No Smelling The Roses: Rose Bowl Declines To Offer USC Lease
 |
| Rose Bowl Declines To Offer Lease To USC |
Rose Bowl officials "declined Thursday to offer a lease to USC, instead recommending that USC first attempt to work out its differences" with the L.A. Coliseum Commission, according to Gary Klein of the L.A. TIMES. The Rose Bowl Operating Co. (RBOC) BOD said that "it would take no action on USC's two-year lease proposal, but left open the possibility of revisiting the issue." RBOC President Bill Thomson indicated that "any agreement with USC would be subject to approval by UCLA, which has a lease as the Rose Bowl's primary college football tenant through 2023." USC Associate Senior VP/Real Estate & Asset Management Kristina Raspe said that the school "would present its lease proposal to UCLA in the next week." Meanwhile, the Coliseum Commission "has pledged to work out its decade-long rent negotiation with the state quickly and then move on to a long-term lease with USC" (L.A. TIMES, 12/7). Raspe indicated that USC "heard what it wanted to hear Thursday: That the Rose Bowl would accept the idea of USC as a tenant for a year." Raspe said, "What I heard is they'd like to negotiate with us to make a deal," pending UCLA's approval (Riverside PRESS-ENTERPRISE, 12/7). However, Coliseum Commission President Bernard Parks indicated that he "didn't think UCLA would ever allow USC to play in the Rose Bowl" (ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER, 12/7). In Long Beach, Kenneth Todd Ruiz notes UCLA "remained silent this week, referring questions to a statement issued last week from [UCLA AD] Dan Guerrero that was at best chilly to the idea." Guerrero indicated that UCLA "OK's 'preliminary' talks between USC and the Rose Bowl, but made it clear the Bruins were not excited by the idea." Guerrero said in the statement, "Any such arrangement would have to ensure that the integrity of the UCLA football experience for our team and fans would not be compromised in any way" (Long Beach PRESS-TELEGRAM, 12/7).
|
