The $350M literally had EVERYTHING to do with it. LA county couldn't even raise $100M for improvements so USC stepped up b/c they had no other options .... either take control and spend the $350M+ themselves or continue to play in a rapidly deteriorating building with LA county slapping some lipstick on the pig.
Its virtually the same identical thing that happened with the OB. USC would never have spent $350M unless it had to and that $350M is just a drop in bucket. UM (smartly) chose to move to HRS and let the Dolphins ownership pay for what has literally been $500M++ in upgrades at HRS since the OB closed.
Here u go again.
1. USC have been wanting to operate the Coliseum for over two decades, & each time it was denied by the County, then the State.
2. The State made a promise to renovate The Coliseum for $100m
3. B/c of their inability to fulfill said promise, USC took this opportunity to finally get what they wanted by proposing their own terms
4. The terms stipulated that USC would make its own financial commitment to The Coliseum for upkeep of The Coliseum & its adjacent facilities. In turn, USC would act as an operating partner vs. tenant. USC would commit $70m for said renovations, & agree to pay the State a leasing fee + % of revenue obtained by all non-USC events held at the Coliseum or other properties
5. This proposal was overwhelmingly approved, as it took away the financial commitment from the State to upkeep, & USC finally got what they wanted
6. USC’s governing body immediately put into motion a plan to not only give The Coliseum a face life, but to completely renovate it so it wouldn’t just be used for SC football, but attractive to all other events, to create a new streamline of revenue
7. USC also decided they wanted to modernize the stadium to give its fans, alumni, & boosters a better game day & fan experience outside of the game itself
8. The AD/Regent Board members had already cautioned this ambitious project would not result in immediate dividends; however in the long run, it will become not only beneficial for the community, student-athletes, alumni, but for their profit margin
9. I’ve already provided the USC financial report which showed as of today, that’s exactly what happened. SC is using the Coliseum, Sports Arena, Exhibition Park as another revenue source.
U’re trying to include a variable that became a result of what USC decided to do, and misrepresenting what took place to make a point. Ur point has zero validity b/c the discussion was about the details of the lease/operating agreement between SC & The State of CA being landlords. The operating agreement DID NOT INCLUDE OR STIPULATE that USC “had” to pay $350m out of their own resources to renovate The Coliseum; the stipulation was they were responsible for “up to” $70m for renovations. The SC Board of Regents, along w/ their AD decided it would be more advantageous, financially, to commit to a total re-design in order to attract other events. They ambitiously did that since they were in CONTROL.
The reason SC took on this commitment was b/c of their cross-town rival, UCLA. B4 the pandemic killed UCLA’s bottom line, they were operating in the black b/c they were an operating partner of The Rose Bowl (UCLA Rose Bowl Sports Properties), in which other revenue streams came to fruition. That motivated SC to be in that same position, of which they’ve already benefited from naming rights, ticket sales, parking revenue, events etc etc etc.
