ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Let's trade Billionaire Bob

| Wednesday, Feb. 7, 2018, 9:10 p.m.

I applaud the editorial “Pirates owner ignores fans' anger at his peril” and Kevin Gorman's excellent “Pirates owner Bob Nutting now face of franchise,” about “Bottom-line Bob.” Each piece highlights fan disappointment and concludes that fans have few recourses in getting Billionaire Bob to improve fan and taxpayer return on investment with PNC Park.

The articles and 50,000-signature petition will do little to change the business approach, as evidenced by Pirates President Frank Coonelly's recent “speech” on a local radio station. Fans are wasting their time directing their ire toward Nutting. Instead, they should take to task nonelected Pittsburgh Sports & Exhibition Authority (SEA) officials to amend the PNC Park lease to include performance incentives similar to many other business arrangements.

Why do we have the SEA? Because Pittsburgh taxpayers contributed $176 million of the $216 million — almost 82 percent — to construct PNC Park. This is a massive public subsidy to the 10th richest owner in baseball — money that could have been spent educating our youth, housing our homeless or plowing our snow-covered streets.

The SEA has a fiduciary duty to oversee the use of taxpayer money. If that doesn't work, maybe the fans can trade Billionaire Bob to the Dallas Mavericks for Mark Cuban and “future considerations.”

Kevin White


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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