ShareThis Page
Editorials

Trib editorial: Pirates' priority not what fans had in mind

| Friday, Feb. 9, 2018, 9:37 a.m.
Pirates fans fill PNC Park during Opening Day ceremonies in March 2014. (Trib photo)
Chaz Palla | Tribune-Review
Pirates fans fill PNC Park during Opening Day ceremonies in March 2014. (Trib photo)

Pittsburgh Pirates fans want to see more investment in their home team's roster. Team management wants to see more money from the Sports & Exhibition Authority for PNC Park.

Are the Pirates purposely trying to foul-tip the fans?

At issue are what the SEA and Pirates define as “capital improvements.” The SEA and Allegheny County on Thursday approved a $2.6 million payment to the Pirates for PNC Park's upkeep after the 2016 season, based on what their consultants said was necessary. Those ballpark improvements are funded by a 5-percent surcharge on tickets, leaving a $2.5 million fund balance after the latest payment.

Pirates Senior VP Bryan Stroh said the Buccos spent more than $10 million on improvements during the off-season and insisted that the authority rightfully owes about $1.9 million — for which the team will sue, if necessary.

Such is the mess that unfolds with publicly financed sports stadiums. A similar dispute erupted between the Steelers and the SEA in 2012 over improvements at Heinz Field. Ultimately the Steelers agreed to pay that tab.

Presumably lawyers for the SEA and Pirates will hash out what's “fair” under terms of the ballpark's lease. But will a resolution lead to an even higher ticket surcharge at PNC Park?

Given fans' ire over recent Pirates' trades, if team management wants the SEA to pay for new stadium seats, which the SEA consultants say are unnecessary, team management should first consider whether future Pirates games are going to fill those seats.

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 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.

click me