"It's possible that a judge or arbitrator in the high-stakes breach-of-contract case awards monetary damages to the Rose Bowl and the City of Pasadena based on a prediction of lost revenue over the length of a lease that runs through June 2044, freeing the Bruins to abandon their longtime football home for SoFi Stadium."
"In another scenario, that judge or arbitrator considers the possibility of wild success under new coach Bob Chesney leading to a packed stadium and figures there's no way to reasonably calculate damages, given that the team's longstanding attendance woes don't provide a reliable blueprint for future revenue. In that instance, UCLA most likely would be forced to stay at the Rose Bowl."
"Attorneys for the Rose Bowl and the City of Pasadena contend that UCLA's relocation attempts represent "a profound betrayal of trust" and that the team's departure would inflict "irreparable harm" for which money alone could not sufficiently compensate the stadium and surrounding community. Opposing counsel says UCLA has not violated any agreement and is only considering all options to ensure a path toward financial viability amid a rapidly changing college sports landscape. Publicly the school has maintained that it hasn't made a decision about its future football home."
Two primary legal outcomes are possible. A judge or arbitrator could award monetary damages to the Rose Bowl and the City of Pasadena based on predicted lost revenue over a lease running through June 2044, enabling UCLA to relocate to SoFi Stadium. Alternatively, a decision could determine future revenue too uncertain—especially if new coach Bob Chesney generates unexpectedly high attendance—making damages incalculable and thereby keeping UCLA at the Rose Bowl. Pasadena asserts the relocation attempts amount to a betrayal of trust and would cause irreparable harm. UCLA contends no contractual violation and says it is evaluating options while publicly undecided.
Read at Los Angeles Times
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]