Minneapolis: 2
Detroit: 2
Indianapolis: 1
Its a pretty safe bet that a RooneyWorld would host 2 Super Bowls. Surely, we all agree it would at least host 1.
I Have a Theory
- Thread starter HailtoPitt
- Start date
Detroit: 2
Indianapolis: 1
Its a pretty safe bet that a RooneyWorld would host 2 Super Bowls. Surely, we all agree it would at least host 1.
The agreement for the location of the land is in place. Wheeling. Right next to the Civic Center.
Just not worth it.
Why hosting the Super Bowl isn't worth it, according to an economist
The NFL claims the Super Bowl can bring $300 to $500 million to host cities, but economists believe it brings between $30 to $130 million.
www.businessinsider.com
They would host one. There would be a major ice or snow storm like Dallas. And they would never host again.
That's because Minneapolis and Detroit got new stadiums. Let's be real though, no one wants to attend a Super Bowl at these locations let alone Pittsburgh. It should be limited to New Orleans, Miami, Tampa, Arizona and with their new stadiums, probably LA and Vegas.
It could be worth it if it was funded properly (long post).Just not worth it.
Why hosting the Super Bowl isn't worth it, according to an economist
The NFL claims the Super Bowl can bring $300 to $500 million to host cities, but economists believe it brings between $30 to $130 million.
For example, let’s say the Rooney’s privately funded everything except a retractable roof. Using @Sean Miller Fan ’s estimates and accounting for inflation, a ballpark number may be $175m in 2030.
One of the biggest arguments against tax payer-subsidized stadiums (and why I’m typically against such proposals) is the unseen economic activity theory, or the idea that the money not spent at a sporting event (assuming the team relocated) would be spent elsewhere in the area since the majority of fans in attendance are local residents and not out-of-towners. Evidence of this (though not without its flaws) is comparing the GDPs of cities such as St. Louis and San Diego before and after their NFL teams left.
Events such as the Super Bowl or the Final Four wouldn’t necessarily follow this theory because the majority of its attendants are tourists and the money generated from it wouldn’t be made up for under normal circumstances. If a Super Bowl in Pittsburgh generates $80m (the average of Matheson’s two numbers) and a Final Four in Pittsburgh generates around 50-75% of that number, those two events alone would generate $120-140m that wouldn’t otherwise flow into Pittsburgh’s economy.
If it could attract a few other events throughout the stadium’s lifespan that would only come if there was a roof, an argument could be made that a publicly-subsidized retractable roof could generate enough to offset the initial cost.
The city/state should just pay the NFL $50 million to host a Super Bowl then!
Who actually get the majority of the economic impact? Lots of people get some extra work for a week, and others like the Rooneys are going to bank millions. Does this help out the average guy?
The percentages of the revenue that goes to the league/team and the city would definitely be something to consider. Unfortunately, I’ve never been able to find a specific number for this. They’d also have to consider the actual profit made since the host cities are given a lot of requirements from the league for the week leading up to the game.
Great point. I’ve wondered if the average Joe would see a return that would even offset the additional taxes to pay for it.
There is no real indoor track facility in all of Western PA that is capable of holding any sort of real collegiate (or prep) invite. The region has needed one for decades, and if done right, could generate some revenue by hosting all manner of meets. But the key is, it needs to be done right and I have no idea if Pitt will do it right. Pitt needs both facilities in the long run, but there is some logic for an indoor facility first because there are outdoor tracks to train on in Oakland.
Losing the Pete lawn is not my favorite part of the project. That could have been much better developed and utilized as a central gathering space for the upper campus.
The idea of tapping the endowment for any pet project, athletic or academic, is completely foolhardy and irresponsible. It is correct that the unrestricted part is annually supporting all sorts of university programs. $1.6 billion of the unrestricted part is used to support student financial aid (imagine the publicity of raiding that pool while having one of the highest "public" tuition rate in the nation). Another $500 million of the unrestricted part backs Pitt's post-retirement obligations. That a combined 80% of the unrestricted part of the endowment, with the remainder supporting all manner of programs. Really, the argument of tapping the endowment is the equivalent to an argument for raiding a pension fund. That said, the unrestricted part was tapped last year for about an extra $7.5 million to help during the pandemic. That is the only thing it should be considered being tapped for: unexpected emergencies situations. Not to mention, the endowment lost about $140 million in value last year. If you start treating it like a piggy bank, you get into bad situation very quickly, especially if you run into the unexpected situations or economic downturns.
For any minimally responsible university leadership, a major project is going to be financed the old fashion way: fundraising and debt.
$20 million each year over five years is $100 million. $20 million is one half of one percent of Pitt’s total endowment. Or seven tenths of one percent of what’s touchable. Or 18 percent of available monies.
And hasn’t Pitt already recouped what it lost last year and then some?
I’m trying to see how these percentages are foolhardy and irresponsible. Seems like a very reasonable monetary ask from my perspective.
And hasn’t Pitt already recouped what it lost last year and then some?
I’m trying to see how these percentages are foolhardy and irresponsible. Seems like a very reasonable monetary ask from my perspective.
The endowment is a revenue source for the annual budget. When its earnings produce less revenue, which would happen by removing $100m in its principal, it comes out of the annual operating budget, meaning things are being cut. It is a god awful idea to raid the endowment for any project. Complete antithesis of what is is created for. Completely irresponsible, and would be a PR and political nightmare, and a dangerous precedent. Same mentality as..."well this has so much money, if I just skim a little, no one would notice." Or its like you being an corporate CEO (of a company in an industry constantly being bashed in the public for no paying your employees enough) and telling all of your employees your going to give them all a permanent pay cut in order to pay for a new office building for the accounting department, but you know, we'll spread the reduction out so it is only reduces your compensation by a fraction of the total cut each year for the next five years, until it adds up to the total cut, so you shouldn't notice or complain. If people can't get the issues with this, I don't know what I can do for them to make it more clear.
Last edited:
To be fair... The endowment unrestricted funds are unrestricted. They aren't for 'everything except athletics'. Yes, it may be assigned, but, they are likely adding it to each year with new donations (possibly bequests with no intentions) and also likely adding to the principle through investment earnings. It's up to Pitt how those new unrestricted endowment fund get assigned.
If Pitt wanted to, they could probably use a.l very small part of the new unrestricted fund earnings to fund part of a stadium's yearly debt service.
Last edited:
I would assume endowment interest/dividends will be used to pay all or part of the volleyball arena debt. Correct or no?
Pitt likely receives millions of dollars every year without donor intentions (i.e. someone dies and leaves a percentage to Pitt). I'd guess that is where they get a big portion of their unrestricted endowment funds.
Pitt decides where to use these unintended donations, and at the end of the day it doesn't really matter where it comes from.
pittdan77
Athletic Director
Good one. Victory Heights - a project financed through massive debt to go into further debt. This project generates negative cash flows. No CFO in America would have approved it. But only at Pitt with these bureaucrats ignorant of business 101. Gallagher was so concerned he said it could be a mortgage on Pitt’s future. Thank you Boomers.
You do know that Pitt sports runs a deficit each year of $10-$15 million. Outside of $5 million, how is this any different? Waiting....
pittdan77
Athletic Director
You're the one having the conversation with yourself to keep the thread going.
But, but, but, the Field House just wasnt good enough for the volleyball, wrestling, and gymnastics kids.
I mean, sure, the FH is old and ugly but it is 100% fine for non-revenue sports.
Support of the athletic department has been baked into the budget for decades. You are arguing for new cuts to programs by raiding a fund primarily used to support financial aid and employee retirement obligations.
By the way, and this isn't you specifically but a pet peeve in general, but adding "waiting..." at the end of posts containing a bad idea or poor argument does not make it any more legitimate or deserving of a response.
Last edited:
Actually what I believe Gallagher said is if the fundraising component didn't come through, that would be a tax on the future. Never was there an expectation to fundraise for the full amount. They are hoping for $25million.
Debt obligations are also baked into the annual budget. The university continuously issues debt, all such large universities do. What the debt funds is what varies, and how much debt is carried at any one time varies. Pitt's outstanding debt obligations were comparatively low, and the time to do it was perfect because of low interest rates.
As you said, Pitt athletics operates in the red by millions a year since, really, forever. No CFO in America wouldn't have dropped D1 athletics decades ago if they actually did a cost analysis, and probably half of the academic programs as well; nor would they have kept Pitt Stadium or built a new one. But the reason Pitt maintains some of the "negative revenue" programs is because it is a non-profit university, not a for-profit business.
Last edited:
It’s not a reason why wrestling and volleyball suck. Because both programs are very good. It’s because the ACC doesn’t like the floor condensation at games. The facility really needs razed. Facilities don’t make champions.
And you hit the nail on the head. It’s non profit. But, For all intents and purposes, pitt is a private enterprise. It needs to start thinking like a capitalist business. That I think is the problem. The mindset.
I take it your doctor didn’t subscribe the same drugs my doctor subscribed to me. 🤠
pittdan77
Athletic Director
It's damned if it does and damned if it doesn't. A much more sizeable, or at least much more vocal part of its constituency thinks it acts only like a big business. I've never seen a protest that demands the university should act more like a capitalistic business.
It has a mission, it needs to serve its state mission until its mission changes, and that probably means threading a line of both charitable and capitalistic attributes in order to effectively achieve its mission. It can't be purely one or the other.
See, to SMF that's a benefit. They can squeegee up the condensation to save on the water bill.
Who could possibly be bothered by that?
50k or stay at Heinz. How about a stadium with a view of the Cathedral of learning. How awesome would that Be?
Another thought: If Pitt decides to stay on the North Shore past 2030, I’d like to see them develop some sort of physical presence there (they could even do this now).
It doesn’t have to be classrooms but maybe a team store or a Pitt-themed restaurant? They could get creative with it (and their ideas would be much better than mine!), but I think setting something else up there that’s accessible during the week would make Heinz Field feel more like home. Just my opinion.
It doesn’t have to be classrooms but maybe a team store or a Pitt-themed restaurant? They could get creative with it (and their ideas would be much better than mine!), but I think setting something else up there that’s accessible during the week would make Heinz Field feel more like home. Just my opinion.
College football is more popular now that it was back then. Compare the size of college football stadiums in the '70s to now. Penn State, Ohio State, Notre Dame, Michigan, Texas A&M, Clemson, etc., etc., all have bigger stadiums now than they did back then.
Direct mailing is a great way to generate leads for your business because it is the most traditional way of capturing leads in the past https://www.supanet.com/creating-a-...e-vs-b2b-digital-marketing-agency-a24421.html. But today with the advent of the Internet and email marketing, direct mail has been replaced by Internet advertising. Direct mail could generate new leads for your business if it targets your ideal market segment and offers great value to them. If you want to generate leads for your business, here are some great ways of targeting your market.
Last edited:
More happenings in South Oakland. That Twitter woman is gonna go nuts.
https://www.post-gazette.com/busine...MC-Magee-Womens-Hospital/stories/202109140145
https://www.post-gazette.com/busine...MC-Magee-Womens-Hospital/stories/202109140145
Buying up and demolishing entire South Oakland city blocks to build something new is a wet dream of mine. Nice to see Walnut Capital attempting this. I mean those houses are over 100 years old and most are in bad shape. If someone wants to buy them and tear them down, that's fantastic
