Ranked Last, Chosen First: Carroll and Go’s Controversial Push to Grant PSQ Contract For the Permanent Amphitheater

  • March 1, 2026, 7:40 am America/Los_Angeles

At the February 24, 2026, Great Park Board meeting, Directors Mike Carroll and William Go faced scrutiny after agendizing a motion to award the city’s permanent amphitheater contract to PSQ Productions. The move has sparked allegations of political favoritism, as city staff determined PSQ Productions failed to meet the basic qualifying criteria for a project of this magnitude.

PSQ: A “Last Place” Selection

The city’s search for a world-class operator for the permanent Great Park Amphitheater utilized a formal Request for Proposal (RFP) competitive bid process. City staff evaluated bidders on financial stability, technical capability, and experience managing venues for both the temporary and large, permanent amphitheaters separately.

Under questioning from Councilmember Betty Martinez Franco, the results of that evaluation were made public: While PSQ Productions ranked first for the temporary amphitheater (Great Park Live), they ranked last among all bidders for the permanent amphitheater.

 

According to staff’s presentation and testimony:

  • Non-Qualification: While PSQ ranked first for the temporary amphitheater (Great Park Live) due to its experience with local community events like “Irvine Nights,” it did not meet the minimum qualifications for the permanent, large-scale venue. These requirements included a proven background in providing management services for multiple concert venues of similar size, as well as established operational oversight, management plans, marketing strategies, and sales plans.

  • Incorrect Financial Forecasts: The financial performance of the temporary amphitheater operated by PSQ significantly deviated from initial expectations. While financial forecasts originally projected a $2 million annual loss, the actual loss has averaged $6 million per year. To date, the city has seen $19,361,957 in expenses compared to only $1,305,868 in revenue.

  • Staff Recommendation: Staff recommended moving forward with ASM Global (Legends) for the permanent amphitheater. Legends ranked first due to its extensive experience managing 400+ global amphitheaters and arenas, its ability to attract top-tier international entertainment, and its success in managing neighborhood impacts like traffic and noise in Southern California.

  • Financial Comparisons: There is a stark contrast in revenue sharing between the two models:

    • PSQ Productions (Temporary Great Park Live): The city receives only 25% of revenue from four categories (F&B, alcohol, cabana, and merchandise), while 75% goes to PSQ. For every $1 the city earns, PSQ earns $3. 

    • Legends Global (Large Permanent Amphitheater): The city is projected to receive 83% of the revenue, with only 17% going to Legends Global. This is expected to generate approximately $8 million for the city in Year 1 and $11.5 million by Year 3.

Note: The PSQ proforma is for the temporary Great Park Live venue, while the Legends Global proforma is for the large, permanent amphitheater.

The Pivot: Bypassing the Competitive Process

Despite these findings, Carroll and Go sought to bypass the rankings from the competitive bid process and award both the temporary and permanent contracts to PSQ.

Ethical Concerns and Financial Disclosures

The controversy is further heightened by Director William Go’s admission that he distributed free tickets. Screenshots obtained by Irvine Watchdog confirm that Director Go sent text invitations to members of the public, community leaders, and City Commissioners for the various PSQ-run events.

Questions were raised as to whether Director Go should have recused himself from voting on this item. A public records request regarding Director Go’s gifting of free admission tickets to PSQ-specific events is currently pending.

The following screenshot from the PSQ website lists several events managed by the company, for which Director Go provided complimentary admission to numerous people.As of this report, Director Go’s Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interests) does not list any received gifts exceeding the $50 disclosure threshold. When addressing the social nature of these events, Go stated:

“You can have some fun along the way. As you guys know, I’m a happy person. I like to have fun, and I want everyone else to.”

A Discombobulated Motion

The meeting took a turn when Director Go introduced a lengthy motion that appeared to diverge from the Memo he submitted with Director Carroll. While their memo recommended awarding the contract to PSQ as a “proven, Irvine-based company,” the staff presentation clarified that managing a low-cost temporary facility is fundamentally different from operating a large-scale permanent amphitheater. Click here to read the Memo.

Mayor Larry Agran expressed visible frustration with the motion’s lack of relevance and clarity:

“I’m going to say this as politely as I can. I don’t know what the hell we’re talking about now… If there is a motion in front of us, I would’ve assumed it would be what was suggested in this memo.”

Director Mike Carroll urged his colleagues to vote “yes” as a gesture of professional courtesy to the new Chairman. Carroll argued that voting “no” would be an improper way to treat Go as he “navigates” a difficult meeting.

“I don’t know what a vote “no” is other than telling the Chairman “no”, which I don’t think, having been the Chairman of this Board of two years, is not the proper way to treat the new Chairman of this Board, so I will be strongly supporting a “yes”.

“Whether anyone thinks this has any legal effect or not is almost not the issue, as it is a new Chair trying to navigate through something that I spent over two years doing and over something I spent over 3 years chairing a commission doing, which is running a very difficult meeting and when I did it I had 4 colleagues and the person to my left has literally you know, now, the number has now multiplied many fold, so I will be voting yes. I urge my Board colleagues to please vote “yes” to support the Chairman’s motion. Thank you.”

High Stakes for the Great Park

Ultimately, the motion failed in a 2-5 vote, with only Carroll and Go in support.

The stakes for the contract remain high. The permanent amphitheater is a primary projected revenue source for the Great Park budget, which is currently facing a fiscal year deficit. Legal experts suggest that bypassing higher-ranked bidders in favor of a non-qualified firm could expose the city to litigation, potentially delaying the project and further straining city finances.

Related articles:

Read: Great Park Faces $7.5 Million Budget Deficit
Read: Ethics Allegations Shadow Councilmember William Go

Great Park Board Meeting | February 24, 2026
Click to watch the entire meeting video
Click for the agenda