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.