Fans upset with 'Lemieux's ruse'
Call it Lemieux's ruse.
Some Penguins fans today said they were unhappy that team owner Mario Lemieux duped them -- and public officials -- into thinking he was going to move the team from Pittsburgh if he didn't get a new arena.
"Fans really got behind the team when we felt there was a threat he could move the Pens," said Chris Fellers, 45, of Turtle Creek. "We all thought it didn't matter who got the casino license as long as the Penguins stayed in town."
During 18 months of negotiations, Lemieux threatened to move the team if city, county and state politicians didn't find a way to help pay for a new arena. Lemieux and fellow majority co-owner Ron Burkle traveled to Kansas City and Las Vegas in the weeks before an arena financing deal was reached in 2007.
During a groundbreaking ceremony yesterday for a $290 million arena, Lemieux said leaving Pittsburgh "wasn't a possibility."
Kristin O'Neil, 28, of the South Side said Lemieux's threat was nothing but a way to get what he wanted.
"He knew how to strike at the heart of the fans and the city," she said. "I think he really duped the people of Pittsburgh, and he'll definitely get away with it because of who he is."
Lemieux admitted the visits were a negotiating tactic.
"He bluffed, and no one called him on it," said Caryn Lordes, 43, of Millvale. "In the end, he got what he wanted. It makes me lose some respect for Mario, because the way he said it was like he knew it was a little wrong."
But Steve Adler, 20, of Shadyside said he didn't care how the deal got done.
"The Pens are here, they're going to be here for a long time and they're gonna win a bunch of (Stanley) Cups in the new building," he said. "The fans got what we wanted, and Mario is still our hero."
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.