Not unlike University students, major donors to the University’s athletic department said they are largely pleased with last month’s proposed stadium renovations. But some donors said they are concerned about the addition of luxury boxes and the possibility of a decreased seating capacity.

Joe Parker, associate athletic director in charge of development, said the responses the department received from donors were mostly positive.

“Most people are very favorable to the stadium project,” Parker said.

In addition to adding luxury boxes, the proposed renovations include improved seating and added safety measures, as well as the addition of new restrooms and concession areas.

Other athletic department donors said they think the luxury boxes will generate a great deal of revenue that will be important to the future of University athletics.

“The idea of having luxury boxes doesn’t bother me,” said Steven Percy, a University alum who donated $26,500 in January of last year. “If they will help (the football program) to stay competitive and boost revenue, I support them.”

But some donors have expressed concerns.

“I’m not really happy about the luxury boxes,” said Roger Turner, a University alum who donated $15,451 in cash and stocks to the athletic department in January of last year. “I’m not sure, but they could be just one more step down the road to the commercialization of college athletics. I don’t know if I really like it or not.”

Additionally, several donors have raised concerns that the renovations might decrease the number of seats in the stadium.

“I look at Michigan as being the best in a lot of different areas, and to lose the distinguishing factor of being the biggest stadium in the country would really bother me,” Turner said.

Follette Carter, an alum who donated $20,000 last May, also expressed concerned over the possible loss of seats.

“I know there is some controversy about the potential decline in capacity, and I think that is something the University should get involvement on from people who want to express their opinions on that issue,” Carter said.

Renovation plans have not yet been finalized, and it is not yet clear whether the changes will increase or decrease seating capacity.

Athletic Department spokesman Bruce Madej said the athletic department has been consistently involving donors and other interested individuals in the plans to renovate the stadium.

“We are in contact with the major donors almost constantly,” Madej said. “It is good leadership to keep the lines of communication open with all your constituents; not only with regard to this project, but we want their input on everything that happens at the University.”

Madej said he hopes more communication between the University and athletic supporters will prevent unpopular renovations from taking place.

Madej cited the unpopular addition of the “halo” in 1998, a maize-and-blue ring that circled the stadium. The halo met so much opposition that it was removed two years later.

“There’s been discussion about (the halo), and we want to make sure it doesn’t happen again,” Madej said. “That’s why we want to keep the lines of communication open.”

While several donors said the University has not contacted them regarding the stadium renovations, others said they have engaged in some communication about the project.

“I’ve talked generally with people in the development office about the future of the facility,” said Doug Gessner, a University alum who donated $10,000 to the athletic department last October. “I think it’s great. I trust (Athletic Director) Bill Martin and the University leadership to strike the appropriate balance of keeping the stadium up to date, but making as few changes as possible.”