City Of San Diego

Chargers Likely To Play 2017 In San Diego

November 10th, 2016 at 9:03am CST by Connor J. Byrne

The plan to construct a publicly funded $1.15 billion stadium for the Chargers in downtown San Diego went up in flames on Election Day, as just 43.1 percent of voters signed off on a proposal that needed two-thirds approval to pass. Nevertheless, there’s optimism about an eventual deal, writes David Garrick of the San Diego Union-Tribune.

“While there isn’t support for this particular measure, the results demonstrate that a large number of San Diegans love the Bolts and want them to stay,” said Mayor Kevin Faulconer. “We now have momentum to work together with the Chargers to develop a new solution to keep the team in San Diego.”

For his part, owner Dean Spanos revealed Wednesday that he plans to put the franchise’s future on the backburner until after the season (via Josh Alper of Pro Football Talk).

“Over the coming weeks you may hear news about steps that we must take to preserve all of our options. But please know that I don’t intend to make any decisions until after the regular season ends and that, in the meantime, I hope to enjoy with you one great Chargers game after another,” stated Spanos.

The Chargers have until Jan. 15 to choose whether to relocate to Los Angeles and eventually share an Inglewood facility with the Rams, but Ian Rapoport of NFL.com reports that they’re likely to delay the LA decision until 2018 and put a new San Diego stadium on the ballot again next year. In another scenario, the Chargers and Raiders could agree to avoid LA relocation in 2017 and focus on San Diego and Las Vegas, respectively, as neither wants to share a stadium with the Rams, according to Rapoport (Twitter links).

The Chargers’ best hope for a long-term solution in San Diego is for the California Supreme Court to drop the need for two-thirds approval on taxpayer-funded projects to a simple majority, contends Mike Florio of PFT. Even if that happens, the Chargers might not return a stadium proposal to the ballot until 2020, per Florio, which differs from Rapoport’s 2017 suggestion. The Bolts’ lease in San Diego runs through 2020, so the team could continue playing at Qualcomm Stadium over the next few years and reassesses its options after the next presidential election.

While a move to LA in 2017 is still possible, the Chargers will only have a two-week window to execute it if Spanos actually does table his relocation thoughts until season’s end. Further, the leverage in negotiations would belong to Rams owner Stan Kroenke, notes Florio, making an agreement all the more difficult to hammer out. Should they reach a deal, the Chargers would likely head to LA immediately and split the Coliseum with the Rams over the next two years. The clubs would then move into the Inglewood stadium in time for the 2019 campaign.

Latest On Chargers’ Post-Vote Future

November 5th, 2016 at 7:14pm CST by Sam Robinson

San Diego’s seminal vote on Measure C (the Chargers’ downtown stadium referendum) takes place Tuesday, and it’s almost certainly going to fail. But the level at which it does could determine whether or not the Bolts stay in San Diego, Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today writes.

Polls have the measure falling well short of the two-thirds super-majority threshold, but the Chargers could be more enticed to work something out with the city if they receive a 50 percent vote of approval. The team has until Jan. 15 to decide whether or not to accept the Rams’ offer of sharing their stadium in Los Angeles, but the Bolts having essentially no fanbase there complicates that.

“There’s been a lot of talk and speculation about what is a Plan B and what happens under a variety of scenarios,” said Fred Maas, who has served as the point man for the Chargers’ prospective downtown venture, via Schrotenboer. “The truth is, who knows? It’s certainly one off ramp if it’s less than 50%. It may be another off ramp if it’s 51%. It may be another off ramp if it’s 60 or 65%. Who knows? What Dean [Spanos] has said is `Look, it’s going to tell me a lot about how we’ve come along as a community and where things are.'”

San Diego councilman Chris Cate, whom the Chargers went after earlier this year following his stance against their publicly funded $1.15 billion stadium, said the city council would not close the door on working with the team if the measure fails.

“I think [the council] would be open to some type of support [for an alternative stadium plan],” Cate said, via Schrotenboer. “It has to be some type of creative deal. And it may not be the most extravagant thing in the world, but at least something that would work for all parties and allow for something that is not just in the best interest of the team but the taxpayers.”

If the Chargers opt against moving to L.A. by January, that brings a gray area into an equation that now looks like it could be heading there. Otherwise, the franchise’s options are clear: see the measure pass or join the Rams in Inglewood. A California Supreme Court ruling earlier this year dealt a crushing blow to Measure C’s prospects of passing by raising the needed vote percentage from 50 to 66.6. It’s currently polling at around 45 percent.

The state’s Supreme Court could revisit the ruling requiring super majorities for measures like this within two years, per Schrotenboer, which could prompt the stadium measure to be revisited. But that would likely mean the Chargers continuing to play in their undesired current stadium, should they balk on L.A. San Diego’s effort to coax the state Supreme Court to expedite this ruling to provide clarity for this election was denied in August, but another stadium measure (Measure D) is on the ballot this year. However, that just authorizes a stadium for the Chargers with no money being allocated to the project.

So, the Bolts’ situation remains fluid and will continue to be until Spanos decides on Los Angeles.

The league’s own popularity issues could also play a part here, Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times writes. Should Measure C receive less than 50 percent support from voters, the league faces the possibility of two coveted markets losing their teams. Farmer contends the NFL’s image would absorb a bigger hit if two longtime cities endured the fate of St. Louis. Suddenly, support for a Raiders Las Vegas stadium could take a hit among owners if San Diego — the nation’s No. 28 media market compared to Vegas at No. 42 — becomes an available destination.

After all the effort the Chargers and Raiders put toward finding their own solutions following their Carson stadium pursuit’s shortcoming, it could still conceivably come down to which of these teams will join the Rams in L.A. The Raiders would be on the clock next year if the Chargers pass, and if the owners become leery of Vegas due to San Diego losing its team, the Los Angeles option could appeal to Mark Davis, who has shown no desire to continue talks with Oakland.

NFL Owners Pushing For CBA Extension

October 14th, 2016 at 8:02pm CST by Connor J. Byrne

The NFL’s collective bargaining agreement doesn’t expire until 2020, but the league’s owners are already seeking an extension. They have approached the NFL Players Association about lengthening the deal several times in recent months, sources told ESPN’s Dan Graziano. While nothing has come of those attempts yet, the owners plan to initiate discussions again soon.

Potential stadiums in Las Vegas and San Diego are among the reasons the league is pushing for a CBA extension, per Graziano, who writes that the owners want to secure funding for new facilities in those cities.

CBS Sports’ Jason La Canfora reported in late September that the league wanted the Raiders to avoid moving to Las Vegas, but owner Mark Davis’ relocation dreams have continued inching closer to reality since. In the latest development, the Nevada Assembly signed off Friday on $750MM in contributions from the state toward a proposed $1.9 billion stadium for the Raiders.

The Chargers, meanwhile, will have to decide by Jan. 15 whether to head to Los Angeles, though a new stadium in San Diego would keep that from happening. There hasn’t been much progress in San Diego, and La Canfora reported last month that the Chargers appear likely to join the Rams in LA.

Based on Graziano’s report, NFL owners are seemingly on board with Vegas, whose stadium project would include $500MM in funding from Davis. Nearly half of that ($200MM) would come from an NFL loan. One problem for the league is that it has already exhausted the stadium credits in the current CBA, which the owners and players agreed to in July 2011 after a four-month lockout. Now, in order for an extension to happen, the players might require the owners to make “significant concessions,” according to Graziano. It’s unclear which issues would lead the players back to the negotiating table early, however.

Chargers Resigned To Los Angeles Move?

September 18th, 2016 at 1:35pm CST by Sam Robinson

This week, the Chargers’ future has resurfaced as a key topic despite the seminal downtown-stadium measure not being set for a vote until November. The latest news coming out of San Diego leans toward the Bolts packing up and leaving.

Sources have informed Jason La Canfora of CBSSports.com the Chargers, assuming this upcoming vote fails to surpass the two-thirds majority as expected, will have no choice but to accept Stan Kroenke‘s offer and join the Rams in Los Angeles in 2017. The Chargers’ decision-makers are now resigned to the fact the stadium measure will fail and put them to a choice to follow through on the Los Angeles move, which has long been associated with a better financial opportunity for the team.

These sources told La Canfora this not being the Bolts’ final home opener in San Diego would represent a “shocking” turn of events. The Chargers clearly aren’t excited about becoming Kroenke’s tenant in Inglewood but don’t exactly view their chances as favorable of ever winning a local vote if this one doesn’t go their way.

“It’s pretty cut and dry,” one official told La Canfora. “There is no unknown solution waiting to surface.”

This runs counter to former Bolts GM A.J. Smith saying those around the league believe the Chargers will stay in San Diego. The Chargers have long let it be known they’re unhappy at their current Mission Valley site, hence the team’s effort to secure public funding for a downtown stadium. If that fails, the Chargers would almost certainly be forced to remain at their current site, at which they’ll begin regular-season play for a 49th year, if they were going to stay in San Diego.

The Los Angeles Coliseum, which will host the Rams for three seasons beginning today, looks like the Chargers’ playing site for two years, per La Canfora. But he also hears from some in the organization the much smaller StubHub Center could be a better fit.

Used to host Major League Soccer’s Los Angeles Galaxy and second-tier boxing cards, the StubHub Center holds 30,000 fans — which would be by far the smallest venue in the NFL. Although, the Chargers bolting for Los Angeles would be a curious fit since the franchise has no real history there despite playing in the city in 1960 and already watched a team that does have history in L.A. move back. So, how the team would be perceived from a fan-interest standpoint after leaving its longtime market would be interesting.

While we’ve heard neither Kroenke nor the NFL want two teams in Los Angeles, La Canfora notes the league “staunchly” does not want the Raiders in L.A., and owners believe Dean Spanos could opt for a lower relocation fee than the Rams’ $550MM due to this.

Latest On Chargers’ Future

September 17th, 2016 at 2:56pm CST by Sam Robinson

On the heels of former Chargers GM A.J. Smith categorizing the team’s agreement with Los Angeles as basically a bluff, the team’s point man regarding the push for a downtown San Diego stadium responded.

“I can tell you if it was you or me or any other reasonable person, we’d be looking for a house somewhere on the west side of Los Angeles,” Fred Maas told Kevin Acee of the San Diego Union-Tribune during a radio interview. “… There is a very fixed and firm opportunity that far surpasses whatever the best opportunity may be in San Diego.

“I can tell you first-hand — not from people I’ve spoken to at the NFL, not from rumor central — the only option other than Measure C [the downtown stadium] is a departure to Los Angeles. … Measure C is what is before the voters, and that is what we’re putting our full faith effort and credit into, but for that I’m afraid the most prudent choice would be to go north.”

The Chargers, as of now, need a two-thirds majority to pass this measure in November. Acee notes the team may be looking for a moral victory of sorts and a reason to stay in San Diego, one that could show up at the polls even if the number ultimately falls short of the two-thirds majority. The team acknowledges the measure will be difficult to pass at 66.6%.

Maas, who said he agreed to work with the Bolts on this project after observing Dean Spanos‘ desire to keep the team in San Diego, continued to maintain the voters have the choice of either keeping the Chargers via the measure passing or watching them move to a city they haven’t played in since 1960, the franchise’s first year.

“Who knows what happens after the election, though, but I’m telling you, I want to make sure I say it as unequivocally as I can, that really the option is staying here downtown and the choice that will be before voters — or not,” Maas said.

The team still has the option to share Stan Kroenke‘s Inglewood stadium when it opens in 2019. But Acee notes many in the league are believed not to want Los Angeles to have two teams, nor does the Rams’ owner want to share the market.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

Ex-Chargers GM: Team Will Stay In San Diego

September 15th, 2016 at 5:55pm CST by Sam Robinson

The Chargers seem to be fighting an uphill battle in an effort to see their downtown stadium proposal pass on November 8. The measure failing will give them the same choices they had when it started: work with San Diego on another venture or move to Los Angeles.

Former Chargers GM A.J. Smith does not see the team relocating, even if the downtown-stadium measure fails in two months.

“The Chargers aren’t going anywhere,” Smith said to the San Diego Union-Tribune’s Kevin Acee during a radio interview (via Eric Williams of ESPN.com). “So the fear factor of the local fans, rest assured the Chargers will be here. There is no option to go to L.A.”

The Chargers’ GM from 2003-12, Smith is essentially calling the franchise’s Los Angeles leverage a bluff, saying the league and Rams owner Stan Kroenke do not want them to move to Inglewood. The Chargers reached an agreement with the Rams earlier this year but soon announced plans to go forward with a San Diego project.

That project absorbed a blow when a California Supreme Court ruling determined, for now, the measure needs a two-thirds majority rather than to merely clear the 50% threshold. As recently as last month, the Chargers have mentioned leaving for Los Angeles if the measure fails. Smith doubts the sincerity of that proclamation.

“The reality is, there is no option,” he said, via Tom Krasovic of the Union-Tribune. “There is an option, but it will never be exercised. … San Diego is coveted by the National Football League and the owners. The league wants a team here. They want them to stay here.”

Even if the Chargers moved, they’d seemingly be paddling upstream since the team already saw the Rams gain publicity by moving to L.A. first earlier this year. The Chargers played in Los Angeles in 1960 but, unlike the Rams or Raiders, don’t have a connection to the city other than that.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images.

Chargers Notes: Stadium, Bosa, Mettenberger

August 20th, 2016 at 3:38pm CST by Sam Robinson

Thought to be trailing in their hopes to receive enough votes for the downtown stadium measure to pass this November, the Chargers mounted an offensive at a city councilman who voiced opposition to the team’s plan.

The Chargers funded a Facebook ad campaign against councilman Chris Cate, who is one of the leaders of a coalition called “No Downtown Stadium – Jobs and Streets First,” David Garrick of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. The ads posted Cate’s office phone number and urged fans to call and ask why he wants the Chargers to leave.

The team stated in these ads and through a spokesperson it would leave for Los Angeles without a downtown stadium — Dean Spanos does have an agreement in principle to join up with Stan Kroenke and the Rams in 2017 — but that hasn’t been formally announced since the Chargers are still playing at the Mission Valley site that’s housed them since 1961. So this ad campaign could be another attempt at leveraging the city. This time, that effort is directed at voters. The Chargers, as of now, need a two-thirds majority for the stadium measure to pass.

“The Chargers have spent the past 15 years and tens of millions of dollars trying to find a solution to stay here in San Diego,” team spokesman Fred Maas said, via Garrick. “It is an insult to our fans and all San Diegans to have inexperienced politicians with blind ambition use our initiative as a vehicle to pursue higher office, like mayor. If they want us to leave for L.A, folks have every right to ask why, so please call Chris and ask him.”

A coalition spokesman refuted Maas’ claims that Cate’s political agenda is driving this message.

Here’s more from San Diego.

In the weeks between now and the elections, the Chargers should be able to outmaneuver their political opposition, at least in terms of getting their message out, Tom Krasovic of the Union-Tribune writes. Four local TV stations in San Diego work under parent companies that are broadcast partners of the NFL, and the team also appears ready to outspend opponents in advertising. The Bolts improving on the field would help their cause, Krasovic notes. Despite the 4-12 record they finished with in 2015, the Chargers hadn’t lost more than 10 games in a season since 2003 and in their most recent effort lost nine games by one-score margins.
Management and Joey Bosa‘s camp breaking their weeks-long silence — and doing so without many details leaking — shows the sides are serious about finding a resolution this time, Michael Gehlken of the Union-Tribune notes. We heard on Friday the Bolts and Bosa’s agent met this week, and it’s unknown if a new offer emerged after one last went out July 28. Multiple officials involved requested the talks be kept private, per Gehlken.
Regardless of Bosa’s status come Week 1, Darius Philon will start opposite Corey Liuget at defensive end for the Chargers, Krasovic writes. While Philon saw his rookie season cut short by injury, he’s enjoyed a productive camp, per Krasovic, who adds that plugging Bosa into the Week 1 lineup after everything that’s occurred would send a bad message.
Kellen Clemens will remain Philip Rivers‘ backup, according to Krasovic, who also notes Zach Mettenberger is not a lock to make the team. Now 33, Clemens looks to have withstood the challenge of new OC Ken Whisenhunt‘s former Titans charge. Mettenberger, whom the Chargers claimed on waivers earlier this year, may now be in a battle with rookie UDFA Mike Bercovici, Krasovic writes. Rivers has not missed a start since taking over for Drew Brees to begin the 2006 season.
The Chargers claimed wideout Rasheed Bailey off waivers from the Jaguars earlier this week.

AFC West Notes: McKenzie, Chargers, Sanchez

July 30th, 2016 at 4:34pm CST by Sam Robinson

On the heels of his four-year extension, Reggie McKenzie will be ready to discuss extensions for Khalil Mack and Derek Carr after this season, when the 2014 draft choices become eligible to negotiate long-term contracts with the Raiders. The fifth-year Oakland GM said there has been a “constant dialogue” with the two standouts’ representatives, ones who profile as the best players the Raiders have had the opportunity to extend in many years.

“The plan is to keep good players,” McKenzie told media, including Jerry McDonald of Ibabuzz.com. “Y’all could come beat me across the head if I let a Hall of Fame-type player leave this building. I’ll take [their agents] out to dinner any time I see him. We’ve fostered good relationships.”

McKenzie’s most recent offseason — one that featured the most notable Raiders free agent signings this decade in Kelechi Osemele, Bruce Irvin and others — centered around free agency, but in 2017, Mack, Carr and Gabe Jackson become extension-eligible. Both Carr and Mack could soon be $20MM-per-year players, McDonald estimates.

Here’s more from the Raiders, along with the rest of the AFC West.

One of McKenzie’s free agent signings hasn’t worked out on the field, but the GM said the Raiders plan to stick by Aldon Smith despite his pattern of unavailability, Scott Bair of CSNBayArea.com reports. McKenzie did describe the sixth-year player’s situation as an “uphill battle,” though. “We knew his situation,” McKenzie said. “It’s not like we had blinders on. Going into last year, we knew a suspension was probable. It’s going to be an uphill battle for him. He’s going to have to fight the good fight, but we’re not going to bail on him. He has to do his part.” Oakland has now signed the mercurial pass-rusher twice in two seasons and could see the second commitment fail to result in any Smith playing time this season. The former 49ers All-Pro checked himself into rehab earlier this week.
McKenzie’s decision to cut bait on disappointing former first-round picks Michael Huff, Darrius Heyward-Bey and Rolando McClain, while absorbing a $13.7MM dead-money hit upon releasing Richard Seymour, helped the Raiders’ rebuild in 2013, Vinnie Iyer of the Sporting News writes. Those releases comprised part of the reason the Raiders held so much cap space the past two offseasons.
The San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce endorsed the Chargers‘ downtown stadium initiative, Roger Showley of the San Diego Union-Tribune reports. However, the backing might not mean too much since the measure, as of now, needs a two-thirds majority to pass in November.
That prospect remains a long-odds proposition, Union-Tribune’s Logan Jenkins points out. Jenkins doesn’t envision the measure passing at 50%. The California Supreme Court’s recent decision to review an appellate court’s ruling requires the measure to receive a two-thirds majority to pass. That 66.6% number is not finalized, however. Jenkins adds that the Chargers’ preferred downtown stadium not being likely to pass opens the door to a compromise in the form of a renovated Qualcomm Stadium. While the team’s efforts are being put into moving downtown, the Chargers will have options of becoming the Rams’ tenants in Los Angeles or making it work at their current Mission Valley site. Jenkins writes the latter choice would work out best for the Chargers’ standing in the community, staying in San Diego and not forcing what seems to be a largely unwanted downtown measure on taxpayers. A move to L.A. could decimate their fanbase as well, with the Rams having already set up shop there and the Chargers having essentially no footprint in the city.
Eric Fisher‘s contract extension — one that tacks on four years and $48MM to the left tackle’s deal — doubles as a huge leap of faith by the Chiefs, Adam Teicher of ESPN.com writes. Teicher points out the 6-foot-7 blocker from mid-major Central Michigan has been even more of a project than the franchise thought he’d be and that the team is rewarding Fisher for future performance as opposed to the modest production he’s shown.
Mark Sanchez and Trevor Siemian split first-team reps at Broncos practice Saturday, although the veteran’s command in the huddle and at the line of scrimmage is noticeable, Troy Renck of TheDenverChannel.com reports. Paxton Lynch took reps with the third team, per Renck.

Latest On Chargers’ Stadium Efforts

July 10th, 2016 at 9:40am CST by Rory Parks

The Chargers have submitted enough signatures in support of their downtown stadium proposal to the city of San Diego to land the proposal on the November ballot, according to the City Clerk’s Office (report via 10News.com). The Chargers submitted 110,380 signatures collected over a six-week period for consideration, and a random sampling of 3% of the signatures indicated that the team had collected more than enough to send the measure to the San Diego City Council, which is expected to formally place the initiative on the ballot.

But while the Chargers have cleared one major hurdle in their efforts to remain in San Diego, most sources with knowledge of the situation believe that voters will not approve the plan. Those voters will need to decide if they want to increase the hotel room tax to 16.5%, up from its current effective rate of 12.5%. The proceeds generated by that tax hike would help fund the $1.8 billion plan, which calls for a 61,500-seat facility in the East Village. $650MM of that cost would be footed by the Chargers, who would pay $350MM of their own money while obtaining a $300MM loan from the NFL.

Hoteliers, predictably, are expected to heavily oppose the initiative, but the rest of the San Diego citizenry doesn’t seem especially fond of the idea either. As Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today observes, the team presented polling data to the NFL last year that showed about 65% disapproval of public funding for a new stadium in San Diego.

A recent and unrelated court case in California has also complicated matters quite a bit. Back in March, a California appellate court held that citizens’ initiatives like this one required only a simple majority of more than 50%, as opposed to the two-thirds majority that is typically required when a tax hike is proposed by a government agency. However, the California Supreme Court has vacated that ruling pending its decision on the matter, and that decision will probably not be rendered before November. As such, the Chargers will likely need the full two-thirds majority to approve their stadium plan.

If the San Diego measure does not receive the requisite voter support, team president Dean Spanos has an agreement in place to have the Chargers become the second team in the Rams’ future Los Angeles home.

Photo courtesy of USA Today Sports Images

AFC West Notes: Bolts, Raiders, Broncos, Von

July 7th, 2016 at 11:45am CST by Connor J. Byrne

Even if the Chargers only need 50 percent – not 66.6 percent – of voters to approve public funding for a new stadium, they still could have a difficult time garnering enough support, writes Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk. Chargers stadium advisor Fred Maas claims that San Diego residents who don’t live in a hotel “won’t pay a dime” to keep the team there, but Florio is skeptical, pointing out that money coming from a hotel tax could have other public uses instead. Further, those who vote no would be doing so because they don’t want any part of helping subsidize the NFL – a $13 billion-per-year industry – Florio adds.

Here’s more from the AFC West:

The city of Oakland is taking bids for a new stadium, reports Zennie Abraham (Twitter link via Jason Cole of Bleacher Report). The Raiders – who are angling for Las Vegas relocation – find Oakland’s action odd because the city’s taking bids without having discussed anything with the team, per Abraham.
Former Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning expressed optimism Wednesday about the contract standoff between the club and franchise-tagged linebacker Von Miller, telling TMZ, “I think Von will re-sign, and I do not see that being a problem at all” (link via Joe Nguyen of the Denver Post). With next Friday serving as the deadline for franchise players to sign long-term deals, time is running out on the Broncos and Miller. General manager John Elway and the reigning Super Bowl MVP restarted talks over the weekend, though, so it appears they’re moving in the right direction.
If the impasse between the Broncos and Miller continues, ESPN’s Ed Werder wonders (via Twitter) if Elway would trade the 27-year-old.
Speaking of Denver stars who lack long-term security, we found out earlier Thursday that contract negotiations between the Elway-led franchise and wideout Emmanuel Sanders are on hold.

Load More Posts