San Diego Chargers’ fans woke up Wednesday morning to hear the most encouraging news yet that the team wouldn’t be returning to Los Angeles after 55 years in San Diego: a report that the Chargers had asked, and the NFL had granted, a request for a

Six weeks earlier, an ESPN report had depicted the Chargers’ departure as a sure thing. But the ugly end to the Rams’ first season back in Los Angeles had shaken up conventional wisdom. As the team’s losses mounted in what ended up a 4-12 season, the fan enthusiasm that helped the team sell out all its season tickets after moving from St. Louis evaporated. If the Los Angeles market wasn’t thrilled about one team unless it was successful, why would it like a second team with a recent history of exasperating fans?

But Wednesday evening brought the news that fans and San Diego leaders had dreaded: ESPN’s NFL insider Adam Schefter reported, seemingly definitively, that the Chargers would be leaving:

Almost one year to the day that the Rams moved to Los Angeles, the Chargers now likely intend to do the same.

The Chargers plan to announce as early as Thursday that they are moving to Los Angeles, league sources said, ending a 55-year stint with San Diego and returning to their birthplace.

The Chargers played their inaugural season in Los Angeles in 1960 before moving to San Diego in 1961.

The Chargers have notified NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and other league owners of their intent to move to Los Angeles for the 2017 season, sources said.

As CalWatchdog reported earlier this week, all signs suggest the Oakland Raiders will relocate to Las Vegas, so this appears likely to be the most turbulent year for California and professional sports since 1994, when the Los Angeles Rams headed to St. Louis and the Los Angeles Raiders moved back to Oakland.

San Diego has better chance than Oakland for new team

So is this the end for professional football in two of California’s iconic cities? Maybe in Oakland, maybe not in San Diego.

The San Francisco 49ers’ recent attendance woes at new Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara seem likely to depress enthusiasm for the idea that Oakland should partially subsidize a stadium for the Raiders, as the team and the NFL want.

But San Diego, the 17th largest metropolitan area in the U.S. and a global leader in biotechnology and life sciences industries, is in better shape. Its leaders appear ready to support a public stadium subsidy of up to $400 million.

A Yahoo News analysis from 2016 predicated on the idea that the Chargers would move to Los Angeles concluded that San Diego was the clear favorite to be home to the NFL’s next relocated team.

As CalWatchdog reported earlier this week, the San Diego Chargers are much closer to moving to Los Angeles, having gotten the formal blessing of team owners at a meeting in Irving, Texas, to leave if they choose by the Jan. 15 deadline the NFL established a year ago. But the situation in Oakland with the Raiders seems cloudier — at least in California media, as opposed to websites that specialize in the NFL.

With the Raiders, the seeming good news for fans who want the team to stay starts with the fact that the Oakland City Council and the Alameda County Board of Supervisors appear enthusiastic about working with Fortress Investment Group, which is led by NFL Hall of Famer Ronnie Lott and billionaire investor Wes Edens, on a stadium plan. On Bay Area talk radio, supporters of the plan have dropped hints of having deep-pocket supporters who might come forward to minimize how much taxpayers would have to pay for the billion-dollar-plus new stadium the Raiders and the NFL want.

NFL officials who have criticized San Diego officials for their response to the Chargers’ stadium needs are offering praise for what’s happening in Oakland.

ESPN reported this week that the league told Oakland’s leaders to not worry about the threat the team would leave even though Nevada state leaders have committed to provide $750 million in public funds for a $1.9 billion NFL stadium in Las Vegas. The team would only have to pay $500 million toward the stadium, with the rest of the tab largely picked up by Las Vegas Sands chairman and CEO Sheldon Adelson. One of the world’s richest persons, Adelson hopes to end up a minority or majority owner of the team.

The implication of the remarks by NFL executive Eric Grubman to ESPN is that the league very much wants the Raiders to stay in Oakland even if a better deal is available in Las Vegas. When allowed to comment anonymously, officials with other NFL teams have said that the league should be wary of having a team in the city that is the capital of American sports gambling.

Raiders may sue to leave if NFL owners say no

But optimism about Oakland keeping its team is less apparent on Pro Football Talk, a niche website now affiliated with NBC Sports that has broken dozens of stories in recent years because of its network of NFL insider sources. Site founder Mike Florio wrote this week that Adelson and Raiders owner Mark Davis were struggling to finalize a deal that would bring the team to Las Vegas.

But Florio has long depicted the Raiders’ exit as close to a done deal. On Nov. 22, he reported that Davis would sue the NFL to allow his team to move to Las Vegas if he could not get the support of three-quarters of the league’s 32 owners to relocate his team, as NFL bylaws require.

Davis’ father, NFL Hall of Famer Al Davis, successfully sued the league after it sought to block him from moving the team from Oakland to Los Angeles, where it played from 1982 to 1994 before moving back to Oakland.

Florio has interviewed Mark Davis dozens of times off the record. While he honors the rules and doesn’t quote Davis directly, the impression his coverage always gives is that the Raiders owner sees becoming the first major pro sports franchise to set up shop in Las Vegas — a tourist-centered metropolitan area with 2.1 million residents — as akin to a no-brainer.

Many reporters have also made the obvious point that the Raiders’ image as edgy, unconventional outsiders conforms with Las Vegas’ image.

Florio believes a final decision will be made by September.

The St. Louis Rams may have once again become the Los Angeles Rams, capping off the biggest suspense story in the National Football League, but the controversy over the city’s final lineup of teams has flared up yet again.

Chargers ’16

In San Diego, where the Chargers have gone down to the wire with city officials on a possible move that once looked like a done deal, the next twist depends on voters. Although analysts and fans have cautioned that one NFL team may be plenty for Los Angeles, especially so soon on the heels of the Rams’ return, the stadium deal holding the Chargers’ future in the balance has failed to rally popular support. According to a YouGov poll conducted late last month, only “a quarter of San Diego adults strongly or somewhat support the proposal for a new, taxpayer-funded $1.8 billion stadium and convention center downtown,” as USA Today recalled. “The poll showed more than half — 52 percent — strongly or somewhat opposed the measure, with the other 23 percent not stating a preference.” 

“To win the vote, the team needs two-thirds of voters to approve the project because it’s a tax hike for a special purpose in California. If the vote fails, the Chargers have until Jan. 15 to decide whether to move to Los Angeles, where they have an optional deal to share a lucrative new stadium with the Los Angeles Rams.”

If the push to use the ballot to keep the Chargers in San Diego has been a slog, however, city officials’ backup plan has emerged as a potentially dramatic Hail Mary pass — to the judiciary. City Attorney Jan Goldsmith told radio host Darren Smith “he would ask the state’s high court to ‘take jurisdiction’ over the city’s November election as it pertains to two stadium-related ballot initiatives: the Chargers plan to raise the city’s hotel tax to build a stadium and convention center, and the Citizens’ Plan, which would increase the tax to help pay for tourism marketing and an off-the-waterfront convention center,” according to U-T San Diego. Although “no public money could go toward stadium construction,” the city’s inquiry “could come as early as next week, if county officials examining signatures declare that either or both initiatives have qualified for the ballot,” the paper added. 

Vegas or bust?

Oakland’s Raiders, the other California team caught up in the L.A. relocation game, have struggled to strike a deal with their own home town. According to NBC Sports, League Commissioner Roger Goodell appeared to discourage another move to L.A., suggesting “you never want to see a community lose their franchise once, much less twice,” making reference to the Raiders’ ping-ponging over the decades between L.A. and Oakland. “I think there’s a solution there, but it takes the community to help identify it,” he said. In the wake of the Rams deal, and unable to count on the Chargers to come through on the stadium-sharing deal that had briefly given the duo a bettor’s edge against the Rams, the Raiders have shifted their attentions from L.A. to Las Vegas.

“Of course, the NFL has allowed communities to lose franchises twice: St. Louis lost both the Cardinals and the Rams,” NBC Sports noted. “So it wouldn’t be unprecedented for the Raiders to vacate Oakland twice. But Goodell said the recent authorization of a new stadium in Las Vegas isn’t enough to bring the Raiders to town.”

Nevertheless, Las Vegas has thrown its considerable weight behind serious plans to lure the team in. The Southern Nevada Tourism Infrastructure Committee recently cast a unanimous vote “to recommend $750 million in public funding for a $1.9 billion stadium,” ESPN reported, drawn from hotel taxes. That sum would be added to $500 million from owner Mark Davis, “which includes a loan from the NFL for a new stadium, to the project,” the network added. “The family of Sheldon Adelson — chairman of casino and resort outfit Las Vegas Sands Corporation — has pledged another $650 million for the proposed 65,000-seat, domed venue, which would be shared with the UNLV football team.”

“The game will be played at the soon-to-be built $2.6-billion Inglewood stadium, which is scheduled to open for the 2019 season,” the Los Angeles Times reported. 

In a joint statement with Inglewood Mayor James Butts, L.A.’s Eric Garcetti praised the deal. “The Los Angeles region is built to host the Super Bowl. We helped forge this great American tradition at the Coliseum when it began in 1967; and we’re thrilled to bring it back where it belongs for Super Bowl LV.”

Sinking San Diego

Until very recently, speculation had swirled that Los Angeles might lose favor to San Diego, where delicate League plans to sustain football in the city could wind up in jeopardy. “San Diego previously has hosted three Super Bowls, the last being Super Bowl XXXVII when the Buccaneers beat the Raiders to cap the 2002 season,” the Sporting News recalled. But with the franchise’s future still uncertain, “the NFL does not want to lose the San Diego market. The league wants to keep the Chargers in San Diego to have two Southern California markets and two future Super Bowls in a region that has a population of some 23 million,” the site added. 

But thorny city politics would have had to be swiftly surmounted. At the NFL owners’ quarterly meeting in Charlotte, ESPN reported, NFL owners heard “a progress report on the stadium issue in San Diego, which will include a summary on whether a citizens’ initiative ballot measure in November will require a simple majority or a two-thirds vote,” as required by California state law. 

That situation was complicated further by a court decision, under appeal, that could change the League’s calculus. The nearly $2 billion stadium the city has planned to build, according to stadium advisor Fred Mass, “remains on target to collect 100,000 signatures by the first week of June, creating a buffer in order to have enough signatures certified,” noted ESPN. Nevertheless, “a recent court decision involving the city of Upland ruled a citizens’ initiative is not a measure by the local government, but by the citizens. And therefore since the tax is imposed by the citizens, that constitutional provision does not apply. The city of Upland is appealing the decision to the state Supreme Court.” 

Rewarding the Rams

Los Angeles, meanwhile, had long anticipated that the League could reward it for luring back the Rams by handing it hosting duties. “Almost from the moment the Rams were given the green light, the wheels were in motion to secure hosting rights to the Super Bowl,” the Los Angeles Daily News observed. “Upon approving the Rams return home, the NFL immediately added Los Angeles to the host ballots for Super Bowl LIV an LV, along with Atlanta, South Florida and Tampa Bay.”

“To put in perspective what a Super Bowl means financially to the hosting city and state, a study completed by the Seidman Research Institute, W.P. Carey School of Business at Arizona State University, determined that Super Bowl XLIX and related events two years ago in the Phoenix area produced a gross economic impact of $719.4 million for the entire state. L.A. wants a piece of that pie.”

Although L.A.’s success in landing the big event owed a great deal to the excitement and money surrounding Rams owner Stan Kronke’s huge Inglewood stadium development project, a rule tweak could have ultimately pushed the bid into the end zone. “The NFL appears to have changed a longstanding rule that requires stadiums to operate for two years before hosting a Super Bowl, with L.A.’s bid specifically in mind,” as Curbed Los Angeles reported. 

“The Rams’ home will ultimately be on the site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack in Inglewood in what will be the league’s biggest stadium by square feet, a low-slung, glass-roofed football palace with a projected opening in 2019 and a price tag that could approach $3 billion,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

Unanswered questions

The Chargers effectively have months to decide their fate — enjoying “a yearlong option to join the Rams, followed by the Raiders if the San Diego franchise declines,” according to ESPN. But the Rams’ journey to Inglewood will begin immediately but take years to complete. “NFL owners in Houston voted 30-2 to ratify the Rams’ relocation application for an immediate move to L.A., where the team will eventually begin play at owner Stan Kroenke’s proposed stadium site in Inglewood in 2019,” NFL.com reported, calling the move “a seismic decision that returns the highest level of professional football to the country’s second-largest media market after a 21-year absence.”

“Per NFL Media Insider Ian Rapoport, the Chargers will have up until the conclusion of owners meetings (March 20-23) to decide if they’re playing in L.A. or San Diego in 2016. The window creates the possibility — however slight — that the Chargers could remain in San Diego. The city is hosting a June vote for $350 million in public funding toward a new facility to replace Qualcomm Stadium. It is possible that the Chargers put off a final decision until that vote takes place.”

Uncertainty in Oakland

The deal left the Oakland Raiders, L.A.’s third suitor, the odd team out. They had gambled big on a joint-stadium deal in Carson with the Chargers, hoping to ace out the Rams by granting the league’s wish to neatly usher in two, but not three, teams. “Oakland is still in debt from a renovation 20 years ago, when the Raiders moved back from Los Angeles,” ESPN noted. “City officials have said they won’t seek help from taxpayers with a new stadium, and they asked the NFL for more time to develop a project in response to the Raiders’ relocation plan. The NFL acquiesced.”

Oakland’s fans have retained the strongest loyalty and the greatest capacity for forgiveness among the three cities in peril of losing their franchises. But the fallout from the L.A. deal was far from over, as Oakland’s dismal financial situation with regard to the Raiders raised the sudden prospect that the storied East Bay team could pick up stakes for Texas. The team had previously considered a switch to San Antonio. “In 2014, the Raiders met with San Antonio officials about a potential move,” as Business Insider reported. “While many shrugged that off at the time, there is now a feeling that such a move is possible. According to Jason Cole of Bleacher Report, the Raiders have already secured land in the Austin/San Antonio area for a potential stadium. With the Alamodome already in place, this strongly suggests that the Raiders could be playing in Texas as soon as next season.”

Wary L.A.

In Los Angeles itself, reaction to the upheaval has been moderate, if not muted. Despite the league’s fierce interest in shifting at least one team to the city, Angelenos and Californians more broadly have not agitated for a new franchise, and expectations for the Rams have already been set high by city locals. “So understand first that you’re here because you want to be here and because you think you can make money here, not because anybody was dying to see you again. Consider yourself lucky to be back on our turf,” Bill Plaschke wrote at the Times. “You must win. You must entertain. You must do both with the sort of decency and integrity that makes us feel comfortable enduring long lines of traffic, long lines at bathrooms, and mosh pits in parking lots for a chance to watch you play.”

The Chargers were given a one-year option to move — an option that seemed far more like an unserious public-relations ploy to suggest that they hadn’t made their minds up than a sign they actually might not leave. Team owner Dean Spanos and his stadium point man, Mark Fabiani, have an awful relationship with the San Diego establishment, starting with Mayor Kevin Faulconer. If the Chargers choose not to leave San Diego, the Oakland Raiders would then have a one-year option to move.

This followed a wild day at the NFL owners’ meeting in Houston. The NFL relocation committee initially voted 5-1 to support the Chargers’ and the Raiders’ plan to build a stadium in Carson, move their teams and lay claim to the Los Angeles market. That was followed by subsequent votes of all 32 owners in which 20 backed requiring the Chargers to abandon their partnership with the Raiders and share a stadium in Inglewood with the St. Louis Rams, and 12 backed the Carson plan.

As the day wore on, support emerged for a third option: clearing the Rams to move to Inglewood and build a stadium there, while allowing the Chargers to join the Rams in a year or two after reviving talks with San Diego officials on how to fund and build a billion-dollar-plus NFL stadium. That morphed into the decision to give the Chargers an option to stay in San Diego with a one-year window to join the Rams in Inglewood.

Here’s more from the Los Angeles Times:

Until the stadium is complete, the Rams are expected to play temporarily at the L.A. Memorial Coliseum. If the Chargers join them, it’s unclear where they will play, though the NFL sees Angel Stadium, Dodger Stadium and even the Rose Bowl, which declined last year to bid on hosting a team, as potential options. …

 

The maneuvering between the projects included Disney Chairman and Chief Executive Robert Iger joining the Carson project pending its approval. In the weeks leading up to the vote, he vigorously lobbied for Carson, making phone calls to NFL owners, as did Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, who orchestrated Iger’s involvement. Iger presented Carson’s plan to owners Tuesday, along with Davis and Spanos.

Chargers assured they’ll share in Inglewood bonanza

According to many reports, the key to the NFL owners’ landslide vote was assuring the Chargers that they wouldn’t be in a completely subordinate position in sharing the Inglewood facilities with the Rams. Moving to Los Angeles would be much less of a bonanza for the Spanos family if it had to pay heavy rent and was shut out of many of the ancillary ways that stadiums and big mixed-use development projects make money. The Times put it this way:

In the last several days, fellow owners worked behind the scenes to bring Kroenke and Spanos together in an accord that allows them to be equitable partners in the Inglewood stadium. The only shared stadium in the NFL is in East Rutherford, N.J., which is home to the New York Giants and Jets.

So what’s next for the Raiders?

In an odd interview Tuesday night, owner Mark Davis suggested he might take his team to Great Britain or some other locale far from the western division of the American Football Conference; his team’s lease is up at what used to be known as the Oakland Coliseum.

But coverage in the Bay Area has focused on the likelihood of the NFL pressuring the Raiders to play in Santa Clara at the 49ers’ gleaming 2-year-old Levi’s Stadium — with the sort of subservient relationship to the 49ers that the Chargers hope to avoid in Inglewood.

So everything is looking positive for the Warriors coming back to San Francisco? Not exactly. Critics have assembled a multimillion-dollar legal fund to fight the project at every turn, and a classic NIMBY battle between well-funded interests looms.

The main opponent “came out of nowhere” in April. The San Francisco Business Times had details:

A group of University of California, San Francisco, donors is threatening to sue or push a ballot measure against the Warriors’ potential Mission Bay arena over parking and traffic concerns. …

 

The group, a nonprofit called the Mission Bay Alliance, worries that arena traffic will bottle up to ensnarl ambulances headed to nearby UCSF Medical Center and threaten the neighborhood’s ability to grow as a biotechnology hub. Its proximity to AT&T Park and possible overlapping game days will exacerbate that, the group says.

 

Sam Singer, who is representing the alliance’s public relations efforts, [said], “The alliance wants to see the (arena) and office towers halted completely. If that doesn’t happen through the EIR and public participation process, the alliance will consider a lawsuit and going to the ballot to stop the stadium.”

Poll suggests public not sold on arena

On the eve of the supervisors’ vote, the Mission Bay Alliance released a poll of 540 voters that showed much less support than the Warriors have asserted. This is from a statement on the alliance’s website:

Based on what they know today about the proposed arena plan in Mission Bay, fewer than half of voters say they support it:

 

Support – 49 percent

 

Oppose – 42 percent

 

Don’t know – 10 percent  …

 

Once voters became aware of the facts surrounding the proposed arena and the expected regional impacts, including traffic gridlock, the lack of parking and clogged emergency access for adjacent UCSF hospitals, support for the arena plummeted even more:

 

Support – 38 percent

 

Oppose – 59 percent

 

Don’t know – 3 percent

 

Parking and traffic ranked as the two most problematic impacts, with 65 percent of voters concerned about traffic gridlock and 67 percent about a lack of parking in and around the arena. … [The project] does little to alleviate the burden the arena will put on regional transit like BART and CalTrain.

Being a popular champion helps sway debate

But the Warriors and the city leaders who back them up on the planned move could benefit tremendously from timing. San Diego voters agreed to help pay for PETCO Park for the Padres in the city’s downtown area in November 1998 — a month after the team won a rare National League title and advanced to the World Series.

The contrast is sharp with present-day San Diego and seemingly broad opposition to having local governments help the Chargers pay for a new NFL stadium. Other factors certainly come into play. San Diego’s reputation as “Enron by the Bay” has faded, but the city’s years of financial struggles have left scars. The city is debating a huge infrastructure program, prompting questions about why $200 million that might go to fix pocked roads and add fire stations would instead help a billionaire build a stadium. But it hasn’t helped the let’s-hold-our-noses-and-accept subsidies crowd that the Chargers have been hugely disappointing since their 14-2 season in 2007, rarely living up to expectations.

The Warriors, by contrast, sharply exceeded expectations in 2014-15, when they won their first NBA championship in 40 years. This season, meanwhile, they got off to the fastest start of any team in NBA history. That could be an ace in the hole for team owners Joe Lacob and Peter Guber.

This has led Mayor Kevin Faulconer, county Supervisor Ron Roberts and other elected leaders to make their case directly to the NFL, explaining why league owners shouldn’t allow the Chargers to flee a town of loyal fans in what they depict as a naked money grab. But a newly released document — a 24-page “term sheet” the city provided the NFL — is undercutting this strategy because it can readily be interpreted as confirming Fabiani’s critique.

Union-Tribune business columnist Dan McSwain notes that the memo …

… didn’t offer many terms at all, especially those required to actually build a stadium.

 

Sure, Faulconer says in the document that the city could borrow $200 million toward stadium construction, while the county might chip in $150 million. …

 

However, the mayor doesn’t propose a timetable for asking his City Council or the county Board of Supervisors to approve any public financing. Sames goes with the public vote Faulconer deems necessary.

 

And, if taxpayers borrow $350 million using lease-revenue bonds, where is the lease? The mayor’s term sheet leaves a blank, quite literally, in the section that discusses the Chargers’ rent for their new stadium, after they presumably raised $750 million or more in private funds to build it.

 

Today the team’s rent is effectively zero. Fully supporting $350 million in municipal bonds requires roughly $22.5 million a year in revenue, assuming a 30-year note at 5 percent interest.

The number of parking spaces is also blank, as are “civic events” each year for which the team couldn’t collect revenue. Aztec games? Capital reserves? Blank, blank.

Controlling the ‘optics’? Or actually pursuing a deal?

McSwain says the lack of specifics shows the “term sheet” to be a political document. Other coverage, such as this account from KPBS, accepted city officials’ contention that the document was a work in progress, not a reflection of the limits on what the city and county can do to provide financial and other help getting a stadium built.

But the KPBS account also included a provocative comment from a local political consultant:

Tony Manolatos, a consultant to the mayor on the stadium, said he wasn’t surprised by the concerns raised in the NFL’s letter because “the NFL works for the Chargers.”

 

“Ever since the Chargers left the negotiating table, the NFL has been serving as their proxy,” Manolatos said.

Manolatos went on to say he believes the NFL wants to stay in San Diego. But to people who have been watching the stadium saga play out, his comments suggest that it’s not just the city putting out “political documents” to burnish its image and control the narrative. It’s also the NFL. Owners don’t want to see a reprise of the national backlash to the specter of the Colts fleeing Baltimore in the middle of the night in 1983.

So they encourage the idea that they are an impartial third party to a dispute between San Diego and the team, and don’t point out the fundamental problems with the city-county’s offer sheet. To use a term from Fabiani’s old profession, it appears that both the league and the city are trying to control the “optics” of the situation — while not appearing to make any progress toward a deal that would actually keep the Chargers in San Diego.

The bonds use money paid to lease the facilities they build to pay off construction and financing costs. The Chargers would presumably be expected to be the main payer of lease fees to the city-county consortium that Mayor Kevin Faulconer and county Supervisor Ron Roberts hope will build the new stadium and keep the team from heading to a stadium proposed for Carson in southwest Los Angeles County.

But the Fourth District Court of Appeal has ruled that using such bonds for a stadium is legal under state law — a ruling the city quickly relayed to the NFL and to other team owners who have been skeptical San Diego has the wherewithal to build a modern football stadium. The ruling upheld the state trial-court’s decision from a year ago.

The Union-Tribune noted that the ruling …

… may alleviate one of several concerns league officials raised in a Nov. 10 letter to the city’s lead stadium negotiator.

 

City negotiators have been working directly with the NFL since June, when the Chargers terminated stadium talks as the NFL considers whether the Chargers, St. Louis Rams or Oakland Raiders can move to Los Angeles next year. ….

 

City officials say they are drafting a response letter to the NFL that will include an explanation of last week’s appellate ruling, which City Attorney Jan Goldsmith called a significant victory.

 

“Whether you like them or not, lease-revenue bonds are a legal way to pay for public infrastructure projects,” Goldsmith said.

 

Critics say lease-revenue bonds, where city buildings and other assets are used as collateral to borrow money, violate the spirit of state law by skirting the two-thirds voter approval that would typically be required to raise such money.

Mayor has repeatedly promised stadium vote

But just because San Diego can issue the bonds with a public vote doesn’t mean city officials are likely to do so.

The Chargers’ popularity in San Diego is at low ebb as another disappointing season plays out. It has become common for fans of visiting teams from across the nation to out-cheer Charger loyalists at Qualcomm Stadium. Meanwhile, Fabiani, a former Clinton White House aide, has emerged as a lightning rod for fan anger over his repeated caustic attacks on Faulconer and other officials who have lobbied the NFL against allowing a money-making team with a loyal fan base to leave for more riches elsewhere.

When Faulconer seeks re-election next year, his handling of stadium negotiations — and his support for using public funds — will be a big issue. The Republican is likely to face a Democrat who is strongly opposed to public funding. He’s also repeatedly said San Diegans “deserve a vote” on a new stadium.

A possible scenario being discussed on sports talk radio was for Faulconer to seek voter blessing of the lease-revenue bonds in a special election with lower turnout. The theory is that using lease-revenue bonds to fund the city’s share of a $1 billion-plus stadium project would be much easier to sell to voters than raising sales taxes, rental-car taxes or hotel taxes, such as other communities have done to help pay for new arenas and stadiums.

In a move that considerably increases their odds of leaving San Diego, the Chargers announced Wednesday a new leader for their Carson stadium project — Bob Iger, the chairman and chief executive of the Walt Disney Company.

 

The deal matches the team with arguably the world’s most successful and powerful entertainment-industry executive. In addition, Iger received an option to become a minority owner of the Chargers or the Oakland Raiders, the team’s partner on the Carson project.  …

 

For fans who hoped the Chargers were just using Carson to bluff San Diego officials into making a better stadium offer, the deal represents a serious setback. For the NFL’s 32 owners, it offers a soothing tonic to those worried that Chargers CEO Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis might bungle the league’s reentry into Los Angeles, the nation’s second largest market.

 

Without question, the deal “has a dramatic impact,” said Marc Ganis, a sports consultant based in Chicago who helped the Raiders and Rams leave Los Angeles two decades ago. “At the risk of mixing sports metaphors, it’s a grand slam home run.”

The Los Angeles Times framed the development in similar fashion:

Carmen Policy, a former NFL executive who now serves as executive director of Carson Holdings, the joint venture between the Chargers and Raiders, called the addition of Iger a “game-changer.”

 

“We now have the kind of leadership and expertise that should calm any concerns about any NFL teams going into L.A. and getting off on the right foot and pursuing the right course,” Policy said. “Who could we get to better guarantee fan experience than the man who runs ‘the happiest place on earth?’”

 

Iger would be chairman of Carson Holdings and would continue to serve as chairman and CEO of Disney under the terms of his contract.

‘Get ready for Raiders to leave. Again’

Bay Area News Group columnist Marcus Thompson noted the strong ties between Iger and the NFL and the fact that the league appears to want the Chargers and Raiders to add minority owners to beef up their finances before moving. He thinks the league is tipping its hand about its preference:

[The] connections and resources are there but the NFL and the Raiders prefer to use them for L.A. Not for Oakland. They’ll stay if they can make millions, even billions, off a new stadium if they only have to pay a portion of the cost. But if it’s all on them, they chose L.A.

 

That makes sense, too. That’s the new landscape of sports. That small-time model doesn’t return the profits required when you consider how much all of this costs. These figures are getting so astronomical, the league and teams must do all they can to ensure a profit. And the return on investment, theoretically, stands to be much bigger in Los Angeles than in Oakland.

 

That means, Raiders fans, start preparing for your Raiders to leave. Again.

Mike Florio of Pro Football Talk has among the best NFL sources of any journalist. In league circles, he writes, the Iger announcement is also considered a big deal:

With the ownership vote on L.A. looming, this could be the Hail Mary play by the folks in Carson that gets their attention, and that in turn makes the Christmas Eve meeting between the Chargers and Raiders in Oakland even more memorable. Possibly for all the wrong reasons.