Skip to content

Mike Brown is believed to have voted against Inglewood

Mike Brown AP

No one knows for sure who voted against the proposal that will place the Rams in Inglewood, with the ability of the Chargers or the Raiders to join them, because the ballots were secret. But two of the league’s 32 owners exercised their prerogative to say, “No.”

Per a source with knowledge of the ownership dynamics, it’s strongly believed that one of the nay votes came from Bengals owner Mike Brown.

Brown has a well-documented reputation for refusing to go along with anything that helps the league become bigger and better. His primary concern in those situations is the impact of the new revenue on the salary cap.

So Brown prefers the status quo, especially when the status quo doesn’t require him to spend more money on players. Which sheds light on the willingness of Brown to sign players like Vontaze Burfict, who went undrafted not because of talent — along with the willingness of Brown to remain patient with a head coach who is 0-7 in the playoffs. Regardless of whether the Bengals win or lose in the postseason, being good enough to get there every year is good for business.

As to Inglewood, Brown sees the league’s next-level play as bad for his team’s business, which makes him the most likely opponent of the move.

It becomes much more difficult to identify the second “no” vote, with several contenders for being the other naysayer. But it’s viewed as a given that Brown was responsible for one of the negative ballots.

Permalink 42 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Cincinnati Bengals, Home, Los Angeles Rams, Oakland Raiders, Rumor Mill, San Diego Chargers
42 Responses to “Mike Brown is believed to have voted against Inglewood”
  1. ReligionIsForIdiots says: Jan 13, 2016 10:45 AM

    This guy is a dinosaur, and a cheat one at that.

    Move along, nothing to see here.

  2. cincy85 says: Jan 13, 2016 10:47 AM

    probably why the nfl found it necessary to screw us out of the playoffs saturday.

  3. realfootballfan says: Jan 13, 2016 10:47 AM

    Jerry Richardson. I mean he’s just been against the Croenke idea since forever.

  4. ReligionIsForIdiots says: Jan 13, 2016 10:48 AM

    Cheap* not cheat, he doesn’t own the patriots.

  5. bengalsfan2079 says: Jan 13, 2016 10:51 AM

    I figured it would be lol the guy voted against the blackout rule being lifted. As much as Bengals fans can’t stand him he has given over some control to his daughter Katie and her husband as well as Marvin. At least he’s actually keeping his own players now AJ Green Dalton Dunlap Geno have all gotten new contracts. Don’t get me wrong still think the guy is a grade A cheapskate but it’s starting to change a little with him.

  6. ttommytom says: Jan 13, 2016 10:55 AM

    Mark Davis or Dean Spanos could be 1 and 2 as they both got screwed out by the big bad (Wally World married into it) bully.

  7. jerruhjones says: Jan 13, 2016 10:55 AM

    Worst owner in the league, bar none!

  8. willycents says: Jan 13, 2016 10:56 AM

    LMAO. That is a stretch.
    The two no votes more likely came from the owners who had the most to lose…Spanos and Davis. Why would they vote against what they see as their best interests? They stood to lose the most by relocating the Rams.
    Brown had, actually, no skin in the game. As to its effect on the salary cap, by putting a team in LA, the salary cap theoretically should increase due to increased revenues.
    Also, WTH does Vontae Burfict have to do with relocating the Rams to LA?
    We understand that you are a Steelers fan, but, you are stretching it here a bit.

  9. bengaljuice says: Jan 13, 2016 10:58 AM

    To the winner go the narratives. The fallout the Bengals organization is getting from the media because of the final two penalty flags is absurd. It’s lazy and inaccurate to try to paint the organization as classless or its owner as clueless and cheap. The players are all now criminals and fans classless too, right? That’s why the Bengals coordinators and support staff are picked for head coaching and coordinator positions every year. Free agent players are covered and sign large contracts. Bengals head of personnel is wanted for others gm positions. For such a classless bunch – everyone sure wants a piece.

  10. hogs2016 says: Jan 13, 2016 11:05 AM

    Mike Brown, if the NFL forced him to pay Burfict’s fines we’d be the least penalized team in the league.

  11. Kaz says: Jan 13, 2016 11:07 AM

    Mike Brown has dished out some significant contracts the last 4-5 years. Lame to still use he’s “cheap” attack line. Even from this pro Steelers site.

  12. PegulaBucks says: Jan 13, 2016 11:09 AM

    this old coot didn’t know what he was voting for, he just knows that the answer is always NO.

  13. meltuckersfreerelease says: Jan 13, 2016 11:10 AM

    Increased viewership in the LA market, I meant to write-

  14. theghostofberniekosar says: Jan 13, 2016 11:10 AM

    One of those ‘no’ votes better have come from Dee Haslam.

  15. ajigel says: Jan 13, 2016 11:13 AM

    Brown always had the threat of moving to LA as a a tool to extort money out of the city and county for a new stadium and more recently stadium upgrades. That bargaining chip is gone, and I’m pretty sure this was the main reason he opposed the move

  16. hlmatty1 says: Jan 13, 2016 11:15 AM

    hogs2016 You have him confused with the Rooneys.

  17. rogerdw66 says: Jan 13, 2016 11:16 AM

    “Bigger and better” are subjective terms that this reporter does not get to determine. Obviously not everyone agrees.

  18. williamannand says: Jan 13, 2016 11:22 AM

    There’s nothing wrong with being fiscally conservative, especially when it’s your money and you’re the owner of a small market team in a league fueled by excess and greed.

    There’s nothing wrong with standing by a head coach who’s overall record is outstanding.

    There’s nothing wrong with taking a chance on a talented player who slips all the way through the NFL draft because of anger management issues. Other teams have done it. Sometimes it’s worked out, sometimes not.

    But there is something wrong with connecting the thoughts of an anonymous someone said to know the dynamics of owner thinking with the behavior of a player who couldn’t keep his emotions in check during a playoff game. There’s no connection between Carson, Inglewood, the salary cap, and Vontez Burfect.

    Burfect was goaded by the Steelers and succumbed. Bad on him, unfortunate for his teammates, his coaches, and the owner of his team.

  19. hogs2016 says: Jan 13, 2016 11:26 AM

    Kaz it’s funny that he’s started signing off on big contracts at about the same time the new bargaining agreement was made meaning a higher % of the salary cap must be used.

  20. mongobo says: Jan 13, 2016 11:29 AM

    I don’t understand the rationale.

    Why would Brown be the likely opposition when Spanos and Davis were the key supporters of the opposing option in Carson City?

    Why should anyone be crucified for opposing the Inglewood Stadium when the NFL’s L.A. committee endorsed the Carson City Stadium?

    What does Vontaze Burfict have to do with this?

    How could the Inglewood deal be seen as bad for a small market team like the Bengals? Doesn’t the NFL in Kroenke’s privately financed stadium ultimately lead to increased revenue sharing? Isn’t that best for the little guys like Cincinnati?

  21. granadafan says: Jan 13, 2016 11:30 AM

    Selfish short term thinker.

    I’d say he’s the worst owner in the NFL but he has some low company to compete with: Haslam, Jed Dork, Irsay, Jerrah Jones, Snyder, Dean Spanos (cheapskate), Ross, the Glazers, etc.

  22. t8ertot says: Jan 13, 2016 11:31 AM

    I don’t mean to sound in-humane but nothing will change in Cincy until this guy is six feet under. Hopefully Katie will change the way things are run

  23. 87hollywoodhorn says: Jan 13, 2016 11:31 AM

    Yea Brown is not an idiot, and Im a whodat who hates the bengals for whodey.
    Im homestly shocked support was that unanimous. A lot of ppl say the NFL is too greedy for its own good, and this LA move might be part of a strategy that bites them in the butt

  24. joetoronto says: Jan 13, 2016 11:43 AM

    He’s in favor of small market fans not losing their teams, perhaps. Wouldnt surprise me if the other no vote came from one of the small markets, either.

  25. chicagosportsfan11 says: Jan 13, 2016 11:48 AM

    If Mike Brown did then I have a new respect for him.

  26. jocko1181 says: Jan 13, 2016 11:51 AM

    P.S. Mike Brown sucks and needs to go off into the sunset already

  27. imsorryyoufeelthatway7 says: Jan 13, 2016 11:52 AM

    I understand that it’s popular to unload hate on Burfict these days, but to suggest that Mike Brown picked him up because he was cheap is simply untrue.

    Burfict was resigned a year before drafted players were eligible, with time left on his contract at that. Mike Brown may be cheap, but that particular fact is not supporting that notion.

  28. ajgreenhof says: Jan 13, 2016 11:55 AM

    Go Mike Go!

    Here’s an owner who consistently votes down Goodell’s trash and doesn’t buy into the bigger is better message.

    Some call him a stick in the mud I call him a rebel!

  29. DerekCarrsGoldenArm says: Jan 13, 2016 11:58 AM

    Makes no sense to me. Why would Mark Davis and Dean Spanos vote for a competing plan when the carrot placed in front of them (being a tenant in a new building or getting severely insufficient funds to build a new building) was unpalatable to them? Clark Hunt was on record saying he thought only 1 team should go to LA and this option has 2 potentially.

    I’m no Mike Brown fan but I can think of others who would be the 2 before him.

  30. TheDPR says: Jan 13, 2016 11:58 AM

    How are Spanos and Davis not obviously the two “nay” votes? Didn’t they – and the entire relocation committee including Clark Hunt, Robert Kraft, John Mara, Bob McNair, Jerry Richardson and Art Rooney – want to join up in the Carson project?

    How did the Inglewood project get 30 votes? What prompted the committee to vote against its own recommendation? If Brown is a “nay” vote, why did Spanos or Davis vote “yay?”

    There are more questions than answers here.

  31. joenash72 says: Jan 13, 2016 12:02 PM

    Jed York voted no.

    He wants the Raiders to become his tenant at Santa Clara.

    Put black seat covers over the burgundy on Raider game days.

  32. shaunypoo says: Jan 13, 2016 12:25 PM

    So you don’t KNOW who voted against the new deal? Then this is just another hit piece against the Bengals. Got it.

  33. armorgan67 says: Jan 13, 2016 12:39 PM

    Brown still has a reputation of being a cheap owner in terms of paying players despite the recent years. That reputation will be difficult if not impossible to shake no matter want he does going forward. I believe and someone correct me if I’m wrong when the league was deciding whether or not to put in a salary cap it was shown that the Bengals spent the least amount of money on their players than any other team.

  34. mianfr says: Jan 13, 2016 12:39 PM

    How was it not the Raiders and Chargers?

  35. oldschoolomen says: Jan 13, 2016 12:39 PM

    Brown actually has a voting history that suggests he cares very much about the future of the game, and protects smaller market organizations. Having teams in LA, doesn’t necessarily improve the NFL. The Rams were already in LA. They moved. The Raiders were already in LA. They moved. Suggesting that having multiple teams in LA makes the league “bigger and better” is asinine.

  36. funknstein says: Jan 13, 2016 12:45 PM

    Incredible effort throughout the ‘media’ to malign Bengals owner, management, coaches, players, and fans since Saturday. The facts don’t support the drivel being spouted…btw, I could only see 1 empty, plastic water bottle that was thrown at Ben while he was on the cart. That’s one too many, but if I got my news from the sports media, you would have thought it was raining full, glass bottles of beer on Ben Saturday night. And the arrests at the stadium (6 I believe, though not certain)? Read the blotter, most were Stealer fans, not locals. How does that compare to a regular season game at Philly, Oakland, etc…? Unfortunately, the poor refereeing helped created an even tenser, more hostile atmosphere than you already had for this important game between 2 rivals with bad blood between them.

  37. johnc44 says: Jan 13, 2016 1:10 PM

    armorgan67 says:
    Jan 13, 2016 12:39 PM

    I believe and someone correct me if I’m wrong when the league was deciding whether or not to put in a salary cap it was shown that the Bengals spent the least amount of money on their players than any other team.
    Yes your very wrong.They were 14th in actual cash spent last season and havn`t been out of the top 20 in many seasons.Tampa Bay & Oakland are by far the worst but i understand,Most people only know the misinformation the media feeds them.If you want facts on anything you`ll need to look it up yourself because the media doesn`t have time to fact check anymore they just want to be the first (to be wrong i guess).

  38. ncfloyd says: Jan 13, 2016 1:11 PM

    It had to be Brown who voted against the proposal, who could blame him since Joey Porter shouldn’t have been on the field.

  39. johnc44 says: Jan 13, 2016 1:14 PM

    Even before the cap he spent money.He just doesn`t to the fluff deals that need to be redone like Calvin & Flacco so he doesn`t have the dead money.They do rollover 10m a season since that was allowed but it does get spent.He`s never going to spend like Jerry Jjones & Daniel Snyder but not spending big on free agents doesn`t make you cheap it`s actually smart.

  40. jm91rs says: Jan 13, 2016 2:10 PM

    And Mike Brown was one of 2 owners to vote against the last CBA. You know, the one that had every owner crying after 2 years and eventually led to a lockout and almost cost the NFL a season of play. He may be cheap, but it’s clear he knows what the hell he’s doing and is concerned about the future of the game. He doesn’t get blinded by the bright lights of shiny new things.

    You could have actually enhanced the “mike brown is cheap” story line if you speculated that he wanted all 3 teams to move so that he could get his share of the relocation fee. That’s over $50M in his pocket if my math is good.

  41. jm91rs says: Jan 13, 2016 2:12 PM

    I believe Jed York would want the Raiders as a tenant, however they might make more money if The Raiders leave the area completely. Current Raiders fans will not support the 9ers, but there will be future generations of fans that gravitate toward the local team.

  42. stealerssuckblog says: Jan 14, 2016 2:26 PM

    Bengals president Mike Brown refuted Wednesday’s published report that speculated he was one of two owners to vote against a proposal putting the Rams and possibly the Raiders or Chargers in Inglewood, Calif.

    Brown, calling it “an exciting project for the league,” said he’s in favor of the plan crafted by Rams owner Stan Kroenke and voted for it along with the 29 other owners that approved the move in a secret ballot this week.

    “Stan Kroenke has put together an exceptional plan. The league to a man is excited about this prospect,” Brown said Wednesday on his return from the meeting in Houston.

    After a 21-year hiatus, Brown believes the NFL and Los Angeles is a match at the site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack in Inglewood, about 10 minutes from Los Angeles.

    “It’s a huge market,” Brown said. “It’s a market that has changed dramatically since the NFL was last there. There’s no reason the NFL shouldn’t be successful there. Especially if we go about it the right way.

    “The Stan Kroenke Plan for Inglewood is as well thought out and as aggressive in every way as the NFL could possibly wish.”

Leave a Reply

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