Judge ruled against the RBOC and City of Pasadena and denied the TRO, which was to be expected given that UCLA hasn't formally announced its intention to leave, and thus there is no legal emergency the RBOC and Pasadena would need a TRO to fix.
This does not mean UCLA is gone from the Rose Bowl yet, but it takes a big tool out of the RBOC's toolbox.
I'm actually really surprised. TROs are usually granted because they're temporary, and will expire absent a permanent injunction. I'm not sure what to think about the Rose Bowl's case now that the TRO has been denied.
Edit: Ah ok, it's because UCLA isn't "imminently" leaving the RB yet.
The RBOC lawyers are making a lot of noise that they are "encouraged" by the statements from the judge, but yeah, this reads more like the judge is telling everyone to settle and move on, and the RBOC lost a ton of leverage.
Money talks…but supposedly UCLA doesn’t have any. Is there a whale out there who wants UCLA to be a SoFi tenant, and told their lawyers “go make it happen” ? As other commenters note, even “ironclad” agreements can be broken or circumvented; note the “unbreakable” ACC media contract than ran through 2036 that Florida State managed to have amended. Even more absurd is the current legal fight between the PAC-12 and Mountain West, when the PAC-12 signed a contract expressly preventing them from recruiting MW teams; then went out and poached half the league.
Even if Pasadena were willing to negotiate, it would likely take UCLA paying off the bonds which total $180 million alone. That would probably be the starting point for a negotiated settlement and that's before the lost revenue from UCLA playing at the Rose Bowl.
Perhaps the Rose Bowl Operating Committee can invoke the “Game Threatening Default" clause, whereby the Bruins are impersonating a D1 program and competent Athletic Department, thus releasing the Bruins to play elsewhere.
I too am not an attorney, but if this is as iron clad as they make it seem how inept is the leadership at UCLA? Did no one know or read the details? They must have right?
I can’t imagine they are that foolish to start something without having a plan and knowing an out. I honestly can’t decide which it is.
Another bad look for the lack of competency of our AD, and a financial hit that could handcuff UCLA NIL, may ultimately impact the next HC candidates' regard for the program, and eventual (settled for) hiree.
What competency? And as for a "future coach", I guess there are some that would like the salary, but would you really want to coach within a football culture that UCLA currently has? Would you really want to coach a team that never has a chance of finishing within the top 10 of the BIG? Work for a worthless. feckless and clueless AD and school administration? They'll find somebody I guess, but I certainly feel sorry for that person, and I would also question that person's judgement.
They (meaning UCLA) are incompetent, they have no plan B. The only possibility is if they have a billionaire out there with very deep pockets and is willing to pay Pasadena and the Rose Bowl $250m or more. I doubt this is the case as well as who would want a football team like UCLA playing anywhere let alone SoFi or for that matter Pasadena or the Rose Bowl for that kind of price. No matter UCLA's attendance they have to pay the Rose Bowl and that income has to be made up somewhere to make the city and the Bowl both whole. This is why they are suing; they planned on that lease income until 2044 to keep the Rose Bowl and surrounding areas in good condition. Without that income, how will the Rose Bowl survive financially, certainly not with a couple high profile football games a year and throw in some soccer games, etc. Just not enough income to maintain the bowl and the surrounding area. The Rose Bowl and the city needs that revenue. If UCLA is adamant about moving to SoFi, just pay the money (up to $250m according to Bonds owed and lease agreements broken) and they can move wherever they'd like to. UCLA is attempting to break the lease and the contract without paying that much, it won't happen.
The secret here is that the Rose Bowl also wants out of this deal. They’re only allowed 12 events a year per the city, and they’re forced to have at least six of those be underperforming UCLA games. The Oasis concert this summer filled out the Rose Bowl to the tune of 180k people over two nights. If you’re the Rose Bowl, the idea of getting out of the UCLA deal and converting those six dates into events you’re guaranteed to sell out (things like U2, Ed Sheeran, etc., or events like El Traffico or visiting Premier League games) is tantalizing.
The TRO is more of a negotiating tactic than anything. I think both sides are aware this deal is ending, and it’s just a PR battle at this point.
The only time a lawsuit and restraining order have kept a team where they are was the Minnesota Twins back during potential MLB contraction in the 1990s. But it is much easier to point to things like the Sonics, the Jazz, and the Browns (pt. 1) as examples of teams moving and contracts being much looser than they appeared.
Like I said, Pasadena and the RBOC are posturing for the eventual settlement, where they won't get anywhere close to what they're claiming now. UCLA will likely be at SoFi by next year, if not the year after.
Disagree, you are giving examples of Professional teams that are privately owned with big money. We are talking here about a Public State University controlled (essentially) by the State government. Both the State government and the University are dead broke and in fact both deep in the Red. How can you possibly think UCLA could even settle at the $80m figure. UCLA will be back at the Rose Bowl next season and yes losing games, same as this season. No changes except for a new coaching staff already over their heads before they step on that Rose Bowl turf, oops I mean before they step on the turf at Berkeley.
It's a lease for the next 18ish yrs...if ucla had to pay the full term of the lease, they don't have to pay it all at once up front. The assumption from Uclas admin is that moving to sofi will generate more revenue than they get from the rose bowl so that they can pay whatever the cost will be at sofi, plus pay off the lease terms at the rose bowl and still end up with much more $ after both of those expenses...now how realistic are those projections? No idea, but thats the thought process.
They want out of this deal so badly, they filed an injunction saying that reserve the right to not agree to a buy out of the lease and that they will not agree to a buy out of the lease. LOL.
The only way leases get broken without repercussions/damages is if the defaulting party doesn’t have the wherewithal to justify enforcement or the defaulting party has leverage, which clearly isn’t the case here.
Let this die and get on to the only solution…an on-campus stadium opening for the 2044 season. Time flies, especially with an effort like this…let’s get moving!
I agree, just convert Drake. It won't be huge, probably only about a 45,000 seat stadium, but for this program, that's plenty of seating. Use shuttles for off campus parking and you are there!
It sounds like Pasadena/Rose Bowl knows they are going to lose, so they are trying to win the PR angle. And we are only seeing one side of this disagreement. Those of us who attended UCLA know the university has had this issue looked at up and down and from every angle by the top attorneys in LA.
I am also not an attorney, but the position that Pasadena/Rose Bowl is taking seems misguided and desperate. You have a long term client who only uses your facility for 6 days a year and who wants to break their lease and you come out and state that you will not negotiate or even engage them under no circumstances. And the $1B+ in loss of future revenue you state you are going to sue them for sounds like the $1b the Trump administration is trying to grift from UCLA. Good luck with that in court.
More likely is the rumored settlement for the very generous sum of $60-$80m to terminate the lease at the end of 2025. Pasadena has a lot of time to find another client to fill the 6 days a year or so used by UCLA football.
1.) You are giving UCLA WAY TO MUCH credit, I think they are clueless educationally, athletically and legally, 2.) There are more costs wrapped up in those "6 days", we are all unaware of. It's more than the $80m and much less that the $1b. The reason for the $1b is Pasadena and the Rose Bowl telling UCLA, "DON'T EVEN TRY IT".
I respectfully disagree as you cynically seem to think very little of UCLA. After the Calimony debacle I do not believe the Regents would allow such a decision without a very good idea of the University's potential exposure. They know the numbers, we do not. This will be a facts and circumstances analysis by a CA judge/mediator between a CA municipality and a CA public university. This case is not going to court.
What we are witnessing is the public posturing of Pasaden's position. Pasadena has chosen to try to get out ahead of UCLA as I believe they know they have the weaker hand.
Respectfully disagree. There is too much cash on the table and UCLA cannot afford that cash or a move at this point in time. As for my cynical viewpoint, you are correct. I feel paying people millions of dollars to manage an institution and then not managing it is complete incompetence and a waste of OUR MONEY. UCLA is the best University in the world, but has buffoons working for its best interest, which, in turn degrades the University and makes it a laughingstock. Yes, I get aggravated and agitated seeing individuals getting paid big money to perform poorly. That's why I've been against every UCLA hire as head football coach since Bob Toledo in 2002; I also question their choices of Chancellor since Charles Young (1997). They've all been terrible choices, so yes, I blame the people running UCLA for selections like Karl Dorrell, Rick Neuheisel, Jim Mora, Chip Kelly and DeShaun Foster -- MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF COMPLETE AND TOTAL WASTE and none of these individuals deserved even half the money they were paid.
You're neglecting the fact that Pasadena still owes about $185 million in bond debt they incurred as a result of UCLA signing this agreement.
And,, the RB is not suing for monetary damages right now. They are suing to force UCLA to honor the lease.
I used to work with someone who worked for a company which was paying him a salary. But the State of California changed the law related to his job and required that to be salaried he needed to make a certain level of money. If he didn't make that amount, the new law required he be paid hourly. He started tracking his hours on a spreadsheet.
Then, they tried to suggest that he might have to work nights and weekends. He inquisitively asked HR about his status as a salaried employee rather than an hourly employee. The head of HR's response was "How much do we owe you?" The amount was about half a year's salary.
When the CEO tried to negotiate it down, he spoke with a labor law attorney and when he showed the attorney the spreadsheet with the hours, the attorney said, "I don't see any reason why you should take a penny less than the total you came up with. I wish all my wage cases were this easy." Sure enough, the company paid every penny due.
This seems to parallel this situation. There is no reason the Rose Bowl shouldn't force UCLA to play in Pasadena for the duration of the contract. Now, they just need a judge to issue the TRO Wednesday and to eventually make it permanent at some point in the future.
Joe, completely agree, unless of course there is that billionaire out there somewhere, but I seriously doubt that. If they had that billionaire and he was willing to make that huge "donation", a sanity test would have to be done on him or her as well and how could they even become a billionaire with such irrational decision making? Why would anyone pay that kind of money to watch a product like UCLA football. At this point UCLA Football isn't worth ONE GENERAL ADMISSION ticket!
To the credit OF TMB, Joe and Dimitri and the membership here have turned this into an absolutely riveting drama. (Meant seriously, not humorously!)
Think back to the days when the athletics program battled the NCAA over such trivialities as coaches handing out handicapped parking passes or pickup trucks to scholarshipped quarterbacks or graduated four-year linemen who were illiterate or Sam Gilbert used to invite the varsity bball team over for Sunday barbecues or the round ball coach who earned one of the banners hanging in Pauley got fired for ordering one too many enchilada plates for a guest.
I shall soon go to my Reward being able to answer in the affirmative to Russell Crowe's Gladiator query, "Are you not entertained?"
Yes sir! More than sufficiently for my $110 per quarter in incidental fees!
Lordy, I love this group and I love my Alma Mater!
My sad attempt at mirth above notwithstanding, the research and writing you and Dimitri do are without parallel!
I'm serious! It's weapons grade sports analysis and reporting. You guys are head and shoulders above what Bolch* and the others do at the L.A.T. and other venues!
Add to that the inside dope on the Fetus/AD and SoFi and other intrigue is a bonus!
Ben is excellent. I reached out to him after he published the REAL attendance numbers a while back. He totally deserved big kudos for digging that stuff up. Honestly, I was a bit jealous that I hadn't thought of putting in a records request for that info first.
For that matter, because it's been a few years of less controversial stuff with respect to UCLA Athletics, my Public Records Request muscle had deteriorated a little.
But the last few months feels like I'm back in the gym and starting to bulk it back up again. After reading the court docs last night, I wrote one of the more comprehensive PRRs I've written in a long time. We'll see what turns up in a few months. UCLA is notorious for delaying the handing over of documents.
That notwithstanding, it's a pretty impressive effort to provide the information for your subscribers. Both TMB as well as Ben are excellent alternatives to the bland reportage found in the local sites/rags.
I loved going to the Rose Bowl but realistically as a student, it was hard to attend any game except when it was against $C. You basically had to burn an entire day because of the distance and the event. I've attended quite a few events at Sofi Stadium, and it's amazing there. It's an indoors stadium so you don't bake under the hot sun or freeze under the winter nights. Food venues are much better than what's at the Rose Bowl. Traveling to the stadium is also quite easy.
Seems to me this is just another gift from Jelly 1.0 who didn't have any foresight to include some termination clause and/or better revenue sharing and got played by the RBOC lawyers. Given how desperately RBOC/Pasadena wants to keep UCLA, Jelly 1.0 failed to understand he was holding all of the cards during the negotiations and he had a second bite of the apple with the 2014 lease amendment.
The RBOC didn't sneak anything into the agreement. Both sides agreed to the terms of the contract. UCLA got hundreds of millions of dollars in Rose Bowl improvements in return for waiving the right to terminate the contract.
Were those the best terms UCLA could have gotten in 2013? Probably. At the time, there really wasn't any real progress that had been made toward bringing the NFL back to LA. So, there wasn't necessarily a reason to think that a long-term lease with no buyout clause would be a bad thing for UCLA.
As much as it may pain many of us to give credit to Dan Guerrero for locking UCLA into a long-term lease with the Rose Bowl, sitting here today, I'm pretty damn happy that he did. I will be happier when the 2026 season (and others) kickoff inside the Rose Bowl.
Hopefully, the coming years will improve the relationship between UCLA administrators and the RBOC which seems to have deteriorated very quickly over the last year. Granted, that will likely require significant turnover at the Athletic Department, but 19 years is a very long time. So, that should happen.
In the meantime, maybe UCLA administrators can actually develop a plan to eventually bring football games onto campus in Westwood. It can be done.
1. Move professional programs (and others if necessary) off the Westwood campus to the Marymount campus (or acquire more land in the region).
2. Relocate things in Westwood to free up enough space to build a decent size stadium.
It will take time, but 19 years is plenty of time to implement this kind of planning.
I remember thinking any chance of an on-campus stadium was dead once UCLA renegotiated that 30-year lease back in 2010. Locking in for that long pretty much said the administration had moved on from the idea. Still, you’re right—19 years is a long time, and a lot can change. Hopefully you and your generation will get to see it happen. I don’t think my timeline will stretch that far.
I vote for the Athletic Department to present this legal cluster to the students at the UCLA Law School as a case study. Pro bono anyone? Albeit it would take a venn diagram to illustrate all the legal ramifications.
My CPA practice was mainly involved with Forensic Accounting and valuations in disputed business matters and family law. As such, I worked with several high profile attorneys while testifying as an expert in court. The one thing almost all those business attorneys agreed to is that there is no such thing as a "slam dunk" in litigation. Anybody who says otherwise has not been involved in litigation. So with all respect, Joe is presenting only one side of the "dispute" and most of my fellow Bruins are accepting that position from a non expert (and "dislike" of Jarmond--and maybe Frenk?) without hearing what UCLA may (or may not) have in its arsenal on the other side of the of the issue including the RB probably being better without UCLA's poor attendance and revenue generation. I would think UCLA has some high powered attorneys and Jarmond is not making legal decisions.
He holds a Juris Doctor from Villanova, partner and chairman of global law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, heading a team of 50 sports lawyers and involved in many sports businesses which have been over all quite successful. Sounds like he would know his stuff including contract law and the art of business negotiations. . (BTW I did not know this--had to go to Wiki to see his background LOL)
Where are they finding all the money to do this! This is a complete and utter waste of money! The regents really need to step in here; this situation is completely out of hand and as usual being mismanaged by UCLA's mismanagement team. That would be Jelly 2.0 and.. you know their new chancellor who sometimes is challenged with his broken English. Yea, you can tell how I feel about UCLA's administration and in particular their almost completely worthless Athletic Dept. Now I did say "almost".
They are probably betting on the come, lured by the promise of luxury suite revenue and assuming no significant loss of the fan base, or what's left of it. 🙄
I read Ben Bloch's Nov 10 LA times article which did not mention a PR firm or any representation. Moorad is connected to several firms so maybe it is one of those? In any event, I do think it is an outrageous idea that will waste money that could be spent on a new coach and NIL but my point was everybody thinking that the RBC had a slam dunk case and there is no such thing in litigation. I understand the TRO is tomorrow so I assume UCLA will be making their case, we will know both sides and then the judge will decide.
This whole thing plays out like the beginning of a process UCLA is hoping to go through or at least test. Nobody ever starts of a negotiation with their actual position. Just speaking generally, the Rose Bowl is, of course, going all burnt earth and UCLA is saying they will play in SOFi beginning next season. Really, next season? I can't believe they actually expected that to happen. I can't blame UCLA for trying to work out a better deal now, even if it means they end up staying at the Rose Bowl. What I wonder is whether the folks at SOFI have any substantial role in this or not?
All legal ramifications aside, if the Rose Bowl prevails in this dispute, they would be saving Ucla from themselves. The things that make college football game days great (Tradition, tailgating, the most historic venue in college football) are all present at the Rose Bowl. The cure for any and all attendance issues are simple. Have a competitive program. Moving to SoFi as a solution for what plagues Ucla football is like putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery. It's just delusional. I hope the Rose Bowl prevails in this dispute...
Update for everyone from Ben Bolch:
Judge ruled against the RBOC and City of Pasadena and denied the TRO, which was to be expected given that UCLA hasn't formally announced its intention to leave, and thus there is no legal emergency the RBOC and Pasadena would need a TRO to fix.
This does not mean UCLA is gone from the Rose Bowl yet, but it takes a big tool out of the RBOC's toolbox.
I'm actually really surprised. TROs are usually granted because they're temporary, and will expire absent a permanent injunction. I'm not sure what to think about the Rose Bowl's case now that the TRO has been denied.
Edit: Ah ok, it's because UCLA isn't "imminently" leaving the RB yet.
The RBOC lawyers are making a lot of noise that they are "encouraged" by the statements from the judge, but yeah, this reads more like the judge is telling everyone to settle and move on, and the RBOC lost a ton of leverage.
Sadly leases are broken all the time, regardless of the terms.
courts can refuse to grant an injunction if they find that monetary damages would be sufficient or that the harm is not truly irreparable.
Money talks…but supposedly UCLA doesn’t have any. Is there a whale out there who wants UCLA to be a SoFi tenant, and told their lawyers “go make it happen” ? As other commenters note, even “ironclad” agreements can be broken or circumvented; note the “unbreakable” ACC media contract than ran through 2036 that Florida State managed to have amended. Even more absurd is the current legal fight between the PAC-12 and Mountain West, when the PAC-12 signed a contract expressly preventing them from recruiting MW teams; then went out and poached half the league.
Even if Pasadena were willing to negotiate, it would likely take UCLA paying off the bonds which total $180 million alone. That would probably be the starting point for a negotiated settlement and that's before the lost revenue from UCLA playing at the Rose Bowl.
Read the court docs.
Perhaps the Rose Bowl Operating Committee can invoke the “Game Threatening Default" clause, whereby the Bruins are impersonating a D1 program and competent Athletic Department, thus releasing the Bruins to play elsewhere.
LOL! Ummm...except for the fact that they seem content to have a D3 team playing their six Saturdays a year.
I, too, am no attorney, but the key word here is "impersonating."
I too am not an attorney, but if this is as iron clad as they make it seem how inept is the leadership at UCLA? Did no one know or read the details? They must have right?
I can’t imagine they are that foolish to start something without having a plan and knowing an out. I honestly can’t decide which it is.
Another bad look for the lack of competency of our AD, and a financial hit that could handcuff UCLA NIL, may ultimately impact the next HC candidates' regard for the program, and eventual (settled for) hiree.
What competency? And as for a "future coach", I guess there are some that would like the salary, but would you really want to coach within a football culture that UCLA currently has? Would you really want to coach a team that never has a chance of finishing within the top 10 of the BIG? Work for a worthless. feckless and clueless AD and school administration? They'll find somebody I guess, but I certainly feel sorry for that person, and I would also question that person's judgement.
You're invoking Groucho, "I don't want to belong to any club that will accept me as a member."
I edited my comment to better reflect what I mean by "competency."
Outta the park, '88! Touch 'em all!
U. D. Mann!
They (meaning UCLA) are incompetent, they have no plan B. The only possibility is if they have a billionaire out there with very deep pockets and is willing to pay Pasadena and the Rose Bowl $250m or more. I doubt this is the case as well as who would want a football team like UCLA playing anywhere let alone SoFi or for that matter Pasadena or the Rose Bowl for that kind of price. No matter UCLA's attendance they have to pay the Rose Bowl and that income has to be made up somewhere to make the city and the Bowl both whole. This is why they are suing; they planned on that lease income until 2044 to keep the Rose Bowl and surrounding areas in good condition. Without that income, how will the Rose Bowl survive financially, certainly not with a couple high profile football games a year and throw in some soccer games, etc. Just not enough income to maintain the bowl and the surrounding area. The Rose Bowl and the city needs that revenue. If UCLA is adamant about moving to SoFi, just pay the money (up to $250m according to Bonds owed and lease agreements broken) and they can move wherever they'd like to. UCLA is attempting to break the lease and the contract without paying that much, it won't happen.
The secret here is that the Rose Bowl also wants out of this deal. They’re only allowed 12 events a year per the city, and they’re forced to have at least six of those be underperforming UCLA games. The Oasis concert this summer filled out the Rose Bowl to the tune of 180k people over two nights. If you’re the Rose Bowl, the idea of getting out of the UCLA deal and converting those six dates into events you’re guaranteed to sell out (things like U2, Ed Sheeran, etc., or events like El Traffico or visiting Premier League games) is tantalizing.
The TRO is more of a negotiating tactic than anything. I think both sides are aware this deal is ending, and it’s just a PR battle at this point.
Ed Sheeran can fill a 100k stadium? SMH.
I was surprised too, but I have multiple friends who went to see him a few years ago.
Yup, Sheeran can pack a stadium. See below.
https://tinyurl.com/y9apw3bb
Gotta disagree here. If RBOC wanted out, they could name a price and negotiate to a number that is palatable to both sides and call it a day.
Suing to force them to play in Pasadena is a Boss move.
If RBOC wanted out, they wouldn't direct their attorney to state that they will not negotiate an early termination.
UCLA is acting like they have four of a kind, when in reality, they're sitting on an eight high. The problem is the Rose Bowl called their bluff.
The only time a lawsuit and restraining order have kept a team where they are was the Minnesota Twins back during potential MLB contraction in the 1990s. But it is much easier to point to things like the Sonics, the Jazz, and the Browns (pt. 1) as examples of teams moving and contracts being much looser than they appeared.
Like I said, Pasadena and the RBOC are posturing for the eventual settlement, where they won't get anywhere close to what they're claiming now. UCLA will likely be at SoFi by next year, if not the year after.
Disagree, you are giving examples of Professional teams that are privately owned with big money. We are talking here about a Public State University controlled (essentially) by the State government. Both the State government and the University are dead broke and in fact both deep in the Red. How can you possibly think UCLA could even settle at the $80m figure. UCLA will be back at the Rose Bowl next season and yes losing games, same as this season. No changes except for a new coaching staff already over their heads before they step on that Rose Bowl turf, oops I mean before they step on the turf at Berkeley.
It's a lease for the next 18ish yrs...if ucla had to pay the full term of the lease, they don't have to pay it all at once up front. The assumption from Uclas admin is that moving to sofi will generate more revenue than they get from the rose bowl so that they can pay whatever the cost will be at sofi, plus pay off the lease terms at the rose bowl and still end up with much more $ after both of those expenses...now how realistic are those projections? No idea, but thats the thought process.
They want out of this deal so badly, they filed an injunction saying that reserve the right to not agree to a buy out of the lease and that they will not agree to a buy out of the lease. LOL.
Good, nobody wants SoFi.
The only way leases get broken without repercussions/damages is if the defaulting party doesn’t have the wherewithal to justify enforcement or the defaulting party has leverage, which clearly isn’t the case here.
Let this die and get on to the only solution…an on-campus stadium opening for the 2044 season. Time flies, especially with an effort like this…let’s get moving!
I agree, just convert Drake. It won't be huge, probably only about a 45,000 seat stadium, but for this program, that's plenty of seating. Use shuttles for off campus parking and you are there!
One of the metro plans has an underground stop at UCLA. Make it mid campus and many could take mass transit to the games.
It sounds like Pasadena/Rose Bowl knows they are going to lose, so they are trying to win the PR angle. And we are only seeing one side of this disagreement. Those of us who attended UCLA know the university has had this issue looked at up and down and from every angle by the top attorneys in LA.
I am also not an attorney, but the position that Pasadena/Rose Bowl is taking seems misguided and desperate. You have a long term client who only uses your facility for 6 days a year and who wants to break their lease and you come out and state that you will not negotiate or even engage them under no circumstances. And the $1B+ in loss of future revenue you state you are going to sue them for sounds like the $1b the Trump administration is trying to grift from UCLA. Good luck with that in court.
More likely is the rumored settlement for the very generous sum of $60-$80m to terminate the lease at the end of 2025. Pasadena has a lot of time to find another client to fill the 6 days a year or so used by UCLA football.
1.) You are giving UCLA WAY TO MUCH credit, I think they are clueless educationally, athletically and legally, 2.) There are more costs wrapped up in those "6 days", we are all unaware of. It's more than the $80m and much less that the $1b. The reason for the $1b is Pasadena and the Rose Bowl telling UCLA, "DON'T EVEN TRY IT".
I respectfully disagree as you cynically seem to think very little of UCLA. After the Calimony debacle I do not believe the Regents would allow such a decision without a very good idea of the University's potential exposure. They know the numbers, we do not. This will be a facts and circumstances analysis by a CA judge/mediator between a CA municipality and a CA public university. This case is not going to court.
What we are witnessing is the public posturing of Pasaden's position. Pasadena has chosen to try to get out ahead of UCLA as I believe they know they have the weaker hand.
Respectfully disagree. There is too much cash on the table and UCLA cannot afford that cash or a move at this point in time. As for my cynical viewpoint, you are correct. I feel paying people millions of dollars to manage an institution and then not managing it is complete incompetence and a waste of OUR MONEY. UCLA is the best University in the world, but has buffoons working for its best interest, which, in turn degrades the University and makes it a laughingstock. Yes, I get aggravated and agitated seeing individuals getting paid big money to perform poorly. That's why I've been against every UCLA hire as head football coach since Bob Toledo in 2002; I also question their choices of Chancellor since Charles Young (1997). They've all been terrible choices, so yes, I blame the people running UCLA for selections like Karl Dorrell, Rick Neuheisel, Jim Mora, Chip Kelly and DeShaun Foster -- MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF COMPLETE AND TOTAL WASTE and none of these individuals deserved even half the money they were paid.
You're neglecting the fact that Pasadena still owes about $185 million in bond debt they incurred as a result of UCLA signing this agreement.
And,, the RB is not suing for monetary damages right now. They are suing to force UCLA to honor the lease.
I used to work with someone who worked for a company which was paying him a salary. But the State of California changed the law related to his job and required that to be salaried he needed to make a certain level of money. If he didn't make that amount, the new law required he be paid hourly. He started tracking his hours on a spreadsheet.
Then, they tried to suggest that he might have to work nights and weekends. He inquisitively asked HR about his status as a salaried employee rather than an hourly employee. The head of HR's response was "How much do we owe you?" The amount was about half a year's salary.
When the CEO tried to negotiate it down, he spoke with a labor law attorney and when he showed the attorney the spreadsheet with the hours, the attorney said, "I don't see any reason why you should take a penny less than the total you came up with. I wish all my wage cases were this easy." Sure enough, the company paid every penny due.
This seems to parallel this situation. There is no reason the Rose Bowl shouldn't force UCLA to play in Pasadena for the duration of the contract. Now, they just need a judge to issue the TRO Wednesday and to eventually make it permanent at some point in the future.
I don't think UCLA stands a chance in this.
Joe, completely agree, unless of course there is that billionaire out there somewhere, but I seriously doubt that. If they had that billionaire and he was willing to make that huge "donation", a sanity test would have to be done on him or her as well and how could they even become a billionaire with such irrational decision making? Why would anyone pay that kind of money to watch a product like UCLA football. At this point UCLA Football isn't worth ONE GENERAL ADMISSION ticket!
To the credit OF TMB, Joe and Dimitri and the membership here have turned this into an absolutely riveting drama. (Meant seriously, not humorously!)
Think back to the days when the athletics program battled the NCAA over such trivialities as coaches handing out handicapped parking passes or pickup trucks to scholarshipped quarterbacks or graduated four-year linemen who were illiterate or Sam Gilbert used to invite the varsity bball team over for Sunday barbecues or the round ball coach who earned one of the banners hanging in Pauley got fired for ordering one too many enchilada plates for a guest.
I shall soon go to my Reward being able to answer in the affirmative to Russell Crowe's Gladiator query, "Are you not entertained?"
Yes sir! More than sufficiently for my $110 per quarter in incidental fees!
Lordy, I love this group and I love my Alma Mater!
😁👍🏻
I can only hope that everyone is getting their money's worth out of their TMB subscription from this!
My sad attempt at mirth above notwithstanding, the research and writing you and Dimitri do are without parallel!
I'm serious! It's weapons grade sports analysis and reporting. You guys are head and shoulders above what Bolch* and the others do at the L.A.T. and other venues!
Add to that the inside dope on the Fetus/AD and SoFi and other intrigue is a bonus!
Sincere thanks, Joe!
~The WP
*And I consider Bolch pretty good.
Ben is excellent. I reached out to him after he published the REAL attendance numbers a while back. He totally deserved big kudos for digging that stuff up. Honestly, I was a bit jealous that I hadn't thought of putting in a records request for that info first.
For that matter, because it's been a few years of less controversial stuff with respect to UCLA Athletics, my Public Records Request muscle had deteriorated a little.
But the last few months feels like I'm back in the gym and starting to bulk it back up again. After reading the court docs last night, I wrote one of the more comprehensive PRRs I've written in a long time. We'll see what turns up in a few months. UCLA is notorious for delaying the handing over of documents.
That notwithstanding, it's a pretty impressive effort to provide the information for your subscribers. Both TMB as well as Ben are excellent alternatives to the bland reportage found in the local sites/rags.
Thank you to both of you!
Greatly appreciate the timely and informative TMB articles, but it's sad that this issue is currently more entertaining than UCLA football.
I loved going to the Rose Bowl but realistically as a student, it was hard to attend any game except when it was against $C. You basically had to burn an entire day because of the distance and the event. I've attended quite a few events at Sofi Stadium, and it's amazing there. It's an indoors stadium so you don't bake under the hot sun or freeze under the winter nights. Food venues are much better than what's at the Rose Bowl. Traveling to the stadium is also quite easy.
Did idiot Jarmond read the actual lease agreement?
You are too kind, calling Donut Head Jelly 2.0 just an idiot.
The mouth-breather who barely put any forethought into hiring The Chipster's replacement? Highly doubt it!
He didn't look at the lease agreement--he only read the room!
LOL
Seems to me this is just another gift from Jelly 1.0 who didn't have any foresight to include some termination clause and/or better revenue sharing and got played by the RBOC lawyers. Given how desperately RBOC/Pasadena wants to keep UCLA, Jelly 1.0 failed to understand he was holding all of the cards during the negotiations and he had a second bite of the apple with the 2014 lease amendment.
Let's be realistic.
The RBOC didn't sneak anything into the agreement. Both sides agreed to the terms of the contract. UCLA got hundreds of millions of dollars in Rose Bowl improvements in return for waiving the right to terminate the contract.
Were those the best terms UCLA could have gotten in 2013? Probably. At the time, there really wasn't any real progress that had been made toward bringing the NFL back to LA. So, there wasn't necessarily a reason to think that a long-term lease with no buyout clause would be a bad thing for UCLA.
As much as it may pain many of us to give credit to Dan Guerrero for locking UCLA into a long-term lease with the Rose Bowl, sitting here today, I'm pretty damn happy that he did. I will be happier when the 2026 season (and others) kickoff inside the Rose Bowl.
Hopefully, the coming years will improve the relationship between UCLA administrators and the RBOC which seems to have deteriorated very quickly over the last year. Granted, that will likely require significant turnover at the Athletic Department, but 19 years is a very long time. So, that should happen.
In the meantime, maybe UCLA administrators can actually develop a plan to eventually bring football games onto campus in Westwood. It can be done.
1. Move professional programs (and others if necessary) off the Westwood campus to the Marymount campus (or acquire more land in the region).
2. Relocate things in Westwood to free up enough space to build a decent size stadium.
It will take time, but 19 years is plenty of time to implement this kind of planning.
I remember thinking any chance of an on-campus stadium was dead once UCLA renegotiated that 30-year lease back in 2010. Locking in for that long pretty much said the administration had moved on from the idea. Still, you’re right—19 years is a long time, and a lot can change. Hopefully you and your generation will get to see it happen. I don’t think my timeline will stretch that far.
I vote for the Athletic Department to present this legal cluster to the students at the UCLA Law School as a case study. Pro bono anyone? Albeit it would take a venn diagram to illustrate all the legal ramifications.
My CPA practice was mainly involved with Forensic Accounting and valuations in disputed business matters and family law. As such, I worked with several high profile attorneys while testifying as an expert in court. The one thing almost all those business attorneys agreed to is that there is no such thing as a "slam dunk" in litigation. Anybody who says otherwise has not been involved in litigation. So with all respect, Joe is presenting only one side of the "dispute" and most of my fellow Bruins are accepting that position from a non expert (and "dislike" of Jarmond--and maybe Frenk?) without hearing what UCLA may (or may not) have in its arsenal on the other side of the of the issue including the RB probably being better without UCLA's poor attendance and revenue generation. I would think UCLA has some high powered attorneys and Jarmond is not making legal decisions.
Former Diamondbacks and Padres owner Jeff Moorad is representing UCLA.
He holds a Juris Doctor from Villanova, partner and chairman of global law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, heading a team of 50 sports lawyers and involved in many sports businesses which have been over all quite successful. Sounds like he would know his stuff including contract law and the art of business negotiations. . (BTW I did not know this--had to go to Wiki to see his background LOL)
Maybe, but UCLA knows they are losing the PR battle. They have hired a crisis PR firm, according to Ben Bolch.
Where are they finding all the money to do this! This is a complete and utter waste of money! The regents really need to step in here; this situation is completely out of hand and as usual being mismanaged by UCLA's mismanagement team. That would be Jelly 2.0 and.. you know their new chancellor who sometimes is challenged with his broken English. Yea, you can tell how I feel about UCLA's administration and in particular their almost completely worthless Athletic Dept. Now I did say "almost".
They are probably betting on the come, lured by the promise of luxury suite revenue and assuming no significant loss of the fan base, or what's left of it. 🙄
I read Ben Bloch's Nov 10 LA times article which did not mention a PR firm or any representation. Moorad is connected to several firms so maybe it is one of those? In any event, I do think it is an outrageous idea that will waste money that could be spent on a new coach and NIL but my point was everybody thinking that the RBC had a slam dunk case and there is no such thing in litigation. I understand the TRO is tomorrow so I assume UCLA will be making their case, we will know both sides and then the judge will decide.
This whole thing plays out like the beginning of a process UCLA is hoping to go through or at least test. Nobody ever starts of a negotiation with their actual position. Just speaking generally, the Rose Bowl is, of course, going all burnt earth and UCLA is saying they will play in SOFi beginning next season. Really, next season? I can't believe they actually expected that to happen. I can't blame UCLA for trying to work out a better deal now, even if it means they end up staying at the Rose Bowl. What I wonder is whether the folks at SOFI have any substantial role in this or not?
Pins and needles and fear, would be the feeling today, as the TRO hearing is soon to unfold.
As an alum with an enduring love of our blue and gold, I am filled with sadness, yet I still hang on to a thread of hope 🙏
The price we pay 🥲💔
All legal ramifications aside, if the Rose Bowl prevails in this dispute, they would be saving Ucla from themselves. The things that make college football game days great (Tradition, tailgating, the most historic venue in college football) are all present at the Rose Bowl. The cure for any and all attendance issues are simple. Have a competitive program. Moving to SoFi as a solution for what plagues Ucla football is like putting a band-aid on a bleeding artery. It's just delusional. I hope the Rose Bowl prevails in this dispute...