of 2 cities.

    What the hell is going on here? These billionaire a-holes are so blinded by greed and out of touch that they don’t even realize how bad of a decision they are about to make.

  13. clickablecontent says: Jan 12, 2016 1:20 PM

    This is starting to sound like Littlefinger and Varys whispering in the ears of the King’s Council. Peter Dinklage should go to this meeting and slap some fools.

  14. fleadog99 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:22 PM

    No one finds it disgusting that an owner is willing to put up billions of own $ for a stadium in one city, and degrade a city he is currently in, who put forth a plan to build a new stadium? Btw, his teams are last or bottom in the leagues in which they reside. He deserves to have his team stripped from his hands, as the team is part of an overall brand. If that division is degrading and harming the image of the brand, it should be removed.

  15. cajunaise says: Jan 12, 2016 1:23 PM

    Everything else aside: if you Google Earth the sites, Carson makes a lot more sense.

  16. bleedgreen says: Jan 12, 2016 1:23 PM

    Having 2 teams in the same division share a stadium would be … unique. It would work with Rams and either the Raiders OR the Chargers, as its done in NYJ/NYG, but yeah. I wouldn’t want to share a stadium with my division rival.

  17. raiderlyfe510 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:23 PM

    Isn’t Jed York on that committee. Does anybody know where his stadium is located. It’s in the worst possible Bay Area location. This is its 2nd year and the stadium is half filled…NFL owners gotta be the biggest idiots in the world. The Carson project is desperate and raggedy.

  18. jjfootball says: Jan 12, 2016 1:24 PM

    If they don’t listen to the L.A. committee, then what was the purpose of the committee?

  19. phootballphorever says: Jan 12, 2016 1:24 PM

    What a mess.

    Oh, and Dallas still sucks.

  20. mmack66 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:26 PM

    Is this the toxic waste dump site?

    Figures the NFL would go that route. Wonder where the money trail goes on that one.

  21. armoderate says: Jan 12, 2016 1:26 PM

    Thumb your nose at them, Kroenke. The other owners are just jealous that you won’t kiss their behind. If you have a stadium built and move your team, then no one will be able to gather the capital necessary to build another stadium in LA. This is a perfect example of the old boys club versus the owners who are consider outsiders. And if the NFL wants you to stay in St. Louis, do it only if they take on the majority of the required costs while you keep complete ownership.

  22. pantherpro says: Jan 12, 2016 1:29 PM

    Where will Raider trash end up? Nobody wants them!

  23. jjfootball says: Jan 12, 2016 1:29 PM

    The LA fans want the Raiders first, then the rams second, and they don’t want the chargers at all. If they really care about success in LA, then why wouldn’t they give the city what it wants?

  24. beavertonsteve says: Jan 12, 2016 1:30 PM

    If they don’t listen to the L.A. committee, then what was the purpose of the committee?
    —-
    Or you could ask, what was the point of putting a majority of Spanos’ closest allies on a committee that is supposed to be making a recommendation involving the Chargers?

  25. logast says: Jan 12, 2016 1:31 PM

    Where are they going to get the water needed to construct a new stadium?

  26. pastabelly says: Jan 12, 2016 1:33 PM

    reptar310 says:
    Jan 12, 2016 1:11 PM
    Only dumb and naive fans make fun of LA for losing their two teams, but LA did what no other city has had the guts to do since. LA knew the NFL would come crawling back eventually, still with no public money for a stadium.

    ========================================
    Massachusetts did the same thing to the Patriots and they did a deal with Connecticut. The deal fell apart and the NFL really didn’t want to lose greater Boston. Rooney came up with a plan for the NFL to loan Kraft money and the state wound up only paying for infrastructure. Your points are good, but they only work for big markets. I’m surprised the NFL has stayed out of LA for so long. I’m more surprised that the Carson project was recommended, but I wouldn’t bet against Kroenke having the votes to kill it.

  27. metalup666 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:35 PM

    Why are Mara and Kraft there? Two of the biggest weasels in the entire NFL

  28. coltzfan166 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:35 PM

    Hmmm the Carson site where all the land is contaminated or the $2 billion Inglewood site which includes the NFL getting another studio for the NFL Network, tough choices indeed

  29. harrisonhits2 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:37 PM

    “Cities with failed NFL franchises who now have teams again:

    Cleveland Bulldogs, Rams, Browns
    Boston Redskins
    Chicago Cardinals
    Dallas Texans
    Oakland Raiders
    Baltimore Colts
    St Louis Cardinals
    Houston Oilers”

    I don’t think the Boston Redskins or Cleveland Bulldogs count as failed NFL franchises at this point its a much different world these days.

    And as to the Colts they did not “fail”. They left Baltimore because the city was about to try and exert eminent domain over the team and literally steal it from the owner. Now I believe there was conflict between the team and city over the city refusing to pay for a new stadium. That’s what led to the team ultimately leaving, not failure.

  30. cheeksdamonkey says: Jan 12, 2016 1:37 PM

    This whole thing is just smoke n mirrors.. A complete farce! How much $ is enough?

  31. jjfootball says: Jan 12, 2016 1:37 PM

    Get educated people the Raiders, and Chargers wouldn’t stay in the same division if they move to carson together, and everybody knows there’s more Raiders fans in LA then rams fans!

  32. Stupid Lions Fan says: Jan 12, 2016 1:38 PM

    Inglewood always up to no good

  33. chesswhileyouplaycheckers says: Jan 12, 2016 1:39 PM

    It would be interesting to see if any of the reasons favoring Carson have to do with the concerns voiced by the FAA and Homeland

  34. raiderlyfe510 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:40 PM

    I mean seriously. Who sits a contemplates the best solution for long term success in the NFL, and then recommends the most desperate project with the two desperate franchises over the Inglewood Palace project by a self sufficient franchise and ownership.

    The LA .Committee is mentally challenged,

  35. liquidzoo says: Jan 12, 2016 1:40 PM

    Cities with failed NFL franchises who now have teams again:

    Cleveland Bulldogs, Rams, Browns
    Boston Redskins
    Chicago Cardinals
    Dallas Texans
    Oakland Raiders
    Baltimore Colts
    St Louis Cardinals
    Houston Oilers

    The Rams were in Los Angeles for 48 years. That is longer than 8 current franchises have existed.

    —-

    To be fair, Chicago had both the Cardinals and the Bears at the same time. They didn’t lose the Cardinals and gain the Bears.

  36. kjdoyle58 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:42 PM

    If Carson gets the nod here’s what I would do if I were in StanK’s shoes…OK, Raiders and Chargers…build it…I’ll go back to St Louis and build my own Stadium in Maryland Heights.

    I’d bet then that Carson never gets built, and the slimeball cheater Carman Policy can go back to Frisco and pound sand.

  37. Kailani says: Jan 12, 2016 1:42 PM

    of course it’s a mess. It’s the NFL.

  38. metalup666 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:44 PM

    Didn’t the Dallas Texans become the Chiefs. How is that a failed team?

  39. therealraider says: Jan 12, 2016 1:45 PM

    No matter what Mark Davis will come out of this a richer man.

  40. kenchun24 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:45 PM

    Billionaire power plays…

    Shady property/land deals…

    Throw in some blue collar character storylines, a little occult background (Jerry Jones running a secret society ala Kubricks “Eyes Wide Shut”) and this should have been the story/script for the second season of True Detective: Los Angeles.

  41. colt13 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:46 PM

    pantherpro says:
    Jan 12, 2016 1:29 PM
    Where will Raider trash end up? Nobody wants them!

    In San Antonio, leaving the bay with the Niners.

  42. dasmol says: Jan 12, 2016 1:47 PM

    Does anyone from the LA Committee actually live in, or spend a significant amount of time in LA? Do they know anything about traffic or the people there?

  43. smartanis says: Jan 12, 2016 1:49 PM

    Well, this won’t get ugly at all.

  44. TheDPR says: Jan 12, 2016 1:50 PM

    The Committee was biased from the start. Their recommendation is as well-founded as the Wells Report. Just like that ridiculous document, the league powers will go along with it.

    In almost no time at all in the grand scheme of pro sports in America, the NFL has gone from the gold standard to the worst-run league in the country.

  45. odomfel says: Jan 12, 2016 1:52 PM

    I think Kranky old dude should get a talking to. Since he wants to move to LA so bad, why not kick in some dough on the Carson deal with the Chargers? Since he can afford to build his own. If he is a part of the whole, why not be part of the whole. He gets what he wants by moving to LA, he gives a little so he gets what he wants by kicking in some money on the new shared house. they split the revenues and so forth.

    If he doesn’t like it then he can stay in St. Louis where they will help build a new stadium there.

    Or he can just sell his team.

  46. jmoney74 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:53 PM

    Funny how most fans think LA can’t have a football team. The rams were here for 50 years. NFL is crawling back now.. without public money. lol.

  47. jjfootball says: Jan 12, 2016 1:53 PM

    ROGER GOODELL SAID A FEW MONTHS AGO – IN ORDER TO MOVE A TEAM THAT TEAM MUST HAVE EXPLORED EVERY AVENUE TO STAY IN THEIR CURRENT CITY. THE ONLY ONE WHO HASN’T DONE THIS IS STAN KROENKE

  48. deviousmedia says: Jan 12, 2016 1:53 PM

    I would love the Raiders to come to LA being a Raiders fan but they should stay in Oakland. I know the city of Oakland is doing absolutely nothing to keep them since they have financial issues.

    The Chargers and Rams have no fan base in LA compared to the Raiders.

    Over the holidays I was in multiple stores and all I saw was Raiders gear not one Chargers or Rams item.

    According to Facebook the Raiders own the LA market based on Likes not the Chargers or Rams. You can look it up on Google if you don’t believe me. Weird stat I know but says something about the audience.

    Driving and walking around LA there are very few if any Rams fans. There are a few Charger fans. There are a ton of Raiders fans. Stickers on cars, shirts, hats, etc…

    I actually see a ton of other teams more so than Chargers and Rams. LA is a transplant town. So many people move here from other parts of the US and still follow their team.

    If the Chargers and Rams move to LA it really won’t be a home game for either of those two teams based on how LA follows professional sports teams outside of the LA Kings.

    1. They luxury boxes will be sold to corporations.
    2. The great seats will be sold to corporations.
    3. The corporations will have fans who follow other teams that will root for their own team.
    4. There will be people that are in LA who attend games to see their team from out of town play here.
    5. I am guessing that at least 50% of “home” games for the Chargers or Rams will be considered an “Away” game.

    Once again, as much as I would love to see the Raiders stay in Oakland I do not see it happening. With the mentions of them moving to San Antonio I would be pissed as a fan and have to consider my options.

    Move the Rams to San Antonio since it is closer to St. Louis and they have already left California.

    Have the Raiders and Chargers come to LA.

    Forget Carson and move them to Farmer’s field downtown. That is the BEST place for a stadium in LA by far. By the time a stadium would be built downtown all of the trains will be in throughout LA. It would be very easy to get to a game. No trains are going through Carson or Inglewood nor would you want to ride those trains for safety.

  49. jjfootball says: Jan 12, 2016 1:56 PM

    ROGER GOODELL SAID A FEW MONTHS AGO – IN ORDER TO MOVE A TEAM THAT TEAM MUST HAVE EXPLORED EVERY AVENUE TO STAY IN THEIR CURRENT CITY. THE ONLY ONE WHO HASN’T DONE THIS IS STAN KROENKE

  50. nels1959 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:56 PM

    So happy chicago was able to get an nfl team back when the cardinals left. Oh wait the Bears were a charter member of the nfl. Just a long stupid post that’s factually wrong. And if you think Los Angeles somehow won by not having a team for 30 years more power to you. Pretty sure the nfl owners didn’t care one bit as they raked in the money.

  51. cosmoman11 says: Jan 12, 2016 1:58 PM

    Are 24 other owners prepared to thumb their noses at the old guard on the LA committee?

  52. anonymousnevermindfishdeath says: Jan 12, 2016 2:00 PM

    Of course they would pick the worst option, – Stan, load up that Mayflower!

  53. Fake French Accent says: Jan 12, 2016 2:01 PM

    cajunaise says:
    Jan 12, 2016 1:23 PM
    Everything else aside: if you Google Earth the sites, Carson makes a lot more sense.
    ———————————

    Spoken like someone who has never transversed the 405.

    Inglewood>Carson. Carson is an amalgam of Used car lot hell and industrial park hell, split down the middle by a freeway which moves at the pace of a glacier.

    Please no Carson, please no Carson.

  54. philtration says: Jan 12, 2016 2:01 PM

    reptar310 says:
    Jan 12, 2016 1:11 PM

    The LA “only supports a winner” is a myth.
    Cities with failed NFL franchises who now have teams again:

    Cleveland Bulldogs, Rams, Browns
    Boston Redskins
    Chicago Cardinals
    Dallas Texans
    Oakland Raiders
    Baltimore Colts
    St Louis Cardinals
    Houston Oilers

    The Rams were in Los Angeles for 48 years. That is longer than 8 current franchises have existed.
    ==================================

    How does Chicago fit into your list?
    The cardinals left for St. Louis because they were never going to compete with the Bears for the local fan base. They won just one championship in Chicago while the Bears were dominating.
    When the Bidwills wanted to relocate to another city the NFL wanted a big relocation fee which the Bidwells did not to or could not pay.
    Out-of-town investors wanted to buy the Cardinals but the Bidwells only willing to sell a minority stake in the team.
    Those investors included Lamar Hunt, Bud Adams, Bob Howsam and Max Winter and when they could not but the Cardinals they banded together and started the AFL.
    The NFL quickly came to terms engineered a deal with the Bidwills that sent the Cardinals to St. Louis and blocked the AFL from putting a team in St.Louis.

    The Bears never left, they have been in Chicago for the last 95 years.
    Not the same situation as the other cities listed above at all.

  55. philtration says: Jan 12, 2016 2:01 PM

    reptar310 says:
    Jan 12, 2016 1:11 PM

    The LA “only supports a winner” is a myth.
    Cities with failed NFL franchises who now have teams again:

    Cleveland Bulldogs, Rams, Browns
    Boston Redskins
    Chicago Cardinals
    Dallas Texans
    Oakland Raiders
    Baltimore Colts
    St Louis Cardinals
    Houston Oilers

    The Rams were in Los Angeles for 48 years. That is longer than 8 current franchises have existed.
    ==================================

    How does Chicago fit into your list?
    The cardinals left for St. Louis because they were never going to compete with the Bears for the local fan base. They won just one championship in Chicago while the Bears were dominating.
    When the Bidwills wanted to relocate to another city the NFL wanted a big relocation fee which the Bidwells did not to or could not pay.
    Out-of-town investors wanted to buy the Cardinals but the Bidwells only willing to sell a minority stake in the team.
    Those investors included Lamar Hunt, Bud Adams, Bob Howsam and Max Winter and when they could not but the Cardinals they banded together and started the AFL.
    The NFL quickly came to terms engineered a deal with the Bidwills that sent the Cardinals to St. Louis and blocked the AFL from putting a team in St.Louis.

    The Bears never left, they have been in Chicago for the last 95 years.
    Not the same situation as the other cities listed above at all.

  56. mogogo1 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:02 PM

    So, the NFL literally looks to poison the ground in LA before ever arriving by backing a stadium on a toxic waste site. And the taxpayers will be on the hook for virtually the entire thing? Smart.

  57. jedimasterbates says: Jan 12, 2016 2:06 PM

    Whatever they do, I hope it’s not a dome or a retractable roof that never gets opened. Football is meant to be played in open air stadiums. Domes suck.

  58. jm91rs says: Jan 12, 2016 2:06 PM

    I thought the Carson project was going to require some public financing? My guess is that the Inglewood proposal isn’t working because Kroenke wants the 2nd team to be his tenant, rather than a jointly owned operation. If I were Kroenke I’d share the stadium jointly but not the parking etc.

    Either way, I’m a little surprised Davis or Spanos would have 550 Mil to spend on relocation and still have anything left to build a stadium. Their franchises may be worth a billion but that’s not liquid cash. Kroenke can just reach into his wife’s purse for that.

  59. cmj0121 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:08 PM

    LOS ANGELES RAIDERS NOW!!

  60. fjtardy says: Jan 12, 2016 2:08 PM

    Instead of saying “Disney” CEO Bob Iger, you should say “ABC/ESPN” overlord Bob Iger. Now we are talking some serious money via TV rights that comes into the NFL. Stan and the more desirable Inglewood site are a distant second to Disney and the less desirable Carson stadium. Let’s not bite the hand that feeds us….

  61. truths4all says: Jan 12, 2016 2:09 PM

    All this means is all three team will be in LA.

  62. daytontriangles says: Jan 12, 2016 2:11 PM

    Stan Kroneke, if the League screws you over on this, bring the Rams to San Diego!

    San Diego fans support the city far more more than the Chargers themselves, especially with Spanos in charge.

    The Rams would be welcome with open arms. You’d be able to build your new stadium in a beautiful city (the 8th largest in the United States) with no competition from a second NFL team.

  63. 8oneanddones says: Jan 12, 2016 2:12 PM

    Disney owns ESPN
    ESPN gives billions to the NFL for TV rights
    NFL gives lucrative deal to Disney CEO

    Any questions?

  64. osiris33 (bandwagon since 1976) says: Jan 12, 2016 2:12 PM

    The old fogey owners (Rooney, Mara, Kraft…) are siding with the old fogey owner of the Chargers. Stupid. The Rams and the Raiders are the only teams LA actually wants.

  65. kane337 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:14 PM

    The LA committee basically said we don’t want Stan to pay for his own stadium. They rather get more money from the public. Screw these owners if they vote for the Carson location.

  66. reptar310 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:17 PM

    Levis Stadium is in the flight path for San Jose International Airport. Plans fly low directly over the stadium during games. The whole Inglewood Stadium is in a bad spot because of LAX is bogus. The Forum has been there this whole time.

  67. raiderlyfe510 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:20 PM

    8oneanddones says:
    Jan 12, 2016 2:12 PM
    Disney owns ESPN
    ESPN gives billions to the NFL for TV rights
    NFL gives lucrative deal to Disney CEO

    Any questions?
    ——————————————-
    I’m sure CBS would love to pay the NFL “billions” if ESPN drops them.

  68. granadafan says: Jan 12, 2016 2:20 PM

    Gets popcorn and watches the trainwreck.

    As an LA resident, all I care is that we won’t be paying one single red cent of taxpayer money for the stadium(s). Whatever site the stadium gets built, the people will come. There is no one “central” part of LA. People don’t realize or can’t comprehend just how big the place is geographically and population wise. For me, Inglewood is closer and and in a more desirable location, but not so much for fans coming from Orange County.

    Carson is a dump, full of industrial complexes. Inglewood is the “hood” but has much more potential to become nicer provided the right gentrification comes in.

  69. jaggedmark says: Jan 12, 2016 2:23 PM

    I live in LA County. Not a fan of either 3 teams, but I’d go to Inglewood to watch games. I’d never go to Carson City (a.k.a. Sticksville)

  70. weepingjebus says: Jan 12, 2016 2:27 PM

    “Therefore we shall call it … The L.A. Carson Project.” — Dr. Goodell

  71. rufustfirefly1303 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:28 PM

    Where are these teams going to play for the next 2 years seeing as no new stadium has broken ground?

  72. cafetero1075 says: Jan 12, 2016 2:34 PM

    Regardless of who goes. Tax payers should not pay for any stadium. These guys make BILLIONS. Let the owners pay.

  73. lanflfan says: Jan 12, 2016 2:34 PM

    fleadog99 says:
    Jan 12, 2016 1:22 PM

    No one finds it disgusting that an owner is willing to put up billions of own $ for a stadium in one city, and degrade a city he is currently in, who put forth a plan to build a new stadium? Btw, his teams are last or bottom in the leagues in which they reside. He deserves to have his team stripped from his hands, as the team is part of an overall brand. If that division is degrading and harming the image of the brand, it should be removed.
    _____________________________________

    Funny thing, an eerily similar thing happened to the Rams in the early 1990’s that brought them to St Louis (and the need for their owner at the time, the vile Seahag, to fund her yearly facelifts with the team she “stole” from the children of her deceased husband). Those who don’t learn from history…

  74. barneyrumble says: Jan 12, 2016 2:35 PM

    First thing you do as a journalist is follow the money!

    This guy is spot on!
    ___________________________
    8oneanddones says:

    Disney owns ESPN
    ESPN gives billions to the NFL for TV rights
    NFL gives lucrative deal to Disney CEO

    Any questions?

  75. sportnorcal says: Jan 12, 2016 2:45 PM

    Again – why are we talking about going from NONE to TWO teams in LA?

    Makes no sense.

  76. rajbais says: Jan 12, 2016 2:49 PM

    This is the right decision.

    The Chargers’ could lose at least 50% of their fan base by going from San Diego to Los Angeles. The move is sort of like the Browns moving to Baltimore. No joke.

    However, since the Raiders, per merchandise sales, are the most popular team in Los Angeles, they help make up for the Chargers’ potential lost revenue.

    Plus, it’s not a good idea to grant an absentee owner who keeps his undeserving, overpaid coach in his current town while having possible FAA violations and presence only in Denver.

  77. araidersfan says: Jan 12, 2016 2:57 PM

    Son-of-Al is just as much of a fool as his father except that he’s more deceitful than Al. Son-of-Al NEVER wanted to stay in Oakland despite his prevarications to the contrary and it was ALWAYS his goal to move the Raiders to Los Angeles.. I’m pulling for Kroenke so that ideally the Raiders stay in Oakland with Son-of-Al is forced to sell the team to someone who is willing to finance a stadium there. Or that if Son-of-Al insists in keeping possession of the team and moving that it’s NOT to La-la land (e.g. go to San Antonio or Portland).

    If the Raiders actually do repeat the mistake of moving to La-la land then I’m not sure if I’ll live long enough to see them have consistent success on the field again.

  78. myopinionisrighterthanyours says: Jan 12, 2016 2:58 PM

    weepingjebus says:
    Jan 12, 2016 2:27 PM

    “Therefore we shall call it … The L.A. Carson Project.” — Dr. Goodell

    Comment of the day. Well done.

  79. ivanpavlov0000 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:09 PM

    Recommending Carson is the same thing as kicking the can down the road a little further. This will end with Kroenke pulling a Georgia and threatening to take the NFL to court.

  80. raiddawgz says: Jan 12, 2016 3:18 PM

    Ram and Raiders back to LA and have them share a stadium. Use the relocation funds to build the Chargers a stadium in SD. The Chargers are the only ones that do not make any sense in LA. Rams and Raiders have both won superbowls in LA and still have plenty of fans that would welcome them back.

  81. jmoney74 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:18 PM

    Stan already signed an agreement saying what the NFL decides.. he will live with it. So going rogue will go against his binding agreement?

  82. VenerableAxiom says: Jan 12, 2016 3:23 PM

    I’m sure money and politics had nothing to do with the recommendation.

  83. cheeksdamonkey says: Jan 12, 2016 3:35 PM

    You’d think they’re voting on a new pope.. Then again that’s less painful & time consuming.
    Just sayin…

  84. punxrawk124 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:36 PM

    Why is that everyone on this site loves Kroenke so much?
    If there’s a villain in this whole process it his him. St. Louis can work but he is not willing to play ball. Kroenke has owned the Rams for five years, if he didn’t want to be in St Louis he should not have bought the Rams. I’m sure someone else would take the Rams off his hands and work out a deal with St Louis.
    People are just so hung up on having the Rams back in LA that they don’t care who that walk over to make that happen.

  85. pftstory says: Jan 12, 2016 3:41 PM

    I don’t see the expectation of a team being supported in a given market being based on how many T-shirts with the logo are available at the local K-Mart.
    I don’t believe they were selling hordes of Ravens gear 2 years prior to it being announced the team would be placed there. Same with the Jags, Texans and Panthers. I also doubt St louis was selling Rams jersey’s during the teams years in LA.

    I don’t see much issue with two teams from one division sharing a stadium. But I can see scheduling being an issue, and the Chiefs and Bronco’s could see it as an advantage for the other two.
    But the concerns others see are easily fixed by trading divisions with the Rams.

    Do people go to Clippers games? What did Sterling sell them for? Somehow I don’t think the value of the team(s) that land in LA will be determined by if the stadium is 60% or 100% full.

  86. rulesoflogic says: Jan 12, 2016 3:44 PM

    IMHO, the committee vote means nothing. The current NFL rules for approving relocation (3/4 vote changed from unanimous after the NFL lost the original Al Davis case) have never really been tested. I think Kroenke is going to LA with or without league approval so the league would rather it be with.

    Kroenke may be an SOB, but the Rams belong to him and not to the NFL and, sorry, not to St. Louis fans. That’s the way of the world, folks.

  87. mvp43 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:48 PM

    Kroenke only wanted the Rams as a means to get his new edifice built in LA. He never intended on keeping the franchise in Louis at all.

  88. balt88 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:49 PM

    realdealsteel says: Jan 12, 2016 1:12 PM

    So???

    Anybody with any sense can see the Kroneke deal is the better deal.

    ================================

    St Louis has stepped up a few times now and has a viable stadium option.

    Kroenke basically lied when he bought the team and had every intention of moving it no matter what.

    It’s a bunch a garbage that a team that has a stadium option insists on leaving because it’s wants to jump to a bigger market. In particular when you have two teams already in California that do not have stadium options where they are at.

  89. rewdog24 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:51 PM

    The NFL’s biggest fear is that Congress will get involved. They can take away a lot of protections from the NFL.

    #1. Tax Exempt Status

    #2 Anti-Trust Protection

    The case can be made for leaving Oakland and SD.
    There is no case for leaving STL. The NFL knows that and doesnt want to have to answer to Congress.

  90. mt10425 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:52 PM

    EVERY business in La Jolla should refuse to wait on a Spanos and not accept their money. Show them the lack of respect they deserve. Move already.

  91. randolf711 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:53 PM

    Why didn’t they consider a Rams/Raiders marriage and give the extra money to San Diego to keep their team? The Raiders and Rams are more popular in LA. The Raiders have no money so we can pair them with the wealthy Rams. San Diego actually wants their team so let them stay.

  92. justanotherfan101 says: Jan 12, 2016 3:54 PM

    The Carson site is a toxic waste dump, which may be where the owners want to put any team that wants to move.

  93. punxrawk124 says: Jan 12, 2016 4:13 PM

    Stan Kroenke is another Art Modell.
    All NFL fans should be upset on behalf of St Louis fans for this clown trying to rip the Rams from them

    And you can bring up San Diego and Oakland but unlike those cities there is a deal to be made in St Louis if the owner is negotiating in good faith

  94. thedom2424 says: Jan 12, 2016 4:27 PM

    Assuming they vote in favor of the Raiders/Chargers bid, the question would then become: which NFC team (presumably an NFC west team) would move to the AFC West, and when? Would they move next year? Would that mean that the teams trading places would also trade home and away opponents that have already been established for next year?

    Seattle played in the AFC West for about 25 years, so they could renew those rivalries… I guess we shall wait and see.

  95. dcapettini says: Jan 12, 2016 4:37 PM

    You cannot have two AFC teams in the same stadium. Sooner or later, both teams will make the playoffs and unless they play each other, one will have to give up the home field. But since we would not know until week 17 maybe, there wouldn’t be much time to work that out. It would be even worse if they are in the same division. The only way this will work is if the league somehow convinces the Rams to move to the AFC West so that either the Chargers or Raiders can move to the NFC West. Good luck convincing Kroenke to do that.

  96. Getoffmylawn! says: Jan 12, 2016 4:38 PM

    raiddawgz says:
    Jan 12, 2016 3:18 PM

    Ram and Raiders back to LA and have them share a stadium. Use the relocation funds to build the Chargers a stadium in SD. The Chargers are the only ones that do not make any sense in LA. Rams and Raiders have both won superbowls in LA and still have plenty of fans that would welcome them back.
    ——————————————
    Now what year did the Rams win the Super Bowl in LA again?
    Oh yeah, Never!
    DUH.
    This must be the same person who thinks they moved because the fans didn’t support the teams.

  97. kane337 says: Jan 12, 2016 4:39 PM

    The villain is actually Georgia Frontiere. She moved the team to St. Louis when the cities Los Angeles and Anaheim would not buy her a new stadium. Stan is going to be the hero that brings the Rams back.

  98. briang123 says: Jan 12, 2016 4:40 PM

    It’s almost as if all of this is a ruse to get St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland to panic enough to buck up for a stadium, and then they expand and get themselves a $2 billion expansion fee for a team in L.A, and another expansion team elsewhere for another $2 billion (to keep the numbers even) (San Antonio, Portland, dare I say London) to split up 32 ways. That is $125 million per team. I’d be willing to bet that is the true goal.

  99. punxrawk124 says: Jan 12, 2016 4:46 PM

    kane337 says:
    Jan 12, 2016 4:39 PM

    The villain is actually Georgia Frontiere. She moved the team to St. Louis when the cities Los Angeles and Anaheim would not buy her a new stadium. Stan is going to be the hero that brings the Rams back.

    what twisted logic. so i guess St louis fans don’t matter? the Rams have been there over 20 years.should we rip the Colts out of indy?how about the ravens should we send them back too?

    sorry the LA Rams ship sailed a long time ago ripping them out of St Louis for nothing but greed does not make things right

  100. hoit624 says: Jan 12, 2016 5:03 PM

    Most likely because, as Tupac says, “Inglewood always up to no good”.

  101. bigdawg24 says: Jan 12, 2016 5:06 PM

    I would hate to see the AFC West get broken up.

    That will be a result if Chargers & Raiders share the same Stadium.

  102. sdcharger123 says: Jan 12, 2016 5:15 PM

    Either scenario sounds like San Diego is getting screwed, and will never get another NFL team if Deano has his way. Today sucks. Junior Seau is rolling in his grave right now.

  103. Getoffmylawn! says: Jan 12, 2016 5:20 PM

    The NFL will back anything that uses public money to fund a stadium instead of having one of their own pay for it.
    No relocation money is going to be given to any single team to build their stadium because, there are 31 other greedy owners wanting their share of that cash.
    You think Jerry Jones would be OK if these teams move to LA and the relocation money goes to San Antonio instead of in his pocket?

  104. aaaegs says: Jan 12, 2016 6:24 PM

    Do not trust Kroenke. You have been warned

  105. Walt Gekko says: Jan 12, 2016 6:46 PM

    reptar310 says:
    Jan 12, 2016 1:11 PM
    Back when the Raiders and Rams were in LA they played in terrible stadiums. Almost every NFL team was getting a new (and in some cases 2nd) stadium since the Raiders/Rams had been in LA. The owners pushed the city for new stadiums. The City refused. The owners knew the NFL would never let a successful team making big money move, so the 2 owners made the decision to strip down the teams to bare bones and suck so fans wouldn’t want to see them. With bad teams and low attendance, it made it easy to move.

    Los Angeles stood up to the NFL and said no public money for billionaire owners to build stadiums and lost their two teams for that stand. St Louis bought a billionaire a new stadium in 1994 and look where that got them today. Only dumb and naive fans make fun of LA for losing their two teams, but LA did what no other city has had the guts to do since. LA knew the NFL would come crawling back eventually, still with no public money for a stadium.

    The Dodgers had a 20 year playoff drought, the Clippers were awful until lately, and the Kings never won anything until a couple years ago. The last place Lakers are still supported, and have a 3 year wait for season tickets. All of them were supported during bad times… The LA “only supports a winner” is a myth.

    Cities with failed NFL franchises who now have teams again:

    Cleveland Bulldogs, Rams, Browns
    Boston Redskins
    Chicago Cardinals
    Dallas Texans
    Oakland Raiders
    Baltimore Colts
    St Louis Cardinals
    Houston Oilers

    The Rams were in Los Angeles for 48 years. That is longer than 8 current franchises have existed.

    —————————-

    True with the Raiders, but with the Rams, as I remember Georgia Frontierre was sick of playing second fiddle to the Lakers (this was mainly during the “showtime” days of the Lakers) and moved because of that more than stadium issues.

  106. savior72 says: Jan 12, 2016 6:57 PM

    All of the NFL relocation guidelines which owners “must follow” must have been written on used TP, because Stan K has not met 1 criteria for it.

  107. macjacmccoy says: Jan 14, 2016 11:55 AM

    So sick of the terrible stadium excuse for why fans don’t show up. That is like the biggest load of crap that owners continually push and get away with. The only people who are effected by stadium quality are teams and employees. I don’t know of a single fan in history who decided to not go to a game because of the stadium. The vet was 1 of the worst stadiums ever and it always had fans in it. Lambeau , Wrigley, Fenway etc. sucks but people still go.

    I’ll give you getting a new stadium will bring new fans out, but that isn’t sustainable. Once you see it you see it. As soon as the lookie lous make there rounds your back to the same fans who would watch the team play on a high school field. This is even more so 20+ years ago when going to the game was better then staying at home.

    So stop with the” LA fans didn’t go to the games bc the stadium wasn’t nice enough” they didn’t go because they didn’t care. Which is the same reason why some teams can’t get fans to show up now.

Leave a Reply

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