paul

Lets all agree on one thing.

Gary is a whack job..plain and simple. And NO Gary...I don't feel that I
need to filter you out to join into whatever this forum/newsgroup wants
to debate on. If you think that some of the people in here are rather
infatuated with you...you must like it otherwise you would practise some
restraint in your replies as well. But then again, anyone who feels like
others GUYS are infatuated with them must have "issues" more pressing
upon them than just an Arena debate. As far as what I CHOOSE to reply to
here and why...those are matters for myself, as is the same God Given
and American Right that you have here.

But you seem to delight in replying to everyone of your "Punks" here as
much as they enjoy doing it to you. Must be nice to have so many "Peeps"
in here Gary. If you wish to percieve any of what I have said here as a
personal attack or an affront to your sensibilities...yippy skippy. That
is why this forum/newsgroup exists in the first place. I'll say this for
you...you certainly do love to shovel whatever it is you are shoveling.

As far as whatever public sentiment is concerned, the WHOLE idea of
replacing or retrofitting the Arena is up to the PEOPLE. The folks who
pay the taxes. And IF, or should I say when that day arrises, in
whatever form the monies take, be it slots, TIF financing, or any such
public dollars and you find yourself in the (then) minority..I could
well imagine that you would be the very first person down at the
Alleghany County Court House to file whatever it would take to put the
project on hold. The FACT remains, that IF you are going to use the idea
that the Arena is an historical landmark and not tear it down for
replacement, then you cannot retrofit it either. Historical landmarks in
this country may be maintained as is or restored to what they once were
when they were constructed. And the historical aspect of the Arena's
future refurbishment would therefore fall upon the taxpayers again. You
can't have it both ways in saying that you cannot tear it down to
replace it because it is a landmark of historical value and then turn
around and refuse to fund it's refurbishment through the taxes of the
state which classified it as such. So your argument is moot either way.
One way or another the building needs renovation and IF as an historical
landmark, that landmark MUST have it's roof rebuilt to allow it to do
what it was originally designed to do and that is open. As far as I know
that dome hasn't opened in years and probably can't or shouldn't be
attempted TO be opened.

Point two...again, using the landmark route here, the ice surface is the
WORST in the NHL. Therefore it too must be retrofitted to "go back in
time" to get it up to it's former standard and the boards along the ice
surface need to be replaced due to NHL saftey standards of today if the
building is going to be in use as an NHL venue. Point three, the seating
in the arena needs to be replaced with "like" seating. A coat of pain on
the inside couldn't hurt either to get rid of all of the years of use
and staining. Point four, it has been spoken of that the plumbing in the
building has suffered from leaks all the way from minor faucet and water
leaks to major stuff such as sewer line blockage and rupture. Those
issues will need to be dealt with as a matter of public saftey as well.
Where do you suggest that the revenue come from to deal with THOSE
issues as well Gary ? If it is going to BE an Historical Landmark, then
it MUST be maintained if it is in USE. Guess what Gary...The State, City
of Pittsburgh, and good old Alleghany County are gonna have to come up
with dollars to do what is needed and required. And sooner or later it
will come down to a point where folks are gonna get tired of throwing
good money after bad. And THEN you'll get the new Arena....Penguins or not.

things I notice each and every time I have been to the Igloo since I
have relocated. Whether or not the folks of the State, The City, or
Alleghany County and the surrounding area get a new venue is of no real
consequnce to me. The Penguins will likely relocate and I will always
follow the TEAM. As I have for the past 32 years of my life. BUT, the
City will have it's historical Landmark which I would hope that someday
someone real brave will go ahead and name proudly, the "Gary J. English
Center". Because there most likely won't be much inside it except alot
of empty unused space...oh wait...was I reffering to your thoughts or
the empty arena...DOH ! sometimes I can't tell. And yes...before you
call me a punk or whatever I really could care less about whatever name
you wish to attach to me. And YES...that statement was condescending and
I think right on point with the thoughts of whoever has weighed in on
this subject. You, however, seem to be the only opposing viewpoint here.

Gary...have a blast here...type to your hearts content....knock yourself
out.

Oh..one more thing before I forget...if anyone in Pittsburgh wants to
talk about TIF for an arena...I suggest you get hold of the folks in
Bloomington and Richfield, Minnesota. Best Buy did a WHALE of a number
to the area... All new roads, bridges and a HUGE new complex for their
corporate offices. I pass it almost daily. It's a great structure. And
Great Roads. But guess what...Best Buy "outsourced" most ALL of the work
that would have been done there. No cars in the parking lot(s) on a
daily basis because no one works there any longer...and the Best part is
Best Buy won't need to pay a dime for any of it. Although I think in the
case of Pittsburgh for a new arena at least THAT building will see much
more use.

Have A Nice Day

Paul

gary j. english

You attack the messenger and won't deal with the facts. It is an easy out for you.

Then don't whimper or complain of my posts. But you just had to create this post for that very reason.

Not much thought required, it is obvious. Creating a thread bearing my name and the
numerous responses makes that very clear.


Delight? Not hardly. It is an accurate assessment.

Funny, you make issue to me using the term "Punk", which is accurate assessment and
in response to the classless verbiage spewed by Keith, SlideTuba, The Wraith.

But it's okay for them to spew; "You insidious moron,assholes like you,mental
patient,Jesus H. Christ,You ****ing idiot, You dumbass, liar, insignificant buffoon,
loudmouth idiot, stupid, psycho, Jackoff."

If your memory needs to be refreshed review:

Subject: Re: Insults, personal attacks & innuendos
Message-ID: <oalfi09mlpluubf1dk0809a45qtd33m9pg@4ax.com>

All pertinent message ID's and verbiage are included. Sorry, I don't have to stoop
as low as the intelligence quotient in this newsgroup to discuss the subject matter.

I most certainly agree.

In this newsgroup, I do believe that I am in the minority. Overall, I believe that
the majority of the public does not support the use of public dollars for a new
sports venue. This belief is predicated on my many contacts with the public, letters
to the editor in both the Tribune-Review and Post-Gazette and several polls taken
over the last 5 years.

That is certainly my or any other's right to do so. You shouldn't have a problem with that.


First, a real need has to be established. I don't think the case has been made,
especially adding a mere 1,200 seats. I still believe that a more lucrative lease
for the Penguins at the current venue is a more viable option. A new lease is
something that has to be done anyhow, as we both know that it is set to expire 2005-06.......


There are many exceptions, but the most stringent is the exterior of the facility.

Maybe, maybe not.

First, recognize that the facility has a constant revenue stream of $3.2 million in
RAD Tax revenue. Second, is the possibility of dedicating the 5% amu*****t tax
generated from the facility for it's preservation/improvement.

If you are cognizant of the last proposal, the SEA and the Penguins funding plan was
$278 million for a new 18,200 seat venue. That is barring cost overruns and the
current bond debt of $26.9 million.

According to the Allegheny County Property Assessment web site, the assessed value of
the Civic Arena was determined by a cost-replacement approach for $123.2 million, or
less than half of the cost of building a new one.

See:
http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/General.asp?SearchBloLot=0002C00400000000&SingleResult=True&CurrBloLot=0002C00400000000

Let the Penguins buy it at the assessed value. It rids the county of the debt and
the Penguins would be entitled to all of the parking revenue, concession revenue,
events revenue and advertising inside the facility.


Again, refurbishment is fluid. The guidelines are more stringent on the facilities'
exterior than on the interior.

The building has been renovated, as many improvements have been made in the last
seven years. Can more be made, certainly.


I don't believe the roof needs to be "rebuilt" in order for it to open. The new
scoreboard's weight with four jumbotron TV's is one of the main factors that the dome
is not opened. Either remove or replace the jumbotrons with lighter weight
technology tvs or increase cantilever supports to maintain the current scoreboard.


There have been many reasons given to why the dome has not been opened. The weight
of the scoreboard, leaks and the cost of electricity. Does anyone really know the
correct answer, regardless of the Penguins desire for a new facility?

Interestingly, both PNC Park and Heinz Field were designed to show off the cityscape
with opened end stadiums. This is a feature that the Civic Arena has since it was
first build in 1961.


Cost of new refrigeration unit is far less than building a new facility.

Sections A & B were replaced just a few years ago. You might remember that the seat
cushions were too big and cut down on the leg room, so they were replaced a second time.


A coat of paint and/or steam cleaning is far less than building a new facility. It
was about 7 years ago that the stainless steel dome was steamed/chemically cleaned.

Your fourth point is covered under "general maintenance".

If it is municipally owned; RAD Tax ($3.2 million annually) and 5% amu*****t tax.
However, I would like to see the possibility of the facility being privately owned.
The Penguins as the leading candidate would be entitled to all of the revenue streams.

Privately owned, the revenue streams of hockey, concerts, other sports, circus, truck
and tractor, et al can supply the needed revenue for the maintenance.

Besides, there are tax advantages given to Historical Sites.


Municipally owned, they have via the RAD and Amu*****t tax.

Privately owned would fulfill those needs, with all of the revenue steams going to it's new owner.


That is the mindset of Americans, which runs contra to European nations.

And I could make the same observations, having traveled to various NHL venues.


Fine, but then you shouldn't have a beef with me, expressing my opinions, especially
if Pittsburghers/Pennsylvanians may be asked to pay for it.

I am not advocating it, but that is their choice.

Up until this point, you were civil, without condescending remarks.....


I had only used that term (fitting) for those that used expletives and crude remarks,
of which you have not......


Is it any surprise that I would be one of the few with a viewpoint "Pro-preservation"
in a hockey newsgroup?

What about Columbus, OH.......it was done without tax dollars.

Pittsburgh, great roads......that's a laugh. Our biggest exports, educated
workforce, potholes and good paying jobs.


Which I think would be difficult, not impossible in here. Pittsburgh is a union
town.

Even if/when a new arena is built, it will not cure the ails of the city and the
number of people leaving the area due to high taxes and the lack of good paying job
opportunities.

You too. Thanks for your civil reply.

Gary J. English

paul

Lets all agree on one thing.

Gary is a whack job..plain and simple. And NO Gary...I don't feel that I
need to filter you out to join into whatever this forum/newsgroup wants
to debate on. If you think that some of the people in here are rather
infatuated with you...you must like it otherwise you would practise some
restraint in your replies as well. But then again, anyone who feels like
others GUYS are infatuated with them must have "issues" more pressing
upon them than just an Arena debate. As far as what I CHOOSE to reply to
here and why...those are matters for myself, as is the same God Given
and American Right that you have here.

But you seem to delight in replying to everyone of your "Punks" here as
much as they enjoy doing it to you. Must be nice to have so many "Peeps"
in here Gary. If you wish to percieve any of what I have said here as a
personal attack or an affront to your sensibilities...yippy skippy. That
is why this forum/newsgroup exists in the first place. I'll say this for
you...you certainly do love to shovel whatever it is you are shoveling.

As far as whatever public sentiment is concerned, the WHOLE idea of
replacing or retrofitting the Arena is up to the PEOPLE. The folks who
pay the taxes. And IF, or should I say when that day arrises, in
whatever form the monies take, be it slots, TIF financing, or any such
public dollars and you find yourself in the (then) minority..I could
well imagine that you would be the very first person down at the
Alleghany County Court House to file whatever it would take to put the
project on hold. The FACT remains, that IF you are going to use the idea
that the Arena is an historical landmark and not tear it down for
replacement, then you cannot retrofit it either. Historical landmarks in
this country may be maintained as is or restored to what they once were
when they were constructed. And the historical aspect of the Arena's
future refurbishment would therefore fall upon the taxpayers again. You
can't have it both ways in saying that you cannot tear it down to
replace it because it is a landmark of historical value and then turn
around and refuse to fund it's refurbishment through the taxes of the
state which classified it as such. So your argument is moot either way.
One way or another the building needs renovation and IF as an historical
landmark, that landmark MUST have it's roof rebuilt to allow it to do
what it was originally designed to do and that is open. As far as I know
that dome hasn't opened in years and probably can't or shouldn't be
attempted TO be opened.

Point two...again, using the landmark route here, the ice surface is the
WORST in the NHL. Therefore it too must be retrofitted to "go back in
time" to get it up to it's former standard and the boards along the ice
surface need to be replaced due to NHL saftey standards of today if the
building is going to be in use as an NHL venue. Point three, the seating
in the arena needs to be replaced with "like" seating. A coat of pain on
the inside couldn't hurt either to get rid of all of the years of use
and staining. Point four, it has been spoken of that the plumbing in the
building has suffered from leaks all the way from minor faucet and water
leaks to major stuff such as sewer line blockage and rupture. Those
issues will need to be dealt with as a matter of public saftey as well.
Where do you suggest that the revenue come from to deal with THOSE
issues as well Gary ? If it is going to BE an Historical Landmark, then
it MUST be maintained if it is in USE. Guess what Gary...The State, City
of Pittsburgh, and good old Alleghany County are gonna have to come up
with dollars to do what is needed and required. And sooner or later it
will come down to a point where folks are gonna get tired of throwing
good money after bad. And THEN you'll get the new Arena....Penguins or not.

things I notice each and every time I have been to the Igloo since I
have relocated. Whether or not the folks of the State, The City, or
Alleghany County and the surrounding area get a new venue is of no real
consequnce to me. The Penguins will likely relocate and I will always
follow the TEAM. As I have for the past 32 years of my life. BUT, the
City will have it's historical Landmark which I would hope that someday
someone real brave will go ahead and name proudly, the "Gary J. English
Center". Because there most likely won't be much inside it except alot
of empty unused space...oh wait...was I reffering to your thoughts or
the empty arena...DOH ! sometimes I can't tell. And yes...before you
call me a punk or whatever I really could care less about whatever name
you wish to attach to me. And YES...that statement was condescending and
I think right on point with the thoughts of whoever has weighed in on
this subject. You, however, seem to be the only opposing viewpoint here.

Gary...have a blast here...type to your hearts content....knock yourself
out.

Oh..one more thing before I forget...if anyone in Pittsburgh wants to
talk about TIF for an arena...I suggest you get hold of the folks in
Bloomington and Richfield, Minnesota. Best Buy did a WHALE of a number
to the area... All new roads, bridges and a HUGE new complex for their
corporate offices. I pass it almost daily. It's a great structure. And
Great Roads. But guess what...Best Buy "outsourced" most ALL of the work
that would have been done there. No cars in the parking lot(s) on a
daily basis because no one works there any longer...and the Best part is
Best Buy won't need to pay a dime for any of it. Although I think in the
case of Pittsburgh for a new arena at least THAT building will see much
more use.

Have A Nice Day

Paul

gary j. english

You attack the messenger and won't deal with the facts. It is an easy out for you.

Then don't whimper or complain of my posts. But you just had to create this post for that very reason.

Not much thought required, it is obvious. Creating a thread bearing my name and the
numerous responses makes that very clear.


Delight? Not hardly. It is an accurate assessment.

Funny, you make issue to me using the term "Punk", which is accurate assessment and
in response to the classless verbiage spewed by Keith, SlideTuba, The Wraith.

But it's okay for them to spew; "You insidious moron,assholes like you,mental
patient,Jesus H. Christ,You ****ing idiot, You dumbass, liar, insignificant buffoon,
loudmouth idiot, stupid, psycho, Jackoff."

If your memory needs to be refreshed review:

Subject: Re: Insults, personal attacks & innuendos
Message-ID: <oalfi09mlpluubf1dk0809a45qtd33m9pg@4ax.com>

All pertinent message ID's and verbiage are included. Sorry, I don't have to stoop
as low as the intelligence quotient in this newsgroup to discuss the subject matter.

I most certainly agree.

In this newsgroup, I do believe that I am in the minority. Overall, I believe that
the majority of the public does not support the use of public dollars for a new
sports venue. This belief is predicated on my many contacts with the public, letters
to the editor in both the Tribune-Review and Post-Gazette and several polls taken
over the last 5 years.

That is certainly my or any other's right to do so. You shouldn't have a problem with that.


First, a real need has to be established. I don't think the case has been made,
especially adding a mere 1,200 seats. I still believe that a more lucrative lease
for the Penguins at the current venue is a more viable option. A new lease is
something that has to be done anyhow, as we both know that it is set to expire 2005-06.......


There are many exceptions, but the most stringent is the exterior of the facility.

Maybe, maybe not.

First, recognize that the facility has a constant revenue stream of $3.2 million in
RAD Tax revenue. Second, is the possibility of dedicating the 5% amu*****t tax
generated from the facility for it's preservation/improvement.

If you are cognizant of the last proposal, the SEA and the Penguins funding plan was
$278 million for a new 18,200 seat venue. That is barring cost overruns and the
current bond debt of $26.9 million.

According to the Allegheny County Property Assessment web site, the assessed value of
the Civic Arena was determined by a cost-replacement approach for $123.2 million, or
less than half of the cost of building a new one.

See:
http://www2.county.allegheny.pa.us/RealEstate/General.asp?SearchBloLot=0002C00400000000&SingleResult=True&CurrBloLot=0002C00400000000

Let the Penguins buy it at the assessed value. It rids the county of the debt and
the Penguins would be entitled to all of the parking revenue, concession revenue,
events revenue and advertising inside the facility.


Again, refurbishment is fluid. The guidelines are more stringent on the facilities'
exterior than on the interior.

The building has been renovated, as many improvements have been made in the last
seven years. Can more be made, certainly.


I don't believe the roof needs to be "rebuilt" in order for it to open. The new
scoreboard's weight with four jumbotron TV's is one of the main factors that the dome
is not opened. Either remove or replace the jumbotrons with lighter weight
technology tvs or increase cantilever supports to maintain the current scoreboard.


There have been many reasons given to why the dome has not been opened. The weight
of the scoreboard, leaks and the cost of electricity. Does anyone really know the
correct answer, regardless of the Penguins desire for a new facility?

Interestingly, both PNC Park and Heinz Field were designed to show off the cityscape
with opened end stadiums. This is a feature that the Civic Arena has since it was
first build in 1961.


Cost of new refrigeration unit is far less than building a new facility.

Sections A & B were replaced just a few years ago. You might remember that the seat
cushions were too big and cut down on the leg room, so they were replaced a second time.


A coat of paint and/or steam cleaning is far less than building a new facility. It
was about 7 years ago that the stainless steel dome was steamed/chemically cleaned.

Your fourth point is covered under "general maintenance".

If it is municipally owned; RAD Tax ($3.2 million annually) and 5% amu*****t tax.
However, I would like to see the possibility of the facility being privately owned.
The Penguins as the leading candidate would be entitled to all of the revenue streams.

Privately owned, the revenue streams of hockey, concerts, other sports, circus, truck
and tractor, et al can supply the needed revenue for the maintenance.

Besides, there are tax advantages given to Historical Sites.


Municipally owned, they have via the RAD and Amu*****t tax.

Privately owned would fulfill those needs, with all of the revenue steams going to it's new owner.


That is the mindset of Americans, which runs contra to European nations.

And I could make the same observations, having traveled to various NHL venues.


Fine, but then you shouldn't have a beef with me, expressing my opinions, especially
if Pittsburghers/Pennsylvanians may be asked to pay for it.

I am not advocating it, but that is their choice.

Up until this point, you were civil, without condescending remarks.....


I had only used that term (fitting) for those that used expletives and crude remarks,
of which you have not......


Is it any surprise that I would be one of the few with a viewpoint "Pro-preservation"
in a hockey newsgroup?

What about Columbus, OH.......it was done without tax dollars.

Pittsburgh, great roads......that's a laugh. Our biggest exports, educated
workforce, potholes and good paying jobs.


Which I think would be difficult, not impossible in here. Pittsburgh is a union
town.

Even if/when a new arena is built, it will not cure the ails of the city and the
number of people leaving the area due to high taxes and the lack of good paying job
opportunities.

You too. Thanks for your civil reply.

Gary J. English

paul

Mr. English,

First off I would like to Thank you for some of the "civility" included
throughout the course of the rather lengthy debate on the issue of
"RetroFit vs Rebuilding" the arena. It is normally my intent to offer
opposing viewpoints based on my own perceptions, however flawed they may
seem to others, with a modi*** of proper decorum given the forum we have
found ourselves in. Debate, it would seem is a lost art form in this
country, when name calling and the "Win at ALL cost" mentality seems to
have taken foothold, no matter the issue. For the most part it has been
my intention here to show you, without the use of name calling and
bashing,(however I have used a small share of minor terminology myself)
several of the multitude of reasons why the Igloo, be it known formerly
as the Civic Arena or the more modern term of the Mellon Arena needs
what it needs. Aside from the perception, again however right or wrong
on my part, as seeing your postings as those of a person who I would
consider effite and snobbish basing his viewpoints of his own self
interest versus that of a common good.

As to you your points about RAD financing and the $3.2 million (is that
correct ?) that is used for maintenance of the facility as it stands
today. $3.2 million dollars is a laughable sum of money when you
consider the size and useage scope of the facility itself. If I may, I
make my living in the airline industry, and not with USAirways, but on
average, the average narrow body type aicraft in service with any
airline today in buisness, recieves far more dollar for dollar amount in
parts alone on a yearly basis than does the Igloo based upon your
numbers if I have quoted them correctly. And that doesn't include
maintenance cost for widebody style aircraft of any US carrier which is
considerably higher. My point is that on a dollar basis $3.2 million for
a facility the size of the Igloo to maintain it in good order isn't
going to go very far. And it shows. Both on the exterior and the
interior of the facility.

Now, you bring up the issue of they way we are in America versus Europe
in the way we deal with change in our architecture. Europe is many many
hunders of years older than our own country and thus their heritage is
much deeper. If we had a society similar to Europe, we would have mass
transit that actually worked, churches and other buildings that would
stand the test of time, and highways that were not always pothole
ridden. But the trade off to having all that in Europe, is that their
citizenry pays for it through more taxation, Great Britain for exapmle
and the countries of France and Germany. Yes, they have all of the
architectural wonders of Europe becuase of the heritage they have
enjoyed through the centuries of their existances. As a case in point of
modernization look to Paris and the retro fitting of DeGaulle
International Airport...MANY times over and only recently completed a
rebuild only to find that it wasn't up to a good saftey standard and it
collapsed. London's Gatwick airport as well as Heathrow, have undergone
much retro fitting to bring them into the "modern age". Sadly, in our
country we have found ourselves always doing cost/benefit ****ysis's to
decide how long to keep anything. Be it your home, your home's exterior
or interior upkeep, your car. Which brings me back to the issue of the
Igloo. How long must something stand as a landmark, slowly degenerating
due to age, lack of upkeep...proper upkeep given the limited budget that
you refer to, before the people who pay for that upkeep, and let us not
forget that each year prices for whatever you want inch up...be it labor
or products to employ that labor to maintain something, deepen the
divide of just how much CAN be accomplished on the same budgetary
demands. By your own admission you do not want to pay any higher taxes
on anything. So if that taxation stays the same, and the prices for the
goods and services go up, how far can you go on $3.2 million ? Not far.
So at that point it becomes an issue of throwing good money after bad.
And the idea of showing more is diminished greatly. How far do you
drive your car before it becomes an issue of how much more do I want to
spend to keep her in good and safe condition before you decide to throw
in the towel and say time for a new(er) one. This isn't a question of
asthetics in deciding when to raze the Igloo in favor of a new facility.
It is a degree of acceptablity to the public at large.

As to negotiating a new lease..that will work. But only up to a point as
SMG is in the buisness to make money as is any other buisness in this
country, and I am fairly sure that they don't want to loose anything as
much as you don't want to pay a higher tax. And SMG at some point will
realize that even through their ownership of the lease on the Igloo they
are responsible for alot of the dollars needed in it's upkeep. The added
revenue through a new lease would benefit the Pens only if SMG lowered
what it is taking already and as I think I attempted to point out, SMG
isn't likely to renew a lease lower for it's only primary tenant if they
are the only game in town. However, if the Pens were to outright
purchase the Igloo, were it possible, then they could pretty much do
what they wanted. Which is kinda unlikely given their financial
straights as well as the NHL league at large.

As to the idea of costs versus useage of opening the dome, Yes, I agree,
with the jumbo trons they have it would make it exceptionally improbable
to open it. But factoring in whatever infra structure it would take to
allow the dome to open that in and of itself would be rather costly due
to the architecture of the building. As to the electrical cost to
actually open it if the jumbo trons weren't in place....irrelevant.

And, as I had pointed out previously, the State of Minnesota, the City
of St.Paul and the surrounding communities benefittted greatly from the
new Excel Energy Center and the recent NHL All Star game played this
past season. If I recall correctly the additional revenue to all
concerned was perhaps slightly under $80-$90 million in outside dollars
exclusive of the team (the Wild). So to have a new(er) facility brings
in some pretty serious income. And these dollars were spent by patrons
during the span of perhaps a week or less. So perhaps it WOULD be of
beneficial goals to consider that potential revenue stream as well.

Comparing the new(er) facility to PNC park and Heinz field, at least to
me, is not a real true comparison. Because they are both "single use
facilities". Whereas the Igloo and it's potential replacement are multi
use facilities and the revenue streams for that facilities use would be
greater when compared to PNC Park. To me it was real sad day when Three
Rivers was demolished. Where were the gains to the city when the Pirates
have perrenially gotten rid of the players they have in favor of draft
picks and prospects. And please, before you go off and say that the Pens
have done this same thing, they have, but NOT NEARLY to the extent that
Pirates management has done over the years. And then that brings the
issue of why go see a team that it's own management doesn't believe in ?
What does the fan think of either the team or the expenditure in the
facility when management is in a constant battle to stay in a low
position ? So at that point the Pirates don't draw, even with a new
facility, the fans that they could have. In the NHL, there are always
periods of time, due mainly to economics of each team, where they MUST
dismantle what they had in favor of what they will have. And you have
what the Pens have had. Bad seasons due in large part to "band aid"
fixes to what they should have done after Ron Francis left, and Mario
went into retirement the first time. Beging the rebuilding then. But Mr.
Marino and Mr. Baldwin inherited a NHL franchise from the DeBartolo
family that was doing WELL. And these two gentlemen in my opinion ruined
what could have been one of the "small market powerhouses" in the league
for YEARS to come. Instead they mortgaged the future of the team on a
few select players and ran it into bankruptcy. That I believe is
historical fact. And the team at large suffered. Now, unfortunatley you
have the rebuilding in full swing. And the players, at least in the last
1/4 of last season had what it took as a team to go places. The fans
notived. The kids, Orpik, Malone, Fluery, all helped draw fans back.
Recchi will too. And if I am not mistaken the Pens ARE in a financial
condition where the health of the team is improving. They are doing,
right now what every other GM in the league is doing and that is
awaiting the outcome of the impending CBA discusions.

Have your points as you have made them valid.....some would say no,
others would agree on principle, but like most people they are governed
by their passions for particular things, be it a sports team or anything
else. Time, I belive will prove me right I think. The Igloo will end up
as part of some city wide rennovation to showcase the city. If it isn't
or isn't deemed worthy then Pittsburgh, as it is now, will continue it's
slide into malaise and mediocraty as a large city in this country.
Whatever the case can be made to improve itself, Pittsburgh NEEDS a
facelift. A fresh(er) start than what it has to offer. And you yourself
implied that the biggest exports from the area were high educated jobs
and other industries. The sports facilities that are new go along way
towards that. Can I say that on a dollar basis the folks in the 7 county
metro area got their monies worth ? Of course I can't, I no longer
reside back there. Therefore I can only speculate on what I have seen
personally. Greater Pittsburgh International Airport is fast becoming a
"focus city" which is a euphamism to say not real important. Is that
what the formerly known as "The City of Champions" wants ? Not many
jobs, abit of an environmental mess, rotten roads, lack of corporate
industrial base, and not much for people to do when they are there?

I'll finish this with this one single thought. Given the fact that
Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania is a FOOTBALL area, if the Steelers
were to be sold or relocate for whatever reason, do you think that the
fans, die hard as they are, would stand one moment for it ? Or would
they demand of their civic leadership to find ways to do something about
it and spend those tax dollars eararked for it prudently ? And spend
them on what the PEOPLE want ? I think that if the Steelers left...or
hinted at leaving, the civic leaders would move Heaven and earth to find
ways to bend over backwards to keep them there.

If I can take one more moment....in Minnesota, we had a team in the NHL,
The North Stars. The reason that they left was due in LARGE part to an
exceptioanlly greedy owner who departed for Dallas. We spent a very long
dry stretch without a team in place. When the NHL awarded a new
franchise to the area....it was met with GREAT APPLAUSE and what I can
tell you is that even as an expansion team, the Wild have sold out every
game...every single one. And it WAS partly due to the fact that the new
arena they play in is simply put a premier place to see a game....good
sight lines, not a bad seat in the house...inexpensive and QUALITY in
the concessions. If you are a drinking man, the drinks are abit on the
pricey side, but the food is of good quality and not pricey. So I would
ask...dollar for dollar where is that dollar best spent...? On a new
facility with the capabilty of drawing better crowds for any event,
hockey or circus or whatever....or retrofitting an aging facility that
will eventually turn into a money pit that will likely get replaced
regardless of wether or not the Penguins are there to play in it or not ?

Of course it is up to the citizens....it always has been. The type of
stadium debate has been raging up here in Minnesota for YEARS concerning
the Twins in Baseball or the Vikings in Football. They both play in the
Metrodome, which was built twenty years ago when I first set foot up
here. They BOTH, the Twins and the Vikings will not agree to a dual use
stadium...nor will they agree to sharing revenue with each other. Both
want new....and they want want what Milwaukee got in Miller Park, are
you familiar with THAT fiasco and the whole thing was predicated on the
say so of Mr. Bud Selig. Who by they way defaulted on every cent of the
loans he got through the state and the taxpayers ended up picking up the
tab anyway. But fortunately for Bud...his family still owns the Brewers.
Gee...I wonder how that happened ? Truth is that the LAW and Lawmakers
allowed it. Not the people, ultimately decided what happened there. If
you want to lay the blame on any of this....blame the right people who
allowed it to happen...

I'll close this for now....as I said I had originally intended for some
serious civility in the discourse...I don't much care for delving into
the gutter with all that name calling and bashing. which is why for the
most part I CHOOSE not to do it.

Respectfully,

Paul

Your thoughts....and please...it is hard to follow someone when the snip
and reply to segment's of anything so that is why I start fresh like this.

gary j. english

You are welcome, I wish others would extend the same........

To a degree, I have to agree.......and it is like the slots issue, it won't go away
till they get what they want.


We can agree to disagree. But no mention is ever given about the 5% amu*****t tax
that is generated by the facility. That's another revenue stream that should be
discussed when talking about the upkeep and improvements.


I don't see how that is a good comparision, whereas airplanes are high maintenance
machines, carrying hundreds of lives in each of it's planes several times a day.
That's a lot different than a structure.

And our heritage is routinely destroyed. It can and should be preserved for future generations.

Alot can be said for that, but the politics, oil prices, et al are alot different in
Europe vs United States.


You have placed too much emphasis on retrofitting. The proposed arena would only
increase seating capacity by 1,200. The cost at $304.9 million makes the cost per
seat to high, which is a point raised in the cost ****ysis.

Much of the financial aspects the Penguins want could be addressed with a new lease
without building a new facility.


I agree that costs via labor/material continue to increase. And no matter what the
annual funding is, unless it escalates to keep up with rising costs/inflation, the
facility would suffer.

So, this facility was completed in September 1961. Forty-three years later, we still
owe $26.9 million. What the heck is going on? How come the debt is never paid off?
Why do they have to refinance to get improvements done? Where is the escrow account?
The list goes on.......

I understand the point you raise, but the facility is adequate for hockey, and only
the Penguins are clamoring for a new one.

Based on several news accounts and polls, I don't believe the public feels that it is
acceptable to finance a new hockey venue.

If a new arena is proposing the use of public dollars, why not put it up for a vote?


Yes, it will. It resolves many issues, without the use of public dollars.


I do not know the legality of the SMG association is. If possible, they should be
removed from the picture when the lease is up. An outright purchase of the Arena is
a possibility. Consider what the assessed value and debt is on the arena versus the
Penguin's proposed financial contribution for a new venue, it might be a worthy idea.

It's an amenity, whether they choose to use it or not. I still have to question the
electric costs. I know that some bands made opening the dome a prerequisite to
holding a concert there years ago, ie. Pink Floyd, America and James Taylor.

If a new venue brings in some pretty serious income, then private enterprise should
be jumping on it. Reap the rewards.


So, an arena is a multi-use facility. All more the reason that it should be more
profitable to build one. Let the Penguins build one if they want one. Personally, I
don't think a new one will cure their financial ails for many reasons.

Agreed.

And, while I will not support either the Pirates or Stealers, I will state that
estethically, they did a good job on PNC Park, but Heinz Field is butt ugly.


The team did not significantly improve and also lost $10 million each of the first three years.


Salary dumping has been done by both teams........


Look at the attendance figures, I do believe that there is a steady decline.


Key point: "Economics" and most of that is tied to gate receipts and player salaries.


Inherited, or purchased?


It is the product or "small market powerhouses" that bring in the fans. Gate
receipts is the largest part of the revenue stream, as TV contracts are not nearly as
lucrative as they are in the NFL or MLB. So the NHL is to dependent on gate receipts
and the salaries are killing the league.

Yes, a lower payroll, with younger, less experienced and developing talent.


I would hope that it would be the case, but I know that Lemieux will not allow the
current financially compete with his proposed facility. Building a new hockey venue
will seal the fate of the "Igloo".


Pittsburgh needs to stop wasting tax dollars and stop imposing more taxes. The City
can not take care of what it already has, let alone build more infrastructures.


Yes, I did. Lack of jobs, due to companies/industries leaving the area, caused by
high taxation and lack of good infrastructure.

It should be the last thing that should be done with discretionary dollars.


The Pittsburgh International Airport is another white elephant. And the business
model was flawed. It was built bigger than what we needed and they put all of their
eggs into one basket with a "dominant carrier" in USAirways. Now that they've
ditched the lease and look to be heading into bankruptcy, it wasn't too smart for
them to have a dominant carrier without some safe guards.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a beautiful airport, just not practical for Pittsburgh's needs.

And very high property taxes. Look at the number of Sheriff Sales in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Mondays.......


Fans or taxpayers? Based on the RRI vote outcome, I think you could find your answer there.


Talk to our Congress, craft federal legislation to prevent the extortion of public
funds throught sports teams threats of interstate flight. Also eliminate the
anti-trust exemptions in professional sports.

Fine, if the people really want that. Let's put it up for another vote. It's the
very foundation of our government.


Gee, didn't they already do that? The RRI was voted down and they still built the stadiums.......


Was it extortion? Based on getting government funding for a new venue.

If not, it is certainly their right to do so. That's their business.


A mononoply......remember the anti-trust exemptions?

If a team can get fan support and sell a high percentage of season tickets, it would
be warranted in building a venue to start up the business. It should indicate that
it can run a profitable franchise if they are selling out games and not spending more
than they take in on gate receipts.

I still believe that it should not be done with government dollars, building sports venues.


Funny, early on, proponents for a new Penguin arena complained about sight lines,
when it was a crock of shi......!


For the most part, I believe that the concession prices are out of line. It also
makes it harder for the average "Joe" or family to afford tickets, with concession
and parking costs.

I also take issue to a public funded facility, when the teams will not allow the fans
to bring in outside food.


With the current state of affairs, I don't think the current venue, retro venue or a
new facility will cure the Penguins' financial ails.


In an ideal world, you are correct. But it has not always been. Classic example is
the Regional Renaissance Initiative and it was voted down and the politicians built the stadiums anyhow.


And the issue has been brewing in Northern Virginia and Washington, DC for a baseball
team. VA has a stadium authority and no stadium or team. There were a couple of
interesting articles in the Washington Times on August 28 and 29th on the Montreal
Expos, MLB and Virginia/DC getting the team.


Shame on them........greed.

Let them want, and let them pay for it themselves.


Who is part of the problem.


Great investment, huh?

Yes, you are correct. The politicians allowed it and it doesn't say much elected
officials or representative government.

Greed, kickbacks, graft and corruption.


I agree, and refrain from doing so. However, it is tiring to see those that have to
use expletives and insult to attack the messenger, rather than dealing with the issue


I agree, that is something that Keith continues to do.

Thank you for your thoughtful post, though I will respectfully disagree with most of
it.

Regards,

Gary J. English

paul

Mr. English,

First off I would like to Thank you for some of the "civility" included
throughout the course of the rather lengthy debate on the issue of
"RetroFit vs Rebuilding" the arena. It is normally my intent to offer
opposing viewpoints based on my own perceptions, however flawed they may
seem to others, with a modi*** of proper decorum given the forum we have
found ourselves in. Debate, it would seem is a lost art form in this
country, when name calling and the "Win at ALL cost" mentality seems to
have taken foothold, no matter the issue. For the most part it has been
my intention here to show you, without the use of name calling and
bashing,(however I have used a small share of minor terminology myself)
several of the multitude of reasons why the Igloo, be it known formerly
as the Civic Arena or the more modern term of the Mellon Arena needs
what it needs. Aside from the perception, again however right or wrong
on my part, as seeing your postings as those of a person who I would
consider effite and snobbish basing his viewpoints of his own self
interest versus that of a common good.

As to you your points about RAD financing and the $3.2 million (is that
correct ?) that is used for maintenance of the facility as it stands
today. $3.2 million dollars is a laughable sum of money when you
consider the size and useage scope of the facility itself. If I may, I
make my living in the airline industry, and not with USAirways, but on
average, the average narrow body type aicraft in service with any
airline today in buisness, recieves far more dollar for dollar amount in
parts alone on a yearly basis than does the Igloo based upon your
numbers if I have quoted them correctly. And that doesn't include
maintenance cost for widebody style aircraft of any US carrier which is
considerably higher. My point is that on a dollar basis $3.2 million for
a facility the size of the Igloo to maintain it in good order isn't
going to go very far. And it shows. Both on the exterior and the
interior of the facility.

Now, you bring up the issue of they way we are in America versus Europe
in the way we deal with change in our architecture. Europe is many many
hunders of years older than our own country and thus their heritage is
much deeper. If we had a society similar to Europe, we would have mass
transit that actually worked, churches and other buildings that would
stand the test of time, and highways that were not always pothole
ridden. But the trade off to having all that in Europe, is that their
citizenry pays for it through more taxation, Great Britain for exapmle
and the countries of France and Germany. Yes, they have all of the
architectural wonders of Europe becuase of the heritage they have
enjoyed through the centuries of their existances. As a case in point of
modernization look to Paris and the retro fitting of DeGaulle
International Airport...MANY times over and only recently completed a
rebuild only to find that it wasn't up to a good saftey standard and it
collapsed. London's Gatwick airport as well as Heathrow, have undergone
much retro fitting to bring them into the "modern age". Sadly, in our
country we have found ourselves always doing cost/benefit ****ysis's to
decide how long to keep anything. Be it your home, your home's exterior
or interior upkeep, your car. Which brings me back to the issue of the
Igloo. How long must something stand as a landmark, slowly degenerating
due to age, lack of upkeep...proper upkeep given the limited budget that
you refer to, before the people who pay for that upkeep, and let us not
forget that each year prices for whatever you want inch up...be it labor
or products to employ that labor to maintain something, deepen the
divide of just how much CAN be accomplished on the same budgetary
demands. By your own admission you do not want to pay any higher taxes
on anything. So if that taxation stays the same, and the prices for the
goods and services go up, how far can you go on $3.2 million ? Not far.
So at that point it becomes an issue of throwing good money after bad.
And the idea of showing more is diminished greatly. How far do you
drive your car before it becomes an issue of how much more do I want to
spend to keep her in good and safe condition before you decide to throw
in the towel and say time for a new(er) one. This isn't a question of
asthetics in deciding when to raze the Igloo in favor of a new facility.
It is a degree of acceptablity to the public at large.

As to negotiating a new lease..that will work. But only up to a point as
SMG is in the buisness to make money as is any other buisness in this
country, and I am fairly sure that they don't want to loose anything as
much as you don't want to pay a higher tax. And SMG at some point will
realize that even through their ownership of the lease on the Igloo they
are responsible for alot of the dollars needed in it's upkeep. The added
revenue through a new lease would benefit the Pens only if SMG lowered
what it is taking already and as I think I attempted to point out, SMG
isn't likely to renew a lease lower for it's only primary tenant if they
are the only game in town. However, if the Pens were to outright
purchase the Igloo, were it possible, then they could pretty much do
what they wanted. Which is kinda unlikely given their financial
straights as well as the NHL league at large.

As to the idea of costs versus useage of opening the dome, Yes, I agree,
with the jumbo trons they have it would make it exceptionally improbable
to open it. But factoring in whatever infra structure it would take to
allow the dome to open that in and of itself would be rather costly due
to the architecture of the building. As to the electrical cost to
actually open it if the jumbo trons weren't in place....irrelevant.

And, as I had pointed out previously, the State of Minnesota, the City
of St.Paul and the surrounding communities benefittted greatly from the
new Excel Energy Center and the recent NHL All Star game played this
past season. If I recall correctly the additional revenue to all
concerned was perhaps slightly under $80-$90 million in outside dollars
exclusive of the team (the Wild). So to have a new(er) facility brings
in some pretty serious income. And these dollars were spent by patrons
during the span of perhaps a week or less. So perhaps it WOULD be of
beneficial goals to consider that potential revenue stream as well.

Comparing the new(er) facility to PNC park and Heinz field, at least to
me, is not a real true comparison. Because they are both "single use
facilities". Whereas the Igloo and it's potential replacement are multi
use facilities and the revenue streams for that facilities use would be
greater when compared to PNC Park. To me it was real sad day when Three
Rivers was demolished. Where were the gains to the city when the Pirates
have perrenially gotten rid of the players they have in favor of draft
picks and prospects. And please, before you go off and say that the Pens
have done this same thing, they have, but NOT NEARLY to the extent that
Pirates management has done over the years. And then that brings the
issue of why go see a team that it's own management doesn't believe in ?
What does the fan think of either the team or the expenditure in the
facility when management is in a constant battle to stay in a low
position ? So at that point the Pirates don't draw, even with a new
facility, the fans that they could have. In the NHL, there are always
periods of time, due mainly to economics of each team, where they MUST
dismantle what they had in favor of what they will have. And you have
what the Pens have had. Bad seasons due in large part to "band aid"
fixes to what they should have done after Ron Francis left, and Mario
went into retirement the first time. Beging the rebuilding then. But Mr.
Marino and Mr. Baldwin inherited a NHL franchise from the DeBartolo
family that was doing WELL. And these two gentlemen in my opinion ruined
what could have been one of the "small market powerhouses" in the league
for YEARS to come. Instead they mortgaged the future of the team on a
few select players and ran it into bankruptcy. That I believe is
historical fact. And the team at large suffered. Now, unfortunatley you
have the rebuilding in full swing. And the players, at least in the last
1/4 of last season had what it took as a team to go places. The fans
notived. The kids, Orpik, Malone, Fluery, all helped draw fans back.
Recchi will too. And if I am not mistaken the Pens ARE in a financial
condition where the health of the team is improving. They are doing,
right now what every other GM in the league is doing and that is
awaiting the outcome of the impending CBA discusions.

Have your points as you have made them valid.....some would say no,
others would agree on principle, but like most people they are governed
by their passions for particular things, be it a sports team or anything
else. Time, I belive will prove me right I think. The Igloo will end up
as part of some city wide rennovation to showcase the city. If it isn't
or isn't deemed worthy then Pittsburgh, as it is now, will continue it's
slide into malaise and mediocraty as a large city in this country.
Whatever the case can be made to improve itself, Pittsburgh NEEDS a
facelift. A fresh(er) start than what it has to offer. And you yourself
implied that the biggest exports from the area were high educated jobs
and other industries. The sports facilities that are new go along way
towards that. Can I say that on a dollar basis the folks in the 7 county
metro area got their monies worth ? Of course I can't, I no longer
reside back there. Therefore I can only speculate on what I have seen
personally. Greater Pittsburgh International Airport is fast becoming a
"focus city" which is a euphamism to say not real important. Is that
what the formerly known as "The City of Champions" wants ? Not many
jobs, abit of an environmental mess, rotten roads, lack of corporate
industrial base, and not much for people to do when they are there?

I'll finish this with this one single thought. Given the fact that
Pittsburgh and Western Pennsylvania is a FOOTBALL area, if the Steelers
were to be sold or relocate for whatever reason, do you think that the
fans, die hard as they are, would stand one moment for it ? Or would
they demand of their civic leadership to find ways to do something about
it and spend those tax dollars eararked for it prudently ? And spend
them on what the PEOPLE want ? I think that if the Steelers left...or
hinted at leaving, the civic leaders would move Heaven and earth to find
ways to bend over backwards to keep them there.

If I can take one more moment....in Minnesota, we had a team in the NHL,
The North Stars. The reason that they left was due in LARGE part to an
exceptioanlly greedy owner who departed for Dallas. We spent a very long
dry stretch without a team in place. When the NHL awarded a new
franchise to the area....it was met with GREAT APPLAUSE and what I can
tell you is that even as an expansion team, the Wild have sold out every
game...every single one. And it WAS partly due to the fact that the new
arena they play in is simply put a premier place to see a game....good
sight lines, not a bad seat in the house...inexpensive and QUALITY in
the concessions. If you are a drinking man, the drinks are abit on the
pricey side, but the food is of good quality and not pricey. So I would
ask...dollar for dollar where is that dollar best spent...? On a new
facility with the capabilty of drawing better crowds for any event,
hockey or circus or whatever....or retrofitting an aging facility that
will eventually turn into a money pit that will likely get replaced
regardless of wether or not the Penguins are there to play in it or not ?

Of course it is up to the citizens....it always has been. The type of
stadium debate has been raging up here in Minnesota for YEARS concerning
the Twins in Baseball or the Vikings in Football. They both play in the
Metrodome, which was built twenty years ago when I first set foot up
here. They BOTH, the Twins and the Vikings will not agree to a dual use
stadium...nor will they agree to sharing revenue with each other. Both
want new....and they want want what Milwaukee got in Miller Park, are
you familiar with THAT fiasco and the whole thing was predicated on the
say so of Mr. Bud Selig. Who by they way defaulted on every cent of the
loans he got through the state and the taxpayers ended up picking up the
tab anyway. But fortunately for Bud...his family still owns the Brewers.
Gee...I wonder how that happened ? Truth is that the LAW and Lawmakers
allowed it. Not the people, ultimately decided what happened there. If
you want to lay the blame on any of this....blame the right people who
allowed it to happen...

I'll close this for now....as I said I had originally intended for some
serious civility in the discourse...I don't much care for delving into
the gutter with all that name calling and bashing. which is why for the
most part I CHOOSE not to do it.

Respectfully,

Paul

Your thoughts....and please...it is hard to follow someone when the snip
and reply to segment's of anything so that is why I start fresh like this.

gary j. english

You are welcome, I wish others would extend the same........

To a degree, I have to agree.......and it is like the slots issue, it won't go away
till they get what they want.


We can agree to disagree. But no mention is ever given about the 5% amu*****t tax
that is generated by the facility. That's another revenue stream that should be
discussed when talking about the upkeep and improvements.


I don't see how that is a good comparision, whereas airplanes are high maintenance
machines, carrying hundreds of lives in each of it's planes several times a day.
That's a lot different than a structure.

And our heritage is routinely destroyed. It can and should be preserved for future generations.

Alot can be said for that, but the politics, oil prices, et al are alot different in
Europe vs United States.


You have placed too much emphasis on retrofitting. The proposed arena would only
increase seating capacity by 1,200. The cost at $304.9 million makes the cost per
seat to high, which is a point raised in the cost ****ysis.

Much of the financial aspects the Penguins want could be addressed with a new lease
without building a new facility.


I agree that costs via labor/material continue to increase. And no matter what the
annual funding is, unless it escalates to keep up with rising costs/inflation, the
facility would suffer.

So, this facility was completed in September 1961. Forty-three years later, we still
owe $26.9 million. What the heck is going on? How come the debt is never paid off?
Why do they have to refinance to get improvements done? Where is the escrow account?
The list goes on.......

I understand the point you raise, but the facility is adequate for hockey, and only
the Penguins are clamoring for a new one.

Based on several news accounts and polls, I don't believe the public feels that it is
acceptable to finance a new hockey venue.

If a new arena is proposing the use of public dollars, why not put it up for a vote?


Yes, it will. It resolves many issues, without the use of public dollars.


I do not know the legality of the SMG association is. If possible, they should be
removed from the picture when the lease is up. An outright purchase of the Arena is
a possibility. Consider what the assessed value and debt is on the arena versus the
Penguin's proposed financial contribution for a new venue, it might be a worthy idea.

It's an amenity, whether they choose to use it or not. I still have to question the
electric costs. I know that some bands made opening the dome a prerequisite to
holding a concert there years ago, ie. Pink Floyd, America and James Taylor.

If a new venue brings in some pretty serious income, then private enterprise should
be jumping on it. Reap the rewards.


So, an arena is a multi-use facility. All more the reason that it should be more
profitable to build one. Let the Penguins build one if they want one. Personally, I
don't think a new one will cure their financial ails for many reasons.

Agreed.

And, while I will not support either the Pirates or Stealers, I will state that
estethically, they did a good job on PNC Park, but Heinz Field is butt ugly.


The team did not significantly improve and also lost $10 million each of the first three years.


Salary dumping has been done by both teams........


Look at the attendance figures, I do believe that there is a steady decline.


Key point: "Economics" and most of that is tied to gate receipts and player salaries.


Inherited, or purchased?


It is the product or "small market powerhouses" that bring in the fans. Gate
receipts is the largest part of the revenue stream, as TV contracts are not nearly as
lucrative as they are in the NFL or MLB. So the NHL is to dependent on gate receipts
and the salaries are killing the league.

Yes, a lower payroll, with younger, less experienced and developing talent.


I would hope that it would be the case, but I know that Lemieux will not allow the
current financially compete with his proposed facility. Building a new hockey venue
will seal the fate of the "Igloo".


Pittsburgh needs to stop wasting tax dollars and stop imposing more taxes. The City
can not take care of what it already has, let alone build more infrastructures.


Yes, I did. Lack of jobs, due to companies/industries leaving the area, caused by
high taxation and lack of good infrastructure.

It should be the last thing that should be done with discretionary dollars.


The Pittsburgh International Airport is another white elephant. And the business
model was flawed. It was built bigger than what we needed and they put all of their
eggs into one basket with a "dominant carrier" in USAirways. Now that they've
ditched the lease and look to be heading into bankruptcy, it wasn't too smart for
them to have a dominant carrier without some safe guards.

Don't get me wrong, I think it is a beautiful airport, just not practical for Pittsburgh's needs.

And very high property taxes. Look at the number of Sheriff Sales in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Mondays.......


Fans or taxpayers? Based on the RRI vote outcome, I think you could find your answer there.


Talk to our Congress, craft federal legislation to prevent the extortion of public
funds throught sports teams threats of interstate flight. Also eliminate the
anti-trust exemptions in professional sports.

Fine, if the people really want that. Let's put it up for another vote. It's the
very foundation of our government.


Gee, didn't they already do that? The RRI was voted down and they still built the stadiums.......


Was it extortion? Based on getting government funding for a new venue.

If not, it is certainly their right to do so. That's their business.


A mononoply......remember the anti-trust exemptions?

If a team can get fan support and sell a high percentage of season tickets, it would
be warranted in building a venue to start up the business. It should indicate that
it can run a profitable franchise if they are selling out games and not spending more
than they take in on gate receipts.

I still believe that it should not be done with government dollars, building sports venues.


Funny, early on, proponents for a new Penguin arena complained about sight lines,
when it was a crock of shi......!


For the most part, I believe that the concession prices are out of line. It also
makes it harder for the average "Joe" or family to afford tickets, with concession
and parking costs.

I also take issue to a public funded facility, when the teams will not allow the fans
to bring in outside food.


With the current state of affairs, I don't think the current venue, retro venue or a
new facility will cure the Penguins' financial ails.


In an ideal world, you are correct. But it has not always been. Classic example is
the Regional Renaissance Initiative and it was voted down and the politicians built the stadiums anyhow.


And the issue has been brewing in Northern Virginia and Washington, DC for a baseball
team. VA has a stadium authority and no stadium or team. There were a couple of
interesting articles in the Washington Times on August 28 and 29th on the Montreal
Expos, MLB and Virginia/DC getting the team.


Shame on them........greed.

Let them want, and let them pay for it themselves.


Who is part of the problem.


Great investment, huh?

Yes, you are correct. The politicians allowed it and it doesn't say much elected
officials or representative government.

Greed, kickbacks, graft and corruption.


I agree, and refrain from doing so. However, it is tiring to see those that have to
use expletives and insult to attack the messenger, rather than dealing with the issue


I agree, that is something that Keith continues to do.

Thank you for your thoughtful post, though I will respectfully disagree with most of
it.

Regards,

Gary J. English