Special Report: Pan Am

The First Rule of Bargaining

It may well be that if Council had demonstrated the same solidarity as the Ticats management and been willing, from the start, to walk away from a bad deal, the Ticats might have handled their end of the negotiations differently.

By Ryan McGreal
Published August 27, 2010

The most important rule of bargaining is that you have to be prepared to walk away. You absolutely must be willing to let the deal fall through if the terms aren't good enough - and by "good enough" I mean two things:

  1. You're getting good value for what you're paying; and
  2. You're not paying more than you can afford.

If you walk into the negotiations so emotionally tied to a conclusion that you've got to close the deal no matter what, it is virtually guaranteed that you will end up taken to the cleaners.

Savvy, heard-nosed negotiators will see you coming a mile off. They'll start nicely-nicely, express that they're just as eager to come to an agreement as you are, and that failure is not an option.

Don't worry, they'll say, softening you up for the suckerpunch to come, we will make it work.

You're in good and deep now, emotionally invested all over the place. That's when they pull the old bait-and-switch.

Suddenly you're looking at a much worse deal than you expected. You have to pay a lot more than you were prepared to pay, and it turns out you're getting a lot less.

But you're terrified that if you don't capitulate to these new, draconian terms, you'll lose the deal - and that just. Can't. Happen. Didn't everyone agree that failure was not an option?

You've lost all perspective on what you hoped to get out of the transaction. You're operating entirely on fear - panic, really, as the deadline fast approaches and you can't see any alternative to accepting a totally one-sided agreement.

Take a Deep Breath

Now let's take a deep breath and consider the facts of the negotiations between the City of Hamilton and the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

The City, Provincial and Federal governments plan to spend over $100 million on a new stadium. The higher levels are willing to contribute money if the stadium is used in the 2015 Pan American Games.

The City's current business plan suggests that this will pay for a 15,000 seat stadium, but a review of other recent stadium constructions suggests the price could actually buy a 25,000 seat facility.

The City wants a stadium location that will encourage spinoff development, increase property values and tax assessments, and attract more people into the downtown.

Further, the city plans to use money from the Future Fund to contribute its share. The mandate of the Future Fund is to grow the city's economic base, enhance the social fabric and build community.

A multi-year assessment of various potential sites around the City concluded that an abandoned brownfield on the West Harbour best meets the city's objectives.

The Ticats, one of eight CFL teams and a corporate resident of Hamilton for 140 years, needs a new stadium, since Ivor Wynne is at the end of its life.

The Ticats want a new stadium location that will allow them to collect all the ancillary revenues related to stadium events that are spent in the stadium precinct: parking, food, drinks, concessions, merchandise and so on.

The Ticats insist that they cannot run a sustainable business in the City's preferred location, but while they make reference to "experts" and "studies" that confirm this, they refuse to release any business analysis of the site. They nevertheless maintain that they will "never" play at the West Harbour.

Their preferred location, the Provincially-owned East Mountain "compromise" proposed in July by facilitator Michael Fenn, would cost the city tens of millions of dollars more to build than the West Harbour and would produce almost no spinoff improvements in property values and tax assessments.

Ticats: A Financial Perspective

The Ticats generate around $15 million in gross revenues a year (including a public subsidy of $1.3 million from the City) in their current home, an 80-year-old stadium with no onsite parking, poor visibility, moderate transit access, far from the downtown core.

The West Harbour location, right next to the downtown core, would have 600 onsite parking spaces and another 4,100 spaces within walking distance. Given average vehicle occupancy of 2.6 for sports events, that means there's direct parking for 12,220 fans.

But the West Harbour has excellent transit access, including proximity to planned east-west and north-south LRT lines and a planned GO Train stop at LIUNA Station (all of them now under threat). Hamiltonians tend to scoff at transit out of habit, but other cities depend on high quality transit to get fans in and out of CFL games quickly and conveniently.

Ticat owner Bob Young claims that the team will lose $7 million a year at the West Harbour. This implies that his costs will balloon to $22 million, his revenues will drop to $8 million, or some combination of the two. Neither scenario seems likely given the comparison of the West Harbour to Ivor Wynne.

If Council wasn't so desperate to make a deal, any deal, the mere fact that the Ticats refuse to provide financial records and business studies to support their contention would be enough to bring discussions to a halt. The City would say, 'Show us your data or the discussion is over.'

Know When to Walk Away

The Ticats, to their credit, have demonstrated that they're willing to let the deal fall through. They knew when to walk away.

As it became clear that their month-long campaign of threats and bullying didn't work and that Council, buoyed by thousands of messages of support from Hamiltonians, was going to reaffirm its support for the West Harbour for the umpteenth time, the Ticats simply withdrew altogether from negotiations to let the City stew.

And stew we have. Ticat fans, operating on fear and emotional attachment, have been insisting that the City give the team whatever they want. Council has started bickering furiously as members try to distance themselves from their own votes and shift the blame elsewhere.

The Ticats have played an impressive game of Chicken with the city. They gambled that Council would lose its nerve as the HostCo deadline loomed and start flailing for a compromise location.

Of course that's exactly what happened. Councillors are on the air making desperate bids to put a property in the employment lands next to Innovation Park back on the table after it was rejected, and a tornado of rumours swirls around the city.

HostCo just announced that it has rejected Burlington's soccer field bid at Kerns Road and Dundas Street, because the site is too far from a GO Train station.

The organizing committee is also signaling, after the Provincial and Federal governments reaffirmed that they would honour Hamilton stadium location choice, that it would only approve a 5-7,000 seat stadium at the West Harbour without the Ticats as confirmed anchor tenants.

So much for Liberal MPP Ted McMeekin writing, "any stadium should be built with the entire community in mind and not any particular stakeholder in the community."

I'm saddened to write that it seems pretty likely, given all of this and the emergency Council meeting scheduled for next Tuesday, that the West Harbour is dead on the water.

Of course, it's still possible that something might change between now and Tuesday and recast the whole situation. This long campaign has been much like a CFL game itself, with abrupt changes of fortune right down to the last second.

A Different Conclusion

It may well be that if Council had demonstrated the same solidarity as the Ticats management and been willing, from the start, to walk away from a bad deal, the Ticats might have handled their end of the negotiations differently.

If the team didn't think they could bully Council into a sweetheart deal, they might have been more willing to sit down and explore opportunities to make the West Harbour work for them, in the way that lively downtown stadiums work for pro sports teams around the world.

I suppose it's possible that their business studies really do demonstrate that they can't possibly run a sustainable business in the West Harbour, but I have a hard time believing it. If the studies were that conclusive, it would have been in the team's interest to share them.

Instead they looked across the table and saw in Council such a desperation to close the deal - any deal - that the had the leverage to demand the moon. Now Council has to decide just how far they really are prepared to go to deliver it.

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal.

89 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 13:33:02

Know what fills my heart with dread? The sinking feeling that this is nowhere near over yet.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 13:37:53

Welcome to the wonderful world of realpolitik.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jasonaallen (registered) - website | Posted August 27, 2010 at 13:58:57

Realpolitik indeed. At the same time, sometimes it's good to tilt at windmills once in a while - that can be as much of a community building exercise as anything. And while the collective will of Council seems to be folding like a cheap suit (with notable exceptions), I think just the process of getting so many Hamiltonians engaged on an issue - even an obvious lightning rod like a sports team - bodes well for the future of civic governance here. Now if we could just keep everybody pissed off until October...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By geoff's two cents (registered) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 14:10:57

5-7,000 as HostCo funding allows, but make it expandable to CFL Grey Cup specs for when Bob Young comes around, or for when he sells the team to someone with an interest in working with the city.

Moreover, it's possible, even probable, that this has been Bob Young's back-up plan all along.

This way, the city doesn't spend any public money capitulating to a party unwilling to negotiate, they remediate an existing brownfield, they attain some much-coveted Pan-Am visibility, and they have a set-in-stone location for which current or future CFL-Ticats team owners can negotiate a workable revenue arrangement with the city.

Given what's transpired, and weighing the pros and cons of all of the location options currently on the table, I can't see any other way. Amidst all the commotion, this seems to me the calmest, most rational and safest means of negotiating the city's stadium quandary.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By notasocialist (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 14:14:20

"The most important rule of bargaining is that you have to be prepared to walk away. You absolutely must be willing to let the deal fall through if the terms aren't good enough"

Funny this site gets accused of being "leftist" and such, this is the most level headed business advice I've heard in some time.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted August 27, 2010 at 14:25:33

Other examples of "not being willing to walk away" was the healthcare debacle they had down South - Obama went to that table basically saying "I will sign any piece of absolutely dog-dirt that you put in front of me if we can call it health-care reform."

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 14:38:06

I would hope that Council would stay the course and reaffirm WH. Any other course of action at this stage will no doubt provide HostCo with an out of Hamilton excuse similar to their rejection of Burlington. I was proud of the Mayor and Council for their Aug. 12th decision and would be just as proud if they reaffirm.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Yeah? (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 14:52:28

West Harbour is not serviced by highways or even major city arteries. West Harbour is not serviced by rapid transit. All this access infrastructure will be several residential blocks away. Any success achieved by West Harbour would come at the expense of the quality of life for residents between the transit stops and parking lots and the stadium. The West Harbour is NOT a good location for a downtown stadium. East Mountain does not meet the city's needs either. So walking away from both locations is a good compromise and in my opinion an entirely acceptable solution to this debacle.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Locke (registered) - website | Posted August 27, 2010 at 14:58:12

Right on. Council needs to be willing to walk away.

Bob Young is negotiating like he has a much stronger hand than he does... Really, how does he move his team to a new city willing to finance a new 25,000 seat stadium?

Maybe we need a compromise site to bring Bob Young back to the table, but let's be clear about what we're giving up. Granted, the Longwood site is an actual compromise site (as opposed to the EM site, which was not) but the city would be giving up, A) important employment lands, and B) failing to remediate a brownfield.

Recognizing what we'd be giving up, we should demand real compromise from the Ti Cats or simply walk away and let the Ti-Cats walk away too.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 15:05:25

Community ownership of the Tiger-Cats; purchased for a nominal sum and governed by a responsible board of trustees, WOULD be a very attractive way out of this debacle for, as I see it, the following reasons:

  • It would smoke out Bob Young. He'd be able to get out of what he himself has called a money losing proposition. (If they really are losing money it would be tough for him to maintain they weren't for sale. Why on earth would he want to keep them?)

  • Councillors wouldn't have the threat of the Tiger-Cats leaving as a reason to reject the West Harbour and their votes would have to stand on their own.

  • the GoTicatsWestHarbour pledges could be put to good use.

  • most, if not all, Tiger-Cat fans would get on board.

  • we'd have an anchor tenant.

  • HostCo would have nowhere to hide.

  • mouthpieces like Foxcroft and Mercanti could hardly oppose spending tax money to support PUBLIC ownership since they were prepared to do it for PRIVATE gain. (I know, consistency isn't their strongest suit)

  • we could all get back to the job of rebuilding a city.

I would be great if somebody like Mark Chamberlain or Dermot Nolan or some other public-spirited "name" could run with this.

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-08-27 14:06:35

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted August 27, 2010 at 15:07:19

Realpolitik indeed. At the same time, sometimes it's good to tilt at windmills once in a while - that can be as much of a community building exercise as anything. And while the collective will of Council seems to be folding like a cheap suit (with notable exceptions), I think just the process of getting so many Hamiltonians engaged on an issue - even an obvious lightning rod like a sports team - bodes well for the future of civic governance here. Now if we could just keep everybody pissed off until October...

Well said Jasonaallan. If we could continue this passion for all issues going forward, think what we could accomplish.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mark-Alan Whittle (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 16:02:12

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 16:15:32

Regarding the rules of negotiation go, yes you have to be prepared to walk, but keep in mind that the minute one side starts to issue ultimatums the deal is already over. Ultimatums create a no win situation – as we have all recently witnessd.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 27, 2010 at 16:31:20

Well said, Ryan. Well said.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 27, 2010 at 16:49:44

Negotiations also require two willing participants. But when one bargains in bad faith or shows no inclination to compromise, then what?

Sorry Ryan, but you're only half-right.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 16:53:07

Sorry rene but I have to call bs. The city and the Cats spent two years working together on this and looking at lots of different sites. The Ti-Cats were part of that discussion the entire time, they didn't speak up until after Council made their (supposably) final vote for the West Harbour. The City bargained in good faith, the Ti-Cats waited to the last minute and held the city ransom.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 18:09:05

Small point but I am really getting sick of reading about a "Stadium Precinct". This Precinct is Bob Young's American nomenclature for an area that has a border and is seen as a separate unit apart from a greater whole. I never read about Precincts in Canada until Bob Young started trying to Americanize Hamilton. Can we please stop calling the area around a stadium a precinct, it is part of the whole of this city, not a segregated area.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 18:11:39

^Exactly. Bob's so-called 'experts' are NFL driveway to driveway proponents. That's why he won't name them, or reveal their cynical 'studies'.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By hipgnosis (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 19:00:47

From the conversation that I have had with my Councillor it sounds like the West Harbour is dead. I think that it is now time to concentrate on rehabilitation of the West Harbour and possibly either looking at doing a full renovation of Ivor Wynne or possible just giving up on the Tiger Cats.

Am I the only one who is seeing the Southern Ontario Pan Am Games quickly becoming the Toronto Pan Am games? Burlington loses out on a soccer component, Mac still is unsure as to whether the they are going to get a pool, Hamilton has lost the athletics competition and could still lose even the soccer that we are being allowed to host.

So sad to think that once again we just couldn't get it done. However, there have been very many positive developments in the last few months. The amount of mobilization that we have seen from the younger people in this city is inspiring and exciting! I hope that we can clear the deadwood from Council and start bringing in progressive people with valid, current ideas.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 19:19:55

With everyone throwing around "remember though, negotiations need compromise" or "negotiations don't work with ultimatums", I figured I'd toss in my two cents. Everyone seems set to blame one side or the other for being too "entrenched" in their position on the west harbour. The ti-cats for refusing to talk about it at all, and the city for sticking to their site after almost a year of deliberations and reports. Why blame anyone though?

Remember, not all negotiations can succeed. It's possible that there was no zone of agreement, that is, no solution that would minimally satisfy the ti-cats and the city. This might not be the fault of any one party. Maybe there is no agreement that would make them both happy enough to sign on the dotted line. That's a perfectly fine and possible outcome of a negotiation.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 20:30:47

Remember, not all negotiations can succeed. It's possible that there was no zone of agreement, that is, no solution that would minimally satisfy the ti-cats and the city.

This would be true if both sides were invested equally, but with the public providing virtually all the stadium funding, the onus was on the cats to bend.

From the conversation that I have had with my Councillor it sounds like the West Harbour is dead. I think that it is now time to concentrate on rehabilitation of the West Harbour and possibly either looking at doing a full renovation of Ivor Wynne or possible just giving up on the Tiger Cats.

Who's your councillor? The cats have made it clear that staying at IW is as much of a non-starter than WH.

Comment edited by highwater on 2010-08-27 19:32:43

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 20:49:51

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 20:49:52

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 20:55:09

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By red24 (anonymous) | Posted August 27, 2010 at 21:46:54

@highwater

Two of Bob's experts are:
Brian Cooper: PRESIDENT, AND CEO, BRIAN COOPER SPORTS AND ENTERTAINMENT

Brian Cooper has over 25 years’ experience in a wide variety of executive positions throughout the sports and entertainment industry. He founded Insight Sports Ltd., a well-known broadcast/production company and built properties like: The NHL Network, GOL TV, The World Fishing Network, Gold Rush 2002, Ultimate Gretzky, and the long-running TV series, The Business of Sports. Brian was VP Operations and Business Development at Maple Leaf Sports & Entertainment and was part of the executive team that created and launched the Raptors brand experience (an innovative blend of entertainment, sport and music). He was also President and COO of the Toronto Argonauts and was credited with the revival of football in the Toronto marketplace in the 1990s. Brian currently sits on the charitable boards of the Wayne Gretzky Foundation and Canada Basketball. In December 2007, The Globe & Mail named Brian as one of the top 25 most influential figures in Canadian sport.

Bernie Mullin: Dr. Bernie Mullin is the first non-American to hold the position of President of a US Major League Professional team, and he ran two of them at the same time, the NBA’s Atlanta Hawks and the NHL’s Atlanta Thrashers plus world-class Philips Arena, the 4th most profitable arena in North America. British-born, Mullin has over thirty years of experience in Sports, Entertainment and Higher Education in senior executive roles producing outstanding results. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Mullin

I think that Michael Fenn made a huge error in accepting the Ticats' "driveway to driveway" claim, it was based on their own highly flawed "research" (survey of existing fans). The claim is only sustainable if that view is held throughout the catchment area, something only a poll could have told us.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Fan'oRyan (anonymous) | Posted August 28, 2010 at 05:42:24

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 28, 2010 at 07:42:41

Mark-Alan Whittle speaks the closest thing to the truth this board has ever heard and you kiddies vote him down. When will you grow up and listen to the truth?

Hilarious.

At least I'll be entertained during this election campaign.

"Mayor Fred has jumped the shark, while lashing himself to the wheel, over his pathological west harbour pipe-dream - which started out as a robust 30,000 seat dream stadium - has been reduced to a puny knock-off of the state-of-the-art Ron Joyce Stadium (6-12k capacity) at McMaster.

The only option now is to go east mountain in a 3P deal with the Tiger-Cats, or go home and cry in your milk."

Hardly the quality of person I want on my City Council.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted August 28, 2010 at 08:28:49

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 28, 2010 at 09:31:26

Chris Angel states "Your numbers have been credibly disputed in previous posts but even if they were correct that is not what attendees want."

How on earth does he know "what attendees want". The professional poll taken by the City seemed to indicate differently. What HE wants isn't necessarily what "attendees want". What HE wants appears to be the "narrow self interest" that he later accuses WH supporters of having. What's best for the City as a whole? And how does he explain, Ivor Wynne sellouts when the team is winning, the ACC, Rogers Centre, Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton, Molson Stadium in Montreal and the list goes on?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted August 28, 2010 at 10:42:30

The "urbanist agenda"? Are you for real?

You mean the "agenda" of wanting to make Hamilton - the ENTIRE city - a better place to live? To attract more residents? To attract more businesses? To ease the tax burden on everyone (including "suburbanists") by increasing the size of the tax base?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ekn_2Kbw4...

The fundamental goal of "urbanism" is to improve life in the city centre so that more people choose to live there. It's not about forcing people to go downtown if they don't want to. It's not about begging those who choose a suburban lifestyle to drive into town to buy underwear. It's about building a place where people CHOOSE to live in dense mixed use neighbourhoods. And it's about sharing their tax revenues with the entire city so that we can afford to also serve those who prefer the 4 car driveway and the mall.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 28, 2010 at 12:43:36

Highwater said: "This would be true if both sides were invested equally, but with the public providing virtually all the stadium funding, the onus was on the cats to bend."

You can only bend in negotiations up to a certain minimum point (typically your best alternative to a negotiated agreement or BATNA). Past that point the deal is "so bad" for you that you're better off not accepting it and going with your best alternative. I don't know that the Ti-cats think their BATNA is...folding the team? Moving somewhere else? But whatever their BATNA is, the ti-cats think the west harbour site is worse. Whether it actually is worse, that can be the subject of a debate. But I wouldn't fault anyone for walking away from a negotiation where they think their BATNA is better than the offer on the table.

Fan o'Ryan said:

"1. Ryan's premise is flawed: "The first rule of bargaining..." One bargains with an equal. The moment council decided that the WH was the solution, bargaining became an exercise in persuasion."

1. One doesn't always bargain with equals. People of different levels of sophistication and different sized corporations bargain all the time, and often one is in a better position than the other. Anyone trying to bargain with Wal-mart is faced with their oppressive and massive buying power. (Just ask lego, who wal-mart refused to stock for close to a year after a dispute). Or McDonalds and any of their suppliers. You think they can negotiate as equals? No, you do what McDonalds says and you thank them for their business, you don't go in negotiating what you want.

As for it becoming an exercise in persuasion, it didn't have to be. The ti-cats could have continued negogiating a deal. Make the deal sweet enough and council would gladly put the stadium on the East Mountain. For example, if the ti-cats promissed to build a 25k seat stadium and all the city had to contribute was $25 million total, I think the city would have been on board. The dollar savings would have sealed the deal. But the closest we got to that was some complicated offer of giving the ti-cats $51 million, $7 million of that being earmarked for the West Harbour Amphitheatre, with the ti-cats kicking in $5 million (wait...doesn't that net out to us spending $12 million on the amphitheatre and giving them 39 million for the stadium?).

I'm getting off track, but my point is, the ti-cats, at some point, realized they didn't have the resources to negotiate council into an alternative location. At that point the ti-cats made it an exercise in persuasion and went to the public to try and convince enough people, and councillors, that the East Mountain was a better site.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 28, 2010 at 12:54:48

Credibly disputed? Hardly. The only one with numbers in dispite is Bob, who won't show us his numbers.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted August 28, 2010 at 13:09:18

seancb Ask people in Flamborough how they feel about "sharing their tax revenues". I am not in Flamborough but I do recognize that those who have watched it become the highest taxed township in Canada might not care much if the core dropped to the center of the earth. People who are having their pockets picked in the name of regional disparity are seldom as charitable about the process as you imply. Don't take my word for it keep on advocating funneling money into the core you will find out just how quickly this issue can become more divisive than it already is. You will probably deny that it is but it is another reason support is wavering for a WH site. Why don't you ask me if I am for real when the WH option collapses. Perhaps then you would be prepared to acknowledge that my take on Canadian politics is more grounded than your own? I will bow before the wisdom of WH site supporters if I am wrong and a stadium is built there. How about you?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 28, 2010 at 15:26:01

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted August 28, 2010 at 18:33:26

Parking... went to the Peach Festival last night and had to take a shuttle bus a few kilometers to get to the event from the off site parking. Had fun on the bus, talked to a few folks and got to the event no hassle. Stark contrast to those obsessed with parking close to the event. Dispersed parking with shuttle buses will work for the West Harbour, as proved last night.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 07:39:19

mrjanitor - "Obsessed with parking close to the event" yes many people are. Then there are the others who would just like to know where they are supposed to park. How are the 18+ lots referred to by Ryan in another post to be coordinated to provide parking? Any idea what a pain in the ass cruising 18+ lots will be during a peak traffic event?

WH supporters come off looking obsessed themselves when they dismiss the issue of parking with this kind of poor excuse.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 07:48:43

Have you ever over the years parked at maple leaf gardens or the acc....or the skydome. I can recall many times parking a long distance away or walking to get there. Quite a bit of the time parking lots were full. Lots of people actually park a distance away from there so they can get a little bit cheaper parking...this has been going on for years...what the hell big deal is it if you have to park a few blocks away...people that go Copps have to do it..

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 08:08:08

Chris Angel - And we have managed to get in and out of IWS with no issue for how many years now? People have learned the area, know where they can park and walk the rest of the way to IWS. The parking is dispersed over a wide area in many directions so traffic clears very fast considering the size of the events. Yes there will be a learning curve to ride out the first few months, then everyone who goes to the games (as I do about 4 times a year) will have found a favorite lot and learned to use the shuttle buses picking up at those lots. The issue is not parking at the WH, the issue is who is making money from parking at WH.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Enterprise (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 09:25:20

Beautifully written, Ryan. 100% agreement from me. I back mayor Fred. He's done a remarkable job with a council that's as difficult to keep on point as herding cats. They came together for about 5 minutes, & then dissolved into chaos as usual.

As for whatever deal they come up with, I want to see a detailed line by line report of exactly how many tax $$'s we are donating to a small business who is clearly running the show here (with insiders at all levels of our fed & prov governments, who by the way, are using our tax $'s as well.)

At this point, I am turned off by this whole thing. The cats can stay at the old stadium, I don't support any new site, I don't want the pan am games, I don't want a new stadium. Let's spend our tax $$ on properly planned projects instead.

I will be voting very very carefully in future elections: civic, provincial, federal. I have now had a taste of activism & will work tirelessly to clean the slate & get people installed who are transparent & accountable in their work on behalf of the voters &taxpayers...I know I speak for many boomers who are retired or nearing retirement. We are Bz savvy, educated & will have some time on our hands. We will be changing the game.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 09:31:59

This parking issue is ridiculous. Have you been downtown when Copps has an event? Tons of people with those neon orange things waving people in. Or better yet, park at a train station and take the GO in (which the Ti-Cats' own poll shows people want to do)!

Or we could all funnel into one huge parking lot with limited access and idle for hours waiting to get a spot. Then we can all wait for hours waiting to leave too! The best way to turn a three hour game into a seven hour ordeal!

The Ti-Cats' big concern now can only be that they want to turn the parking into a revenue stream.

Comment edited by Brandon on 2010-08-29 08:33:57

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 10:21:06

Bravo! Just listen to all that carpet sweeping. Once again you have simply swept parking concerns right underneath the rug.

I am not convinced by your arguments that stadiums built before WWII ignored parking so why shouldn't we.

ACC & Rogers Center both have on site underground parking to ensure accessibility.

Parking maps supplied by both venues show 13,000 parking spaces within 2-3 blocks. These are massive lots and people arriving by car are not faced with a pre game adventure tour of 18+ lots scattered over a wider area. The area is presently served by subway, bus, street car and train, not in the future at some point - maybe.

How exactly does this compare to anywhere in Hamilton? It doesn't. Toronto is playing off of years of development in this area. We are not. We need to satisfy a need for parking not dismiss it or try and BS it away. Failure to do so will only help to insure a WH stadium is not built.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 13:10:54

That maybe fine and true but those parking lots arent exclusively used just for sporting events. Lots of people look for cheaper parking so they arent being charged $20-25. Plenty of people find it much easier just to take the TTC because the traffic. Ask raptor/leafs fans and you will see alot of them not parking at all or looking for a cheap place to park. Lots of people walk from Union Station to the dome and walk up those damn ramps to the upper levels. There is no time ever you can compare Hamilton traffic to Toronto traffic. I still go by other CFL stadiums that dont have any onsite parking like Edmontons, you park at the lrt/bus lots (for free)..than take the bus/lrt (free). I know people are getting fat and lazy these days but please...have you ever gone to a mall and walked through it. No matter what is going on in Toronto or a place that size you usualy end up searching for a parking lot.and when events are on its worse.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 13:11:38

Chris Angel said - "We need to satisfy a need for parking not dismiss it or try and BS it away."

Help us focus here, Chris. Is it JUST about parking now? Because in previous posts you've said it was about "accessibility", "not satisfying the Tiger-Cats owner" and "funneling money into the core". (your terminology not mine)

Specifically, how many more parking spaces than currently exist at, for example, Ivor Wynne or Molson Stadium or Fenway Park or Commonwealth Stadium (built well after WWII) would be enough for you? 100? 200? 6000?

As to the accessibilty "issue": A stadium adjacent to a superhighway would have only one lane in or out and virtually no other roads on which to disperse traffic. The WH already has 3 and 4 lane arterial roads directly connecting it to other arterial roads, mountain accesses and a superhighway and that's without any modifications to one-way/two-way traffic and signals before and after events. How do you respond to this?

What's your personal limit as to how far taxpayers should yield to satisfy Bob Young's demands?

Where do you personally feel taxpayers in a post-industrial city with a deteriorating downtown SHOULD "funnel their money"?

What SPECIFIC changes would have to be made for you to say Bob Young should locate the Tiger-Cats at WH?

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-08-29 12:14:12

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 13:31:50

http://mlb.mlb.com/bos/ballpark/directio...

Check the fenway park, parking situation and the number and how far people have to walk..even the official parking lot is a 15 min walk...there is 17 lots around the area.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 13:39:54

I wanted to copy and paste all the info but was unable to. The closest parking lots are 1 min walk and its for less than 2000 cars (cost 30-35). The official red sox lot is a 15 minute walk to fenway (2000 spots day of game 27, or 9 if you already had ticket). The other 11 parking lots are a walking distance of 8-15 mins each with aroun 6,000 spaces going in the $15-30 range. That is 17 parking lots most being in the 8-15 min range including the official one. The Red Sox average 37,000 per game and have 81 games per year...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 13:44:25

@ Chris Angel.

Quote: "seancb Ask people in Flamborough how they feel about "sharing their tax revenues"."
I have asked one person from Flamborough about this & they & their family support West Harbour. So how many have you asked?

Look, either the outter edges of the GHA can learn to share resources & opportunities, or they can continue to whine forever about 'supporting the dormant areas of downtown'. You Can't have it both ways!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 14:19:18

Chris Angel - Please answer the question! How has a lack of parking hurt IWS? People still manage to get in and out in an orderly fashion. When Bob Young had the goodwill of the city the stadium was packed, I know because I was there for the 25,000+ crowds. Please answer with specifics if you are able, I'm finding your vague notions are not based on any real facts, just propaganda. I await your snarky, smug and degrading reply with great anticipation.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Chris Angel (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 14:41:48

Sorry I can't stick around and answer questions right now, I have to work. I am not implying anything by that but as it is Sunday I am sure many of you don't work today - that is all. I know how "saahn-sitive" some can be about the W word. By accessibilty in this case I was refering to accessable for the disabled. Sorry to disappoint I am sure most thought I was refering to accesible for a huge premium to the wealthy who should be eaten and have there possesions thrown to the throng. janitordude why don't you answer the question I left for you several posts ago instead of demanding one of me? Answer my question and I guarantee I will answer yours

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 14:54:26

Most stadiums have accessibilty and limited parking just for that reason for disbabled people. Edmonton has 100 parking spots available for the disabled. Im certain the labor day game will be sold out and that stadium has been there 80 years, guess what it will be full..parking close or not..People might have to walk and go a bit early to get close parking but because Toronto is going to be there the place is gonna be packed. In fact i bet its sold out with standing room and will be 30,000.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By tripleseq (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 18:27:31

I'm perfectly fine with the outcome of all of this being the stadium gets killed and the Ticats go bankrupt. Hey, a million and more a year back in the coffers of the city and a clean cut from this city's 'past'. Not having a football team doesn't seem to hold back Kitchener-Waterloo; National Post ranked them in their real-estate review as the best property investment in Ontario (guess who was 2nd? - Hamilton). What's funny about all of this is that the people who are going to be living in this city 30 years from now, the young people who are massivly in support of West Harbour, don't go to Ticats games. Take a look at the people on the streets wearing Ticats hats, jerseys, they are inevitably 40-50 something blue collars. Funny though, I went to Mac, liked football, never went to a Ticats game because it was too far from campus in an unfamiliar city. Ironic that killing West Harbour may in the end kill the Cats last chance of a future generation of fans. Certainly the 80%+ polling of young people that thought WH was a better idea (duh!) will not take well to any other outcome, and if the Cats fan base wasn't eroded already, it certainly will be now. Think you're losing money now Bob? Truth is that people in Ontario don't care about CFL (or really anything other than Hockey, MMA, and Soccer) for some reason. Look at the Argos or the Jays, they are practically bankrupt too. If Bob Young can't make his business work at West Harbour it is probably (more than anything) because few people are interested in what he's selling. I think a soccer team is a better plan, it appeals to the multicultural nature of SWO and will have 'legs' much moreso than steelworker football.

Comment edited by tripleseq on 2010-08-29 17:35:17

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 18:31:06

Chris Angel - I have already clearly answered your questions posed after my Peach Festival comment. To re-cap for you in more detail: 1) Question, "How are the 18+ lots referred to by Ryan in another post to be coordinated to provide parking?" My answer, simple organization. Have the lots numbered and colour coded with signs for events, or have guys with orange flags directing people as happens now around Copps. Clear signage throughout the city directing people to shuttle bus lots. Maps provided by the Ti-Cats when tickets are purchased. Links from the Ti-Cats, Spectator and City web sites with maps to shuttle bus serviced lots. For a competent planner this is an easy job to put together. 2) Question, "Any idea what a pain in the ass cruising 18+ lots will be during a peak traffic event?" My answer, I don't find going to any event in any city a pain in the ass. I know where I'm going ahead of time. I plan my route. I have 2-3 places I will park at in my head before I leave so I don't have to drive in circles getting frustrated. Life is sooo short, why get all upset over parking at a CFL game when I can leave early, get a spot I like and have a great game in the stands.

Your turn....

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 21:53:25

I know how "saahn-sitive" some can be about the W word.

Wonder why that is, maybe because the commonest argument by Ticat supporters is that anyone who likes the WH is unemployed and lives in their mom's basement. Not you, you're sarcastic in a different way, but a lot of your fellow Bobpologists.

Comment edited by nobrainer on 2010-08-29 20:54:07

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By A Hamilton Fan (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 21:54:22

Okay Hamiltonians, this blind loyalty in city council saying a stadium must go in the West Harbour baffles me.

Tell me why this idea wouldn't work.

Make a deal to developers they can't refuse. They can have a large amount of property in the West Harbour area if...wait for it...they clean up the brown lands in that area and build a 5000 seat amphitheater. Yes, oh my...an amphitheater and rec centre in the purposed stadium location.

"Not a stadium"...."but the mayor says we need a stadium.", "Amphitheater...but how would that work...why Hamilton Fan why?"...you say.

It can work but uh oh you'd have to make it attractive to...wait for it...private interests! Yes the dreaded private interests, the same private interests you want to develop the West Harbour area using stadium that will lie dormant as it's selling point.

Ladies and gentlemen those dreaded private interests will clean up that area if they get a return...hmmm...yes Hamiltonians you have to let them make money if you want them to fix the mess another private interest made.

So why the Amphitheater idea?
I'll tell you. Let's break it down shall we. There is a roughly 150 day fair weather outdoor concert season.
Shows for 5000 seat venues usually take 6 to 12 hours to set up. Which makes for 100 possible show dates at the amazing the wonderful West Harbour Performing Arts Amphitheater.
100 dates, with potentially 5000 people attending each event.
That means from May to September you would have over half a million (...that's 500 000 to you an me) people coming down to the West Harbour community.
Here's the kicker, that would mean a constant flow of fresh wallets.
"Why is that?" you ask.
Simple, the amphitheater will host not only music shows from various genre's, it will also host theatrical performances and host cultural celebrations. This means different people on practically a daily basis, coming to the downtown area, going to Hess Village and the new shops and restaurants that would pop up around the new West Harbour amphitheater because of the high traffic it creates.

So Amphitheater = high traffic, of constantly new money, attractive marketability for developers to sell condos and business space. Not to mention, people would be more likely to live by a small amphitheater and rec centre then a stadium.
Tell me why this is a bad idea Hamitlonians. I don't see the problem...West Harbour is reclaimed and revitalized.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 22:26:46

Good points to ponder, it's going to take some creative thinking to get everyone back on track.

It's cost prohibitive for private development due the remediation. Period. They won't get adequate return on the investment. Developers want to build residential/commerical, not pretty ampitheatres that are only usuable in seasonal weather. Besides, the City cannot aribitrariy 'give' land to a developer...if they can I am in the wrong business.

Personally, I am not a fan of the Ampitheatre idea and don't believe it will aide in creating the critical mass we have talked about to rejuvenate the area. The reality is that unfortunately, due to our close proximity to Toronto, Hamilton is not considered a premiere venue for entertainment. Promoters would rather have two nights in TO than cover the costs of having an artist play one night in TO, then move one night in Hamilton. Hamilton is also located right smack in the middle of London's Labatt Centre, Niagara Fallsview and Toronto (with it's various indoor and outdoor venues). Hamilton also already has venues of varying sizes that are continually referred to as 'white elephants'.

That being said, many people argue that HECFI should be nixed and our facilities should be run by the private sector (which is another entire topic). Who knows? Maybe with the right managemet we could become the entertainment mecca of Southern Ontario (one can dream).

No one ever said that a stadium was the absolute best use of the property down there; it presented the best option given the opportunity currenlty available. The Pan Am games were originally supposed to be the once in a generation chance to leverage off government funding to create some much needed athletic infrastructure.

The idea of a rec centre/community centre on that land would be great use - provided that it is completely top notch and includes a soccer pitch and many other amenities.

The whole concept of the 'Pan Am park' pitched by the 'Cats seems to be created by an individual that has never spent any time down at the Waterfront. There is already ample park space in that immediate area; Central Park, Bayfront Park and Pier 4 Park.
There is a brand new bandshell located at the Williams Coffee Pub. Gage Park has a bandshell that is utilized for outdoor events/concerts.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 08:10:17

Hamilton Fan,

Why do you feel that the 'Cats should get any of the money available if it the proposed stadium isn't:

a) helping to revitalize downtown or b) accessible to transit

It confuses me that Bob Young and his supporters seem to feel that since the money is potentially available they should be able to hijack it for their own purposes.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By _ (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 08:16:41

This should never have been about "bargaining" or "negotiation".

From the very beginning, this should have been about following a process and collaboratively developing a plan for successful Pan Am facilities.

It WAS Eisenberger's responsibility - to establish a process, not the Tiger Cats, not Raise the Hammer, not any other group or individual.

By failing to establish a bona fide and legitimate process, the Mayor has allowed various interest groups to highjack the opportunities presented by these Games and to pit good intentioned Hamiltonians against each other.

What a shameful failure of leadership.

And what a sobering and sad realization that we have likely lost this City's once in a century chance to build a new stadium.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 08:30:46

Total bollix, Mister Underscore. This did follow a legitimate process and collaboratively develop a plan for the stadium, with the Ticats at the table the whole time. They had clear goals, looked at lots of sites and dropped the sites that didn't meet the goals. Then AFTER the stadium decision was made, the Ticats picked up there balls and threatened to leave unless they got a sweeter deal that sucked millions out of the city into their pocket books.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Wigwam (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 08:35:29

For the last 4 years the chattering classes have complained Mayor Fred isn't a strong enough leader, then he grows a set and leads strongly and they complain that he's being stubborn. Typical Hamilton, you can't win.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 09:28:51

Mister underscore said "By failing to establish a bona fide and legitimate process, the Mayor has allowed various interest groups to highjack the opportunities presented by these Games and to pit good intentioned Hamiltonians against each other."

Are you on crack? Use your head, the "bona fide and legitimate process" HAD to have ALREADY taken place BEFORE we were awarded the Pan-American games. Hamilton was awarded the games BECAUSE the West Harbour Stadium was part of the plan. Somehow the Games Committee wasn't concerned about the non-issues that are now being whipped up by Bob Young and the gang and then parrotted by a few vocal Tiger-Cat fans, political opportunists and mouthpieces with a financial interest in the outcome. Where were they a decade ago? Where were they a YEAR ago?

Do you think that the games committee got together and said "OK Hamilton, we have no idea what facilities you've got, but we're awarding you the games anyway, go see if you can make a deal with the Tiger-Cats"?

Make no mistake, the likes of Scott Mitchell, Ron Foxcroft, P.J. Mercanti and Bob Young (despite what he CLAIMS to have put into the Tiger-Cats) are NOT "good-intentioned". Their unprincipaled actions prove that. They saw taxpayers in a vulnerable position and a City Council populated with a few weak individuals afraid of their own shadows and tried to line their own pocket at the expense of our City's very future.

That may well be business, but it's certainly not "good-intentioned".

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 10:58:35

Well, I will say "good-intentioned" is in the eye of the beholder, just like beauty. ;)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:02:05

I will say your intention is revealed by what you do, just like ethics.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:02:36

See what I mean Ryan?

You can't have a good debate without people quashing the other side. Even if the argument is a good one and it is not an offensive one, watch it fade.

Why bother participating on this site when this is the reception a dissenting voice gets, reasonable or not?

We might as well all be labelled trolls and the aim of your site diminishes.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:07:20

The West Harbor was on the bid book and that still hasnt changed. The location is fine with them its just the ticats are saying no. Listening to Bill Kelly he made the comment that because hamilton owns Ivor Wynne the fact they have to pick up costs, etc..it isnt a subsidy for the ticats. How can paying 3000 dollars per game not be a subsidy. The cats get all the concessions and other things. Its the same thing when then have a non-profit organization and they pay little or no rent in a mall..its a subsidy.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:10:08

Mister Underscore is getting down voted because he has written non-sense.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:11:45

Is Copps a subsidy to a music group that hasn't put a dime into the arena, unlike BY that has actually put in some millions into IWS, but comes into town for a day or two and leaves with a lot of money?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:25:21

When the Bulldogs start trying to hold the city hostage the way the 'Cats are you'll have a point.

"Good-intentioned" means making your positions clear at the beginning of the process and not suddenly making surprise demands at the last second when the pressure is very high as a means of hijacking the process.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:28:30

Don't you know, they were expressing their concerns all along in secret where the public couldn't hear them. We should just trust them on this, like we should trust their numbers without having to see their secret business studies.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:29:59

But obviously trolling is merely in the eyes of the beholder in this case. And I've seen a lot of trolling here for WH. Do they get voted down? This site is broken, because there is no honest debating here. I, for one, am for any site that works for both parties. Who here is really for the same? Who can go beyond the WH tunnel vision that is killing our chances in getting a new venue?

I could make a small prediction here. I think that Burlington's removal from the event list is a significant opportunity for both west harbour and Longwood/Aberdeen. They might put a smaller stadium at WH while building the new large stadium at Longwood. And it could get better... If they apply the Whitestar retractable roof design, with office buildings on each corner, with an additional one where the press box would sit, as needed for MIP, then it could be win-win for both.

Let's try and open our minds here and try to get a solution that works for all of us.

Comment edited by renegauthier on 2010-08-30 10:37:18

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:47:27

" I, for one, am for any site that works for both parties"

I am with you on this rene for sure.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:50:56

Hamilton fan "Is Copps a subsidy to a music group that hasn't put a dime into the arena, unlike BY that has actually put in some millions into IWS, but comes into town for a day or two and leaves with a lot of money?. Do really think they dont pay money to have a concert in there?..are you real serious with that comment?. They are paying far more than $3000 dollars per concert. Elton John had over million dollar gross and paid more than the ticats do in an entire season for that. Not only that the city gets the concession money (unlike Ivor Wynne) ..The amount the ticats put into Ivor Wynne is no more than what the city has put in. The fact he lost so much money has nothing to do with the stadium it has to do with that fact he has won 28% of his games..which is very similar to the Detriot Lions..in other words about the worst in all of sports. The lions attendance a few years ago was 61,000 per game last year it was 49,000..i wonder why.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:52:44

Mister Underscore is being downvoted because he writes things that are factually incorrect as the rationale for slagging the Mayor like "From the very beginning, this should have been about following a process and collaboratively developing a plan for successful Pan Am facilities". Which, of course, is exactly what the City did in the first place and HAD to do in order to win the bid.

How on earth could that be considered a "good argument"?

It's perfectly acceptable to go on this site and say you've got a chubby for the Mayor. But if you attempt to justify that with something that simply couldn't, and of course didn't, happen then expect to get downvoted.

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-08-30 10:53:54

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:57:55

If Mr. Underscore was the only one downvoted, then you have a point, but have you looked at all the arguments?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 12:01:44

And brian, Elton John left town with huge sums of money, that is a fact. And I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By _ (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 12:05:38

I hate to break it to you, but having a dot on a map and a pretty drawing do not equal having a plan.

If that was all that is required to construct a successful multi- million dollar stadium facility, it seems that we have an abundance of experts participating on this website.

The fact is the bid process was simply that, a bid process. It was not a facility planning process.

Anyone who says that you start a major facility planning process with the location, has not taken the time to understand how successful facility plans are developed.

The sad fact is that the loudest people on this website have placed secondary spin-off benefits ahead of real facility planning.

I am not saying that all of your goals are misguided. What I am saying is that the absence of an identifiable planning process is at the heart of our current situation.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 12:07:06

^ Up voted because not insulting!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By renegauthier (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2010 at 12:36:17

I think the underscore guy made some good arguments. Building a stadium is not as easy as it looks. Yes, location is a good factor. Now you have to look at what's around it and how you can get people there.

Transit is part of the equation, but let's not forget the people who come from areas such as Brant County, Brantford, Haldimand County, Norfolk County, Southern Niagara, London and Guelph. They have no transit to get here so we need parking.

And these people do not want to be troubled with looking for a spot and they want to be able to walk there within a reasonable distance. They really shouldn't have to walk any further than the distance between the farthest transit terminal and the stadium. Let's not punish them for having to drive.

This is the one thing that drives out-of-towners crazy. Having to park in front yards for $10-20 is not to their liking, especially when they have a tough time having to leave the lawn because of other cars in the way.

The Longwood/Aberdeen location has what it takes to not just be a great stadium, but the opportunity is there for the Whitestar model to take shape, but with taller buildings so MIP meets its aims and we get a stadium. Win-win.

I'm not anti-WH and I'm anti-EM. I'm pro-bono.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mr. _ (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:12:47

realfreeenterpriser, you are clearly not understanding the process here.

The City of Hamilton did not win the Games, Toronto's Bid Corporation won the bidding process against Bogota and Lima.

Hamilton was simply part of the Bid book by agreeing to participate in the Games, by hosting several venues - the details of which were to be planned at a later date. Hamilton's input into the Bid Book was minuscule to nonexistent and it was certainly not the result of a broad and collaborative planning process.

Well the fact is, no process was established to work out a detailed plan either before or after the bid book went was submitted.

There used to be a Mayor's Pan Am Advisory Group, but according to the Spectator, this group hasn't met since Toronto won the right to host the Games.

There is no special Committee of Council formed to deal with the Games.

The has been no process put in place to develop a plan for the Pan Am facilities. And while there have been ad hoc meetings with the community and stakeholder groups and various rallies supporting one interest group's position over another, again, there is no process in place and no resulting plan to act upon.

It is no wonder that stakeholder relations are in disarray and that Council's position keeps shifting on a weekly basis.

We have not done the requisite work to position ourselves for success.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:21:09

Yes Hamilton fan elton john left with huge sums of money because he filled that arena and deserves every penny. That concert still paid more in rent and the city profited more money from that one concert than the ticats pay rent in an entire year. It is no different than a store in a mall they pay rent, they dont get a discount just because they are a sports store. I can remember around 15-20 years ago the jockey club bar moved because the taxes were around 100,000 per year. If they were paying a reasonble amount of rent i could see it but the rent per game works out to less the 100 tickets. If the ticats keep winning they will average more than 25,000 this year in a stadium that costs far less to run than a entire new one would. You couldnt charge too much at Ivor Wynne for rent that is true but the amount they pay isnt even enough to keep the lights on for the use they get out of it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 13:21:16

I'm not anti-WH and I'm anti-EM. I'm pro-bono.

Wait, U2 is going to play at the stadium?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 14:59:06

Maybe someone can exactly explain to me how sound from concerts wouldnt be heard from the 100's of homes right beside it... (the longwood/aberdeen site). How much parking spots can you get there..it looks limited. The parking i see on google right beside the building in the front has parking for around 200. With the inovation park and a stadium in there could you even get 2,000 spaces?. I dont see alot of parking lots off that site that are close by either.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By A Hamilton Fan (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:38:02

Gee so I guess, an amphitheater wouldn't work at the West Harbour because the bands will be making money and paying a fee to use the venue and oh ya, the businesses around the venue will be making money too.. who will be feeding, and providing shopping for the concert, theater and cultural event attendees.

Some of the people on this site amaze me. If you want to have a usable venue you need to make it attractive to the user. In this case the attendee and the performer. A WH amphitheater could be that venue that brings in a dynamic clientele to the area making it culturally diverse and dynamic.

For those who just can't stand having Bob Y. making money, give your head a shake please. What are you scared of? Really what are you scared of?

Having a world class stadium that will bring $200 million to the GHA through 2 Grey Cups over the next 10 years, and if in the right location, regular money being spent in the city to attend numerous sporting events, concerts and other shows.

I think it's a good thing for Hamilton if we had a lake front amphitheater where it fits and a world class stadium placed in the right location of the city. The city could make money from both. Oh wait but alot of you don't want private interests to succeed in Hamilton. Some of you just want bands to come in play Copps, and walk away with all your money.


Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 16:40:54

For those who just can't stand having Bob Y. making money

Epic bullshit. I have no problem with Bob Y. making money. If he wants to attract investors and build himself a stadium in Timbuktu because they've got better highways, I say go for it and godspeed.

What we can't stand is taxpayers spending $100 million dollars and getting nothing in return just so Bob Young can make money.

When you can figure out the difference between what you wrote and what I wrote, you sir will have achieved enlightenment.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 18:29:17

That 200 million amount would also take into account land that has to be paid for or other things, roads etc. A 150 million dollar stadium isnt exactly world class these days but would be nicer than the current stadium. An no an amphitheater will not necessarily make money, hamilton place has far more events than would be possible there and doesnt make money. The stadium itself wont make money either..thats exactly why you dont throw a extra 80-100 million at something like a CFL team. There is this assumption the place is going to just full of events and will be profitable and everything will be just great. It simply isnt true..if other CFL (Outdoor) stadiums arent usually profitable there is no reason to believe the Hamilton one will be. The very few teams that have been profitable have been basically because of ticket sales period. Copps can have more events..and different kind of events that arent possible events and it is also open year round and doesnt make money. There is such a short time to put events into outdoor stadiums in Canada besides football, its typically between june-sept. Football itself would take around 8 of the primetime friday/saturday nights...a soccer team would take more. There is only a few events that would warrant more seats than Copps for an event as well.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By A Hamilton Fan (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 18:33:41

Nothing in return, the revenue from a single Grey Cup brings an average of $100 million of business to the service and retail businesses in the city where the Cup is being held. Hamilton will be getting two in ten years if a stadium is built that can host a 45 to 50 000 seat event. There's your return, not to mention positive exposure the city could have from successfully holding an event.

You can't build a stadium like that there and it would be a night mare for those living there. Go to an Alouettes game and enjoy the one to two hour commute out of the stadium just to the downtown.

The return is the business generated from the event being held and if you build a venue that can be used for things other then football you will have more money coming it. Annnnd if a an amphitheater is built down at the WH, guess what you'll have a constant flow of people there too attending music, theater and cultural performances. Oh god and the businesses around that venue could make money too.

How the can you expect events to happen in this city if those holding the events don't profit from them? Develop the WH in a cultural arts community with the anchor attraction being a amphitheater. That would be very marketable for development to take off and be used regularly.

Epic bullshit, is that some people in Hamilton want everything fixed but don't want to pay for it. They want change but don't want to make it possible for people to change it. The epic bullshit is how Hamilton city government seems to screw up almost every good thing that tries to come into this city!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 22:06:41

Well those 2 games arent etched in stone, neither is Mark Cohen's job as commissioner. Two in ten years would be good as long as the Hamilton area can support having a grey cup of 45-50 thousand people. If they have to basically give away tickets to make make it 38,000 like the 96 cup it could be a problem. Not saying that will happen again but it is a complete unknown. If they can get on decent streak of winning seasons and especially if Hamilton were to actual get into it than it would be a easy sell out. The Montreal situation is still interesting to me. The owner played in a 20,200 seat stadium since 1997 and only to this year did they even get to a 25,000 seat stadium and the owner payed $6 million of his money to pay for part of the upgrade. With a sell out this Labor day Hamilton and Montreal will be neck and neck average attendance at the 25,000 mark. I can never recall Bob Wetenhall ever complaining about much despite the fact his team attendance has been lower than the Ticats. He was incredibly patient just to wait to get to a 25,000 seat stadium...i mean 13 years. Yes he was lucky having 2 grey cups and profited but just the yearly loses and that 6 million easily wiped that all out.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By A Hamilton Fan (anonymous) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 09:21:22

Remember Brian that prime tickets for an Al's game are over $110 each and that's with a season ticket holder discount.
The limited supply of tickets makes them a hot commodity, but it's the Grey Cups that have boosted their finances.
The same would happen with the Cats, a couple of Grey Cups, would put the team on better financial standing.
I'm not sure about this but I would like to think that if there is a commitment from the league to Hamilton for two Cups we'd likely get them.

I really hope today's council meeting goes well. Well meaning, whatever comes out of it, the city doesn't loose out on the Pan Am games and is able to put that Pan Am money to good use.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By A Hamilton Fan (anonymous) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 09:28:51

BTW:

I'm all for letting private interests make things happen in Hamilton simply because our city government can't seem to get it done and so many of you obviously don't want to pay for it through your tax dollars. Of course I don't want the city government spending my tax dollars either with the track record they have.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted September 01, 2010 at 12:41:40

Yes Montreal has had 2 grey cups since the present owner purchased the team in 1997. Still for 13 seasons he played in a 20,000 seat stadium. He paid 6 million for the current upgrade to add 5,000 seats and other cost wiped out any profit he made from hosting the 2 grey cups. They did add luxury boxes as well.The prime tickets you talk about are not a big portion of the stadium as well. The Ticats since Bob Young has owned the team has averaged more than Montreal up to 2009..The top 4 Ticat price levels take up more than 75% of the stadium and 3 out 4 of those are more than the Montreal ones.

Ticat season ticket prices 700-550-380-300- 195-150-125

Montreal (Super-platinum 1175 - Super Gold 1015) 740-535-355-240-199

Saskatchewan 572-528-466-343 (students) 343 (seniors)

Argos 630-540-386-224-161

Edmonton 500-450-390-329-294-209

Calgary 539-479-419-289-179-139

Winnipeg (single tickets) 64.50-58.25-46.50-32.75-19.25

Bc Lions (10 game flex pack pricing) Silver 350 Bronze 250

ticats *All individual game tickets will include an additional $2 Facility Fee. The top 4 ticat price levels take more than 75% of the stadium..the last 3 ticket levels, family zone, end zone and a small red section arent many seats. Ive already heard that the Ticat tickets are so much cheaper than the rest of the CFL it isnt true it was when Bob Young got the team. Ask any ticat fan how much those tickets have increased since 2004. The Labor day also has a increase for ticket prices.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 02, 2010 at 17:59:07

(I wonder if some people would be happier if Boris Brott attacked the string section with a hockey stick during each performance? Full body armour for the whole orchestra, & a free for all at the end of each concert?)

Elton John vs. B.Y. in a Mixed Martial Arts contest?

The Trans-Siberian Orchestra will sell out Copps again for several concerts this Christmas time (as it does every year) & they won't need to supply the audience with paint ball guns to do it.

As usual, musicians are the 'freeloaders', :( ? ? by Some people's standards.

I wonder how well Copps did when Elton John appeared? Did they get Nothing out of it? 'Don't think so! They probably Crocodile Rocked right down that Yellow Brick Road all the way to the bank.
I wonder how the area restaurants & hotels did too? Parking lots?

At only 10 home games a year..Only Football can save Hamilton???? CRAP & MORE CRAP!
Football can help, but only if they want to.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

Comment Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you multiply 5 and 1?
Leave This Field Blank
Comment

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds