DG's Note To Football Season Ticket Holders

by charnaw on Nov 28, 2007 3:53 PM PST Comment 11 comments

From the diaries. GO BRUINS. -N

For those of you concerned with SUC's attempt to co-occupy the Rose Bowl any time soon, here is a link to the canned e-mail that the UCLA Athletic's Department sent to us as season ticket holders. Take it for what its worth. It includes an official statement from Gan Guerrero, who is obviously concerned with our continued patronage:

STATEMENT FROM DAN GUERRERO

This statement is to clarify UCLA's position regarding the possibility of USC becoming a temporary secondary tenant at the Rose Bowl.

First, there is no agreement in place. At the request of USC, UCLA permitted USC to have preliminary discussions with the Rose Bowl regarding the possibility of temporary usage while it continues to negotiate with the Coliseum Commission. This is where the matter presently stands.

Any possible agreement would be for one year and subject to approval by UCLA. No long-term arrangement between USC and the Rose Bowl would even be considered by UCLA. Our position as the primary tenant is protected by our long-term lease, which runs through 2023.

Any temporary usage by USC at the Rose Bowl would have to be non-impactful on UCLA, our football program and our fans. 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. The Rose Bowl is UCLA's home venue and the occupancy of any additional tenant on a temporary basis, if approved by UCLA, must be clearly secondary to that concept.

I feel that it is in the best interest of college football in Southern California for each institution to have its own home stadium and I remain hopeful that USC and the Coliseum Commission can reach a satisfactory accord.

And here is the link to the email.

BEAT SC!!!

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of BruinsNation's (BN) editors. It does reflect the views of this particular fan though, which is as important as the views of BN's editors.

0 recs | Comment 11 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Funny

Am I the only one who thinks it would be funny to have USC call the Rose Bowl home for a year or two when UCLA is the primary tenant (and has been UCLA's home stadium for a long time)?

This would just be another reason USC is second class compared to UCLA.

by gilbert on Nov 28, 2007 5:26 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

..not even!

Perish the thought!

by whp68 on Nov 28, 2007 5:44 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I am relieved...

... by DG's letter. I think one poster (sorry; forgot who) expressed it as an abhorrent thought, having to Lysol seats before games. It's just a repugnant notion.

Before reading DG's letter, I didn't know what say UCLA had, and what their position was. Reading DG's take calmed my breathing. One year's supply of Lysol isn't nearly so nauseating as a long-term supply.

by Bruinut on Nov 28, 2007 7:10 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

I actually like the statement...

... in that reports were that Garrett was claiming he would just negotiate with the RB if the Coliseum Commission couldn't reach an agreement with him...

... and DG just stuck it to him by saying publicly that $C would have to get UCLA's approval FIRST.

In other words, Garrett tried for leverage, and DG broke his stick.

Take THAT, $C.

"Because I'm tired of it. Year after year after year after year having to choose between the lesser of 'Who cares?'"

by Meriones on Nov 28, 2007 8:29 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Wow DG

"Integrity of the UCLA football experience?" Holy crap... That's terrifying on many levels.

Does he watch the games?
Does he sit in Rose Bowl seats?
Does he drive the 20 miles to the Rose Bowl.
Does he watch the games?

Why don't we have USC pay to make Drake a stadium? Genius plan!

by greatgymnasticschool on Nov 28, 2007 8:52 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Wow

Can you imagine UCLA and USC playing their games in the same stadium... it would be horrible... especially if it went on and on for, let's say, 54 years...

by Linguica on Nov 28, 2007 9:43 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

Pasadena would love it

Pasadena is USC country and the Rose Bowl loses money every year.

by doublebonus on Nov 28, 2007 9:50 PM PST reply actions 0 recs

bruin territory

I as a resident of Pasadena, don't beleive this would happen. The city makes plenty of money. Hence the Galaxy moving to Carson. That coupled with the fact that the powerful Linda Vista Homeowners Assoc. (all the mansions around the Arroyo Seco) have a big say in the number of events that take place at the RB. They played a part in making it a "dry" venue. Having all sc scoflaws running amok on a regular basis would be unacceptable.

by PasadenaBruin on Nov 28, 2007 11:24 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

Drake Stadium

GreatGymnasticSchool brings up an interesting point and perhaps a little fuzzy history is in order. Back when the earth was cooling and I was attending UCLA (1964-68), there was a big push to build a football stadium on campus. It was put to a vote by students in the form of an initiative and was rejected. I can't recall the details nor why the students were given the opportunity; I think it had something to do with using the incidental fees we paid so therefore we got the say. I think we voted it down because we were cheap bastards (and bastardettes) and, somehow, we felt it would infringe on our bucolic intellectual atmosphere.

In any event, none was built. Instead Drake stadium was constructed in its place. After its completion, I remember the DB running an article describing the "conspiratorial" nature of the trustees/power brokers. It claimed that Drake Stadium was the camel's nose under the tent and that a series of upgrades would yield a full-blown stadium. It even provided documentation citing the hefty foundations for the stands and provisions for light towers, etc.

The rest is, as they say, history. I cannot recall if I was pro or con on the subject; I think I was a cheap bastard at the time and liked the fraternity-bus-ride-with-the-beer-keg-on-board, so the sojourn to the Mausoleum was just fine.

..we were young and fearless and didn't need Lysol in those days but I often wondered what it would have been like to walk over to Drake stadium to see a football game.

by whp68 on Nov 29, 2007 6:21 AM PST reply actions 0 recs

It would have been great!

And it would still be great! Who cares about traffic? It's only for six Saturdays out of the year, for crying out loud! Westwood Village is so fascist though that the shopkeepers there would start whining. It was what, late 80's, when they stopped closing the streets and only allowing pedestrians on Friday and Saturday nights? Such a bunch of holier than thou conservative numb skulls. The shops, bars, and restaurants there would make a killing on those days.

by tasser10 on Nov 29, 2007 11:51 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs

It was an extra dollar on the incidental fee

The fee would have gone from $121.80 to $122.80 a semester. Out of 30,000 potential voters, around 1,000 actually voted, and the football stadium was defeated something like 550 to 450.

As I recall, the vote was before the Free Speech Movement and "issues" because important. The football stadium disappeared because of apathy by me, by sgj and by whp 68, et al.

by Fox 71 on Nov 29, 2007 1:25 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs