Posted on 11/28/2007 10:17:55 AM PST by BurbankKarl
Help Us Keep the Trojans in the Coliseum An Open Letter from Mike Garrett to the Trojan Family
November 28, 2007
Dear Fellow Trojan:
It gives me no pleasure to write a letter of this kind, but there are issues facing our university that you need to understand. The University of Southern California has been negotiating diligently for months, trying to renew USC’s lease with the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum, and trying to get guarantees that USC’s football team and fans can enjoy home games in a completely renovated and improved stadium.
Unfortunately, talks are at an impasse, and right now we have no lease for the Coliseum next year. As a precaution, USC has negotiated a lease with the Rose Bowl to ensure that we have an acceptable stadium in which to play our home football games for the foreseeable future.
But this arrangement is not what we want. We want our football program to remain at the Coliseum. And we want the Coliseum Commission – our “landlords” who manage the stadium – to begin the long overdue rehabilitation of the Coliseum.
You all know the many things that need attention:
Complete replacement of concession facilities to afford modern food and beverage services like those offered at all major stadiums. Replacement of, and additions to, the currently inadequate restroom facilities. All new, state-of-the-art video and score boards. Replacement of the grossly inadequate sound system. Improved access through renovated and replaced stairs, elevators and escalators. Repairs of crumbling concrete stairs, walkways and infrastructure. Replacement of all seats. Reconfiguration of entry gates in order to move fans in and out of the stadium safely and efficiently.
This isn’t just about people’s comfort and enjoyment; it’s about the long-term viability of the structure. It’s old and worn out. And it is not being used to its fullest potential by the wider community.
USC has been waiting – I believe patiently – ten years for the Commission to do this, but they have not taken the necessary steps, and they will not promise to do so anytime soon. For a decade the nine-member Coliseum Commission has hoped to attract an NFL franchise to the stadium. Their plan has been that the NFL would pay for renovations. There was a clear message from the NFL last summer stating that “notwithstanding all of our best efforts to identify a mutually acceptable solution, we have determined that the Coliseum renovation project, as currently contemplated, would create significant economic risks for the NFL such that we are not prepared to move forward with the project at this time.”
The Coliseum Commission asked USC to submit a proposal. So we did. We made to them what I think is an amazing offer. USC offered to spend $100 million to repair and improve the stadium on a ten-year plan, phasing in renovations each year. In return, we requested a master lease that would allow us to play football in the Coliseum for many years. We asked to participate in making decisions regarding the Coliseum and to be given opportunities that would allow us to offset our outlay of money by controlling more of the stadium’s revenues. And we’d help make sure the Coliseum has a full life all year round, with entertainment and sporting events, both large and small, not just the six home games for the USC football team.
But the Coliseum Commission rejected our offer.
Our team deserves a great stadium. So do our fans. So do the people of Los Angeles.
The Coliseum Commission is made up of representatives from the city, the county and the state. They need to know how you feel about this. I believe that our voices will be heard if we work through our elected officials. I urge you to e-mail, fax or phone the appropriate official asking them to:
Let USC direct and fund the Coliseum’s refurbishment in partnership with the city, the county and the state. Let USC, in collaboration with the Coliseum Commission, determine and perform vital repairs while ensuring steady income to offset expenses and upkeep. Let USC be more than a tenant – USC already brings in 60 percent of the Commission’s revenue and has been the only steady tenant for 80 years! We seek to be a key player in the preservation and enhancement of this great civic treasure and historic landmark. Remind them that for 80 years USC has stayed while other teams have gone, and that our home games spark spending in the neighborhood each fall to the tune of approximately $5 million. And that, in total, USC contributes $4 billion to the local economy each year. If you’d like to join me in taking action, click here and you’ll get the names of the people to contact.
Your support of and commitment to the University of Southern California is invaluable. Together, let’s continue to work hard to keep the USC football program in our beloved Coliseum.
Thank you for caring about this issue and for expressing your concerns.
Yours truly,
Michael L. Garrett Director of Athletics University of Southern California
Isn’t the Coliseum a National Historic Landmark?
Could that be why they are hesitant to renovate? Seems like they could chase down some Federal funding or USC could leverage that status somehow to get the comission to act?
Not that I think the American taxpayer should foot this bill in any way.
NCAA Ping
I heard that if USC doesn’t get the stadium renovations they want, they’re gonna move to St. Louis....
See, LA kept trying to get the NFL to bite, but they said no way earlier this year. At least 10 years away from an NFL team.
The problem is, the NFL doesnt want a team in that neighborhood.
Since USC is paying the freight for the facility, the loss of that income will likely dissolve the Coliseum Commission, which has long been an unworkable collection of State, County and City appointees. It is a goofy setup, based upon the founding of the Coliseum in the first place, which involved state money and city/county land.
Why can’t USC build an on-campus stadium?
Rose Bowl statement
STATEMENT FROM UCLA REGARDING USC DISCUSSIONS WITH ROSE BOWL
UCLA is aware that USC has contacted the Rose Bowl about the possibility of playing its home games in Pasadena next season while it continues to work on a lease with the Los Angeles Coliseum. UCLA’s long-term lease protects its position as the primary tenant. In the context of its ongoing partnership with the Rose Bowl, UCLA is willing to review any proposal regarding an additional tenant, after which UCLA would enter into the necessary discussions with both the City of Pasadena and the Rose Bowl regarding the feasibility of such an arrangement.
“While we are, of course, willing to explore this possibility,” said Pete Blackman, UCLA Administrative Vice Chancellor, Emeritus and Special Assistant to the Chancellor for Intercollegiate Athletics, “protecting the ongoing integrity of the UCLA football program must be our highest priority.”
There is not enough land inside USC’s area to build a stadium.... They did build Galen Center, their spectacular indoor arena after the Coliseum Commission failed to upgrade the Sports Arena (which is a dump)
That’s what I kind of figured.
Sounds like the Bruins don’t wanna share...
they could move to Saint Louis
I'm not sure about that. I googled up the satellite of the area, and it looks like there is plenty of room if you rip out the baseball facility, the practice fields, and tennis courts, what looks like it might be a low rise dorm, and relocate one street. You might as well build a new stadium with modern amenities and luxury boxes. Instead of a bowl, it would be a multideck stadium, so you would have a smaller footprint than the current arrangement. And if it ends up slightly smaller, you just raise ticket prices particularly for the premium seating.
The Coliseum is much like the Cotton Bowl in Dallas - politicians blocked upgrades and renovations, so all the tenants vacated (SMU, the pro soccer team, the bowl game itself; the pro football team left years ago), except for two college games played during the state fair.
USC would certainly need to build something much larger than did SMU, but along the same lines.
Which other Division I-A programs don’t have on-campus stadiums, these are the only ones I know:
USC
UCLA
Miami
Minnesota
Pitt
Tulane
I’m pretty sure Pitt does have an on-campus stadium, but they play some of their bigger games at Heinz Field (formerly at Three Rivers Stadium).
Fight On. Will be there Saturday!
Don’t USC have some famous or close to famous alummni that can help in this effort, to donate some money?
I think OJ Simpson is all tapped out at the moment.
You can still do what is needed to bring the LA Coliseum up to the 21st century, yet keep the historic aspects of the Coliseum intact. Got to remember that USC sees other colleges that have had either built, like in the case of Connecticut, a new state-of-the-art stadiums (Rentcheler Field ) or upgrading older stadiums, and seeing the LA Coliseum in a bad state of NEED of repair.
It must have been renovated fairly recently itself.
Always wanted to take my Mom to the Rose Parade and go to the Rose Bowl. Looks like the floats are on display outside the stadium during the game.
“I think OJ Simpson is all tapped out at the moment.”
I remember a commercial that USC had put out on tv and reciting the names of the alummni, some famous while there was a Trojan mascot riding on a horse while watching a bowl game, and was thinking more of someone like say a George Lucus of “Star Wars” fame.
Some notable USC Alumni:
John Wayne
George Lucas
Neil Armstrong
Frank Gehry
Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf
Pat Nixon
So Cal Rocket
Is the neighborhood were the LA Coliseum is located a rough (crime wise) area?
It would not be suprising that the NFL do not want to put a team in that Coliseum not only because of a concern for public safety, but because they would be sharing the same location with USC. Plus the usual politics of the Coliseum Commission.
Politics the usual culprit.
Not suprised, USC/UCLA cannot stand each other.
Add Connecticut or UConn.
USF too, they play in Tampa Stadium.
They need to bulldoze the LA Masoleum. The Rose Bowl is a claptrap too...doesnt meet any earthquake standards etc.
What makes matters THREE times worse for the LA Coliseum is that the Coliseum Commission is made up from representatives from the State of California, Los Angeles County, AND the City of Los Angeles. You've got three flustercluck government organizations to work through
Problem is that that Coliseum is a “National Historic Landmark” and will most likely then not, have it torn down. Better, have USC “buy it” and put the need fixups into it to bring it into the 21st century.
The idea in post 36 would do away with that Coliseum Commission.
The Coliseum Commission won’t even give USC a Master Lease... they won’t give up control... so you can imagine how a proposal to buy the facility will go over with the CC.
Take for example this little 92,000 seat beauty built in 1929 (IOW OLder than the Colisuem). Sanford Stadium was a single deck open at both ends stadium that seated only 30,000 when it was built. It sits on a smaller footprint than the Coliseum, and yet renovations and expansions have made it one of the most state of the art stadiums in America.
The Commission are fools if they do not take up USC on thier offer to renovate and update the Coliseum.
Well, the only events of importance now are the Mexican soccer matches....but it is considered modern compared to what the illegals are used to down south.
With USC’s rent the Coliseum was break even....so this will undoubtedly force some action.
The city is getting more gentrified but around the Coliseum it's still pretty rough. Going to one game, my date decided to park on the street to save a buck. We walked along the residential (apartments) street to get to the game, and some "friendly, civilized people" began to fight from opposite sides of the streets with each other. They were yelling obscenities in their "argot" at each other, both women and men, a few of the bigger guys got into the street and started getting a bit more violent, and some guys from a 2nd story balcony JUMPED off their balconies to get into the fray. Ah yes, fun. I was waiting for the shots to ring out. Paying for parking is a GOOD thing.
Here is what the gold plated upgrade was envisioned as, with an NFL team and another Olympics paying for it....but since neither of those panned out....
I went to a game last year at the Coliseum...it was a mess. It works for crowds of 60,000.....but since USC has been doing well, the 90,000 crowds actually make it too crowded and a safety hazard.
When you have the bathroom and food lines extending into the walkways, and it turns into wall-to-wall people who cant get by, it is just bad news. Then need to build the snack stands father away from the tunnels at a minimum, to allow more room to get around.
Then there is the lack of luxury suites. The Raiders had a plan to put luxury suites in, but when it was blocked, they moved back to Oakland.
Just look at what they did with Soldier Field in Chicago.
Oh yes, I remember seeing the Soldier Field in Chicago, how they combine the old with the new. It is a work of both art and engineering combined.
Wow, that was an adventure for both you and your date. Thanks for responding.
USC is going to have a problem with UCLA if comes down to actually moving to the Rose Bowl. There is no love lost between those two schools, and getting an accomodation regarding scheduling will be a problem.
The Coliseum was pretty dumpy when I attended USC nearly 30 years ago, and it surely hasn’t been improved to current standards. USC made a very generous offer, but I’m not sure I have much faith in the bureaucrats to accept it.
USC and the CC of LA should not only do a tour of the SEC stadiums, but also of the Big East as well and then both should go to work to hammer out a better agreement to do the needed repairs.
Correction: “Big East stadiums”.
One left coast move was enough, thanks anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.