after the defeat in November of measure C, many wondered at the charges were call it quits and decide ahead for Los Angeles. The team has met with San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulk but signs are looking like an exit is in the cards. A last-minute bid emerges from Scott Sherman who has written a letter offering the challengers just a charge -- The Chargers on another site. The lease would be just one dollar per year. We're joined now by Scott Sherman. So The Chargers have until January 15 to decide whether to move to Los Angeles. It looks like this letter might be a last-ditch effort to keep them in San Diego. This is also directed at the NFL as well. I wanted to make sure that the team in the NFL no that it wasn't a San Diego against the charter -- Tartous vote. We have options that could still keep the NFL here. We should explore those options. We want to get The Chargers and the NFL together at a table and work out an option here. Annually at the option you're proposing like Basically over putting forward as a starting point is to say, charges in the NFL, you have 166 acres at the Mission Valley site. It's the eight largest dashes in the is largest city in the United States. White Oak release that land to you for one dollar per year for 99 years. You bring in your private money and develop the site. You get the benefit of developing the site and the city reaps benefits of the jobs and tax base that would be created. It sounds like a very generous deal. Didn't The Chargers's for a deal a bit like this some years ago and the city said no way quick It was 10 years ago. I'm not too sure what got in the way of it. At the very beginning of this when the mayor asked me to lead with triviality after he was selected, he said that's what was proposed about 10 years ago. We are hoping that this might be some common ground that might get them interested in the Mission Valley site once more. One of the council members, Myrtle Cole who signed the letter, and for others, all of the Republicans in Myrtle Cole, did you reach out to all of the members of the Council but No. These are the first members that I talked to about it. This might actually have a chance of victory. We went with those. If we need more down the road, we can talk to them. What it shows is, here's your legislative body, for members out of nine who are willing to stand out and publicly put their name on a document. This is a good starting point and please come to the table and talk to us. Let's shake hands and try and work towards a common goal of keeping the NFL here. What about the mayor quick He is familiar with what we are proposing. I didn't ask him to sign it. I want this to come from a new direction. The NFL and The Chargers have been dealing with the mayor most of the time on this, I just wanted the NFL to know that there is another part of the equation out here and we are willing to be on board and work on something that makes sense for everybody. You just sent this letter last night. We haven't heard back yet. We also sent it out to all of the NFL owners and we're waiting to see if we hear anything from them. Time is getting short and I want to make sure the NFL knows that there are viable options on the table and they might only be hearing one side of the equation. What makes you think that this might change his mind this late date? It is actually something that has some support of the legislative body. So many times they say they can't work with the city but they haven't been down here trying to. We are closer than ever and I am sure with the team standing together with the Council and the Mayor and we put a plan for its that Mission Valley would make sense for everybody, I think we could get past the 50% threshold and that's what we're hoping to try and too. We want the NFL to know we want him to stay. You were against measure C and spending any money on this plan. A deal like you are proposing would involve a very generous offer to the team about half of the public. How do you reconcile that with your previous position like I was against proposition C because there were so many pitfalls and hurdles to overcome. I have never been totally against public money being involved. Like I've always said, we're losing $10 million per year on that site as it stands today. Why don't we be purpose that money over 30 years and that's why I was supportive. We purpose that money and get a nice new shiny Stadium. Is like a clunker car we're getting terrible gas mileage and spending a ton of money on maintenance. Why not put that monthly payment into a nice new shinny that shiny car that gets good mileage and doesn't break down. The Chargers didn't want to go that route. So here's a different option let's see what you think about this one. Even if the team were to show some interest, what would need to happen to get that deal which is after all a very generous offer, just one dollar per year, approved by the city? This is just the opening, the beginning of negotiations that they are interested in going down the path. There would be a whole bunch of details that would have to be worked out that this is a good starting point that they could get behind Scott, thank you so much for joining us
Four city council members are offering San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos a lease of $1 a year for 99 years for the Qualcomm Stadium site as a starting point for negotiations for a new stadium.
The offer will be in a letter due to be sent to Spanos on Tuesday, with copies going to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and the 31 other NFL owners.
It comes six weeks after a Chargers-written ballot measure asking for $1.15 billion in increased hotel taxes for a new downtown stadium was soundly defeated, the latest twist in the team's long, bitter attempt to replace aging Qualcomm Stadium in Mission Valley.
The Chargers have until Jan. 15 to exercise an option to move to Los Angeles and join the Rams in a stadium in Inglewood scheduled to open in 2019.
Councilman Scott Sherman, whose district includes Qualcomm Stadium, shared a copy of the letter with The Associated Press on Monday evening.
"The hour is late, and the time to find a stadium solution is getting dangerously short," the letter started.
The last two paragraphs read: "Before leaving 60 years of tradition and loyal fans, let's give one last concerted effort to come to the table and hammer this out face to face, working together toward a common goal of keeping the NFL in America's Finest City. If we fail to come to an agreement, at least we will know that nothing was left untested and we can part ways knowing that we gave it our all.
"We ask that the Chargers give San Diego fans another chance."
It will be signed by Sherman, Chris Cate, new council president Myrtle Cole and Lorie Zapf.
Sherman and Cate opposed Measure C but want the Chargers to stay in San Diego, preferably in Mission Valley. They hope the letter can get the Chargers to the negotiating table for the first time in 1 1/2 years.
The Chargers rejected a city-county plan for a new stadium at the Qualcomm site in 2015, and then voters rejected Measure C.
"So here's another starting point, and let's not give up on 60 years of tradition and fan loyalty," Sherman told the AP.
The Chargers didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
The tricky part, of course, is coming up with a plan to pay for a new stadium.
Sherman and Cate said they'd like to see the Chargers, NFL and a development partner build a stadium. Both council members said they hoped it could get done with no public money.
"At the end of the day, 166 acres in the geographic center of the eighth-largest city in the country is the perfect spot to develop," Sherman said. "I'm convinced we could get over 50 percent (of a vote) with that. This is all just a starting point to start the discussion. The way we laid it out with the lease, it's a large incentive to come to the table."
In 2004, the Chargers failed in their attempt to get the city to give them a large chunk of the Qualcomm property in exchange for privately developing a stadium.
The cheap lease deal "is as close as getting the land given to you as possible," Sherman said.
The Chargers walked away from talks with the city and county in June 2015 and focused on a plan to build a stadium in a Los Angeles suburb with the rival Oakland Raiders. That plan was defeated by NFL owners in January in favor of the Rams' Inglewood plan, but the Chargers were given the option of moving to L.A. If they decide to move, they'll have to make a deal with either the Coliseum or the 27,000-seat StubHub! Center as a temporary home.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer has had private talks with Spanos and a team representative in recent weeks. Details of those talks weren't made public.
"We need to hear from the organization what their concerns are, and if they're even open to having a discussion for Mission Valley," Cate told the AP. "These are things we need to hear from them about. The fans need to hear from them, too. What does success look like to them? We haven't been able to have a discussion as a council with them. This lets them know we're willing to have that conversation."
Sherman said he hopes people with the NFL note "that for the first time, four sitting council members say this is something we can support and move forward from here, something that's never happened before."
Is this a final Hail Mary from City Hall?
"I think we're going to continue to push as long as they haven't called U-Haul and haven't moved the trucks up," Cate said. "We're going to continue to have proactive outreach to the team to see if we can open dialogue. This is the opening salvo."
