Tweet
uT:
Allegations Chargers quit stadium effort
By Kevin Acee 05:44p.m. Jun 4, 2015
As the Chargers and San Diego’s city/county alliance navigate the infancy of a stadium negotiation process that needs a quick resolution, we can try the impossible and frustrating task of understanding how it devolved to this point.
It depends on who is offering the perspective, but there is certainly a deepening and widening narrative among those in and around the city that the Chargers have slow-played – even sabotaged – efforts to get a stadium built in San Diego.
It is easy to focus on (and condemn) how uninterested the Chargers have seemed of late – if one is inclined to ignore how plodding the city has been over the years.
CHARGERS STADIUM: LATEST HEADLINES
Hamstrung by various factors at various times and largely beholden to a political process, San Diego’s government has only recently gotten on the fast track. No one disputes the city is now the one pushing the train.
The Chargers, meanwhile, can rightly talk about having worked to get a new stadium in San Diego for more than a decade and the frustration of navigating the various political, financial, economic and environmental morasses its home market has presented in that time.
But it does seem the team reached a point where it gave up. In a vulnerably honest moment, it might even acknowledge that.
RELATED: PITCH FOR EARLIER STADIUM TALKS FELL FLAT
Now, with this process at its most crucial juncture, we have to wonder what evidence there is the Chargers will suddenly become an earnest negotiating partner.
Many in the city certainly wonder.
Multiple sources have laid out a pattern of behavior by the Chargers that has led them to believe the team initially tried to dupe Mayor Kevin Faulconer into thinking time was not of the essence. Essentially, those sources believe, Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani was trying to lull Faulconer to sleep while the Chargers worked on slipping out of town.
It’s tempting to share that view.
Primary among their assertions is that the Mayor’s office was told by Fabiani last summer that there was no sense of urgency – even to the point that Fabiani said November 2016 might be too soon for a public vote on the stadium.
That interaction is just one instance of what sources say were several times where the Chargers seemed wary of any suggestions by the Mayor’s staff of furthering a partnership.
This behind-the-scenes maneuvering is conjoined in the minds of those on the city’s side with a contention about Fabiani’s consistently negative spin on the state of affairs in San Diego and the team’s continued efforts in Los Angeles.
However, discussions over the past several months with Chargers and NFL sources, as well as others with knowledge of the situation, leave a largely disparate impression.
Regardless of what Fabiani said or didn’t say last summer, it is undisputed that the team was on record with Faulconer in late 2014 that time was of the essence. The Mayor publicly stated in December that he understood the specter of Los Angeles to be real and that he would be taking action in early 2015.
That action ultimately was the creation of the Citizens Stadium Advisory Group. The Mayor’s office alerted Fabiani of the plan to assemble CSAG. Whether he voiced the Chargers’ opposition to the Mayor prior to the public announcement in late January is a point of contention. The Chargers certainly made clear after the announcement that they felt the task force was a waste of precious time.
What is not in dispute is that the Chargers always favored the city bringing in outside experts.
Late in 2014, Faulconer began to meet with Fred Maas, a widely respected and well-connected local businessman and civic leader who served as former Mayor Jerry Sanders’ stadium point man. The intention was to possibly bring on Maas as a sort of stadium czar for the city. Maas, who is part of a small group of people than can count both Faulconer and Chargers chairman Dean Spanos as fans, ultimately declined, deciding the course the Mayor wanted to take would not yield the desired result of a stadium solution.
According to several sources, Spanos began to believe around that time there would be an effort by the city to protect itself publicly and set up the team for blame if it departed. By many accounts, it was in late ’14 and early ’15 that Spanos came to the conclusion nothing would get done in San Diego.
Subsequently, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s plan to build a stadium in Inglewood became public in early January. The Chargers say that to that point they were essentially biding time in their efforts to buy land in Carson – efforts alleged in a lawsuit in Carson to have begun in 2013. They were, they contend, forced by Kroenke’s actions to complete the purchase and move forward with stadium quest in L.A. – even as they watched and waited on San Diego to present a stadium plan.
The Chargers have not denied that watching and waiting is pretty much all they have done in San Diego recently. Their contention is that’s all they’ve been able to do.
In late April, the city hired the law firm of Nixon Peabody and investment banker Citigroup to help in negotiations with the Chargers. While those experts researched and prepared for negotiations, they did not engage with the Chargers until Tuesday’s sitdown at the city attorney’s office.
That lack of contact was in spite of the April 28 recommendation by city attorney Jan Goldsmith that the newly hired experts meet with the Chargers immediately. Goldsmith also suggested a media blackout.
Whatever the interpretation of the e-mail string’s finer points – such as whether Goldsmith was upstaging the Mayor by essentially working around the CSAG timeline – they speak to the heart of the problem between the two sides.
There is a frightful lack of trust.
Fabiani agreed to Goldsmith’s terms via e-mail. Stephen Puetz, the Mayor’s chief of staff, responded by questioning that commitment by Fabiani and detailed instances in which the team “rebuffed” the Mayor’s efforts to meet.
After a face-to-face meeting between Fabiani and Puetz, they agreed on another meeting between the Mayor and Spanos. But not the experts that would ultimately determine how to get a stadium built.
In fact, Citigroup was not present at the Tuesday meeting, as the sides discussed logistics and had no need for financial input.
Fabiani, who has led the team’s stadium efforts here since 2002, declined comment this week.
A Mayoral spokesman also declined comment. In fact, the Mayor and his staff for months have opted to not speak publicly about their relationship with the Chargers.
Moving forward, it is incumbent on Faulconer to set a tone, to require clear parameters of how negotiations will progress. If what those around him suggest about the Chargers is true, fine. At least he knows who he is dealing with.
The NFL has set a nebulous timeline that suggests it will make a decision on Los Angeles no later than early February. Team owners will hold a special meeting Aug. 11 to discuss the situation in San Diego, as well as those in St. Louis and Oakland, the other two cities with disgruntled teams that may try to move.
San Diego officials have said a public vote is necessary and that it is possible by year’s end. The Chargers are highly dubious about the feasibility of a vote that soon.
It is up to the city/county to demonstrate how a vote is possible. If they do so and the Chargers balk, it is up to the city/county to call them out publicly.
It looks like the Chargers are leaving, but it can be made possible for them to stay. The Chargers must elucidate how.
Ultimately, we all need to know the truth.
Allegations Chargers quit stadium effort
By Kevin Acee 05:44p.m. Jun 4, 2015
As the Chargers and San Diego’s city/county alliance navigate the infancy of a stadium negotiation process that needs a quick resolution, we can try the impossible and frustrating task of understanding how it devolved to this point.
It depends on who is offering the perspective, but there is certainly a deepening and widening narrative among those in and around the city that the Chargers have slow-played – even sabotaged – efforts to get a stadium built in San Diego.
It is easy to focus on (and condemn) how uninterested the Chargers have seemed of late – if one is inclined to ignore how plodding the city has been over the years.
CHARGERS STADIUM: LATEST HEADLINES
Hamstrung by various factors at various times and largely beholden to a political process, San Diego’s government has only recently gotten on the fast track. No one disputes the city is now the one pushing the train.
The Chargers, meanwhile, can rightly talk about having worked to get a new stadium in San Diego for more than a decade and the frustration of navigating the various political, financial, economic and environmental morasses its home market has presented in that time.
But it does seem the team reached a point where it gave up. In a vulnerably honest moment, it might even acknowledge that.
RELATED: PITCH FOR EARLIER STADIUM TALKS FELL FLAT
Now, with this process at its most crucial juncture, we have to wonder what evidence there is the Chargers will suddenly become an earnest negotiating partner.
Many in the city certainly wonder.
Multiple sources have laid out a pattern of behavior by the Chargers that has led them to believe the team initially tried to dupe Mayor Kevin Faulconer into thinking time was not of the essence. Essentially, those sources believe, Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani was trying to lull Faulconer to sleep while the Chargers worked on slipping out of town.
It’s tempting to share that view.
Primary among their assertions is that the Mayor’s office was told by Fabiani last summer that there was no sense of urgency – even to the point that Fabiani said November 2016 might be too soon for a public vote on the stadium.
That interaction is just one instance of what sources say were several times where the Chargers seemed wary of any suggestions by the Mayor’s staff of furthering a partnership.
This behind-the-scenes maneuvering is conjoined in the minds of those on the city’s side with a contention about Fabiani’s consistently negative spin on the state of affairs in San Diego and the team’s continued efforts in Los Angeles.
However, discussions over the past several months with Chargers and NFL sources, as well as others with knowledge of the situation, leave a largely disparate impression.
Regardless of what Fabiani said or didn’t say last summer, it is undisputed that the team was on record with Faulconer in late 2014 that time was of the essence. The Mayor publicly stated in December that he understood the specter of Los Angeles to be real and that he would be taking action in early 2015.
That action ultimately was the creation of the Citizens Stadium Advisory Group. The Mayor’s office alerted Fabiani of the plan to assemble CSAG. Whether he voiced the Chargers’ opposition to the Mayor prior to the public announcement in late January is a point of contention. The Chargers certainly made clear after the announcement that they felt the task force was a waste of precious time.
What is not in dispute is that the Chargers always favored the city bringing in outside experts.
Late in 2014, Faulconer began to meet with Fred Maas, a widely respected and well-connected local businessman and civic leader who served as former Mayor Jerry Sanders’ stadium point man. The intention was to possibly bring on Maas as a sort of stadium czar for the city. Maas, who is part of a small group of people than can count both Faulconer and Chargers chairman Dean Spanos as fans, ultimately declined, deciding the course the Mayor wanted to take would not yield the desired result of a stadium solution.
According to several sources, Spanos began to believe around that time there would be an effort by the city to protect itself publicly and set up the team for blame if it departed. By many accounts, it was in late ’14 and early ’15 that Spanos came to the conclusion nothing would get done in San Diego.
Subsequently, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s plan to build a stadium in Inglewood became public in early January. The Chargers say that to that point they were essentially biding time in their efforts to buy land in Carson – efforts alleged in a lawsuit in Carson to have begun in 2013. They were, they contend, forced by Kroenke’s actions to complete the purchase and move forward with stadium quest in L.A. – even as they watched and waited on San Diego to present a stadium plan.
The Chargers have not denied that watching and waiting is pretty much all they have done in San Diego recently. Their contention is that’s all they’ve been able to do.
In late April, the city hired the law firm of Nixon Peabody and investment banker Citigroup to help in negotiations with the Chargers. While those experts researched and prepared for negotiations, they did not engage with the Chargers until Tuesday’s sitdown at the city attorney’s office.
That lack of contact was in spite of the April 28 recommendation by city attorney Jan Goldsmith that the newly hired experts meet with the Chargers immediately. Goldsmith also suggested a media blackout.
Whatever the interpretation of the e-mail string’s finer points – such as whether Goldsmith was upstaging the Mayor by essentially working around the CSAG timeline – they speak to the heart of the problem between the two sides.
There is a frightful lack of trust.
Fabiani agreed to Goldsmith’s terms via e-mail. Stephen Puetz, the Mayor’s chief of staff, responded by questioning that commitment by Fabiani and detailed instances in which the team “rebuffed” the Mayor’s efforts to meet.
After a face-to-face meeting between Fabiani and Puetz, they agreed on another meeting between the Mayor and Spanos. But not the experts that would ultimately determine how to get a stadium built.
In fact, Citigroup was not present at the Tuesday meeting, as the sides discussed logistics and had no need for financial input.
Fabiani, who has led the team’s stadium efforts here since 2002, declined comment this week.
A Mayoral spokesman also declined comment. In fact, the Mayor and his staff for months have opted to not speak publicly about their relationship with the Chargers.
Moving forward, it is incumbent on Faulconer to set a tone, to require clear parameters of how negotiations will progress. If what those around him suggest about the Chargers is true, fine. At least he knows who he is dealing with.
The NFL has set a nebulous timeline that suggests it will make a decision on Los Angeles no later than early February. Team owners will hold a special meeting Aug. 11 to discuss the situation in San Diego, as well as those in St. Louis and Oakland, the other two cities with disgruntled teams that may try to move.
San Diego officials have said a public vote is necessary and that it is possible by year’s end. The Chargers are highly dubious about the feasibility of a vote that soon.
It is up to the city/county to demonstrate how a vote is possible. If they do so and the Chargers balk, it is up to the city/county to call them out publicly.
It looks like the Chargers are leaving, but it can be made possible for them to stay. The Chargers must elucidate how.
Ultimately, we all need to know the truth.
Comment