Sports

HostCo Rejects Markham Pan Am Rugby Site

By RTH Staff
Published August 29, 2010

YorkRegion.com reports that Pan Am HostCo has rejected Markham's Fletcher's Fields site for rugby events at the 2015 Pan American Games.

Instead, the event originally slated for Markham is headed to York University, where the Pan Am organizing committee plans to bring track, rugby and tennis in one location in part to bolster spectator interest, Ian Troop, CEO of Toronto 2015, said Monday.

Mr. Troop said the decision came after input from Rugby Canada that a sizable crowd is expected and Fletcher’s would best serve as a training site.

Markham Mayor Frank Scarpitti added that Rugby Canada wanted the events associated with a more prominent site in a more central location.

40 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 11:52:23

Starting to see a pattern here...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 12:12:51

"The Toronto 2015 Pan Am Games."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 12:18:54

Looks like they just used surounds cities to boost support for their bid for the PAN AM Games. Now we are seeing what they really wanted. This is ridiculous to pull all these venues back to the city of Toronto. Why are we even talking about this!

Comment edited by cityfan on 2010-08-29 11:19:22

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rayfullerton (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 12:21:34

HOSTCO is patronizing other communities but TO, Hamilton will be next to exit stage left!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 12:41:27

Makes you wonder why they bothered to begin with. If they want all the game events in Toronto than the Toronto tax payer can pick up the tab. How is this all going to help Burlington, Markham, probably Hamilton or whatever else place they decide to pull out from.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mark-Alan Whittle (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 13:29:28

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rayfullerton (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 13:51:31

Hostco decisions are Toronto centric and engaged other communities as window dressing.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 13:54:17


...a more prominent site in a central location...along with Burlingtons stadium lose because of lack of GO train access....'If' and that's a big 'IF' we are still going to receive funding for a soccer stadium shouldn't it be centrally located with GO train nearby?
Look whether we support an east, west, north or south site for the stadium the time has arrived for a firm commitement from all partys. HostCo has to come clean and give Hamilton and the Ticats some direction. The Ticats and the City Council need to resolve their dispute by Tuesdays council meeting and put forward a workable stadium site.
'not that easy,' you say....you're right! Seems to me only a few locations fit the bill. Confederation Park, West Harbour, MIP or some other Downtown site.
Confederation Park will need 2/3's of councils support to be considered, not to mention millions in roadway infrastructure (presently has one lane in, one lane out). MIP will need the full support of Mac or it will not likely pass. The West Harbour will need an endorsement from a legacy tenant (Ticats) or 2/3's of Council to remove it. Some other Downtown site is not even on the radar, so that's a big unknown.
'If'(another big 'IF") we have not been set up to fail, the time for debate is over as of Tuesday Aug. 31st. Assuming we can put forward a workable site by then, the ball will be in HostCo's court.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 14:51:01

I'm not exactly sure of the specific location of the York University Pan-Am events but I DO know that the first stop on the GO Train service between Toronto Union and Barrie is called "YORK UNIVERSITY".

Even IF we've "been set up to fail" there was no need.

A double-cross by Bob Young and the Tiger-Cats combined with a few wishy-washy, wardhealing Councillors who don't have the courage to stand up and ask "Bob Young, where were your objections when we applied for the COMMONWEALTH games, where were you until the very last minute?" will look after this for HostCo.

The ONLY objection HostCo has to WH is the "lack of an anchor tenant". Any other site will allow them to raise the GO Train/accessibility issue that they've already used at Kern's Road in Burlington.

There's no Future Fund money for Confederation Park, it's even further from Toronto where the majority of spectators and competitors originate and it would kill any chance of LRT and suck more people out of downtown.

IF Mac's on board for the MIP, Bob Young would have to accept a location that isn't really significantly different than West Harbour and, I would argue, has WORSE access and worse GO train potential. BUT it would allow him to save face.

I just wish Council could realize that most Hamiltonians recognize blackmail when they see it. They should UNANIMOUSLY say to Bob Young and the Tiger-Cats "we've voted on this SEVEN times and we didn't hear a peep from you for the first six. It's the best taxpayers can do to address the, perhaps competing, interests of rebuilding a city and providing Hamilton's home team with the newest and best stadium in the CFL and one that's infinitely better than the one we've got. In that context, your demands are unrealistic and wildly out of proportion to the money you or your fans are prepared to invest". If we lose the games, you lose a home. We can live without YOU, but you can't live without US."

Comment edited by realfreeenterpriser on 2010-08-29 13:52:47

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 15:56:00

They are already alienating people from outside Toronto and the Pan Am games dont exactly set the world on fire as it is . How many can remember anything about the last games?. I had to check to see were they were held in 2007 (Brazil) and will be in Mexico! (oye) in 2011. They are hinting that it must be close to GO..which doesnt leave much since the West Harbor is out. That basically leaves the aberdeen/longwood site, which i dont see how that really improves on the harbor site. It wouldnt matter to the ticats obviously if that site was picked and who knows how many hundreds of jobs Mcmaster had planned there...who cares right....

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 16:25:38

I hope that these recent moves by Hostco are enough to help council stick to their west harbour decision. Clearly the concerns by those who feared partnering with Toronto are now coming to pass. Let's use Hostco's own reasoning on Tuesday and cite GO Train access for our reason sticking with West Harbour.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 18:04:14

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 18:24:45

The west harbor is more than dead...stick a fork in it, it is done. Hamilton might be a national embarrassment for that but it would have been a bigger blunder had they picked the East Mountain. With all that extra cost and only way of paying for it would be probably a 5% tax increase. The pan-am people would have been fine with the harbor..we all know why they arent. No other city in Canada would have accepted a East Mountain type location (costing that much more) so its great to see TSN , other media really know what the deal is...obviously they dont. One way or another you probably will find if another location gets picked it will cost tens of millions more to make it happen...will that be worth it to the tax payers...remains to be seen.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 29, 2010 at 18:43:55

Anyone who believes that there's any chance at all that Confederation Park could be chosen as the stadium site-

Well, I'll show some decorum and restraint and stop right there.

The most shocking aspect of this part of the 'discussion' is that there are still some half-brains out there who can't grasp why this proposal is beyond unacceptable.

(My favourite part of the Pan Am stadium Council meeting two weeks ago was Chad Collins delivering a world-class smackdown to Dave Mitchell, Ward 11 councillor over this very issue. The same Mitchell who decided it was a pragmatic decision to have a booth at the Winona Peach Festival this weekend. "Some mothers do have 'em'...)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 19:02:49

Confederation already had plans. Not only that its the same reason there would never be a stadium inside Gage Park...its a PARK..

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 19:10:34

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 19:31:53

How do you people arrive at these conclusions? "The West Harbour is dead..." Although your 'PREDICTION' may come true. It will take 11 of 16 votes from City Council to remove the WH. It will take the same margin to reinstate Confederation Park. I don't know what will happen but 11 of 16 is asking a lot on any major issue.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted August 29, 2010 at 19:56:15

At this point I'd be impressed if McGuinty strung them along for a year or two and then told them where to shove their 4th-rate wanna-be Olympics just to kick them right where it hurts.

They can eat a whole bag of dicks.

Nobody gives a crap about these games, except to use them to extract cash from the province and the feds... and the Hostco is exploiting that to their own ends, puffing themselves up like the cut-rate IOC they are.

googles

Oh, the Hostco is full of Canadians, not an international organization. So these dicks are actually from here. That makes me feel so much worse.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2010-08-29 18:58:40

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 19:58:20

F. Ward Cleat,

You've got that right.

They got 10 votes in favour of the WH. There is no way they are going to get 11 votes to rescind that choice, let alone get Confederation Park put back into the mix.

The WH is still and will continue to be the site of record. It doesn't matter what agreement that a few councillors and the Ticats come up with between now and Tuesday, they still don't have the votes to get out of the West Harbour.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 20:19:16

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 20:42:23


By Be T, see if you can grasp this (you have to let go of everything else...you know). 2 councillors McCarthy and Merulla will probably not lend their votes to any location because they oppose the expenditure on Pan Am all together. So now you have to achieve 11 out of 14.
P.S. Adult diapers are available at any pharmacy.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 20:58:32

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 21:02:12

They MAY find out that their is just not a single location that satisfies the city, hostco, and the ticats. In that case, they would most likly stick with the WH simple to get "something out of it" and continue working the TiCats seperatly.

I wonder, if it does get scaled down to 7000 would we have to use any of our future fund? If they build it in a innovative way it would be a great little venue for outdoor concerts and a nice outdoor skating rink in the winter. Better then nothing if we don't have to spend any money, we get the site fixed up, and we can work with the TiCats on something else.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 21:17:32

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bigguy1231 (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 21:25:15

Be T,

For some reason you are under the impression that the mayor somehow holds special powers over the councillors. There were 10 votes in favour of the West Harbour. To think that anyone has any sway over how any one councillor will vote, especially in this city is truely nieve. But then again your posts reveal the lack of intellect required to assess the situation and make informed remarks. If all you've got are insults it shows that you have nothing to intelligently counter what I or anyone else has to say on the matter. But then again thats what would we expect from a grade 6 dropout.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 21:27:29

By Be T,
I'm just curious, what exactly would you like to see happen with this stadium? Don't hurt yourself!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 21:33:12

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 21:57:40

Let's get some perspective on what we actually know versus speculation. It's actually difficult for me to make an articulate comment because the developments we have been hearing of since Friday: apparently the Ticats are talking to the City, Burlington lost the soccer games, and now Markham has lost the rugby. What does this mean to us? The 'emergency' council meeting was acutally called prior to any of these developments, so I would imagine positions are being reviewed as every new piece of news is released. Several Councillors want to grill the Mayor regarding his telephone conversation with a proxy from the Premier's office. Part of the COW meeting on Tuesday will be the presentation by the City Manager regarding the business plan. If I recall correctly, the City devised two plans; one scenario with the Ticats, one without. This business plan was devised utilizing the WH. From what I read in the Spec, Chris Murray will also be updating the Council on his talks with Hostco (if nothing else changes between now and then). Now for the guessing games: The loss of games in Burlington/Markham could be a foreshadowing of things to come for Hamilton, or an opportunity to play a bigger part of the games. At some point, there will be a motion to introduce a new site. That's a lot of new information. However, in trying to comprise correspondence to my councilor I have actually had to reference my original letter; the basic premise of which still holds true - what is the best use of our Future Fund dollars?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 22:16:13

"We can live without YOU, but you can't live without US."

real, believe me, Bob can live a very, very fine life without you, me, the TigerCats, Hamilton etc. That much I do know. ;)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 22:28:23

Ok. I'm convinced now. HamiltonFan is the caretaker.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 22:35:00

and By Be T is the Ticat President.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted August 29, 2010 at 22:37:16

By Be T, Dude, I have no clue what your problem is. Clearly you are not thinking straight. If we are going to get that grass seed for free, I say we take it. That move has absolutly nothing to do with the TiCats.

We have already seen one venue removed by Hostco this week because it did not meet their GO Station requirements.

Bob Young is now going to be FORCED to cooperate because if he picks a spot not currently serviced (note that does not have to be WH) all that funding fall through.

Sucks to be you I guess.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By woody10 (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 09:46:40

First off, I liked the Louis CK quote by Pxtl, only because I like Louis CK. And really, wasn't it obvious from the start that Toronto was trying to highjack the whole thing??

As far as the Stadium location, irrelevant, Bob is strictly looking for cash from the city. No site is perfect, they can play anywhere, but they need more of our money. Plain and simple.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 10:05:24

When i say the West Harbor is dead i mean its dead as far as the Ticats go and if they build 5000-7000 seat stadium there it will also be dead as a venue. They voted for West Harbor for a stadium for 15,000 seats not something less than half the size. I don't know about anyone else but even though i was in favor of West Harbor i wouldnt go for a stadium that size. Just say ok forget any new stadium and we can play the games at Mcmaster..it is a new stadium and already is that size. It would make absolutely no sense to build another that size when you arent even sure what the hell you would put in it. The ticats will never play there and the chance of getting a MLS team there is highly unlikely. Even if they got the 2nd tier nasl..15 games with the league attracting 4,000 people a game is also pointless. My main objection in all of this was more cost not location..if the west harbor would have costed 80-100 million more like the East Mountain i would be against it too. I could care less where they would have built it..just that it doesnt cost tens of millions of dollars more doing it. I would argue that point to anyone, whether it was the Ticats or anyone would pick something 80-100 million more for a football stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 10:41:14

No highwater, I'm not not BY nor Caretaker. ;)

CHML is reporting the TigerCats will discuss the Longwood site should council wish this site to be looked at.

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2010-08-30 09:42:59

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robbie K (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:30:05

HamiltonFan, I don't mind that site, but then I question is it REALLY that different from WH? If they can put it there WITHOUT altering the IP plans then I am all for it, however this may come down to it being a prime piece of land again. (particularly knowning that IP is going across the street).

But really, this is the type of site that SHOULD have been identified by the mediator months ago, rather then the EM which was just too far out to left field (literally). I mean, BY said he is not against Downtown, so why was a second site not identified which at least met the cities criteria of downtown... beats me.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:50:49

I don't know Robbie, we aren't privy to all the information that's for sure. Maybe the facilitator was trying to have 2 more distinct sites on the table, as you say there are more similarities between WH and Longwood than between WH and EM. Who knows.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Woody10 (registered) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 11:56:36

Longwood road would meet the visibility requirements BY mentioned plus highway access so all the car junkies that are flocking to the Ti-Cat games from out of town (ha ha ha) will also be happy. I was always surprised this site or Chedoke GC wasn't thought of more seriously. Also close to the LRT route if it ever happens and Toronto doesn't steal that funding as well.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2010 at 22:01:05

I wonder if the city can get a refund on the millions they spent helping to plan the bid?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Be T (anonymous) | Posted August 31, 2010 at 20:26:21

bigguy1231, F. Ward Cleat, Robbie K: Ya'll gonna admit you wuz wrong and know nothing? Or just gonna pretend like old Be T just got lucky? you kids really gotta get out in the real world and understand what is going on.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds