It’s been called the sweetheart deal, but it could turn sour.

What was supposed to be a simple, clear-cut expansion project at Jack Murphy Stadium has turned into a political ordeal that not only could cost San Diego next year’s Super Bowl, but the city’s only National Football League team as well.

What are the real issues behind the expansion opposition and what’s at stake?

Today The Daily Aztec will look at the expansion project from its beginnings in May 1995 and how it is affecting the Chargers and the 1998 Super Bowl.

Will America’s Finest City lose the 1998 Super Bowl to Los Angeles? Are the Chargers headed there as well?

Exactly what is going on in Murphy Canyon?

The Deal

Following the Chargers’ first-ever Super Bowl berth in 1995, team officials negotiated their way into an expanded Jack Murphy Stadium with 10,582 new general admission seats, 26 new luxury suites, two new scoreboards, an off-site practice facility and a commitment to San Diego until the year 2020.

The cost to the city: $60 million, which was financed through revenue bonds.

Included in the deal was the city’s 60,000-seat-per-game guarantee to the new AFC champions. This gives the Chargers a guaranteed profit for each game.

The cost to the Chargers: an average of $5 million in lease payments to the city each season, an increase of over 120 percent.

Under the 25-year lease, the Chargers’ new state-of-the-art practice facility includes new offices, a five-lane, 25-meter swimming pool, a training facility, video suites, three practice fields and a sod farm.

The agreement also provides the Chargers with 90 percent of regular seat receipts, 90 percent of club seat receipts, 90 percent of concession receipts, 90 percent of the sale of NFL products, pay-television receipts, commercial sponsorships, sky box revenue and net parking revenue with the sole power to increase parking fees.

The rest goes back to the city.

So while the Chargers move from one of the three worst practice facilities in the nation to one of the best, San Diego gets peace of mind that no other city is going to steal the team away.

Former Councilman Bruce Henderson looked over the contract and called it “the most unconscionable contract” that he had ever read.

“I’m not saying that an expansion of the stadium might not be a good idea,” Henderson told The San Diego Union-Tribune. “That’s up to the voters to decide. I think the check and balance of voter approval is just imperative.”

Henderson calls the deal lopsided and says the city is paying all the costs, plus guaranteeing the Chargers a profit.

The contract attorney called for a public vote on the expansion project.

And he’ll get one.

Petitioners collected 59,093 signatures calling for a referendum.

On Jan. 23, city clerk Charles Abdelnour ruled that the signatures were valid and all legal requirements had been met.

Mayor Susan Golding said she would act quickly to put the issue before the voters.

A special election is scheduled for sometime in mid-May.

City officials have backed their decision saying expansion and renovation of the 30-year-old stadium is necessary. It no longer provides the amenities now required to compete in the professional sports marketplace.

According to Bob Breitbard, a board member of the San Diego International Sports Council, many cities have to offer packages totaling more than $200 million to lure and retain NFL teams to their cities.

Some cities are even building new stadiums and allowing teams to be there rent-free just to have a team of their own.

He also added that unlike many other stadiums owned by the teams, “the Murph” is owned by the city. This allows the stadium to be used for other things such as concerts, U.S. Cup soccer and other events.

Opponents have said that as a trade-off for public help in financing the project, ticket prices should be affordable to San Diego fans and any agreement should be submitted to the voters for approval.

Complications

In December, after negotiations with the Chargers, the city added $18 million worth of needed accessories to the project, money which was scrapped late last month.

City officials said they hope to come up with a better deal on which voters can decide in May. But the Chargers are saying the $18 million was an essential part of the deal.

Team President Dean Spanos said he is unwilling to accept a new deal but is confident the city will renegotiate.

City attorney Casey Gwinn said the Chargers, as well as people who own the bonds sold to finance the stadium, could sue if the city put the entire project to a vote.

Mike Aguirre, attorney for the opposition, argues the Chargers would have little grounds to sue, since the city’s charter says the council’s actions are subject to referendum and that bond holders could be appeased by a renegotiation guaranteeing money to repay the bonds.

Attorneys for both sides will give their arguments in court on Feb. 24. If the judge ultimately decides that the referendum should encompass the original $78 million, construction would have to stop until after the people have voted.

But city lawyers contend that the construction costs are covered in the original $60 million deal that is still valid.

In an interview with the Union-Tribune, Mayor Golding argued that there were 17 public hearings held on the issue and only a few individuals expressed any reservations.

The Chargers and the Super Bowl

On Jan. 25, NFL Commissioner Paul Tagliabue warned that the 1998 Super Bowl could be moved out of San Diego if the judge allows the entire project to be put to a vote. He also suggested the Chargers may need to look into alternate sites to play their 1997 season.

Tagliabue has set a deadline of Feb. 24 for the city to settle the issue or the Super Bowl will be moved, probably to Pasadena.

He said they would have no other choice because of the enormous amount of things to be done in the host city. He added it would be a tremendous loss to San Diego if the game had to be moved. The Super Bowl generally pumps between $250 million and $300 million into the local economy.

With the $18 million in additions dumped, the Chargers are “sitting tight,” according to Spanos. If construction is halted, the team may be forced to move to Pasadena for the season.

Officials from the Rose Bowl have already contacted team officials about making the Pasadena stadium a temporary home to the Chargers.

For now, construction will continue, pending the outcome of the Feb. 24.

Tomorrow The Daily Aztec examines how the Padres and the Aztecs are being affected by the project.