The Chargers questioned the independence of San Diego’s new stadium task force in a letter yesterday to Mayor Kevin Faulconer from the team’s Special Counsel to the President Mark Fabiani. Fabiani questioned whether task force Chair Adam Day’s statement was independent of the mayor, given mayoral aides were present during task force meetings. Fabiani asked why the mayor’s chief political consultant, Jason Roe, who has been present at the meetings, was also advising Delaware North. Fabiani asked, “What legal and ethical issues are raised by Mr. Roe’s dual role as an apparent de facto Task Force member as a registered lobbyist for the Delaware North Company, who is bidding to become the new concessionaire at Qualcomm Stadium and, potentially at any new stadium in San Diego?” Fabiani in the four-page letter also questioned the task force hiring as a spokesperson Tony Manolatos, given that Day had said he has no budget. Fabiani asked if donations then would become public. He also took Manolatos to task for tweeting on January 16, “If you believe a stadium won’t get built under your terms and you may skip town, do you keep working or launch a finger-pointing campaign?” Fabiani then questioned whether it makes good sense to retain such an individual. In concluding, Fabiani wrote he hoped the mayor’s answers would shed light on the independence of the task force, placing quotation marks around the word independence. The Chargers have for over a decade been talking with various city mayors about a new stadium. However, this year appears different, with the team worried about another team relocating to nearby L.A. That appears to be heightening the public heat and perhaps making ‘15 a make-or-break year (Daniel Kaplan, Staff Writer). In San Diego, Lori Weisberg reports Fabiani's pointed comments "quickly re-ignited tensions between the city and Fabiani that have tended to overshadow the task force's goal of determining the best site for a new Chargers playing field -- downtown or the Mission Valley Qualcomm Stadium property -- and how to pay for it" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/18).
FAULCONER RESPONDS: In San Diego, Stefanie Loh reported in a response "addressed to Chargers President Dean Spanos instead of Fabiani, Faulconer did not deign to discuss all the separate points Fabiani had made about specific people." Instead, he "sent one message: Anyone associated with the task force is a volunteer and 'is not an official City of San Diego entity.'" Faulconer: "I express my disappointment in the ongoing actions and demeanor of Mr. Fabiani. ... I would be happy to discuss this with you one-on-one, without any advisors or staff, to determine how we can best move forward to keep the Chargers in San Diego" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/18).
BELLICOSE BOLTS: In L.A., Sam Farmer writes with the Rams "mulling a relocation to Southern California, the Chargers are turning up the heat on the city of San Diego to determine whether they can finally get a new stadium in that city, or if they too need," to make a play for L.A. The Chargers "have made no secret of their disappointment in the mayor's forming a task force to address an issue they have been working on for almost 14 years." They "met with Faulconer in November and tried to convince him to appoint a stadium czar who could work directly with team executives on finding an eventual replacement for aging Qualcomm Stadium." Instead, the mayor "appointed a task force, which the Chargers argue has no resources or authority to get anything done." In "voicing their displeasure, the Chargers are talking not just to the mayor and city." More importantly, they "are talking to the owners of the NFL's 31 other teams, trying to underscore the effort they have made to find a solution in San Diego and how difficult that process has been." Convincing other owners of that "is essential, because the NFL is intent on exerting its control of the L.A. market." The Chargers "are trying to play by the league's rules to send the message that if it comes to a team moving back to the nation's second-largest market, they have fulfilled their relocation requirements and have done so by the book." Beyond the bickering "is this undeniable truth: The pressure is rising in San Diego, and the Chargers are getting nervous and restless about protecting what they believe is their turf" (L.A. TIMES, 2/18). ESPN’s Jim Trotter said of a potential new Chargers stadium, “If this goes to a vote and they need two-thirds voter approval for a stadium measure to pass, it is not going to pass if it requires public money at this point. That's an issue here. That's why the race is on. If we accept that the St. Louis Rams are going to move to L.A., then there's a race on for the No. 2 team to go to L.A. and that would either be the Raiders or the Chargers. The Chargers want to be that team because they say 25 percent of their season-ticket holders are from Los Angeles and Orange County. They feel if a second team gets into that market, it’s going to basically cripple their franchise” (“NFL Insiders,” ESPN, 2/17).
DRAWING THEIR LINE IN THE SAND: In San Diego, Kevin Acee writes the Chargers organization "would have been better off continuing to tap its toes than to start stomping its feet." It is not that Fabiani "is slinging lies, necessarily" but rather the more "confrontational and pessimistic tone he has struck in going on the offensive with a city that finally got off its duff." By coming out and "challenging the task force to not be political bobos, the Chargers are basically accusing them of being political bobos" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/18). A SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE editorial states with relations between Fabiani and City Hall "getting increasingly ugly, it’s time for Spanos to speak for himself, and to answer this question: Are you moving the team out of San Diego or not?" The Chargers "have been an important part of the fabric of San Diego for 54 years." The Spanos family "has been good and generous corporate citizens." San Diego, "in turn, is a good football town" that "deserves an NFL team." But "if it is not going to be the Chargers, this community deserves to know it now" (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 2/18). Meanwhile, in San Diego, Steve Breen draws his latest editorial cartoon about the Chargers situation (2/18).
THEY'D BE SAINTS...: In St. Louis, Bernie Miklasz writes, "I’m confident in saying their rate of progress on the STL stadium front has exceeded the NFL’s expectations -- at least to this stage, anyway." If the agenda by former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock and attorney Bob Blitz "stalls then St. Louis will be out," and Rams Owner Stan Kroenke "can cruise" into L.A. But for now, "this is a race, with Kroenke and partners trying to get their stadium project off the ground before Peacock and Blitz can do the same in St. Louis." If Peacock and Blitz "get this done and turn a stadium plan into a reality -- after being pushed to do so by the NFL’s second-most powerful executive" in Exec VP/Business Ventures Eric Grubman -- "then how could the league abandon St. Louis?" Miklasz: "I don’t believe the NFL would bail on St. Louis if the city accepts the league’s challenge and delivers on a new venue" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 2/18).
