65.5 F
San Diego
Monday, Mar 18, 2024
-Advertisement-

Stadium Vote At Center of Chargers’ Offer

Stadium Vote At Center of Chargers’ Offer

Sports Panel Unveils Renderings of Plan Using Qualcomm Stadium Site

BY MIKE ALLEN

Senior Staff Writer

As the San Diego Chargers march toward the playoffs and a possible appearance in the upcoming Super Bowl at Qualcomm Stadium next month, the team’s ownership is battling negative news that it could invoke a triggering clause in its lease and abandon the city.

Last week, the Chargers repeated an earlier offer it made to city officials to renegotiate its current lease at the city-owned stadium, including dropping the controversial ticket guarantee and an escape clause from the deal that was supposed to lock up the team until 2020.

But to do that, the Chargers are asking for a new contract that would put the issue of a new stadium to a public vote in 2004 and revert to a year-to-year lease, allowing the team to find another place to play.

The Chargers say the current lease permits the team to trigger the out clause on the contract, and if it’s unable to come to a new agreement with the city within 90 days, to market itself somewhere else.

But the Chargers also maintain the team’s focus is to stay in Mission Valley and work out a mutually beneficial deal.

“Our goal is simple: We want to keep the Chargers in San Diego, and we want to create the best possible chance of succeeding with a public vote. And the Chargers firmly believe that we can succeed with the public if we can all come together to eliminate the difficulties created by the current lease,” Mark Fabiani, a Chargers consultant, said in a letter to San Diego Mayor Dick Murphy and the rest of the City Council last week.

By difficulties, Fabiani refers to the ticket guarantee that has cost the city about $5 million so far this season, bringing the total paid to the team since 1997 to more than $30 million. In 1995 as part of a new lease, the city agreed to purchase any shortfall to a minimum of 60,000 general admission seats for every home game until 2007.

The agreement also included the city spending some $78 million on stadium improvements and building a new practice facility for the Chargers.

Murphy has said he doesn’t want to negotiate the current lease until a citizens task force on Chargers issues completes its report, expected in mid-February.

Aguirre Files New Lawsuit

Into the swirl of questions involving the triggering clause was a lawsuit filed last week alleging the Chargers “committed unfair and fraudulent acts” as defined by the state’s business and professions code.

The suit was filed by attorney Mike Aguirre on behalf of plaintiff Peter Derenza, a past foreman of the San Diego County Grand Jury.

The complaint alleges the Chargers and its owners continue to sell multiyear contracts on tickets and advertising for games through the 2020 season, promoting that its customers will enjoy a quality football experience.

However, the team owners now say Qualcomm Stadium is no longer economically viable, and that the Chargers need a new stadium to effectively compete in the league and remain here, the suit states.

“The unlawful, fraudulent and unfair conduct engaged by the Spanos defendants (the Spanos family are the team’s owners) and the Chargers Co. have lowered the value of the multiyear agreements the Chargers Co. have entered into with consumers and other contracting parties,” according to the complaint.

Fabiani said in a statement the team is focused on redesigning the Qualcomm site in the best interests of San Diegans, “and didn’t have time to waste commenting on self-serving lawsuits brought by failed, perennial political candidates.”

Aguirre, who filed another lawsuit earlier this year on behalf of Derenza against the City Council on the Chargers contract, has unsuccessfully run for the City Council, Congress, and most recently, district attorney.




Stadium Redesign

Yet another element for fans and the city to ponder was an artists’ rendering unveiled last week to the Chargers task force regarding a possible redeveloped Qualcomm Stadium site. The plans show a new stadium surrounded by shopping, a hotel, and some open space.

This rendering of a proposed stadium for the San Diego Chargers shows the layout of the current Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley (right top). This is exterior rendering of the promenade in front of new stadium for the San Diego Chargers (bottom).

“This is just one option of what could happen at the site,” said a spokesman on behalf of the San Diego International Sports Council, which paid for the architectural plans.

A call to the nonprofit council, which receives public funds to market the city for sporting events, was not returned.

Bruce Henderson, a member of the Chargers task force and longtime critic of the city’s use of public funds for sports franchises, said anything presented by the group was suspect.

“This is the same Sports Council that said in 1995 not to worry about the ticket guarantee and that they would ensure that Chargers tickets would be well-marketed,” Henderson said. “I would view any of their presentations with considerable skepticism.”

Fabiani said the Chargers did not pay for the Sports Council’s plans and had not seen them.

The Chargers have retained architectural and other consultants to create a redevelopment plan for the 166 acres at Qualcomm Stadium that will be presented to the task force on Jan. 16, he said.

The plans include significant open space and mixed use development as well as a new stadium, but Fabiani declined to provide any further details.

-Advertisement-

Featured Articles

-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-

Related Articles

-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-