Good Question

"KCAL reported that the State of California was looking to sell their shares of ownership to the [Sports Arena] and Coliseum. From this posting, I figure that a deal was made and possibly ownership??? Anyone???" -- Char

This question from a post on Tuesday brings up an interesting hitch in the deal struck between USC and the Coliseum Commission.

Although I didn't see the KCAL report, I would guess it referred to casual discussions in Sacramento about selling the Coliseum (and adjacent Sports Arena). One of the most confusing parts of the whole negotiation has stemmed from the fact that the State of California owns the property -- outright. No shares involved.

Technically, the state leases everything to the Coliseum Commission, which has nine voting members. There are three each from the State, County of Los Angeles, and City of Los Angeles.

That's where yesterday's deal might get sticky. According to the school, the agreement ensures that "USC will also have representation on the Coliseum Commission."

Since the Commission was created by a Joint Powers Agreement, it would presumably need approval from the state, county and city before it could modify the body's makeup. That's just one three more hurdles for this agreement to clear. Hopefully it's merely a formality, since all parties involved seem happy with the way things are moving.

For those of you keeping score at home, there have been three "moving targets" involved with the negotiations:

1. The lease between the state and the Coliseum Commission.
2. The lease between the Coliseum Commission and anybody else (primarily USC).
3. The state's option to sell the whole thing off or lease to somebody else.

The limitations of the state-Commission lease are what created some of the initial friction in the Commission-USC lease (USC was asking for a longer term than the Commission had with the state).

The state's option to sell is unlikely at this time, but not impossible because of budget shortfalls in Sacramento. It would require some incredible political maneuvering to make a sale happen.

The state's option to lease to somebody else is effectively closed (it has a new deal with the Commission that lasts for almost 50 more years). However, I'm still shocked that there wasn't any public debate last year about the state leasing directly to USC. Although there would have been some hangups (like who would get custody of the Sports Arena), it would have been a very intriguing option for some of the parties involved.