ADVERTISEMENT

More on proposed Temple stadium /contrast with Pitt

J

JED_72

Freshman
Gold Member
Jul 30, 2001
1,879
153
63
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20151218_Linc_better_for_Temple.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20151218_Kenney__Temple_to_meet_Thursday_on_stadium.html

A later article that doesn't show up yet on the free philly.com site differentiates the difference in the Pitt arrangement with the Steelers and Temple's lease with the Eagles. The Linc apparently charges TU $1 million per year for its lease and are seeking to increase that to $2 million.
The inquirer reports that Pitt pays a share of ticket sales and operational costs for games. Pitt and the Steelers share concession revenues (equally??). They attribute the comments on the Pitt-Steelers arrangement to a former assistant AD at Pitt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: HOF Coach
JED_72 said:
http://www.philly.com/philly/opinion/20151218_Linc_better_for_Temple.html

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/20151218_Kenney__Temple_to_meet_Thursday_on_stadium.html

A later article that doesn't show up yet on the free philly.com site differentiates the difference in the Pitt arrangement with the Steelers and Temple's lease with the Eagles. The Linc apparently charges TU $1 million per year for its lease and are seeking to increase that to $2 million.
The inquirer reports that Pitt pays a share of ticket sales and operational costs for games. Pitt and the Steelers share concession revenues (equally??). They attribute the comments on the Pitt-Steelers arrangement to a former assistant AD at Pitt.
Click to expand...

Can't be, I thought the Steelers screwed Pitt at every possible chance and the relationship between the two was terrible and strained.;)

Also corroborates Barne's quotes about hearing that from other schools besides Temple and how good the relationship is.

Seriously, this explains the yearly variability in reported payments to the Steelers in the university's Snyder Reports. It also helps illuminate how everything came together with the timing of the stadium decision. It took a HUGE albatross off of Pitt neck at a very critical transition period for Pitt which unknowing was heading into a very precarious period of conference realignment, thus allowing it to move ahead with other well overdue projects across its athletic department.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OriginalEther
CrazyPaco said:
Can't be, I thought the Steelers screwed Pitt at every possible chance and the relationship between the two was terrible and strained.;)

Seriously, this explains the yearly variability in reported payments to the Steelers in the university's Snyder Reports. It also helps illuminate how everything came together with the timing of the stadium decision. It took a HUGE albatross off of Pitt neck at a very critical transition period for Pitt which unknowing was heading into a very precarious period of conference realignment, thus allowing it to move ahead with other well overdue projects across its athletic department.
Click to expand...

I am glad that by the time the article link became active the complete article that I read in hard copy became available giving more details on the Pitt/Steelers relationship.
 
He really didn't divulge very much except Pitt's 'rent' is somehow tied to the concessions. I'd imagine Pitt pays for all other routine game day costs.
I know Pitt gets approx. 10% of the suite license fees paid to the Steelers (which includes the boxes for both Steelers and Pitt games). The last I saw that was about 1.5m (of the 15m collected/yr).
 
Nothing helps your brand like the media drawing parallels with Temple. lol.
 
ThePanthers said:
Barnes straight up said yesterday pitt pays no rent. They have a wonderful deal and relationship with the steelers. Just end it.
Click to expand...

Barnes can be taken at face value when speaking on the merits of script but if he points out a reason to oppose an on-campus stadium then he's just blowing smoke up a stakeholder's ass.

Duh.
 
Every entitiy or organization has plan B when it comes to things like infrastructure.
So what's plan B for PITT if they PITT and the Steelers all of a sudden have a relationship issue.
I doubt there is a plan B regarding a place to play.
Probably a long shot but stuff happens!
 
We pay to use Heinz. I guess you can say it's not "rent" because it's not up front and comes from ticket sales.
 
  • Like
Reactions: The Sisco Kid
Temple doesn't have its priorities straight. Why spend $100 million on a football stadium when they could build more classroom buildings, dorms, or more green space (this is exactly what anti-stadium in Oakland people say).

Football is extremely important to major universities and playing it on campus helps in more ways than just getting students to turn up.
 
Sean Miller Fan said:
Temple doesn't have its priorities straight. Why spend $100 million on a football stadium when they could build more classroom buildings, dorms, or more green space (this is exactly what anti-stadium in Oakland people say).

Football is extremely important to major universities and playing it on campus helps in more ways than just getting students to turn up.
Click to expand...
FB is NOT important at Temple.....has NEVER been important at Temple....will NEVER be important at Temple. I was against booting them from the BE, always hoped they'd get it together. No chance for that in their current conference. Sadly, their BB program is down a bit, too. I wish them well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back