Guest Column
by Boltman
My name is Dan Jauregui. I am a very dedicated and passionate Chargers fan born and raised in San Diego, and I would like to take a minute of your time to express the concerns of loyal San Diego Chargers fans. In light of the current circumstances, surrounding negotiations between the City of San Diego and the Chargers, we fans feel that the NFL and the San Diego Chargers have failed repeatedly in good faith negotiations with the City of San Diego.
Regarding the NFL’s policy and procedures for proposed franchise relocations, Article 8.5 and Section 4.3 of the NFL Constitution clearly state that a team must have “diligently engaged in good faith efforts” to “obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories” in order to qualify for relocation. (This clearly has not been demonstrated to have taken place from the owner of the Chargers Dean Spanos or his Special Team Counsel Mark Fabiani.)
The NFL and its club member the San Diego Chargers and owner Dean Spanos have clearly failed in good faith negotiations for the past four months. Mark Fabiani’s disingenuous comments to our mayor, city council, board of supervisors and Citizens Stadium Advisory Group (CSAG)—in addition to his disruptive, toxic, negative presence in all negotiations—have triggered fans to propose that the City of San Diego file a lawsuit against the NFL under the Sherman Antitrust act.
The Chargers strongly feel that their lease agreement in 2007 excludes them from any liabilities in team relocations with respect to antitrust violations. San Diego city attorney Jan Goldsmith can bring about an injunction for abuse of monopoly power with respect to the NFL’s efforts to artificially control the location of its NFL team owners and failure to negotiate in good faith with the City of San Diego. This is the key argument that the City can argue in a lawsuit complaint.
The City of San Diego is entitled to compete on a level playing field to keep the Chargers here. The City has demonstrated good faith efforts to produce a financial plan within the timeline that the Chargers have requested in addition to having a CEQA EIR (Environmental Impact Report) completed before the Chargers’ relocation timeline.
The NFL and the Owner of the San Diego Chargers Dean Spanos have failed to negotiate in good faith, clearly violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, based on the fact that the San Diego Chargers have been working secretly and aggressively on stadium plans in the City of Carson, Los Angeles County. This has been done under the close watch of the NFL committee specifically set up to ensure that Los Angeles has an NFL team soon and has been and continues to be discussed at NFL meetings with team owners.
Please see the attached demand letter that I personally walked in to the City Attorney’s office on June 18, 2015. It is our hope that the City Attorney, Jan Goldsmith, will take our demand request seriously by reaching out to the law firm of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP. Attorney Jim Quinn is waiting to assist the City of San Diego with future negotiations, if any, or to retain the law firm as counsel to immediately file the lawsuit against the NFL to protect the rights of San Diego citizens. The NFL is a group of 32 owners who have agreed unlawfully to boycott San Diego. The clear anti-competitive purpose of this illegal effort is simple: to line the pockets of the NFL and the Chargers with even more money.
We, as fans, can also file a lawsuit tomorrow. As season ticket holders, we have the right and legal standing as investors in a commercial product subject to a federal anti- trust provision. We will file the lawsuit and fight for the current teams Intellectual Property Rights /team name, logos trademarks as did the Cleveland Browns fans did back in 1995 that was referred to by fans as “The Move” This proposed lawsuit will be filed if the City Attorney’s office fails to exercise our rights under the Antitrust Act that the NFL has clearly violated. It would be a disservice if our City Attorney failed to do what is best for the City of San Diego and its fans, depriving us of the history and the legacies that we fans have enjoyed for over 54 years.
Our mayor, city council, and board of supervisors have done a great job as public servants in making their best efforts to keep our San Diego Chargers right here in San Diego where they belong. But it’s time that the City get more aggressive by taking action and setting negotiating timelines. For starters, we recommend the City give the Chargers a two-week time frame to come to the table and negotiate in good faith. If they reject the invitation, then the city should move forward by filing the antitrust lawsuit against the NFL. This will put the NFL in a position to force the Chargers back to the table and strike a deal. It will also put the City in a better legal position with leverage that it currently does not have.
The Chargers can show good faith efforts by spearheading a signature drive just like they did in Carson, and this can be their way around the EIR, enabling them to move forward with the financing of the stadium. This can be accomplished in less than 30 days.
FYI: I have reached out to the media in St. Louis and shared my findings with them in hopes that the city of ST Louis and it’s fans there can follow the same path as those in San Diego are taking. Perhaps no one will move to LA. The media is very interested in sharing this new information with the city of St. Louis and it’s loyal fans. This can be a big game changer all around. In short this move for the Chargers to LA will never happen not as long as we fans can legally put a stop to it as we intend to. There is strength in numbers “United We Stand” Feel free to contact me if you have further questions.
U-Tube Video of fans speaking out
Sincerely,
Dan Jauregui, aka Boltman, and Charger fans
_____
Letter to Goldsmith…
June 18, 2015
To: Jan Goldsmith, San Diego City Attorney
From: Citizens of the City and County of San Diego
We appreciate the work The Mayor, City Council, Board of Supervisors and yourself have done over the last several months to produce the foundation of a financially viable plan to construct a new stadium. We believe that these activities as well as the activities of the Citizens Stadium Advisory Group have been carried out in good faith. We all recognize that the San Diego Chargers are an integral part of our community. While the Chargers provide entertainment and civic pride, they also generate significant revenue streams to the City and County of San Diego. Local jobs, restaurants, and the tourism industry will be significantly impacted by the Chargers departure outside of San Diego County.
NFL’s policy and procedures for proposed franchise relocations Article 8.5 of the NFL Constitution and Section 4.3 clearly state a team must have “diligently engaged in good faith efforts” to “obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories” in order to qualify for relocation. We believe the NFL League and its club member, the San Diego Chargers have failed to negotiate in good faith. At every turn in the negotiations, top NFL executives, including Eric Grubman, and representatives of the San Diego Chargers, including Mark Fabiani, continue to reject every legitimate effort to keep the Chargers in San Diego.
At the same time, the San Diego Chargers have been working secretly and aggressively on stadium plans in The City of Carson, Los Angeles County. This has been done under the close watch of the NFL League committee specifically set up to ensure that Los Angeles has an NFL team soon and has been and continues to be discussed at NFL meetings of the owners. Land has been purchased in the City of Carson, a signature drive for a finance plan stadium proposal is underway, and the recent hiring of NFL executive Carmen Policy as a consultant for a new stadium, all show that an orchestrated scheme led by the NFL is in the works for the Chargers to move to Los Angeles. This conduct, unless stopped, will continue with the loss the Chargers and no replacement NFL team in San Diego.
We, the citizens of San Diego respectfully demand that an antitrust lawsuit be filed immediately against the NFL and the Chargers to protect the rights of San Diego citizens. The NFL is a group of 32 owners that have agreed unlawfully to boycott San Diego. The clear anticompetitive purpose of this illegal effort is simple – to line the pockets of the NFL and the Chargers with even more money. The NFL’s greed has resulted in a long history of the League violating the antitrust laws, including in their efforts to artificially control the location of teams. The City of San Diego is entitled to compete on a level playing field to keep the Chargers here.
As a result, we urge the City of San Diego to retain a law firm to prosecute an antitrust lawsuit against the NFL and the Chargers to stop their illegal campaign to rob the City of San Diego of a team. Jim Quinn of Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP has a long history of standing up to the NFL and professional sports leagues when, as here, they have operated as an unlawful cartel. We respectfully make this request on behalf of the citizens of the City of San Diego.
Sincerely,
Dan Jauregui
Comments 22
United We Stand indeed! Let’s show the NFL that fans have rights and their monopoly in professional football cannot legally strip cities of a team for the prize of a larger market base.
Thank you Boltman!
And thank you Mike Aguirre for showing San Diego Charger fans that this situation is wrong and fans have legal rights against the NFL.
Good luck, Boltman!
But as a backup, if I were you I’d buy a car that gets good gas mileage. You might be driving a lot on weekends soon.
Dan:
I understand that you are a “passionate fan” of the Chargers, but many citizens and taxpayers in the region are not. We do not see the benefit to the overall community in providing welfare in the form of public funds to a billionaire, Spanos. This is particularly apparent when there are tremendous unmet budgetary needs for infrastructure repair, public safety enhancement and payment of huge unfunded pension debt in future years. Anything that adds to public debt will make it more difficult to meet these needs. How much should we spend on “entertainment and civic pride” when every dollar is needed elsewhere for vital services? Also, we do not see the Chargers as “integral to the community.” Studies over decades show that sports teams generates little outside revenue since few people come from outside San Diego to attend Charger games and residents would simply spend their recreation dollars elsewhere if the Chargers went away. The claim that millions of dollars of “new” money are generated by the Chargers is a fantasy.
As a lawyer with 40 years of practice, I assure you that efforts to move the Chargers elsewhere are not antitrust violations. The NFL owners have the final say in whether teams can relocate and they will make the decision. It would be utterly foolish to waste the taxpayers’ money on an unfounded lawsuit to try force the Chargers to remain in San Diego.
Dan, I understand that it will be a blow to you and other Chargers fans if the team leaves San Diego, but please do not ask
taxpayers, many of whom have no interest in football, to fund your hobby. If the Chargers leave San Diego, so be it. Life will go on.
Anyone wanna help me plan a help-them-pack party?
You are really generous in wanting to waste tax payers money on more attorneys. Wonder if you’d do the same if it was your personal money.
Neither the NFL or your Dolts give a damn about you.
Get over it!
Maybe Jerry will build us a high speed choo-choo from San Diego to Carson.
https://www.facebook.com/losangelesrams/videos/10152832931230981/?pnref=story
“We, as fans, can also file a lawsuit tomorrow. As season ticket holders, we have the right and legal standing as investors in a commercial product subject to a federal anti- trust provision”
Good on ya, Boltman but stop reaching for my wallet to pay your attorneys’ fees.
Do customers of a particular business really have the right to legally stop that business from relocating? If that were true, Richard Rider would lose most of his ammunition for his anti-California rants and Rick Perry would have nothing to brag about.
Rarely do HQ and I agree, but I think we both oppose Charger taxpayer subsidies. Well, I don’t, at least.
It’s a business — and like any business, it should stand on its own and move if it wants to. Of course, Charger fans are equally free to be ticked off and boycott the Chargers in response.
Yeah, we’re not gonna get off with ZERO subsidies (road modification, for instance), but the goal should be to come as close to eliminating crony capitalism as possible. Utopia is not an option, but at the very least we shouldn’t move further AWAY from the goal of a free market in sports. A big shiny new San Diego NFL stadium paid mostly by taxpayers is DEFINITELY the “wrong direction.”
BTW, one of the ongoing canards is that the NFL teams are nonprofits, and pay no taxes. They aren’t, and DO pay taxes.
It’s the NFL HQ that is (somehow) in that category, but that’s a tiny fraction of the total NFL revenue.
To be fair, I suspect the NFL HQ doesn’t net any profits. The HQ pays it all out as “business expenses,” which such expenditures largely are.
“Do customers of a particular business really have the right to legally stop that business from relocating?”
No, they don’t.
Maybe the discussion should be around what kind of government rules and regulations are in place for pro sports, which results in even an inkling on anyone’s part that they somehow have the right to sue to keep a private business from making a business decision, as well as thinking tax dollars should be used to pursue such a lawsuit.
The simple answer to why the City is not barred from filing an antitrust complaint against the Chargers and the NFL is that the document they apparently signed back in 2006 does not prevent them from suing now in 2015 because under the law (including US Supreme Court precedent) a party cannot waive future unknown antitrust claims because it is against public policy. Otherwise an antitrust victim would be powerless to sue about something they couldn’t know about in the future. You can only waive or release past claims.
Dan,
I am not an attorney, but I believe that the contract between the City and the Chargers specifically addresed in great detail the potential of the Chargers relocating some time in the future. The contract had a buyout clause for the Chargers and a clause forbidding the City from suing if the Chargers did move. I do not know how any reasonable person could conclude that this potential move was, at the time the contract was signed, something the City “couldn’t know about in the future.”
As for the implication of an anti-trust violation, I cannot think of any legal reason preventing anyone from starting another professional football league and placing a team in San Diego.
The same law applies above. This legal interpretation is coming from hey well experienced law firm that has prevailed on several cases with the NFL with respect to antitrust violations. I would have to believe and take the advice that there is legal argument with the 2006 lease that the city and the San Diego Chargers have agreed on. As for an expansion team in San Diego or any professional football team coming to San Diego is out of the question for the NFL. As fans we would have to sue for those rights as the Cleveland Browns fans did back in 95. At best the city should reach out to this law firm and have some close door discussions as to the options that the city has. That doesn’t cost anything. This is the beginning of a long road of lawsuits that’s to come before any of this gets resolved.
Dan,
I believe that the cases the NFL lost was when they tried to prevent a private business (one of their teams) from moving, not when they allowed a team to relocate.
My second point was about starting a rival league, not getting another NFL team.
Just to be clear, when the NLRB prohibited Boeing from moving to SC from Seattle, that was government overreach; but initiating a lawsuit to prevent a football team from relocating is “good government”?
Brian,
Just for the record: It scares me when we agree on an issue.
Rostra: Not taking names, but bringing people together!
I know HQ but this should be an easy one. Most Americans can recognize selective welfare when they see it (and that is what a Chargers stadium is—welfare)
Let me rephrase because some people actually NEED welfare (whether the govt should provide it is another discussion for another day). A taxpayer-funded stadium is a Mafia-style shakedown
The Chargers strongly feel that their lease agreement in 2006 excludes them from any liabilities in team relocations with respect to antitrust violations. According to attorney Jim Quinn attorney for the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP the Chargers are not excluded from a lawsuit based on their 2006 lease agreement for the following. The simple answer to why the City is not barred from filing an antitrust complaint against the Chargers and the NFL is that the document they apparently signed back in 2006 does not prevent them from suing now in 2015 because under the law (including US Supreme Court precedent) a party cannot waive future unknown antitrust claims because it is against public policy. Otherwise an antitrust victim would be powerless to sue about something they couldn’t know about in the future. You can only waive or release past claims. San Diego city attorney Jan Goldsmith can bring about an injunction for abuse of monopoly power with respect to the NFL’s efforts to artificially control the location of its NFL team owners and failure to negotiate in good faith with the City of San Diego. This is the key argument that the City can argue in a lawsuit complaint.