After considering last week's proposal by the Coliseum Commission to enter into a long-term lease with USC, have the public entity raise the funds for stadium improvements, and promise no NFL team would come to the venerable Los Angeles Stadium, USC responded Monday with a "Thanks, but..." counterproposal.In a letter to Coliseum manager Pat Lynch, USC's lead negotiator Todd Dickey lays out a groundwork for compromise--enter into an agreement to let the Coliseum sell naming rights to the stadium, raise the money, and meet specific goals over ten years for improving the stadium. If the Coliseum Commission fails to make the deadlines, they'd be in breach of contract with the University and the deal would revert to the Master Lease that USC has wanted all along.The Los Angeles Times says that USC is giving ground with this proposal, but I personally think it is brilliant as a public relations move. No one seriously believes that the Coliseum Commission will be able to meet the deadlines proposed--or any deadlines for that matter. When was the last time a government entity got anything done on time and under budget. So either USC gets its Master Lease, or it saves the $100-200 million it was going to spend improving the stadium.
Politically, however, the move might not be so wise. Heretofore, USC's allies on the Coliseum Commission have been working with them because of the University's commitment to make an investment in the stadium--after all, when was the last time a government entity told you thay didn't want your money? If they'd rather negotiate the Master Lease and improvements up-front, the public will get a better deal than they'd get if--or shall we say, when--the Coliseum Commission breaches its contract with the University.
Meanwhile USC continues to talk to the Rose Bowl about playing there temporarily, but given the possibility of UCLA rejecting a deal to let USC play there, the University may have to look farther afield if no deal can be reached with the Coliseum. Stadium options in Southern California, however, are somewhat limited. Beyond the Coliseum and Rose Bowl, the next largest venues would be Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego and the 27,000-seat Home Dept Center, which together have a combined capacity which is lower than the largest crowd at either the Coliseum or Rose Bowl.




















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
12-18-2007 @ 12:34AM
USC blogger said...
Folks,
Read the letter from Todd Dickey to REALLY see what's going on, then continue reading on.
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-12/34316318.pdf
Now, that you had a chance to read Mr. Dickey's "response", can you really blame him for the "tone" of the letter. I certainly don't, not after the last 12 months (let alone the LAST 5 years) of stone-walling by the Coliseum Commission.
Look for USC to build their OWN stadium....it make take another 5 years, but USC Trojan Stadium is a possibility......one who is an alumnus & benefactor, I would fully support the project.
FIGHT ON!!
Reply
12-18-2007 @ 11:27AM
Scott Olin Schmidt said...
I'd say you're more likely to see a temporary move to another stadium OR maybe USC can follow the London 2012 and Chicago 2016 Olympic proposals for a temporary "sustainable stadium" while they work things out.
Reply
12-18-2007 @ 12:24PM
S321 said...
I'm confused..I thought that USC was awash in money from hundreds of millionaire donors becuase of their reputation as an academic and sports mecca ? So just ask for the moneyfrom them...and build it. Quit trying to get the public to finance what USC can afford easily right?
Reply
12-19-2007 @ 11:55AM
Lili said...
The third posting talks about "being confused". USC has not said they want public funds to build a Trojan Stadium. Message #1 said to look for USC to build it's own stadium. I am sure the alumni would support that - if, indeed, they decided to do that! No one mentioned public funds. USC pays its way...just like it pays for using the Coliseum!!!
Reply
12-20-2007 @ 2:42AM
USC blogger said...
Folks,
Another song-n-dance by the Coliseum Commission. Read the latest article in the Los Angeles Times at
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-coliseum20dec20,1,2792734.story?coll=la-headlines-sports&ctrack=1&cset=true
THEN read the insert in the article called Coliseum Commission Letter to USC dated today at
http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2007-12/34355199.pdf
JUST as an fyi regarding "donations" to USC Football in the CC's letter. Donations (the full $21M) are NOT JUST for the football program, they are for ALL NCAA sanctioned USC Athletic programs. The USC Athletic Department MUST raise money to support sports. Believe it or NOT, tuition and fees DO NOT support athletic programs.
More to come this week as the Coliseum Commission steps deeeeper and deeeeper into the pile of beauracy and double-talk.
FIGHT ON!
Reply