Having this type of landlord-tenant relationship for the next 19 years is untenable for both sides. Certainly some posturing, and the Rose Bowl/Pasadena must recognize this.
As to a re-make of Ducky or a small on-campus stadium, if it would come to that I'd recommend a move to a nice FCS league with no major financial considerations like coaches' salaries and NIL. UCLA can still rely on being considered one of the world's finest educational and medical facilities. Oh, somehow I don't think the BIG 10 would cotton to the idea anyway.
It may be untenable right now, but if the relationship is forced to continue, then there will be a entirely different group of people at some point in the future.
People change over time.
When Chip Kelly took over, RBOC GM Darryl Dunn called UCLA a good partner, even though Chip wanted the team to stay in Westwood before games rather than Pasadena as the contract requires. It was a minor detail he wasn't concerned with.
But since that point in 2018, Dunn and UCLA AD Guerrero both retired.
Now, UCLA is engaged in what the Rose Bowl attorney called a "shell game." It was a nice way of calling the UCLA administration a bunch of liars.
"Judge Chalfant graduated with his B.A. in zoology from Pomona College in 1974. He went on to earn his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law in 1979." (https://trellis.law/judge/james.c.chalfant)
..sheer incompetence. Been there and [seen] that in a couple of familial civil sorties I was engaged in. Sometimes the guys in the long black robes are headshakingly dense...
If this is ignored -- the barn door can only be shut after the horses have escaped -- I'm done with the present regime at UCLA.* To be honest and though there is no hard evidence, it surely looks like a red herring to draw attention away from The Fetus.
"Help! The Paranoids are after me!"
"Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that the evil forces are NOT after you!"
Here's ChatGPT's analysis on the probable outcome of this litigation.
Summary of the Situation
UCLA has played home football games at the Rose Bowl since 1982.
The current lease — Restated Agreement No. 20,501 — was extended in 2014 and runs through June 30, 2044.
That extension reportedly included UCLA’s waiver of any early termination right, except in narrow circumstances such as a “Game-Threatening Default” (if the Rose Bowl were unable to host games).
The City of Pasadena and the RBOC argue they made over $200 million in stadium renovations and bond financing based on UCLA’s long-term commitment.
When UCLA began exploring a possible move to SoFi Stadium, Pasadena and the RBOC sued, alleging breach of contract and seeking a court order to stop UCLA from leaving. Their request for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) was denied by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who found that immediate irreparable harm wasn’t proven. The broader case remains active.
Key Legal Points
The lease requires UCLA to play its home football games at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and prohibits hosting home games elsewhere in Los Angeles or Orange County.
UCLA has no apparent contractual right to terminate early unless a “Game-Threatening Default” occurs — which hasn’t happened.
Pasadena and the RBOC have a strong breach argument, but courts are generally reluctant to order “specific performance” (forcing an ongoing relationship) when monetary damages can compensate the harm.
The TRO denial suggests the court isn’t convinced the harm is irreparable at this stage — a signal that future relief would likely be monetary, not injunctive.
Probable Outcome
Given all existing reporting and contract details, the most likely resolution is a negotiated financial settlement or lease buyout, rather than a long-term court order forcing UCLA to stay at the Rose Bowl.
Approximate likelihoods based on current facts:
~65% — Settlement / negotiated buyout:
UCLA pays Pasadena/RBOC to terminate or amend the lease. This allows both sides to avoid years of litigation and gives Pasadena compensation for its financial exposure.
~20% — Court awards damages, UCLA leaves anyway:
If UCLA moves and is found in breach, the court could issue a large monetary award to Pasadena rather than compel performance.
~10% — Court orders specific performance (UCLA must stay):
Possible if Pasadena proves unique and irreparable harm, but unlikely given judicial reluctance to supervise decades of future obligations.
~5% — Prolonged litigation or hybrid resolution:
The case drags through discovery and appeals, with partial settlements or phased arrangements.
Bottom Line
UCLA’s contract appears binding, and Pasadena’s legal position is strong on paper, but practical realities favor a financial resolution rather than forcing UCLA to remain through 2044. The TRO denial underscores that the court views this primarily as a money dispute, not one requiring emergency intervention.
In short, the most probable endgame is a settlement or buyout where UCLA compensates Pasadena/RBOC and gains freedom to relocate home games, likely to SoFi Stadium, within the next few years.
No offense to you or anyone who thinks ChatGPT is useful, but I would prefer if people didn’t use AI in their posts. We’re all human here, and people would rather talk to other humans than what the fun magic box says.
Thank you again for your in-depth reporting on this…the old adage “there will be lawyers” has never been more true.
we might as well face it, we're moving to sofi probably next year...
after reading Joe's article I definitely think this is the most likely outcome. Idk about next year, but definitely sometime before the lease ends.
I wouldn't say that. The judge did say that based on what he considered there is no reason UCLA shouldn't play at the Rose Bowl next year.
So, aside from not issuing the TRO because there is "no emergency", he seemed to acknowledge the contractual points the Rose Bowl raised.
I would suggest that this is akin to taking the opening drive and quickly getting a field goal.
Yes, there are some points on the scoreboard, but this game is long from over at this point.
good point
Having this type of landlord-tenant relationship for the next 19 years is untenable for both sides. Certainly some posturing, and the Rose Bowl/Pasadena must recognize this.
As to a re-make of Ducky or a small on-campus stadium, if it would come to that I'd recommend a move to a nice FCS league with no major financial considerations like coaches' salaries and NIL. UCLA can still rely on being considered one of the world's finest educational and medical facilities. Oh, somehow I don't think the BIG 10 would cotton to the idea anyway.
It may be untenable right now, but if the relationship is forced to continue, then there will be a entirely different group of people at some point in the future.
People change over time.
When Chip Kelly took over, RBOC GM Darryl Dunn called UCLA a good partner, even though Chip wanted the team to stay in Westwood before games rather than Pasadena as the contract requires. It was a minor detail he wasn't concerned with.
But since that point in 2018, Dunn and UCLA AD Guerrero both retired.
Now, UCLA is engaged in what the Rose Bowl attorney called a "shell game." It was a nice way of calling the UCLA administration a bunch of liars.
If there is a signed deal with Sofi, did someone commit perjury?
"Judge Chalfant graduated with his B.A. in zoology from Pomona College in 1974. He went on to earn his J.D. from the University of California, Berkeley Boalt Hall School of Law in 1979." (https://trellis.law/judge/james.c.chalfant)
Conflict of interest? j/k 😁
..sheer incompetence. Been there and [seen] that in a couple of familial civil sorties I was engaged in. Sometimes the guys in the long black robes are headshakingly dense...
...or just tuned to a different frequency. .
If this is ignored -- the barn door can only be shut after the horses have escaped -- I'm done with the present regime at UCLA.* To be honest and though there is no hard evidence, it surely looks like a red herring to draw attention away from The Fetus.
"Help! The Paranoids are after me!"
"Just because you're paranoid, it doesn't mean that the evil forces are NOT after you!"
*As if they care.
Here's ChatGPT's analysis on the probable outcome of this litigation.
Summary of the Situation
UCLA has played home football games at the Rose Bowl since 1982.
The current lease — Restated Agreement No. 20,501 — was extended in 2014 and runs through June 30, 2044.
That extension reportedly included UCLA’s waiver of any early termination right, except in narrow circumstances such as a “Game-Threatening Default” (if the Rose Bowl were unable to host games).
The City of Pasadena and the RBOC argue they made over $200 million in stadium renovations and bond financing based on UCLA’s long-term commitment.
When UCLA began exploring a possible move to SoFi Stadium, Pasadena and the RBOC sued, alleging breach of contract and seeking a court order to stop UCLA from leaving. Their request for an emergency temporary restraining order (TRO) was denied by a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, who found that immediate irreparable harm wasn’t proven. The broader case remains active.
Key Legal Points
The lease requires UCLA to play its home football games at the Rose Bowl through 2044 and prohibits hosting home games elsewhere in Los Angeles or Orange County.
UCLA has no apparent contractual right to terminate early unless a “Game-Threatening Default” occurs — which hasn’t happened.
Pasadena and the RBOC have a strong breach argument, but courts are generally reluctant to order “specific performance” (forcing an ongoing relationship) when monetary damages can compensate the harm.
The TRO denial suggests the court isn’t convinced the harm is irreparable at this stage — a signal that future relief would likely be monetary, not injunctive.
Probable Outcome
Given all existing reporting and contract details, the most likely resolution is a negotiated financial settlement or lease buyout, rather than a long-term court order forcing UCLA to stay at the Rose Bowl.
Approximate likelihoods based on current facts:
~65% — Settlement / negotiated buyout:
UCLA pays Pasadena/RBOC to terminate or amend the lease. This allows both sides to avoid years of litigation and gives Pasadena compensation for its financial exposure.
~20% — Court awards damages, UCLA leaves anyway:
If UCLA moves and is found in breach, the court could issue a large monetary award to Pasadena rather than compel performance.
~10% — Court orders specific performance (UCLA must stay):
Possible if Pasadena proves unique and irreparable harm, but unlikely given judicial reluctance to supervise decades of future obligations.
~5% — Prolonged litigation or hybrid resolution:
The case drags through discovery and appeals, with partial settlements or phased arrangements.
Bottom Line
UCLA’s contract appears binding, and Pasadena’s legal position is strong on paper, but practical realities favor a financial resolution rather than forcing UCLA to remain through 2044. The TRO denial underscores that the court views this primarily as a money dispute, not one requiring emergency intervention.
In short, the most probable endgame is a settlement or buyout where UCLA compensates Pasadena/RBOC and gains freedom to relocate home games, likely to SoFi Stadium, within the next few years.
No offense to you or anyone who thinks ChatGPT is useful, but I would prefer if people didn’t use AI in their posts. We’re all human here, and people would rather talk to other humans than what the fun magic box says.