Who’s Sacking Whom in Fouts-Charger Controversy?

I almost called Conrad this week to ask if maybe he could draw an editorial cartoon to describe the latest brouhaha in America’s Finest City.

This cartoon, as I envisioned it, would have a bearded quarterback with a surprised look on his face dropping back to throw a pass.

Why the surprised look?

His pursuer would be a little fellow, much smaller than the behemoths of the National Football League, and he would have a graying crew cut and eyeglasses.

“Hmmmmm,” the cartoon would be captioned, “why is he trying to sack me? “

Indeed, why would Alex Spanos be trying to sack Dan Fouts? Or is Alex Spanos trying to sack Dan Fouts?

Controversy has had a way of following Fouts as vigorously as Howie Long ever has. This week’s controversy centered on an Aug. 5 meeting called by Fouts and attended by Spanos and Steve Ortmayer, director of football operations, or called by Spanos and Ortmayer and attended by Fouts. You see, the principals cannot even agree on who called the meeting.

The offshoot of this meeting, according to a statement released by the Chargers Wednesday, was that Fouts wanted more money for 1987 and rejected Spanos’ offer to give him a $250,000 raise for a total salary of $1 million. Spanos, according to the statement, had no alternative but to seek a trade.

This was the front-office version.

“Baloney,” Fouts said.

He didn’t actually say baloney, but it establishes the point he was trying to make. He said there were no negotiations . . . and thus there was no offer. He said that he intends to play for the $750,000 stipulated by his contract and that he has never suggested otherwise.

Why would he, as the club said, reject $1 million and declare instead that he would play for $750,000? The statement is either outlandish or Fouts is stupid, and Fouts is not stupid.

“I don’t understand this whole thing,” he said. “I don’t know the motivation behind it.”

If the Chargers have concocted this scenario, as Fouts insists, their motivation can only be to position themselves so that they might dump their 36-year-old quarterback, should they be so inclined. They can be excused for trading a local institution who has come to be perceived as a malcontent. They cannot be excused for trading one who is working to get himself into condition for a 15th NFL season.

It was obvious last fall that something like this was forthcoming when Al Saunders replaced Don Coryell as head coach. Fouts was out with a concussion at the time, and Saunders fenced evasively with the media regarding what his status would be upon his return.

At the time, I was told that the Chargers hoped that Fouts might be convinced to take it easy for the remainder of the season. This was perceived by the organization as an opportunity to establish that another quarterback, presumably Mark Herrmann, could do the job. The source, highly placed in the organization, refused to allow his name to be used, so the story was not written. I mention it now because it puts today’s news in perspective.

Obviously, Fouts was in a tenuous position before the ’87 training camp began . . . and his activity has been greatly inhibited by a back injury. Thus far, his only throwing has been on the sidelines.

And along came the meeting of Aug. 5.

I find it inconceivable that Dan Fouts would think this was an ideal time to back the owner into a corner and ask him for more bucks. He had not yet practiced, other than on the sidelines, and he was coming off the fourth straight season in which he had missed games with injuries. This was not exactly an opportune time to go for it.

Further, Fouts would not embark upon a quest for gold without Howard Slusher, his agent, who was in Europe.

Nothing was making sense.

And it baffled me why the Chargers waited a week before announcing that Fouts had tried to hit them up for a raise. Why the delay? Did anything change in that week?

Nothing, except perhaps a perception of Fouts.

One newspaper columnist suggested that Fouts’ heart may no longer be in the game . . . or that maybe a few more dollars would increase the size of his heart. (Insert laugh track.) Fouts’ heart has never been questioned and never should be.

“Mr. Spanos,” Fouts said, “has his own pet reporters he bounces things off.”

Consequently, the seed had been planted that Fouts was malingering.

The time was not ripe for Fouts to go for more money, but the time was suddenly ripe for the Chargers to go for less Fouts.

Lo and behold, a week after the meeting, the Chargers made their announcement that the consequences of that meeting had left them with no alternative other than to attempt to trade Fouts.

Convenient, huh?

Get rid of this greedy villain. Get someone who wants to play the game. Get someone who cares.

This may sound harsh, but this is exactly the way the sequence of events has caused Fouts to be portrayed.

Of course, it is possible that Slusher will come back from Europe and say, “They what? They said they offered you a million dollars to play this year? And you said you’d play for $750,000? Dan, you better walk out of that camp until we can get this straightened out.”

Just in case that should happen, I probably should cover myself. Maybe I’ll ask Conrad to draw a cartoon of Alex Spanos running with a bag of money . . . and a bearded quarterback in pursuit.