The response to our proposal to the City and the Chargers yesterday was this:

CHARGERS:
After careful consideration, we will accept the proposed solution without qualification. The Chargers will remove the ticket guarantee for 2 years, return $3.6 million dollars to the City, pay $1M per year in rent and agree to binding arbitration to resolve this issue.

MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:

• "I support eliminating the ticket guarantee in exchange for the Chargers paying $2 million per year in rent, but I do not support binding arbitration on the trigger clause because it is not in the financial best interest of the taxpayers," the statement said.
• "The Mayor and the City Council have made it incredibly clear that the city will not agree to binding arbitration on the trigger. I'm not sure where they're trying to go by re-asking the same question 50 times. The City has responded by coming back with our own strikingly similar proposals in order to reach an agreement on the common goal of eliminating the ticket guarantee."

So, let's ask the question for the 51st time; "WHY" is it in the best financial interests of the City to face two-to-three years of litigation, spend tens of millions of taxpayers dollars (estimated at $75M to $100M), and then, most likely lose the team?

We hear them saying they "will not agree to binding arbitration." However, as community and labor leaders, taxpayers, fans and business people who know the potential devastating financial impact to the City, we think we deserve an "EXPLANATION." If there is a good explanation as to why it is in the taxpayers' best financial interests to accept this kind of exposure, please explain. The better financial argument should prevail.

The same is true with the 10-second political sound bite, "we will not relinquish our legal rights". We agree! Don't relinquish any reasonable legal rights. However, what we need is an explanation as to "WHY" that is the case. What legal rights would be relinquished, other than the right to sue? With binding arbitration, everything else remains in place: the same rules of discovery, the same rules of evidence, the same arguments, and, an appeal process if you don't like the first decision. So, we are simply asking for an "EXPLANATION" as to what rights are given up?

We also deserve an "EXPLANATION" as to "WHY" the City has offered binding arbitration for the termination fee -- but refused binding arbitration for the trigger? If the city believes binding arbitration is a bad idea, why did the city offer it for the termination fee? And if arbitration is good enough for the termination fee, why isn't it good enough for the trigger? Could it be that the City doesn't want the facts on the trigger to come out?

Scenario #1:

• Relinquish the legal right to sue.
• Go to binding arbitration and determine if the Chargers can trigger and leave San Diego. If the Chargers cannot trigger, end of story. If they can trigger, we save an ugly legal battle and can move forward with resolving the other issues ahead of us.
• Timeline: 3 to 6 months?
• Cost to the City: Several hundred thousand dollars?

Scenario #2;

• Sue to keep the Chargers in San Diego.
• Litigate, and determine if the Chargers can trigger and leave San Diego. If the Chargers cannot trigger, the City wins this one; however, the Chargers have the opportunity to trigger four more times during the life of this lease and we go through this all over again.
• Timeline: 2 to 3 years?
• Cost to the City: Potentially upwards of $100 million dollars?

We think it is reasonable for the Mayor and City Council to explain why these arguments are incorrect. We believe it is not in the public's interest to continue to hear "we can't tell you because we discussed it in closed session". Some logic and reason is expected and deserved by the community at large.

The only thing that matters to the politicians is how many phone calls and emails they receive. Weigh in on the issue, no matter which side you are on. Let City Hall know what you think!

Click here if you want to contact City Hall.

###

- Return to News Releases -