U.S. Capital claims lack of transparency
Since September, USC has been in negotiations with the Coliseum Commission in an effort to acquire operational control of the 88-year-old facility, which has housed the Trojan football team since the mid-1920s.
But the university has also been the only party afforded the chance to negotiate with the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum’s nine-member governing body. And most of those negotiations have occurred behind closed doors.
Bid · U.S. Capital LLC, which has not been allowed to submit a formal bid for the master lease of the Coliseum, said it would invest more than $70 million into the facility and host events at the Coliseum 300 days per year. - Photo courtesy of U.S. Capital LLC
It’s an ongoing development that has irked some, in particular U.S. Capital LLC, a San Diego-based sports and entertainment company. Over the last three years, the firm has expressed a desire to obtain the master lease for the federal and state landmark, pledging to pour millions into the stadium as part of an effort to renovate the facility.
Linda Paul, U.S. Capital’s executive vice president, said it has not been given the opportunity to submit a proposal to the commission or to bid for management control.
“It’s almost being handed over to USC without any other competition or options at all,” Paul said. “That is our main issue. We are not even being responded to.”
Paul said she received a letter from David Israel, president of the Coliseum Commission, last year, which said the commission was not interested in negotiating with the company.
“No reasoning,” Paul said. “It’s just a one liner.”
Israel could not be reached for comment.
U.S. Capital hopes — if it were to be given day-to-day control — to spend millions, along with its private equity partners, to build an entirely new stadium.
Though USC is expected to spend roughly $70 million in renovations to the facility, Paul said U.S. Capital could spend much more, in addition to commercial hotels and other amenities in the surrounding area as part of an effort to refurbish the Coliseum and host events at least 300 days per year.
Under the proposed amended lease released by the commission Tuesday, USC would have the option to limit the number of public events to eight per year.
“This is a publicly owned facility,” Paul said. “It should request proposals for bids from other entities, such as ourselves, who can do a better job than an institution that is going to close the facility off primarily for USC events. We want USC events, but we want to open this up, so it can pop 365 days per year.”
In an effort, to explain its proposal, Paul, along with chief executive Leonard Bloom, has sent letters and information to Gov. Jerry Brown, senators, members of the Coliseum Commission and acting General Manager John Sandbrook contesting the lack of transparency.
Paul also said the negotiations are in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, enacted in 1953, giving the public the right to sit in on meetings from local legislative bodies.
“They’re making us look like the enemy and we’re not,” Paul said. “We actually want to build a new Coliseum with our money and with support from USC. Whatever they want built in the Coliseum, we’ll work with them.”
Los Angeles City Councilmember and Coliseum Commisioner Bernard Parks said the facility should remain public.
“It’s a public facility. It’s been a public facility for 80 years, and it should remain a public facility. I do not support that the Coliseum be turned into a private facility.”
And what about the concerns of the museums in the park that share the space? They have asked for limits on number of large scale (over 25k guests) events at the Coliseum because the parking situation could overwhelm their ability to meet the needs of the public that comes for the museums.
There’s a balance to be drawn here, and while you may think 8 of these opAnd what about the concerns of the museums in the park that share the space? They have asked for limits on number of large scale (over 25k guests) events at the Coliseum because the parking situation could overwhelm their ability to meet the needs of the public that comes for the museums.
There’s a balance to be drawn here, and while you may think 8 of these open, free or low cost events is too low, these public events are not designated revenue generators in he first place. And no way could the coliseum grounds even handle 300+ large events per year without the museums raising objections among other concerns of traffic and wear and tear on the park. Plus, what type of events could possibly be revenue generators that many days in the year. All that is just unsubstantiated hype by US Capital.
And what about the concerns of the museums in the park that share the space? They have asked for limits on number of large scale (over 25k guests) events at the Coliseum because the parking situation could overwhelm their ability to meet the needs of the public that comes for the museums.
There’s a balance to be drawn here, and while you may think 8 of these open, free or low cost events is too low, these public events are not designated revenue generators in he first place. And no way could the coliseum grounds even handle 300+ large events per year without the museums raising objections among other concerns of traffic and wear and tear on the park. Plus, what type of events could possibly be revenue generators that many days in the year. All that is just unsubstantiated hype by US Capital.
Even of it was 200 events per year it sounds as though it will serve the public much better than what is being forced through now, illegally it appears. Many would agree that this coliseum needs to have major upgrades and why would USC do that if they don’t really have to appease the public? USC is in no financial position to upgrade even if they were forced to. It is ridiculous that there were no other proposals even considered and that these were shady closed door meetings between USC and the commissioner. I hope there is a public outcry for this as well as a full investigation.
Bill,
Your question is about why USC would agree to make improvements to their beloved home stadium? And you also questioned their financial ability to do do? I’m guessing you haven’t really thought this through or you’re uninformed. USC has been wanting to make improvements for a long time now and offered to make 100 Million worth of them when they were negotiating the lease back in 2008. Fans want improvements and anyone else that’s been there wants them too. And USC has the resources and motivation to do so.
This little outfit called US Capital has severely limited qualifications to run and invest in the Coliseum. Have you seen their client / management list? It’s junior league stuff at best. They seem to be a shell of a company at best.
Looking forward to USC’s strong leadership at the new Memorial Coliseum!
East Coast Trojan,
USC has and should always remain a TENANT of the Coliseum. The fact that the commissioners want to hand this publicly owned beautiful stadium over to them is completely underhanded and sleazy politics. It appears as though US Capital has a knowledge and resources to make this virtually a new state of the art stadium with a broad vision of using the stadium to its fullest potential.
I think it’s great that you have loyalty to USC but it appears that you share the administrators tunnel vision for the future of the Coliseum which is not in the public or USC’s students best interest. USC of course will be reaping huge profits while paying the state a fraction of their earnings, all handed to them for free. I hope US Capital stops this because USC in no way deserves to be given something the public already owns to be used in a manner that is demeaning to the illustrious Coliseum itself.
Let’s leave this in the hands of professionals who know about sports and entertainment and will be focusing on not only the Coliseum but also the surrounding community for major improvements to their lives as well.
USC wants to Limit the public events to 8! In a public owned venue? That makes absolutely no sense. Operate this like a business and make some money for this state!
Bob,
Your critique is misguided. Are you aware that previously there were even less than 8 public events under the stewardship of the Commission? The only ones I can think of were the July 4 celebration and maybe 1 or 2 more per year. “Public events” are not things like football games etc, they are generally community oriented gatherings.
Wow, so Bob is wrong for his concern that we are trading the commisioners for USC administrators? I think his concern is needed by USC students as well as the community at large. The point that some fail to grasp, or just try to divert, is that the Colliseum needs ownership by someone who will see it reach it’s fullest potential and USC is not the answer. I don’t think Bob or anyone else needs your patronizing answer of the definition of “public events”. The Trojans have 6 home games. What about the other 359 days of the year. Let the Trojans play in a new stadium which has been proposed and stop trying to obstruct the publics best interest!
300 events per year?
That’s equivalent to Staples Center. I would doubt they could get 300 events per year, as an open-air stadium is much less apt for a lot of events than an arena. Although, I think USC should target many events per year.