Rose Bowl Renovation financial plan
The $152 million Rose Bowl stadium renovation plan calls for both the Tournament of Roses and UCLA to play in the Rose Bowl for 30 years.
Do UCLA and the Tournament of Roses have a choice?
"Construction would begin on Jan. 11. The entire renovation is expected to be complete by January 2014, in time for the Rose Bowl's 100th game and quadrennial return of the Bowl Championship Series championship game. But because the project would be done in three phases, there would be no interruption of UCLA or Rose Bowl games," according to the Pasadena Star-News article.
[Update:] Renovation plan goes to City Council for final approval on Monday, including the 30-year lease extensions with UCLA and the Tournament of Roses.
"Under the plan, UCLA and TofR would each receive 25 percent of surplus revenues once bond debts are paid."
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/rss/ci_16283944?source=rss
over 1 year ago
LA Bruin
12 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
and it looks like the $ is NOT going to come from UCLA
unless I’m reading it wrong, sounds good to me! make it happen!
No money from UCLA
and some of these renovations are required by the Rose Bowl as part of the new lease we signed with them a few years ago. That was a 20-year lease with required improvements to the stadium, but I’ve heard nothing about 30 years. Maybe when they decided to go beyond what was required of them in the lease UCLA agreed to extend it?
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Sep 29, 2010 9:50 AM PDT reply actions
From the article:
The three-year plan, which could create 1,000 jobs, hinges on the agreement of stadium tenants UCLA and the Tournament of Roses to sign 30-year leases in the coming days. UCLA current lease is due to expire in 2023, the TofR’s in 2019.
There we go
Thanks for getting that. I’m a little bit unsure about making it a 30-year lease, although maybe it makes complete sense considering we’re not privy to the financials of it all. The one consideration I would have is the possibility of a downtown stadium, which by the time our lease is up in 2023 should have light rail to take us from Westwood to the stadium and would be a lot easier to get to. On the other hand, it’s not the Rose Bowl. I would just be hesitant about a 30-year lease that take the option away from you completely.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Sep 29, 2010 5:25 PM PDT up reply actions
I would love for there to be a downtown stadium
but the people in charge of the coliseum will fight to the death to stop it. Just like they did a few years back when the NFL awarded Houston with an expansion franchise instead of LA. Why they believe that anybody would want a pro-team to play there is beyond me…it’s a dump.
where else are we going to play?
plans for a downtown/city of industry city are only plans, with no NFL team signed on yet. So as of now its the Rose Bowl or the Coliseum. As for the future, if the NFL stadium ends up in Industry that would be even further than Pasadena (at least from campus…) IMO, no problem with a 30 year lease. As long as the Rose Bowl remains the jewel of college athletics the facilities will be above par and the scenery the best in the nation. Get out the felt pen.
We're already signed on through 2023 with the Rose Bowl
It’s not as if we’re making the choice right now, but with the possibilities, I’d rather wait and see how the other possible stadium situations play out. I’ve been following the new stadium situation closely and I think we’ll have a resolution by 2012 so I’m willing to tell Pasadena to wait and we’ll revisit this either then or when our lease runs out.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Sep 29, 2010 7:10 PM PDT up reply actions
good point
I’d just rather see us stay in the Rose Bowl. As another consideration, wouldn’t the rent in any new NFL stadium be significantly higher for us?
No idea
It may be, but we may be able to make that money back with the added amenities of the stadium. I’m not saying let’s leave the Rose Bowl, but we’ve got 13 years left on our lease so let’s wait for a bit and see what other options are there. The big reason I would love to be downtown is the planned extension of the light rail right through Westwood. It would be easier to get to for most of the alumni, but students could hop on and be at the stadium sooooo much easier.
Two roads diverged in a wood and I – I tweeted my followers to ask which I should take
by Ryan Rosenblatt on Sep 30, 2010 9:58 AM PDT up reply actions
Tailgating Downtown
= giant fail.
The only reason tailgating is even passable is at $C is because of the campus. Can you imagine having to try to tailgate downtown, away from any semblance of a campus?
The Rose Bowl at least has the golf course. I’m not sure the attraction of tailgating across miles of concrete and asphalt is particularly appealling, even given the potentially easier commute for students.
They will have to make the final decision by end of the year.
Remember DG is a member of the Rose Bowl Operating Committee, I believe.
Tournament of Roses, City, Pac-10 and Big Ten also on the board. City Council will vote on it and construction will begin.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Bruins Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
