It's the only baseball team that we have here in Pittsburgh.

And if they lose the Pirates, we have nothing else.

The Pirates are Pittsburgh.

You know, they're not going to be Jacksonville or anywhere else.

I would like to see the Pirates leave this city and cease darkening our landscape.

I mean, you can walk down that street right there at night and see people sprawled on, on the ground.

It would be great if they spend that 10 or $15 million and provide a shelter, instead of providing shelters for millionaires already.

I don't think they really need a stadium.

I think they need new one, like a hole in the head.

Believe me.

Everybody has an opinion about Pittsburgh and the Pirates.

From the man on the street to the mayor's office.

The Pirates are in the news and on the minds of people.

Today there is a single bidder, Adelphia Communications, and the John Rigas family, negotiating with the mayor to become the new owner.

What happens next?

Will the new Pirate ownership succeed and keep the team in Pittsburgh?

How important is it to keep a major League Baseball team here?

What are the economic realities?

How bad would it be if the Pirates did leave town?

Can we afford what it might take to keep them here?

One issue is Three Rivers Stadium.

It's 20 years old.

Do we need a new baseball only stadium?

In Cleveland, the new Jacobs Field has brought new life not only to baseball in Cleveland, but also to the downtown area.

It's a great success, even though it only opened this year and closed in mid-season when Major League Baseball went on strike.

It was financed with special taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, and with the heavy investment of private citizens.

In Baltimore, there is the relatively new Camden Yards, which is also highly successful.

Like Cleveland, it's a comfortable ballpark, an intimate place where fans and families believe that the traditions of baseball can be carried on.

And it is also the core of an integrated downtown Baltimore development and redevelopment program.

The financing in Baltimore was heavy state investment, including a new state lottery.

So what about Pittsburgh and the economics of baseball for the long term future of this city and this region?

To discuss these issues, here is moderator Doctor J. Dennis O'Connor, Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh.

Good evening.

I'm Dennis O'Connor.

The subject is baseball, not the game, but the economics.

How important is it to all of us if we lose or keep the Pirates in Pittsburgh?

I should say at the beginning that we invited both Mira Murphy and John Rigas to join the panel, but both declined and for the same reason, namely, that both felt the negotiations between them for the new ownership agreement are too delicate at this moment.

Nevertheless, there is much that we can and should discuss.

During the next hour, we want to raise many questions about whether there is or isn't an economic payoff for the people of Pittsburgh and the region in investing, whatever it may take to keep major League Baseball.

Here to help us look at the issues, are the panelists.

James C. Roddey is a Pittsburgh businessman and civic leader who combines media investments and management with public service.

He has also been an avid follower of the baseball situation.

Earl F Hord is the president and chief executive officer of Minority Enterprise Corporation, an entrepreneurial organization.

Mr.

Hord was previously the Commissioner of Aviation for the City of Chicago, and has also had a distinguished career in banking.

He was born and raised in Pittsburgh.

Doctor C Jake Haulk has been following the economics of baseball in Pittsburgh from several vantage points, including studies for the Pennsylvania Economic League.

He has been an economist with Mellon Bank and is now an economic consultant.

Bob Smizik, columnist for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and has followed the fortunes of the Pittsburgh Pirates on a day to day basis, not only for the Post-Gazette but before that for the Pittsburgh Press.

Let me start the discussion by asking Jim Roddey, I guess the basic economic question, and that is, are the Pirates a keep it all cost proposition?

Or, I suppose, Jim, a different way of phrasing it would be how does the financing of the Pirates fit in with the fiscal realities of Pittsburgh?

It's a very complicated and difficult question.

Is it a keep at all cost?

Probably not at all cost, but at least at the cost that we have identified to date that is worth keeping the Pirates here.

The team is worth somewhere between 90 and $130 million, depending on which study you listen to.

And that's that's annually to the economy of Pittsburgh.

It probably accounts for about 1500 jobs, maybe the equivalent of about 500 full time jobs, but 90 to 130 million.

Let's say it's 110 million.

Let's take an average.

That's a very, very important impact to the community.

What would this community do and what resources would we put forth to attract a company to come to Pittsburgh that would contribute 90 to $100 million to the economy?

I think the mayor has done a marvelous job in, in guiding the, the, the process to date.

And I think that we can justify the city's $20 million that they put up initially, that they will probably now defer.

I think we can justify trying to build a new stadium because I think it is important, perhaps even more psychologically than economically.

We are just now beginning to emerge from the devastating loss of steel industry.

150,000 jobs went away.

We've replaced some of those jobs with a medical and educational centers, and we now are beginning to have a good reputation in both of those areas, and a reputation for having changed our city and turned it around.

For us, now, to lose the Pirates would be, I think, psychologically devastating for Pittsburgh and for Pittsburgh's leadership.

Jake, Jim has obviously put some numbers on the table in terms of economic development.

You've studied economic development in baseball in particular.

How does the economic development play out?

Excusing the pun, but with baseball.

Let me just go back to something Jim referred to.

There is been floating around for several years now, a figure on how much the Pirates are worth.

My own work suggests that that figure is probably inflated based on the methodology of the work that generated it.

I'm not at all sure that we're talking about nearly that much impact on the economy.

From the benefit standpoint.

Let me just summarize what the benefits of having the Pirates are and then I'll get to your question about the development.

There is clearly an effect on the region's morale and stature from having the Pirates here, but that's a non quantifiable thing.

The contribution to the economy, as I just said, it's probably not all that great in terms of a net effect.

After all, any major league team is going to export more money from the region than than it brings in.

That's just the nature of the beast.

And that money is money that could have been circulating in the economy and generating more employment and so forth.

But there is another valuable benefit that we get from having the Pirates, and that is the national free advertising that goes along with having a major league sports franchise.

Some work that I've done suggests that we're looking at, on the order of 20 to $30 million in free advertising on television, radio, newspapers around the country.

So I think from that standpoint, the Pirates are of great benefit.

In terms of economic development, there are two questions.

One is do they attract business here who come because their employees would like to go to baseball games, or because they can use it for business development?

Or do businesses stay here because the Pirates are here and they can use it for those same reasons?

There's not a lot of evidence on whether having a baseball team brings companies into a region.

Other studies have shown that the development that does occur that's related to baseball tends to be retail and service kinds of employment, and these tend to be lower wage jobs except for the front office and the teams.

The the studies that I've looked at suggest that development around a stadium tends to be of a of a service and retail variety.

So I guess where I'm coming out on all this is that there are very positive things from having a team, some of which are not quantifiable in terms of the economics per se.

I think it's a wash.

I don't think it matters a great deal whether we have the teams here, and we've seen evidence in other cities where teams have left.

It just doesn't matter that much to the economy for the main reason that they're just not that big.

Even with the numbers that Jim is talking about, that's less than a quarter of a percent of the region's economy.

Its just not that important.

They could go away entirely and it wouldn't be a ripple in the data.

It seems to me that a lot of those economic impact figures are somewhat misleading.

If I take my family to a Pirate game and I spend, say, $75 that goes into the $110 million, but if I don't take them to that Pirate game, I'm still spending money in the region.

I'm not going to bury it in my backyard.

So I've never put much stock in those economic impact figures.

And as far as publicity for the city, that doesn't make a lot of sense.

And maybe this isn't the most the best analogy, but this city got so much attention for sports in the 1970s with four Super Bowls, two World Series and a national championship in football.

But the 80s were the worst decade for this city has had, this region has had in in a century.

Everyone's streaming out of here, so I don't know how much good all the publicity does.

I don't know how much good being on Monday Night Football and having light up night really translates into helping helping the community.

Earl, Bob just mentioned a key word in this whole conversation; community.

If we're going to pay to keep the Pirates, is that the community's top priority?

I don't think that it is the communities top priority, Dennis.

As a matter of fact, I question whether what we're spending today on what we're spending to keep the Pirates today provides a kind of support systems that the community needs.

When you when you begin to talk about some of the basic problems that pervade every single community in this nation where crime is on the rise, where educational problems are there, and we begin to talk about a game, literally a game, and spending hundreds of millions of dollars to sustain a team.

I began to question our priority sets.

On the other side of that coin, however, when you begin to talk in terms of a larger economic development effort and a stadium being an integral part of a whole process of a whole economic development stimulant package, then it begins to make sense.

Isolate it and off to itself, no, I don't think that it's worth it.

Combined with with other elements that would stimulate the economy, yeah, I think it might be worth it.

I think you need to be careful, however, that you don't keep isolating things like the Pirates and say, well, we could lose that and we'd be all right.

We could do that with the symphony.

We could lose the symphony, and we would be all right.

We could lose the penguins and we would be all right.

We could lose the aviary and the zoo, and we would be all right.

But you can't lose all of them.

That's right.

And and keeping them together as a package that that this is a major first class city, that we have professional sports, we have recreation, we have culture.

We have all of those things that people look for when they are making a decision about where to locate their company or whether to move there to take a job.

And I think all of those things go into the fabric of, of, of a community.

And it's important that we not isolate them and say, well, we can do without this one or this one.

I would agree to some extent with what Jim is saying.

The other side of that, though, is, as Earl points out, there's a lot of public money that's going into this, and I think the public is right to ask, are they getting their money's worth?

And we need to do the kind of hard nosed benefit cost analysis that shows with in the case of the symphony, you got a lot of private money that supports that and with the with the baseball team or the football team, whatever it is, we need to have a good handle on whether or not we're getting our money's worth before we just say, well, it's part of a package and we better keep them.

I think that's... - I don't know if we have the time, though, to make that decision because I think very quickly, Pittsburgh and the leaders of the city and whoever the new owners are going to be, are going to have to decide on a new stadium.

And I personally think the Three Rivers Stadium is fine.

If you saw the All-Star game, it was a terrific, terrific facility.

But it's been bad rap ever since it opened up.

People complained about the parking, getting in and out of it, and it just has a bad reputation in town.

Now people have seen what's happened in Baltimore and Cleveland, I think absolutely need a new stadium here.

And it's something that we can't wait four or five years to do.

I think it's going to you're going to have to start planning for it within the year.

I think, though, when you talk about a new stadium, you are really fueling the problem that Earl has pointed out about the community.

It is one thing for the city to commit $20 million to keep the Pirates here, to to make a deal on the lease, on the stadium lease.

We some of that money is a wash.

Because remember, with the new regional assets district and the redistribution of the funds, the city will get part of that money back for the stadium lease.

But when you start talking about building another $140 million stadium, when we still owe 45 million on the old stadium, and we haven't retired those bonds.

We've got to have help from from the private sector.

We've got to have help from the state.

Probably one of the things that's being counted on is riverboat gambling coming in and making a huge contribution toward building a new stadium.

Is that what we want to do with with all of our resources?

We're going to be very quickly putting all of the city's future on Major League Baseball.

And that's I'm not sure that that's a that's a wise decision.

I'd say, without a dedicated source of revenue, like the special lottery that they have in Maryland, or a tax on tobacco and alcohol the way they have in Cleveland, I think it's a nonstarter.

And I think it would be a serious economic mistake to go with this, depending on the city or the county, to to back revenue bonds, for example.

Let me ask Bob a question.

Bob, you followed the Pirates on a daily basis.

Write about them and you're in contact with a lot of people who support them, the fans.

But clearly the lead in interviews to this show revealed at least a number of people not being very happy with the Pirates, and really didn't care if the Pirates left.

What's what's your read on the community support for, say, a special tax, as Jake has indicated?

Do you think that would be something that would carry in this?

I think people would be extremely upset about having to pay for a new stadium.

I don't know how else you can do it, but it seems to me the sentiment here among the majority of the population is that the new stadium would be fine.

We don't want to have to pay for it.

I think it was done fairly painlessly in Baltimore And in Cleveland, the syntax in Cleveland was very meniscal.

You know, it may have been a penny or two on a draft and maybe a dime or a quarter on a six pack in the lottery in Maryland also was a great way to do it.

And I know there is talk about doing having a lottery done in Pennsylvania, but it just seems to me that the it would have to be presented to the public in such a fashion that they're not going to have to pay for the most for the large share of it.

And if they do, it have to come in a way that wouldn't hurt them.

Let me ask a different, perhaps a different way asking that question if if you build it, they will come, will they?

Well, I think they'll come.

There's no doubt in my mind they'll come.

I think if it's built in the right place, it'll be a great success like it was in Baltimore, in Cleveland.

But will they come in five years and will they come in ten years?

That question hasnt been answered in Baltimore and Cleveland, and we don't know whether it will in Pittsburgh.

There is a body of evidence, I think, and it's strictly in attendance, figures that this region does not do a great job of supporting Major League Baseball.

We had in the 70s.

We had, I guess, the best team in baseball, one of the best teams in baseball and some very poor attendance figures.

Now, I think the Pirates have done a marvelous job in marketing this team since, since since the current ownership took over.

But there's no guarantee that because of the size of this market, it is the whole baseball.

The way baseball concerts market is, it's one of the smallest.

There's no guarantee this market is big enough to support Major League Baseball.

- He identified, I would agree with that.

As a matter of fact, carry just one step further.

There are some serious question as to whether Pittsburgh is large enough to support a baseball team.

Attendance records have shown over time that as as the population decreases, so does attendance goes the same way we're an older population, which means that the income stream is a fixed income stream, and the cost of going to the ball game continues to increase.

So there's a real serious question as to whether this community can indeed, over the longer haul, support a major League Baseball team.

The other thing is, is that when we begin to apply our resources, as was pointed out by Jim earlier, to spend the dollars necessary to develop a stadium and to develop the jails, to me is a misuse of the funds and the resources that we have at our disposal.

There are much more efficient ways that we can use these dollars and benefit the larger population much more significantly.

Let me give you some interesting statistics about attendance and our population area.

The Pirates Mark Sauers, president, and Steve Greenberg is the marketing VP, as Bob has said, have done a marvelous job.

We have a population area of 2.8 million.

We draw a potential out of that of about 85%.

We draw almost 2 million in attendance.

Cincinnati draws over 3 million, but they are drawing from an area of 8 or 9 million.

We, the Pirates, actually draw better than any team in baseball.

There are number one in all of baseball in percentage of the population that they bring into the stadium, which says to us our market is not large enough.

And in fact, perhaps 20 years from now, there's going to be a World league.

There'll be a team in London and Tokyo and Mexico City and maybe a half a dozen or a dozen cities in the United States that can afford teams.

And the rest of us will all be watching on pay per view.

Jim, let's raise the question of media.

Is there a way that media can help us solve the issue of a small population base in which they have a baseball team?

- Media in itself cant.

The the baseball league can if it shares its revenues and even with John Rigas deep pockets and even if he negotiates a very favorable deal with the owners, baseball cannot survive in Pittsburgh unless there is a change in the fundamental way that the league works in its salary cap and its revenue sharing.

Jake is at the or, Bob, do you think that's going to going to happen in our lifetime?

What?

The salary cap?

The salary cap and the revenue sharing?

I think some some form has to happen or Major League Baseball cannot survive, as we've known it.

And as Jim said, and I agree 100% small market teams that do not have the cable TV revenue just can't compete with Los Angeles or New York or Chicago.

It won't happen.

I think we will see a change in baseball's revenue structure.

That's why there's a strike right now.

And I think the owners are in the process of winning that strike.

I think what's going to happen is that they are going to announce that the camps are going to open in February, and we're going to take the best 25 players north, and you will see some of the players breaking ranks in the union and reporting to camp, and I think the others will slowly trickle in.

There are a lot of players out there who either up in years or realize they have a talent that does not have a long life to it, a pitcher, for example.

If an example, a guy like John Smiley, he's had arm surgery, he's making a couple of million dollars a year.

I can't imagine someone like John Smiley not reporting to camp if he's told to.

So there is going to be a new economics in baseball.

And as has been said, that's the only way baseball can survive here.

It won't put Pittsburgh on an even footing with the other teams, with the New Yorks and the Los Angeles, but will enable them to compete with those teams so that sometimes they can have the best team.

An open question to to anyone who wants to jump in with the answer or their thoughts on it.

To what extent has the economics of baseball, with the high salaries, with the population base, if you will, the owners versus the players at this point?

How much is that affected the community's willingness to run out and support a team?

I frankly believe that it's had an awful lot of an impact when you when you see a 240 or 250 ballplayer talking about earning in the millions per per season for the for the number of games they play.

That to me is ludicrous.

And and I just think that first of all, their overpaid.

Secondly, I think that the problems that exist between the management, the front office and the players, that is not new.

This is something that's been going on for a period of time is another major issue, and I really believe that people are dissatisfied with the dollars that the players get, and also dissatisfied with the fact that it's a controversy.

It's a game.

It's supposed to be fun.

It's supposed to be lighthearted.

Now it's serious big business.

And I don't think that helps it out at all.

And I think two free agency has changed the nature of baseball.

Most of us grew up with a team that we identified with.

We knew the players.

We knew the players that were going to be there next year.

We knew the players that were coming up.

Players spent a career in a community.

They got to be a part of the community, and now I don't know half the players on the roster when the season begins and by the end of the season, after I finally know who they all are the next year, they're all gone.

And I've got a new group to to learn and kids don't relate.

Kids coming up.

The fans of tomorrow simply don't relate to baseball the way they used to.

I think Jim has hit on two good points.

One is the free agency, the other is what's happening with the children.

Are they going to be baseball fans as they get older?

If you look at the growth of attendance at baseball games over the past 15 years, there's no problem with baseball.

I mean, the game is alive.

It's well, I mean, look, if you go to Cleveland or Baltimore or Denver, they got 50,000 people in a stand for a for a weeknight game.

I mean, that's incredible.

The game is popular.

I havent a concern about that.

It's question is which cities are going to be able to afford it with with the ending of the CBS TV contract, a lot of the money that was available, it's no longer there.

The lack of discipline on the part of owners and bidding up salaries in the free agent market.

All that has to change.

And I think, as Bob said earlier, we're getting ready to see some pretty substantial changes in the way Major League Baseball operates as a business.

If they don't, then we're going to be down to maybe 15 or 16 large market teams.

I wish the fans could see past the salaries.

They don't bother me that much.

And I know as a consumer of baseball, I'm going to come back if and when it starts up again.

I made a point taking my family to the last game last year because I thought it might be historic and I know my my sons were now teenagers really want to go back out and and see it again.

I look at these guys as entertainers and their salaries do not bother me.

You know, there's probably every boy in this country wants to be a baseball player, and that might be what?

There are 100 million males in this country and only 800 of them make it.

So I look at it as a rare talent of entertainment they have, and I think they're entitled to that money.

Well, maybe they are, but but whenever I go to a ball game and it cost me 75 to my wife and maybe one of my children, it cost me 75 to 100 to $150 for the evening.

If I'm going to have dinner and have some refreshments at the ballgame.

And I look at the salaries and I began to relate what I've just spent to what I've just gotten in the way of entertainment, to the salary, to the guys that are out there.

I question it, I question this, and I think the general fan looks at it that way.

They're paying those salaries.

And the other problem is most of the people who are on the ball club I can't relate to, I don't know where they live.

And I know for for the most part, most of them don't live in Pittsburgh during the off season.

That creates another set of problems.

That's a big problem.

I think very few baseball players make so much money they don't need to have two they don't need.

They can have two residences.

Most of the Steelers live in Pittsburgh.

A lot of the Penguins live in Pittsburgh.

I think there are more ex-Pirates, Sid Bream and John Smiley living in the Pittsburgh area than there are Pirates, and I don't know that there's any solution to that other than players looking into their hearts and saying, oh, the community something.

But that's not going to happen.

I think that's a real drawback to people relating to the team.

If you want to see where baseball is alive and well, go to a minor league city and see the families that go and can afford to go and can afford the the, the parking and the in the hot dog and the peanuts and the players that are playing because they love the game and their in their one of a shot at the big time.

It's a different atmosphere.

I often wish that we could almost have that kind of atmosphere in Pittsburgh, but I know it's not possible.

You know, I remember too the the knothole days, and as a kid, I grew up with baseball and I would sneak in the ballpark and whenever I got a chance and if I had enough money, I would pay occasionally.

But it was a part of my life.

And Forbes Field and in my life and my growing up was, was important.

But I knew every player I knew there, I knew their batting averages, I knew where they were born and how old they were.

I agree with Jim.

Today I would be hard pressed to name ten of them that I know anything about intimately, and I think that's really a problem.

That's part of the problem.

They are not a part of the city.

It's a profession.

It's a business.

It's no longer the fun game that it used to be.

Of course, if you talk to the players, they'll say, those were the good old days for the fans and the owners, but they weren't particularly good old days for the players.

So with the with the Curt Flood ruling and the so on, with the development of the free agencies, the players have to some extent corrected the perceived imbalance.

But now we have a situation where.

The players salaries and the cost of running the teams are just breaking the small markets.

And the other side of the coin, of course, is the players are saying, well, in the old days you didn't have television.

Now you can you can learn about the players, you can see them play in any city across the country because we're on television.

And so it's a it's a different era.

I think, though, that that the real key is going to be the media package and whether or not we have a change in the, in the structure of baseball itself to share those revenues in Pittsburgh, the media package is probably worth all told, cable and television and radio, less than $10 million.

In New York, it's about $55 million, of which 40 million is comes from cable.

There's got to be some balance that can't continue in Pittsburgh, not just Pittsburgh, San Diego, Milwaukee.

There are a lot of cities that can't survive.

- But the owners have agreed to share revenue.

And now to how far that's going to go.

We don't know it.

As I said before, I think the large markets are always going to have the upper hand.

I think all the Pirates are looking for is a chance.

Yeah, chance to compete, that's all.

I think that will happen.

Early on, Jim, you mentioned that that it may not be a keep at all costs, but that to lose the Pirates would, would really be devastating psychologically.

If we're as a community going to get behind the Pirates, what are some of the first steps that the community may be able to control, as opposed to the owners and salary caps and revenue sharing?

Are there community activities or community efforts that that we can make that will be real, consistent with, with the kind of social priorities that we should have?

Well, I think getting kids, young people, boys and girls to the games, having some sort of program to bring them back to the stadium would be important.

Maybe, maybe a take a page out of Big Brothers and Sisters organization.

And we have a big fan and little fans and and we have mentors.

Everybody in Pittsburgh will go to a game and take a boy or take a girl to a game, those kinds of things.

I think we need minority ownership in participation, if we build a new stadium.

I think that's important, and I think the mayor has asked for that.

And I think John Rigas has pledged to do his best to try to to make that part of the mix.

Bob and I were talking earlier, if we could put a new stadium down in the middle of the city between one Mellon and the steel building, and revitalize downtown Pittsburgh with the restaurants and the shops and make the first 2 or 3 levels of that stadium retail space, perhaps building a new stadium is not as crazy as it sounds, because then it really becomes an economic stimulus for not just baseball, but for the entire city and for the entire downtown.

Certainly the example in Cleveland, I think, is, Bob, you probably have the specifics or Jim.

The stadium was built on about 12 acres or some such amount of land downtown, and one of the keys was that there was no parking, so you had to walk to the stadium.

And by doing that, you really enhanced the local area.

Although perhaps, Jake, as you pointed out, with with not particularly high paying jobs, but retail jobs, and there was certainly a... - I think, I think in the case of Cleveland, the whole thing made more sense because they had a good site.

It's easily accessible by interstate.

They do have a lot of parking in the city that's within comfortable walking distance.

I think you have to take all that into account.

And there's some other developments associated with it the new basketball arena and so on.

That makes this an attractive package.

And you have to remember too, that Cleveland in some ways needed this a lot more than Pittsburgh did when they started talking about this.

Cleveland's been going through a major economic revitalization, and this is one part of it.

And it makes sense for them.

And I applaud them for their vision.

But I'll go back to a point, Bob made, we see a lot of success in Baltimore and in Cleveland with attendance at these new stadiums.

What's going to be the picture 5 or 10 years from now when it's no longer a novelty?

I think we have to be a little more careful and not just jump on bandwagons because there's a nice effect 2 or 3 years into it.

And think about the longer term and whether this is a good investment overall as compared to doing something else that Earl might see as more beneficial to the city and to the people he's concerned about.

Since we're talking about the stadium and we're talking a little bit about the economics of that and how one funds it, what happens to Three Rivers if, in fact, the community decides to get behind and build a new baseball stadium?

It seems to me that the Three Rivers would be very difficult to support.

With perhaps eight football games a year, the dollars don't seem to make any sense.

Well, there's no question that it would be more difficult.

However, we'd have a lot more shows, rock shows, rock concerts that don't have to work around the the baseball schedule.

It would become a lot more convenient to schedule things there.

So I think that would be a significant help.

I think a lot has been said that the the Steelers are concerned about being a sole tenant over there.

They are only because they're afraid that that their needs will be overlooked.

They're only there 8 or 9 games a year.

We're not going to worry about repairs and things like that.

But if, if, if that was taken care of properly, the Steelers would love being an only tenant over there that have much more space, much more office space, much more locker room facility and weight room facilities.

It could work out to be a good situation if the city is willing, or whoever is in charge of over there is willing to make the commitment to keep to maintain the building.

That means, again, though, it seems to me, another outlay of dollars.

It's a short another another, another real costly solution.

I think you basically have to figure on writing offs, tens of millions of dollars against Three Rivers, which would essentially add to the cost of building the baseball stadium because of the loss of revenue from from that venue.

The stadium has to be subsidized right now by the city.

It's it's a small amount, 2 or $3 million, but it still needs a subsidy.

It's not self-sustaining.

And I guess there again, if you do take the Steelers out of there, unless you've got an awful lot of rock concerts coming, and I don't know that you're going to get that many of them, that you're just adding to the cost associated with keeping the Pirates in the city, if indeed a stadium is an integral part of it.

But I do agree with Jim when he talks about it being a larger issue.

And if you could have the boldness to begin to talk about a revitalization of the downtown area and not just talk about a stadium, but talk about all of the elements that go into making a stadium like Cleveland work.

One of the reasons that the Cleveland Stadium works is that they have a very efficient transportation system.

They have a very efficient parking system, so people can get into the stadium and get out very rapidly without the burden that you have, as you do around Three Rivers Stadium of massive parking and then of, of a of a traffic pattern and, and a transportation system that's totally inadequate for the number of people you want to attract.

So it's a huge, huge effort, not just a stadium, but you're talking about a whole package of things, including the retail outlets that may occupy parts of the stadium and help to subsidize some of the costs.

But I just can't see going willy nilly and building a baseball stadium at virtually any cost in order to keep the Pirates.

I think it's fool hardy.

Pittsburgh, unfortunately, does not have his sights equal to were they built in Baltimore or Cleveland.

I like the Center City site that's been talked about, but there are a lot of drawbacks there.

In Cleveland, the stadium is within walking distance, distance of of downtown, and it is also the juncture of four interstates.

So it's almost an ideal location.

Baltimore, they built it in the Inner Harbor area, which was already popular and had egress in excess, I guess, but Pittsburgh has nothing like that.

You either have to get kind of far away from town, at least far away walking distance, or build it right in the Mellon Bank lobby.

Mellon Bank lobby?

That's right.

There's barely enough room for a stadium.

But don't forget, if you put a stadium in that Center City location, you've got a you've got a subway stop right underneath.

And we could extend the subway doesn't have to be underground.

It can be over a bridge to the north side where we would have a lot of parking, and we can go to the south side with a lot of parking.

And you can go to Oakland, where there is at least at night, there's plenty of parking after everybody from the universities and the hospitals leave.

So I think it's possible to make that site work.

I think we need to take a long look if actually the location of the stadium may be as of a new stadium, may be as important as how you finance it, as to whether or not it's going to be a success and make it work in the city.

Yeah, I think Jim's right.

If this stadium is part of an overall economic development effort that brings people into town who now come to restaurants and shop, who don't do that because they're afraid to come in or they have no real drawing card.

It could be a real boost for the downtown area in the in the city as a whole.

But I would caution about the effectiveness of baseball only stadiums.

After all, Kansas City has a baseball only stadium and it it's not likely to save their bacon.

So there are a lot of things to consider here.

And I think the building a stadium anywhere in the Golden Triangle presents a lot of problems in terms of traffic that that planners need to think long and hard about.

I agree, but I think history.

The course of history has made it an absolute necessity that if this team is to stay here, a stadium be built, and I don't know that it's going to work on the north side or the the what is the Jones and Lachlan.

Yeah.

Okay.

Over there.

I think it has to be in the downtown area or else it's not going to work.

I think that's the only way you can really revitalize the economy.

Yeah.

There was one other thing that was mentioned here, Jim, and that was about local ownership and minority participation in the ownership and and in the management of the whole facility.

I think that is crucial.

One of the things about the Pirates is that it was a family owned thing for many years.

It was very close and warm as as it grew, as baseball grew, that concept of the family ownership is disappearing.

And indeed, it may be that John Rigas is looking at this not just to hold the pirates, but if he's got the television cable that's available, it may be a mechanism for tying those two elements together.

That could be a positive from his perspective, but it could be a negative from ours.

So I think local, strong local and minority participation in the ownership is crucial if it's going to happen.

But I still go back to say if if the dollars if we look at cost benefit analysis as it deals with our larger economy, our larger community, there are so many things that are demanding our attention that I question this this issue of all this effort going in to keeping the Pirates here.

We could always take the money and build a new jail.

- Well, or a new school.

I think, Jake, go ahead.

- One thing we haven't talked about here in is an economist favorite phrase, and that's called opportunity cost.

One of the things that never gets factored in in these discussions is what kind of tax base are we taking out of off the rolls?

What kind of economic generator could we have on the site with a stadium and parking is now, if the stadium weren't there, especially with the possibility of casino gambling coming or other retail or light manufacturing kind of industries, we tend to forget that that's a big chunk of real estate that's off the rolls.

In terms of the tax base, I'm not sure we'll ever see kids casino gambling in Pittsburgh, but that's probably a subject for another show.

But we haven't really talked about Mr.

Rigas and his negotiations with the city and with with the Pirate owners.

And I think that that's going to be very interesting is that unfolds over the next few weeks.

He's got he's got to make a decision not only about bringing in minority partners, but he's got to make a decision about whether or not he wants any partners at all.

The Galbraith still are owed $6 million, and it's been suggested that perhaps they become a partner and stay in and not require the payment of their $6 million.

There are at least three of the current owners, individuals who have agreed or have indicated they'd like to remain owners, so that could cut 6 or $7 million off of the purchase price.

There's the question of whether or not the current owners who paid 26 million, are going to demand and receive an 8% interest carry on their money since they invested it.

Theyre, they're entitled to that under the formula that has been worked out with the city, but that can always be waived.

And how long will the city defer its 20 million?

Does the league who has loaned the Pirates $35 million, does that have to be paid right away, or can that be assumed?

So those are really some interesting questions that I think Bob and his colleagues in the in the Fourth Estate will be keeping us up to date on.

Well, there's no question it's an extremely complicated deal.

Sometimes they don't like to get involved with it because it is so complicated.

But I'm sure Mr.

Rigas is going to drive a hard deal with the city, and I'm sure he's going to want he's not coming in here as a white knight like he's been portrayed.

He's a businessman.

You don't accumulate the kind of money that he has by being a nice guy.

Not that he may not be a nice person, but he's going to drive a hard bargain here.

He is a very nice person, as a matter of fact.

And and I think interestingly, he has been a good citizen not only in his own community, but wherever Adelphia Cable operates.

They've been good citizens.

And I think he's the ideal kind of person to come in and be an owner and be a part of this community.

I don't think, however, Earl, that his cable company is going to give him much of an advantage as as Ted Turner has with with TBS.

He doesn't cover enough of the markets in this region with his cable company to to keep those rights exclusively for himself.

He probably will have to deal with KBL, because they do have a lot more subscribers than he would on his system.

Jake, tell me, does making Pittsburgh a destination city, as the Allegheny Conference has, has talked about doing expanding the convention center, does that have an impact economically on keeping the Pirates?

I don't think very much.

There is some benefit in terms of visitors who come for other reasons, who end up attending a sporting event.

We do know that a certain percentage of those people go.

Certainly if it were downtown and within walking distance of the hotels, I think it would be a you'd get a lot more of that just drop in kind of traffic.

But unless you're talking about increasing the number of visitors by hundreds of thousands during the baseball season, and summertime is not really the peak convention season anyway.

I'm not sure just how much that would affect the Pirates.

I would guess it'll have more impact on the Penguins than, than it will the Pirates, because most conferences are held in the fall or the spring.

There's been talk also over the past several years about just athletic seasons in general being way too long.

Is there a is there a way that one can economically be successful?

Or as has been mentioned here, have the Pirates even break even with a shorter season?

I don't think you ever see baseball go to a shorter season because, for example, the Colorado Rockies average 50,000 people a game.

So what does that translate attend?

That's a half $1 million gross a night.

I can't see the them or the Los Angeles Dodgers giving up their dates.

Other than maybe a very few.

I could see them maybe cutting back 8 or 10 games, but you won't see a big cutback.

In fact, I think the baseball season was if it had come out this year was going to go into November, the possibility of it going into November.

So they're getting longer and longer and they lap over and lap over so much.

And that's part of the problem, too, is that each sport is robbing from the other's pocket.

30 years ago or 40 years ago, baseball had almost the entire sports market in least in Pittsburgh.

Then the Steelers came into being and became very popular.

And now we have the Penguins as a third alternative to people in Pittsburgh.

So the Pirates, who used to get almost all of the sports dollar, now get a much smaller percentage.

You know, the other thing is, is that there's there's so much more competition for the entertainment dollar today.

I mean, you've got the blockbusters that will rent you current movies.

You've got how many television stations on our cables now that that you can go and surf across.

So there are so many different things that are pulling on us for entertainment time and our entertainment dollar that I question that that any of the sports can continue to expand their their schedules.

I think one other thing that's true about baseball.

It has it carries a rap of being a slow game.

The the length of time that you have to watch a game and the number of minutes where there's actual action taking place creates a situation on television, whereas there are a lot of people that are turning away from it today.

So they have to find some way talking about the game itself and its length of speeding up the game, making it more exciting.

I think they constantly work at that, at basketball, baseball and hockey.

But with a basketball, football and hockey, but with baseball, it's still a very slow game and it can get to be rather boring.

I'd get back to a point Bob alluded to in terms of cutting back the season.

I'd like to see the season cut back by at least 20 or 30 games.

I think it's entirely too long.

It's hard to maintain unless you are a really avid baseball fan from February to November.

You've got to be worrying about baseball.

I'm sorry I can't sustain an attention level that long.

I love baseball in July and August and September when it really the pennant race is starting to heat up.

Other than that, it doesn't get my attention that much.

So what I'm saying is condense this rascal a little bit, and maybe you get more fans per game and you don't lose the revenue.

Of course, if you're selling out every game and you can play 300 games a year and still sell out, the Colorado Rockies might care.

But I think for most teams, in terms of supporting their local fans and not the TV market, I think fewer games may be a way to go.

I think that's wishful thinking, though.

I know it's not going to happen.

Media, media will make the decision about this.

- Well I understand that.

Yeah.

- How many games?

When they'll be played?

What time of the day?

That's right.

The media has a lot... - Let's take it to the extreme.

In a lot of our our businesses, we are talking about the virtual business.

We've talked about the virtual library where you're pulling up texts and computers.

Are we going to ultimately down the road?

And this fits in, Jake, with what you had said five years from now, are we still going to be filling a new stadium if we build it?

Are we going to be really watching sports on the media and simply not going to 160 game schedule.

And perhaps football tells us that maybe we fill the stadium because we're only there eight times a year.

I think what's going to happen, though, Dennis, is that you may be watching from home, but you'll be pay per view, so the teams will be getting the money just the same.

I think 15 years from now you will probably be able to tune in.

If you're watching basketball, you will see the fourth quarter of four games when all the action takes place.

If you're watching baseball, they'll probably condense it so that there is no lost time.

You'll be able to watch three games in the in the period that you would have watched one, and you'll pay $15 pay per view charge to watch that game, and the owners will get their money and the players will get their money.

Yeah.

If they ever get to the World Series or the Super Bowl and pay per view, can you imagine the how many hundreds of millions of people watch a Super Bowl?

If they just got a dollar, let alone 10 or 15 or $20 from those people.

That's the next big.

I think that's why so many people want to get into sports ownership today, because they see down the road what's coming in pay per view is an awful lot of money.

Yeah.

This year there will be at least five new sports channels created for cable television.

So that says something about the future of how much we're going to watch sports.

Well, it also has a commentary.

And I want to go back again to what Jake had said, whether or not a new stadium can be sustained, if, in fact, the pay per view scenario really plays out, that would certainly has to be part of the discussion.

It seems to me as as we get into keeping the Pirates.

- And I think we alluded earlier about the job that Mayor Murphy has done, and I think that the Pittsburgh really owes the Murphy administration a vote of thanks and commendation for the way they have handled the process.

He brought in Bill Newland, who is a local attorney here and with others on his staff.

And whether you agree about keeping them here, whether you agree about a new stadium, I think everyone will agree that he's he's managed the process as well as can be expected.

I would make one of the point about opportunity costs and this keeps coming up.

When you look at the amount of time, effort, expenditure of man hours and so on, in worrying about the Pirates that could have been spent on some other problem.

Again, I think we have to get back to Earl's point.

What are our priorities here?

I mean, this is not just the dollars that they're spending or loaning to the Pirates.

It's taking up a huge amount of time on Grant Street worrying about this.

So, I mean, there's there is this to be concerned about as well.

Who would think that a mayor's top job or an almost only job is worrying about whether or not the Pirates stay and how to sell them under the best terms?

I'm not sure that should be the mayor's gobbling up as much time as it is.

- But doesn't all that speak to the importance we put to baseball and how much this town really needs it?

You know, there are many excellent reasons why a new stadium should not be built, obviously.

How can it be a major priority?

But the fact of the matter is that it is.

And if they want to have a base, the leadership of this city and region will have to make a decision.

If they want to keep baseball here, they're going to have to build a new stadium.

And I'm not I don't know what kind of deal Mr.

Rigas is going to make with the city, but I'm sure there'll be some type of clause in there that if a new stadium isn't built, he can get out sooner or whatever.

But if for for baseball to have its final, last, best chance here, it's, it's going to take a new stadium.

Well, it's interesting that we're having a show about baseball and not a show about that $0.40 of every dollar that we spend on property taxes in the county goes for the criminal justice system.

That perhaps is the show that we really ought to be talking about.

And can we afford more jails?

I think that may be a topic for yet at a different show, Jim.

It will certainly get on to the agenda.

But, Earl, do you you've raised the question of community early on in the program.

Do you see a way that keeping the Pirates and the new stadium, if that is part of the negotiation, can be a win win situation both for the sports fan and the community at large?

I can talk about the short term better, more effectively than I can the long term, because I share the the concern about the long term implications of attendance at baseball games in general.

But yeah, I think that it can, so long as the overall economic plan, the idea, the concept is inclusive and not exclusive.

If you look at who benefits from the existence of the Pirates today, it's a very narrow band of people, very narrow band of people and the community who it supposedly baseball is all for doesn't reap much of the benefit.

I think that's been borne out by some of the studies that have come out.

So yeah you could do it, Dennis, but I think that it's going to require some very special and careful planning.

I think also the perception of the loss of the Pirates may be more damaging than the loss of the Pirates.

The fear of losing them may be greater than the end result and the impact it will have on the community, but I think that if we're going to try to keep them and if indeed a new stadium is important, that there has to be some very careful planning, it must be inclusive.

There has to be a way of the larger community, including the minority community, to enjoy the benefits and some of the spin off, the economic spin off from the economic development that might include a new stadium Gentlemen, I want to say thank you to all of you for taking your time to be with us this evening.

I think that what we've heard is that the Pirates are very important to this community, that indeed it would be a terrible loss for them to leave.

We now have the opportunity with Mr.

Rigas to to keep them, and that the overriding concern is that we keep them within a community that can support them and in turn, be supported.

So I want to thank all of us for being with us tonight and be on our way.

I think that the owners of the team should also kick in on the stadium.

I don't think it should be the entire responsibility of the city to provide a stadium.

I dont think I should pay for that team and people without jobs.

I don't think anybody really cared once they went on strike.

Well, I think we need them because, you know, we need them to.

They bring in business and that it's a good, you know, for people to see.

I think it's important.

I think you need the pirates here.

Yeah.

I think they're a very important.

It's the only baseball team that we have here in Pittsburgh.

I would like to see the Pirates leave this city and cease darkening our landscape.

It doesn't seem like the team is willing to bring in the players to make it a championship team.

And we're having a real hard financial time in Pittsburgh as a whole.

So, I mean, you can just keep throwing good money after bad, but what will it profit you?

I think keeping the team here should be the main concern, really.

I mean, the Pirates are Pittsburgh, you know, they're not going to be Jacksonville or anywhere else.