Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Close to Home — What it’s like on the street where you live
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
The search for convention center money in San Diego
Response to post #87: Thanks Don, but I've been here for a long time. I seem to change usernames every few months usually for no particular reason other than some name or phrase I hear stikes a chord with me. So I have the old one deleted andset up a new one. In this case, we were driving home after visiting our daughter and happened to hear the Rick Nelson song Gardenparty. My parents were big Ozzie and Harriet fans and my mom in particular seemed to like Rick(y) Nelson, for some odd reason. LOL.— June 19, 2009 6:33 p.m.
The search for convention center money in San Diego
response to # 86 Actually more coincidence than homework, I must admit. A while ago I read an LAT article about the possibility, or not, of the Rams moving back IF Roski ever gets his stadium built. It made reference to when the Rams left and Raiders moved into the Coliseum. No internet back then and when AD left again for Oakland, you couldn't find stuff like court rulings on line. Anyway, I ways curious enough to look it up and save it to read later. refriedgringo's posts about the Chargers reminded me of it. No big effort really.— June 19, 2009 6:02 p.m.
The search for convention center money in San Diego
response to 79 It appears I must work harder to convey my sarcasm.— June 18, 2009 11:46 a.m.
The search for convention center money in San Diego
response to 78 part 2 You're the lawyer not me, so I don't know if a simple majority vote would have really made any difference, as apposed the the 3/4 requirement. I do know that the basis for the NFL's defense was that the NFL was a "single business entity" and therfore incapable of combining or conspiring in restraint of trade. Like I said, I'm not a lawyer so the only knowledge I have of The Sherman Act is what I've read. Section 1 deals with restraint of trade and the court ruled that "Rule 4.3 violates Sec. 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1. Section 1 literally prohibits every agreement, conspiracy, or other concerted activity in restraint of trade." After reading the court's decsion, even a layman such as myself would have decided against the NFL. The way I read the decision I really don't think the number of votes the league required played that big a role. Again, just a layman, but if a contract illegally restrains trade, does it really matter if it's a magority, unanimous or even just 1 vote?? A couple of interesting things people often overlook about this. First, the vote was 22-0 against all Davis( 5 abstentions) Secondly, the owners didn't actually vote to forbid the Raiders move. What they actually voted, 22-0, was not to schedule games with the Raiders if they moved to the Coliseum. I have never been a Raiders fan, Oakland or LA, though I have been a fan of a few players like Plunkett, Long, Marcus Allen. And I don't like Al Davis but in this case he was correct— June 18, 2009 11:45 a.m.
The search for convention center money in San Diego
response to #78 part 1 The interesting about 75% approval thing is that it had been unanimous approval that had been required. It was part of Rule 4.3 of Article IV of the NFL Constitution. When the Rams left the Coliseum for the Big A in the late 70's, the Coliseum was trying to find a replacement team, but it ran into an obstacle: the afore mentioned Rule 4.3 of Article IV of the NFL Constitution. Rule 4.3: Any transfer of an existing franchise to a location within the home territory of any other club shall only be effective if approved by a unanimous vote; any other transfer shall only be effective if approved by the affirmative vote of not less than three-fourths or 20, whichever is greater, of the member clubs of the League. Rule 4.1 defined home territory as "the city in which [a] club is located and for which it holds a franchise and plays its home games, and includes the surrounding territory to the extent of 75 miles in every direction from the exterior corporate limits of such city ...." That meant the Coliseum was in the "home territory" of the Rams. The Coliseum sued, and lost, but the NFL Executive committee changed the rule to read: The League shall have exclusive control of the exhibition of football games by member clubs within the home territory of each member. No member club shall have the right to transfer its franchise or playing site to a different city, either within or outside its home territory, without prior approval by the affirmative vote of three-fourths of the existing member clubs of the League.— June 18, 2009 11:41 a.m.
The search for convention center money in San Diego
surfpuppy, you are correct. I remembered the lawsuit AD filed AFTER he moved back to Oakland. He sued the NFL again because he thought they were to blame for his having to relocate back to Oakland. He felt the NFL didn't do enough to resolve the revenue issues that came from playing in the Coliseum without it's being " modified " for football. Obviously, he lost that one. But I did forget all about the antitrust lawsuit. In a partial answer to Don's question, I believe that not too long after the AD lawsuit, the NFL changed it's bylaws and constitution and eliminated the owners approval vote for relocation, but I believe an owners vote IS neccessary for change in ownership involving the sale of a team. I also know that the NFL also charges a "relocation Fee' if a franchise moves. I don't know the exact calculations but the example I saw was about $500 million if the Rams wanted out of St Louis and back to L A. The NFL's rules also eliminate giving a team any league money if that team breaks a lease to move. Since the Rams and the Chargers are valued pretty closely, that means someone would need to come up with about 1.75 billion to get majority ownership, build the stadium and move the team. In this financial climate, it ain't gonna happen unless you have the cash. Can anyone say Carlos Slim?????— June 17, 2009 6:26 p.m.
The search for convention center money in San Diego
response to # 60 Don the Rams and Raiders leaving L A was not an issue caused by having 2 teams. The Raiders left because Al Davis is a greedy bastard conman. He went for the money and nothing else, pure and simple. He feigned concern over stadia isuues, here, Irwindale, etc, but it really was about the money. The Rams left because John Shaw couln't get a stadium deal. I had season tickets at the time and I can tell you from personal experience that the Big A was a crappy place for football. The truth be told, I think Georgia would have liked to stay but Shaw ran the team and when St. Louis came acourting with their sweet honey pot of a deal, it was game over. As I recall it was the NFL who actually first brought the issue up back when the NFL was awarding the franchise which eventually went to Houston. Here's a quote from the NFL at the time: league spokesman Brian McCarthy said "The NFL would not have a problem with Roski brokering a deal to get a team to move from another part of the country to L.A., as long as he didn't have an ownership stake in the team". My personal opinion is that Roski is still pissed that the NFL passed over he and Eli Broad 10 years ago. But I think the point about the Chargers moving to CI with or without another team is a mute one; I don't think the stadium ever gets built.And without a new stadium,the NFL will not allow any teams into L A— June 16, 2009 11:07 p.m.
The search for convention center money in San Diego
gringo, In this case, I agree with surfpuppy, it ain't gonna happen. I remember an article not too long after the CI/DB settlement, (NYT I think, maybe Don recalls it?). Somewhere it mentioned Roski's worth was over 60% commercial real estate and it had dropped to 1.5-1.8 billion. I don't think anyone expects the commercial re market to improve anytime soon, so that number will almost surely drop. I'm sure he has a pretty big bank account, but it's not like he's gonna write an $800 million check. As for his billion dollar "friends", neither he or any of his "associates" has yet to name any of their investors and none seem to want to step forward on their own. And don't forget to throw in a few hundred million more for him to buy at the very least part of a team. Roski himself has said he has to own at least part of the team (will the Spanos family even give up part of their ownership?) A couple of other obstacles come to mind. If you go back to the very first discussions, the NFL has indicated they want 2 teams in LA not just one, one of which may or may not be an expansion franchise. Only makes sense for the 2nd largest market. Now with a 2013 completion date, at the earliest, that means 2 teams playing in LA for at least 1 season in either the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum. Last I heard, neither venue had expressed an interest in participating. Then there's that pesky old gambling affiliation. NFL league rules clearly prohibit team owners from also owning casinos because they do not want professional sports tainted by links to gambling. I think Roski's attitude that "his ownership of the casino will have zero impact on his partnership's bid for an NFL franchise" is not appreciated by the NFL. Also don't forget that Michael Ovitz' group has been trying to get a team in LA for a while, and I would think he curry favor with the NFL more than Roski. And as Don pointed out, twice, CI (all 84 registered voters) passed a $500 million bond issue, $150 million of which would pay for stadium-related infrastructure projects. That's definately not 100% private money.— June 16, 2009 2:23 p.m.
The search for convention center money in San Diego
refriedgringo, You are missing one important ingredient in the deal, The NFL's cooperation. This is from the AP story talking about the agreement you refer to: "Majestic only plans to move ahead with the project if it is able to attract an NFL team, which has so far not happened" Until there is a team signed sealed and delivered, and approved by the NFL, Roski won't even break ground. So as of now , it's just a plan, not reality.— June 16, 2009 12:32 p.m.
For Obama Sunrise a “poster child” for renewable-energy strategy
Correction thoughtfull1. California doesn't allow new nuclear plants anywhere and won't in the forseable future— June 3, 2009 2:07 a.m.