Sports

GIC Meeting Live Stream by The Spec

By RTH Staff
Published January 27, 2011

The Hamilton Spectator is providing a live stream of today's General Issues Committee (GIC) meeting, which continues the discussion of the proposed Ivor Wynne Stadium renovation that started on Monday.

The Spec's Teri Pecoskie is also providing video updates every half-hour.

167 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By hamiltonthisis (registered) - website | Posted January 27, 2011 at 11:22:54

The city also has their livefeed working at

http://hamilton.siretechnologies.com/sir...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By anon (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 11:28:27

Who's that wearing the GO WEST HARBOUR t-shirt in the Council chamber?!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 11:29:44

I am a bit late to the party today - what I am watching is live, right? What did I miss?

Been preoccupied today trying NOT to quit my job - I love my job, I love my job, I love my job......

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By anon (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 11:33:14

Brenda Johnson said that she cannot support this with the given funding gap. She says she would prefer to wait until Monday to vote, assuming they have more definite figures by then. Other councillors have basically said that they will support IWS funding. You can scroll back through the text on The Spec's site to get some details...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 11:34:07

Thanks!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted January 27, 2011 at 11:48:47

democracy fail

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 11:50:05

Brad Clark is the voice of reason regarding the financial realities and our illustrious, storied football team bargaining in bad faith.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 11:53:45

gotta love a process where we are told that Feb 1, 2011 is the absolute deadline, but we won't know the real costs until Feb 2012. Way to go HOSTCO. Nice planning.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Seriouslyjadednow (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 11:56:36

Somebody call 911. There's a robbery in progress at 71 Main Street West, second floor.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:00:01

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:16:14

Sure, if you are strictly using it a reference to labour law, but it's commonly used in business dealings and as a corporate legal term as well. To illustrate I will provide the definition referencing negotiating in good faith:

Good faith is an abstract and comprehensive term that encompasses a sincere belief or motive without any malice or the desire to defraud others. It derives from the translation of the Latin term bona fide, and courts use the two terms interchangeably.

Thus 'bargaining in bad faith':

bad faith 1) n. intentional dishonest act by not fulfilling legal or contractual obligations, misleading another, entering into an agreement without the intention or means to fulfill it, or violating basic standards of honesty in dealing with others. Most states recognize what is called "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing" which is breached by acts of bad faith, for which a lawsuit may be brought (filed) for the breach (just as one might sue for breach of contract). The question of bad faith may be raised as a defense to a suit on a contract. 2) adj. when there is bad faith then a transaction is called a "bad faith" contract or "bad faith" offer. (See: good faith, fraud, clean hands doctrine)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionar...

Today's lesson is concluded.

Don't you have anything germane to contribute?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:30:18

This is killing me. "No tax increases", except we've already clarified that 45% does not include land acquisition and it's now 45% of a much bigger pie. I think it should be "No tax increases*"

*All other services will be cancelled, see you in 2014...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:39:09

Is everyone else seeing this? Sam Merula has mentioned WH...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:41:58

@GrapeApe

what happened?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:43:36

Bah... Sam almost had me.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:44:13

Sam made a very good argument for WH (in my opinion) and then said that we had to just go forward with IW2.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:45:04

WOW.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:46:49

facepalm

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:47:53

Well im posting this ... just to show how good a velodrome could be for Hamilton so that none of us forget about it ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/bike-blog/2011/jan/26/hoy-scalextric-olympic-cycling-set

sorry i know it my be of topic ...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:48:10

The argument boiled down to

Sam "What are the options before us"

Staff "1. IW2 ($$$) 2. Back out (cost $100,000,000 to community) 3. WH scalable"

Sam "Too expensive to go forward, too expensive to go back... have to go forward"

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:52:09

At least Brad Clark had the decency to explain to the public why they are going 'in camera'...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:52:13

Sam made a very good argument for WH (in my opinion) and then said that we had to just go forward with IW2.

He always does stuff like that! Just when you think he gets it, he turns around and votes for sh*t. I was just on the Spec website and when I saw Sam was on the live feed I almost clicked on it, but then I realized it didn't matter what he said because he was going to vote for IW anyway. Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By anon (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:53:45

Rob Rossini said that WH is still an option for Council. I was all ready to throw a wake, but I think we have to wait until Monday to be sure...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:54:16

Anyone see BB's death stare? Wish the camera was at a better angle. Someone from the peanut gallery was appluading Clark's commetn against BB and for a second I throught I saw BB go for his pencils...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:56:06

LOL. I saw that GrapeApe. I thought he was going to climb the wall into the crowd like a WWE event.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:57:01

Thank you Andrea for that information, I certainly wasn't aware of the broader legal definition of the term.

No, I have nothing to add, you appear to have done your research extremely well and I am most impressed.

Again, muchly appreciated.

Sounds interesting, I'm not able to watch it where I am but thanks for the updates.

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2011-01-27 12:58:24

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Peloton (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 12:58:48

Sadly, I get the sense that the velodrome could end up an innocent casualty in this grinding drama. Unless Hostco has a separate deadline for the velodrome, the IO costing will come in after Feb 1, and probably after the city has made their $25m request to the province. That leaves someone to sell taxpayers on the idea of bringing the funding gap, while the sting of that did-I-say-$45m-ceiling-I meant-44%-of-project-cost-floor revelation will likely dampen enthusiasm for scrounging up the missing $10-14m. Maybe there's another $10m mystery investor?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By drb (registered) - website | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:12:02

Did I hear it correctly? Did BB blurt out something about a $10 million (mumble "maybe $20 million") investor? Investing in what? The capital cost of the stadium?

It's this kind of thing that drives me around the bend. Here we are at the 11th hour, Council is hashing out our final position and BB throws new info into the mix. Does staff have this new info?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:16:20

@drd - yeah, complete BS. Why the hell isn't this known already. The city purchased WH lan in good faith - I think we've extended/spent all the faith we can.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:20:24

Needs more facepalm.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:20:25

@Peleton - this numbers game is hard to follow, but by my very rough calculations that new 10-14 million is after the city discarded the costs of the WH purchase (10M) from the calculation and then correctly calculated what 44% means (+12-13M). So I think we're still 10-14 (+10+12) or ~35M. Not sure where "relocation" costs landed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Peloton (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:27:23

@GrapeApe:

I was referring to the cost previously estimated to make the temporary velodrome permanent – the difference, as I understand it, between building an $11m foldaway and a $25m bricks-and-mortar facility. That estimate came in advance of the revised IO estimates, which Rossini suggested would become available at some point in February.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:31:33

@Peleton - sorry for the mix up. I too am hoping for the permanent velodrome (and also hope one day I can spell it consistently correct). So throw another 14M on the pile.

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-27 13:32:05

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:34:16

Didn't Rossini mention that the cost of a permanent velodrome was going to be higher than $14M and for Council to be prepared for 'sticker shock'?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Peloton (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:34:57

No worries. The pretzel-shaped accounting guesstimates are mangling my mind too.

I'll also be crossing my fingers for a permanent velodrome. Maybe my toes as well.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Peloton (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:40:56

@Andrea:

That was what I was getting at in my earlier post – with the mention of the $14m possibly being a lowball number, given what we've seen of IO estimates – especially because the timing will make it seem like council is picking at a wound that is just starting to scab over. Between that and Pan Am fatigue, it's conceivable that it won't get any more money from the city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:40:57

A velodrome as such would be excellent. Have they decided on where it will go yet?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 13:50:36

West Harbour might be a good idea, since y'know.. we've already put money into expropriating property there. It certainly ain't gonna fit at the IWS.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:02:01

@MattM - here's hoping.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:07:06

Shouldn't they also be discussing the new velodrome cost when you consider a scalable WH option leaves more Toronto 2015 money for the velodrome?

Shouldn't all this be taken into account somewhat concurrently?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By woody10 (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:08:13

This council takes little into account.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:11:29

Aside from whatever comes out of Bob Young's flapping gums.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:11:35

@peloton - "picking at a wound that is just starting to scab over" - amazing simile :).

I'm actually feeling kind of stupid just now. I plugged into this whole issue when BY did an about-face last February. I never knew, as was verbally confirmed today, that the primary reason for securing the Pan Am Games was to pay for a new stadium for the Ticats (via Meruall's direct question to Rossini). I thought that the Ticats receiving a new stadium to play in was a huge bonus to the local amateur sport legacy, international high profile, and city building (the kickstart of the WH dev't). I swear to gawd, I'm not being facetious. I really didn't know that a new Ticat stadium was the whole reason for submitting to HostCO. I truly feel really stupid.

Doesn't change the fact that BY didn't bargain in good faith. And I'll always denote "BY" because he's in charge, period. If he didn't like or want Mitchell to be the rabid pitbull (no slight meant to nice pitbulls) then we wouldn't have seen such an obvious display of good cop/bad cop.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:21:48

As others have said, council should have stuck with WH all along. I'm sure BY would have ended up saying okely dokely. Now sure, I'll say BY didn't bargain or negotiate in good faith and it's a bad deal for the city etc. However, by saying this it seems to me like we're saying council are, as a group, weak to have been railroaded by some rich guy. And that's not a very complimentary thing to say about council, even if it might actually be the truth.

The reality is council could have stuck with WH I believe, correct?

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2011-01-27 14:24:04

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By woody10 (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:27:11

Totally agree with HamiltonFan.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:27:38

In my recollection, if council had stuck with their vote confirming, and confirming, and confirming...etc the WH then yes it would be built there. When BY threatened to leave, some council pannicked and changed their vote... here we are.

What makes it worse is we called BY's bluff, or delayed long enough to see the bluff, and we still went down the IW2 path.

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-27 14:29:08

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:29:39

As others have said, council should have stuck with WH all along. I'm sure BY would have ended up saying okely dokely. Now sure, I'll say BY didn't bargain or negotiate in good faith and it's a bad deal for the city etc. However, by saying this it seems to me like we're saying council are, as a group, weak to have been railroaded by some rich guy. And that's not a very complimentary thing to say about council, even if it might actually be the truth.

It's not a complimentary thing, but it IS the truth. Mayor Fred and council stood firmly behind the West Harbor, even in the face of stiff opposition from East Mountain supporters. It wasn't until BY said "We're not playing at WH, you didn't give us EM. We're done here." that council immediately flip flopped, voting to "explore other alternatives". This of course lead us on the expensive, incredibly pointless journey that took us through the summer, fall and half of the winter.

Fred stuck behind his principles even when council abandoned him, and he paid the price by losing his position. That showed incredible leadership and a love for this city that some people will never understand. Now we are left with a man who is prone to flipping off the handle, making decisions based on emotion and using pencils in a way they weren't intended to. What's worse is that he can't even rally council behind him, less than 6 months into his term.

Over the last year there has been an immense amounts of monumental mistakes, and it all comes back to the Tiger-Cats, as far as I'm concerned. Given where we have ended up now, they had no good reason to simply shoot the West Harbour down like they did. We are now paying the consequences, one of which may be losing the games altogether.

Comment edited by MattM on 2011-01-27 14:31:34

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:37:09

Agreed Matt. We are chasing $70 million Hostco funding with $54 plus million local funding to rebuild a failing venue. The Ti-cats will surely be back with cap in hand before this council term is over.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:37:25

Well, at least IWS2 is more city building than EM, Confed Park, CP railyards so it's not all that bad.

But Matt, it was up to council to call the Cats bluff, if they felt they were bluffing. Whatever the Cats reasons were for saying they won't play at WH, well, they said it. Now, how serious were they? We'll never know because council acted weak IMHO. I can understand people will put the blame on the Tigercats and I do put some blame on the TigerCats as well. But in the end, it is council that is making the decisions with votes, not the TigerCats.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:40:27

It's a real head-scratcher as to what BY has against the WH. Perhaps, being the financial bulldog that he is, there are other plans underway which will make him more money, and the Ticats/stadium would have just gotten in the way. I don't know...just musing aloud...

Either way, City Hall legal beagles better watch their diet and get ample sleep going forward. I heard the phrase "that's something we'll have to continue to negotiate with the Ticats" today.

Great. (okay, now I am being sarcastic)

I still feel bad for the councillors and the position that they've been put into since last February. No one wants to be the jerks that lost the Ticats, elections aside. And the rules kept changing, and the back room deals kept rearing their heads, and there were reams of reports to try to stay on top of (amid other municipal issues), and then, yeah, the Bratina alliance... I coulnd't agree more, though, that Eisenberger had it right all along. Entirely.

Are they ever going to bring up the velodrome, though? Shouldn't be an after-thought. Could prove to be the most progressive CITY BUILDING component of the Games.

Comment edited by goin'downtown on 2011-01-27 14:42:04

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:42:18

It's a real head-scratcher as to what BY has against the WH.

I think it started out as a bluff to squeeze a better deal at another location with more parking, and when council called his bluff he was stuck. It became personal, and IWS lets him save more face than WH would.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:42:57

HF, I love you with a madness, but how in God's name can you make comments like the ones above, and this one from the Spec:

...the Cats will be much better off playing out of another community than dirty, smelly steel townish crapper city like Hamilton. A lot of people agree with this, the image of the city is a blight not just on the Cats but anything that is associated with this city.

on the same day? I know this debate has taken a toll on alot of people, but please, for your own sake, go outside and get some fresh air.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By woody10 (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:46:10

Building at West Harbour would have gone a long way to improving this city and it's image.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By AnneMariePavlov (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:47:40

Thank you for all the updates. The Spec website is useless. I would love to actually hear what's going on over there in the octagon!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GG (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:53:05

""Been preoccupied today trying NOT to quit my job - I love my job, I love my job, I love my job......""

Andrea you are giving us so much useful information I wish I could vote you up, you go gurl!!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 14:56:07

Anyone else catch the latest?

Ticats Ottawa-bound if stadium dies: Mitchell The Hamilton Tiger-Cats will be in Ottawa in two years if a deal to build a new hometown stadium falls through, says Ticat president Scott Mitchell.

In a question-and-answer session following a speech to a Hamilton Rotarian luncheon at the Art Gallery of Hamilton today, Mitchell said the Ticats are Ottawa-bound if the stadium deal dies.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:00:09

highwater, it's all about what hat you're wearing and where and also who pisses me off with a comment I might have just read. ;)

Maybe I should have been a politician or filthy rich businessman, the hats they wear often go under the name of fibbers, or maybe outright liars! ;)

Then, of course, I can always use the excuse I'm a bit touched with some bipolar attributes. Hey, whatever works at the time I suppose. ;)

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2011-01-27 15:01:29

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ty Webb (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:03:14

Wow! Scott Mitchell is like a cartoon character. Hat in hand, no leverage,
nothing to offer, and still making demands and threats to the bitter end!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:03:58

Doesn't that mean the CFL loses several million bucks in expansion fees? I can't see that happening.

If Ottawa's an option for them, I'm guessing they'll be gone within 10 years, and we'll be left with an empty stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:05:59

Ottawa's used to having crappy teams, so that seems a good fit.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:06:27

Agreed in regards to expansion fees.

The best part of the article:

Mitchell said there have been no discussions between the football team and either the city of Ottawa or people with interests in bringing a team to the nation’s capital.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:07:23

Ah, so he's talking out of his ass. Gotcha.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:10:44

Yah, business as usual for him. I'm guessing it's a tactic because they're whining since they had to waive some of the ridiculous fees they originally wanted.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:11:43

They didn't say they'll be playing in Ottawa. They'll be there with cap in hand.

"In a question-and-answer session following a speech to a Hamilton Rotarian luncheon at the Art Gallery of Hamilton today, Mitchell said the Ticats are Ottawa-bound if the stadium deal dies."

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-27 15:12:58

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:24:17

mrgrande, at least it won't be an empty stadium at WH, one way to look on the brightside of it. ;)

I tell you what, if the velodrome does go to WH, I'll make it a point to actually go there once in a while and watch some cycling (maybe it's fun to watch live, I don't know) and spend some money downtown afterwards in a restaurant.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:36:27

I think I figured out where Mitchell gets his negotiating strategy.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:44:40

highwater......

Wow!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 15:52:43

HamiltonFan,

It's interesting that a month ago you were sure that WH was a bad idea and that we were idiots to support it and that Bob Young was a genius and would take the team to Moncton and boy would he show us.

Now apparently it's a shame that he didn't go with WH.

You also seem to want the Velodrome there. Won't that interfere with the walks you and your wife take in the area the same way the stadium would?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:01:47

Anyone up for the idea of a last minute weekend rally in support of WH stadium AND velodrome, and express your anger at city council? Either that, or organize a flooding of their email in-boxes? Or both? Just wondering.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:03:25

Brandon, I didn't say anyone was an idiot. After reading some excellent articles and posts on this site and others, I came to the conclusion that WH with a new stadium, if it could be done, was a better fit than IWS2 for both the city and the team. I still don't think a stadium at WH is the place for the team though, I still believe that a highway accessible site like Aldershot is better for potential growth of the fanbase for the team. But that's a different story. It could be a good site for a stadium if the team did manage to do well from a stadium at this site. Get the Rheem site and brownfield cleaned up and all that. But I'm hopeful this will be done soon anyways with the velodrome or some other type of project.

I suggested BY might take the team to Moncton, I didn't say he would. I don't know what he'd do honestly.

The velodrome, to me, fits in more with the environment of the WH, a smaller structure than a stadium. Hopefully it can be built with use as an ampitheatre as well with one end open or something, that would be super.

So no, no one is an idiot except for me that has a mind that does change thoughts based on new readings and then further thinking. But I'm a nobobdy, I don't matter at all really, just one ordinary citizen who isn't all that bright actually.

This whole stadium and PanAm thing, while straightforward for some, hasn't been easy for me to grasp. It's been a rollercoaster complicated by the fact I'm a huge Canadian football fan and really enjoy the Tigercats and going to games. I enjoy the community aspect of it all as well as the competition. My wife and me live a a simple life, we are not socialites and don't entertain much and don't have many close friends and don't go to church etc. It's just a great night or day at the ballpark, I love the feel and smell of going to the stadium and being there with thousands of other Tigercat fans. They could put the stadium in the middle of Lake Ontario and I'd try to go to the games. I'm not as politically oriented as most on this site, a bit, but not that much. However I'm glad I stumbled on this site because I've learned a lot, will continue to learn a lot. There are some very talented and exceptional writers here and it has opened up my mind I must say, much more than most of what I read as news on The Spec or other mainstream media.

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2011-01-27 16:07:51

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:12:30

Someone at The Spec is suggesting a "Rally to Boot the Ti-Cats." That sounds about right to me by this point. Would certainly get a LOT of media attention :)

I speak this as someone who WAS a lifelong Ti-Cat fan, but who will never attend another game. Not necessarily a boycott. Just that something that was a fun source of civic pride has been irrevocably tarnished now. I am too intelligent to be associated with such stupidity as the Ti-Cat organization. And if that sounds elitist, I've worked hard to learn and grow as a person my whole life, and the Ti-Cat org is just a throwback, a nothing, a ghost of the past with no sustainable business model, no vision, and no future.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:15:03

Zephyr you are not alone. I was a DIEHARD until a few years ago...

This has made it hard for me to even watch football, my Dad tells me it is not the Team's fault and I should support the athletes on the field, but I am too soured with this ownership group to rise above it all and have a good time LOL

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:20:21

So maybe it should be a "Bye Bye Bob" rally? Can't really blame the athletes. If ownership changed, and I think one of the city staff tangentially* referred to that, then I see a flood of support. Who's the next white knight?

*That tangent was in response to a question regarding what were the options left for the TiCats, and the third option was "hand over the keys".

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-27 16:23:12

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:22:05

@Andrea - I didn't watch the CFL last year at all, even the Grey Cup. Sad because it was a tradition my dad and I shared.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:23:08

@Grape --

Wish it could be a "Bye Bye Bobs" meeting - but alas, c'est impossible.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:23:34

Did I hear on the radio that there is an even bigger funding gap now? Or maybe they were referring to the funding gap that was mentioned earlier in the week?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:23:34

Does anyone know if it's possible in electoral procedure here to have a recall vote for mayor?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By PeterF (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:24:45

@Zephyr

Too bad this is not California and we can recall the election.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:25:52

@Zephyr - given BoBra's death stare, I think he could be persuaded into a Kirk-Spock style fight to the death... at the very least I think we will see a Chrétien handshake :)

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-27 16:26:00

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:27:31

HamiltonFan, I appreciate your willingness to change your mind in the face of new facts. Let's face it, IWS2 is a new fact, and with all due respect, anyone with half a brain should be able to conclude that a brand new stadium overlooking the harbour is better than half a stadium looking over Stelco. Had we re-elected Fred, we'd be negotiating for cost and terms of a WH stadium now, instead of the absolute worst option possible.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:28:14

I wonder how much of this closed door session has been Bratina and Clark telling each other to eff off?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By drb (registered) - website | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:28:46

Bratina/Clarke cage match! Or a duel, pencils at 20 paces.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:29:00

Well if someone is going to provoke BoBra I am headed to City hall right now :) to watch. When he was my Ward 2 councillor, I sent him my very first (and my very finest) letter to a city councillor. It was astoundingly wonderful... I was a bit inebriated by my own verbal verbosity, but still. I put a lot of effort into it. He sent me back a condescending, arrogant, nasty email, accusing me of lacking "principals" (I think he meant "principles")

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:29:25

...we're back online...

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-27 16:29:34

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:31:00

@jason - oh dear, you depressed me even further. Our PanAm city building dreams have come to this... half a Ti-Cat stadium overlooking a Stelco, eh?

I bought into the whole "Hamilton has so much untapped potential" meme.

But now I realize why the potential remains untapped.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:33:33

I just realized something important. Bob Bratina has now surpassed Sarah Palin on my list of "most disliked" politicians. Wow.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:36:28

HamiltonFan,

Kudos to you for being able to change your mind.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By drb (registered) - website | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:37:18

BoBra!!!! We need T-shirts, or bras.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:37:39

so they are agreeing to pay 44%. Yikes. Do I hear $50 mil? $60? 70? We'll find out in a year from now.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:39:59

so, it sounds like this motion is contingent on the province giving us an extra $25 million to bridge the gap. So, no provincial money, no half a new stadium.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:49:33

BoBra is likening this process to delivering a baby?

He is just odd. And yet... the leader of our city... perhaps we can start compiling a list of BoBraisms... like they used to do with George W Bush gaffes back in the good ole days.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:50:31

Yes, it appears the Councillors are clarifying that they support the motion because they want to move forward with gathering more information from staff but reserve the right to vote definitively until Monday.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:50:40

So the current estimate is where? $156M? Which would make our contribution just under $70M for half a stadium in the worst location? Awesome.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:00:26

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:00:44

Anyone want to go in on making Bratina pencils, with a Bob-head eraser so he can change his mind?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:01:33

Some quick ultra simplified numbers... TiCats sign on for 20 years and play 12 games a year (give or take) in IW2 (or where ever). At $156,000,000 that means each ticat game for the next twenty years will have cost us (drum roll please) $650,000 per game. I know, I know, it's not all about the Cats, so lets say they use it for half, 2/3s...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:02:13

@Boomer - only if they are the spinny troll kind and have BoBra printed on them. Or on one side "YES" other side "No". Make sure it has the death glare too.

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-27 17:04:20

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:05:11

GrapeApe: I can agree to that, but you should try to blackmail me first.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:06:15

@Boomer - ok. I absolutely refuse to play with the spinny troll.

How am I doing?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:07:22

It's a deal....let's ask the province to kick in some money.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:09:33

No, no, you're not playing right. No we have to drag this out for an unbelievable length of time so we can agree on the first choice.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:11:03

You're right, GrapeApe....I should be voted off the island. Make that by recall vote.

Comment edited by Boomer on 2011-01-27 17:14:20

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:13:57

I don't think we have enough time to make BoBra and Boomer pencils.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:15:06

In no way do I want my name associated with BoBra. I've suffered enough through this stadium drama.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Depressed (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:24:16

Just to put this in perspective here is what the 2011 Pan Am Stadium in Guadalajara, Mexico looks like:

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1991/estadioomnilife.jpg
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/7456/6315.gif

Only $45 million to be the laughing stock of the continent, what a bargain!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:25:39

BoBra!!! That is the best thing to come out of this whole mess...

...At the very least, IF they go through with this nutty plan, it will have given birth to a new word that will be part of the local Hamilton lexicon -- Over time, it will come to describe the "x" factor that keeps Hamilton from achieving its potential. For now - it's a nickname that will follow the Mayor around for the rest of his time in public life...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:26:37

Glad I'm not as affected as some of you guys.

I want the season to start tomorrow and watch Knowlton and company to do some damage to the opposition!

I just love the Hamilton TigerCats too much some might say but that's the way it goes. And in some new digs soon perhaps on hallowed grounds, sounds great to me! The history of IWS goes back to 1930 I think it is, cool. Start of a new era if this gets off the ground. I'm very excited I must admit.

But it's a democracy, people should protest if they want to, that's what's nice about living in a free society. Go for it if you want.

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2011-01-27 17:29:56

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:32:48

Well then how about BoYo? Much better than BY.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ty Webb (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 17:42:57

Wow, TD Fanatic errr HamiltonFan, you are all over the map! Marks for being positive though!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:06:25

Ty, BY showed an interest in a Hamilton institution when few people did. He has lost some money on this team and with that money could have invested in the stock market conservatively and made a fair bit of money, just putting it in conservative type of funds would have been a guaranteed return for him. But he took a chance on the team and city knowing he'd lose money and I bet right now, with no guarantee IWS2 will work, I wouldn't be surprised if part of him and his family is hoping this doesn't go through so he could get out.

Personally, I'm excited. For a chance to see if Hamilton can show the country before 4-5 million people for a Grey Cup that look what we can do here! I'm giddy but I know this probably isn't the place to show my excitement too much and i apologize for offending anyone if I am with my upbeat mood.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ty Webb (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:15:16

@HamFan, not to beat a dead horse but you have to admit that the wide establishing shot for the Grey Cup broadcast would look a hell of a lot better with the harbour and parks in the background than smokestacks.
Missed opportunity!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:23:21

@Ty, the chance that Hamilton will ever be awarded a Grey Cup game is slim to none. This renovation would only allow 35,000 seats max.............Another broken promise from you know who.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:26:56

So our fixed $45,000,000 contribution is now $69,000,000 (44%) + $10,000,000 (WH land acquisition) + $6,000,000 (accountd sale of IW land) = $85,000,000...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:27:59

Maybe we can put in 40,000 temporary seats at McMaster and hold a Grey Cup there.
Hey, on the bright side, we'll get to show off another side of Hamilton when the Cats are playing at Mac during IW construction....unless TSN leaves their cameras pointing to the northeast smokestacks so no fans across Canada are confused as to where they are.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:28:31

Look, added seating can be done, it's done in Calgary, Regina and even in Montreal in the Big O when the Als were in to take it from 55,000 to 65,000. BY and the city will bring a GC here if this works out, I'm sure of it.

Ty, the cameras can show the harbour and escarpment and trails and everything. Look, we have steel here, you can't hide it. The Eiffel Tower is made mainly of steel, maybe we should celebrate it rather than just hang our faces low that it's not Hamilton anymore. Well it is still part of Hamilton, not nearly as important as in the past but I don't think we should be ashamed of it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:41:01

Jason, with Scott Mitchell at the helm they may find Ron Joyce Stadium meets all their needs with its present capacity.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:45:48

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 HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:50:51

Yes indeed thanks Bob. This money gap is not very much at all. People bitch it's a lot of money but then don't mind going to watch some athlete in another league who makes $27 mill a year in salary like ARod and you have to pay a fair bit of money for a seat to pay for his multimillionaire salary to throw a ball or hit a ball. I don't get that. They should be paying for MY seat with the money they make.

Check what some of these athletes make! It's insane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_lar...

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2011-01-27 18:52:27

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 18:53:48

Guys and Gals - lets say the province chips in 25M, or some business contributes 10M. How is that factored in the numbers? Is it off the top, such that Hamilton only sees 11M from the province, or 4.4M from a business (44%)? Are these contributions to come directly off of Hamilton's bottom line?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 19:04:36

I missed the second half the meeting.

I don't understand the funding formula. If Toronto 2015 pays for 56% of the capital costs for construction, and the city pays for 44%, how do you end up with a shortfall, whether it's $25m or any other amount.

What am I missing here?

What is the total they are trying to fund now?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Trevorlikesbikes (registered) - website | Posted January 27, 2011 at 19:05:21

I liken bob to judas iscariot

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 19:07:40

@Kirk - our contribution was expecetd to top out at 45M. Some believed that included land acquisition - it does not. That 44% is of the projected cost of 156M, or 69M + land acqusition + the money expected from the sale of IW etc. I don't know where council came up with 25M.

Comment edited by GrapeApe on 2011-01-27 19:08:42

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 19:35:16

It was always my understanding that all municipalities are committed to 44% of capital construction costs for all facilities everywhere throughout the GTHA.

How people thought that changed is beyond me. Including councilors and staff. Even the city's last report kept the Toronto 2015 and city of Hamilton contributions at fixed amounts. That's wrong. They are percentages.

Am I seeing gross incompetence or am I failing to grasp the funding formula?

How can there be any shortfall if the two parties, are committed to 56% and 44% of construction costs for 15,000 seats?

Anything beyond the 15,000 seats was to be financed by the private sector.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 19:37:32

A brand new 25,000 seat stadium at WH would have cost $200m

I think there's more value to the city to spend $88m on that, than it is to pay $60m for IWS2.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 19:59:24

http://forums.ticats.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=64393&p=1096585#p1096585

"Please read the following from Ticats President Scott Mitchell:

The comments this afternoon were not meant in a manner at all to be taken as a threat. We have had incredibly positive momentum on this from all the stakeholders, not the least of which is the city and our Mayor Bob Bratina. I was asked a question in an informal setting whether Bob Young was bluffling. He's not, we need a viable stadium in a viable market. I have no doubt that both of those are possible in Hamilton, and Bob is absolutely 100 percent committed to a solution in Hamilton."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By enough is enough (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 20:12:34

Mitchell apologizees only because he is going to get his money and for the next 20 years Hamilton taxpayers will be subsidizing EVERY Ti-Cat ticket sold to the tune of $30 each. A sad sad day for what was once the ambitious city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 20:12:49

For clarification:

HostCo (now Toronto2015) will pay for 56% of a PAM-AM stadium, meaning Pan-Am requirements only. Any additions above and beyond Pan-am requirements such as luxury suites and high end 'club seating' or any other CFL mandatory requirements is paid for by Hamilton. This extra cost above and beyond Pan-Am requirements also includes the $9.8 million renovation of the North stands, this seating will be 10,000 above the maximum 15,000 South Side seats T.O.2015 is willing to fund.

That's how I understand things so far, let me know if I'm off on anything.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 20:25:37

I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion around this comment.

What I read is that any costs Bob Young has incurred buying and running the Carolina RailHawks actually shows up as money spent on the Hamilton Tiger Cats. How much of the much discussed $30 million Bob has 'lost' (but really should read spent) since owning the Cats is really a RailHawks cost. I'm amazed there has been no follow-up on this. I contacted the Spec and got a message back from the night editor yesterday saying they were checking it, I hope a story shows up Friday or Saturday... but I doubt it. There was an article in the sports section about issues with the soccer league Bob owns the local rights to.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 20:29:30

Had a moment to surf a few RTH comments from the past and found these from March of 2010:

"As Bob Young said 'The worst stadium in the worst location is an improvement over what we have now.'" – Vod K

"I still say the current location should be considered. Its right smack in the middle of the city. There is enough room with some creativity (redirecting Cannon St.) When I go to games from my West End home, I meet up with East Enders and the Hill people that I know and love. We walk through this great neigbourhood and lament that maybe there could be more amenities nearby. A new stadium is not a magic bullet, but tearing down Scott Park and breathing some new life into this area is a good start." – Henry & Joe

All I can hope for now is - that BY doesn't screw over the City any further - that some decent restaurants/pubs/niche shops make their way into IWS territory - that the velodrome takes the spotlight and becomes a permanent fixture at the Barton/Tiffany location

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By F. Ward Cleat (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 20:32:20

mr.janitor I think you have it. 15,000 seat Pan Am equals $125 million, TO.2015's 56% = $70.5 million, Hamiltons 44% = $54.5 million. Still need to find the rest from the Province or ?.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By OhMyBratina (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 20:55:46

I can't believe that Mayor Bratina said he had a $10M investor and then denied saying he did. The story changed when he was pressed on it. Is this responsible leadership? I don't think so. This man and the truth are strangers, it seems.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By huh? (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 21:16:48

"Any additions above and beyond Pan-am requirements such as luxury suites and high end 'club seating' or any other CFL mandatory requirements is paid for by Hamilton"


So let me get this straight. Hamilton could not get a 15,000 seat stadium without football as a legacy but then can't count the football specific components for funding.

So umm, why did we let the TiCats remove Track and Field. This has been a farce.

No more Ticat season's tickets for me

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 21:46:43

Scott Park is now the National Art College of Canada.

Why would some decent restaurants/pubs/niche shops make their way into IWS territory now when its already been there for 80 years?

It would be a completely different story downtown or at WH, where there is a completely different synergy with so many more options as is the case for any downtown area.



Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 21:53:09

F. Ward Cleat wrote:

"15,000 seat Pan Am equals $125 million, TO.2015's 56% = $70.5 million, Hamiltons 44% = $54.5 million."

Aren't we shooting for option B, which is $138m, and can be found on page 18 of the city report found here:

http://www.raisethehammer.org/static/images/ivor_wynne_stadium_report_2011_01_24.pdf

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 21:57:39 in reply to Comment 58437

I agree....also, just wanted to try replying to a comment. LOL

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 21:58:12 in reply to Comment 58438

if Bob is committed to Hamilton he should start by firing this clown.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 21:58:24 in reply to Comment 58446

Drew Edwards kind of nails the afternoon's fiscally frisky atmosphere by describing that $10m (to $20m, if my ears caught that correctly) windfall as "just a possibility of what might be possible."

http://twitter.com/scratchingpost/status/30688690145595392

Hamilton: The City of Potential Possibility

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:06:33 in reply to Comment 58460

Just four blocks from IWS to the illustrious Dizzy Weasel.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Fred Street (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:16:00 in reply to Comment 58439

$33 a ticket for those Hamilton taxpayers planning on attending a game. (Factoring in the surcharge -- and overlooking the jump in ticket prices that will inevitably come sometime in the next four years.) But hey, the fans realize what a priceless commodity we have in the Cats, so I'm sure there'll be no yowling when the price hike hits.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:22:48 in reply to Comment 58461

Yes, but total costs are 156M.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:27:13 in reply to Comment 58430

The reason they make so much money is that there are TV contracts that bring it in. If they didn't get it the money would all go to the owners.

The players are the ones bringing in the fans, so they should get a significant portion of the pie. If people didn't want to see it the advertisers wouldn't pay for the airtime.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Brandon (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:28:20 in reply to Comment 58438

Ignoring the fact that the definition of "viable" is a variable. IWS wasn't viable not too long ago...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:34:58 in reply to Comment 58477

Yes, $138m + $10m north side reno + $1.5 south side demo + $7m TiCat offices = $156m.

However, the Ti-Cat office request ahs been removed, thereby reducing total cost by $7m to $149M.

The 44% and 56% ratio applies to stadium cinstruction only, which is $138m.

So funding gap would be $11m in this scenario, no? ( $149m - $138m = $11m)



Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:42:36

anyone seen the concept plan for the 'precinct'?
It's CRAP. A parking lot exists where Brian Timmis is and that's it.
City-building at it's best in the Hammer. If it's not Vranich, it's someone else paving over more of our core with parking lots.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:45:03 in reply to Comment 58482

I am not sure about the math/calculation - if the total stadium cost is 44% to the City then our share is $60.7 M.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:45:03

So, the Ticats are putting $3 million toward the capital funding. We're lucky to get that. The city has made it quite clear that the Tiger Cats are 'just tenants'.

Just asking: how many tenants contribute money when their landlord wants to build new?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:45:47 in reply to Comment 58485

is there a link somewhere?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:51:49

How may landlords pay for the tenant to live there?

This analogy does not apply. I wish people would stop using it.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:54:43 in reply to Comment 58486

It is not 44% of total stadium cost.

It is 44% of actual construction cost only.

So that excludes things like demolition, land acquisition etc.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:55:33 in reply to Comment 58488

it's the first appendix after the initial report here: http://hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/A25A74C5...

I realize it's just an early concept, but wow. At todays meeting, Rossini was suggesting that with the Cats scrapping plans for their office building on site, that piece of land can also be used for parking.

I love the 'civic plaza' in the middle. Yea, nothing more enjoyable than a civic plaza next to Cannon St in the middle of a parking lot. If that's the case, then downtown Hamilton has the most civic plazas in Canada.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:55:39

I think I'll take that money I was going to spend on season tickets and go support some downtown Hamilton restaurants...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 22:57:03 in reply to Comment 58487

how many tenants get to own the business using the property and keep all the profits?

Bill Kelly was using that stupid argument today on air, as if the Cats are nothing more than some tenant in an apartment building. That's what Cat defenders have resorted to.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 23:08:23 in reply to Comment 58494

Here's the math with new numbers from Mark Masters' National Post article. (BTW, he's been doing a great job on this story)

Ivor Wynne rebuild budget breakdown
(All figures in millions)

COSTS
South stand construction (approx 15,000 seats) — 138.2
North stand renovation (approx 10,000 seats) — 10
Demolition and site preparation — 4
Replace Brian Timmis Stadium — 2.4
Total — 154.6

FUNDING SOURCES
Toronto 2015 (provincial and federal governments) — 69.1
City of Hamilton — 51.5
Stadium naming rights — 6
Hamilton Tiger-Cats — 3
Total — 129.6

Total funding shortfall — 25



Read more: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/01/27/funding-gap-for-ticats-stadium-shrinks/#ixzz1CIdKpVjT

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 23:14:56 in reply to Comment 58495

If IWS2 goes ahead, then I hope they plan the stadium in conjunction with he Scott Park LRT stop.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 23:18:29

Uh oh. 44% of what?

"A final budget will not be finalized by Toronto 2015 until February 2012."

Read more: http://sports.nationalpost.com/2011/01/27/funding-gap-for-ticats-stadium-shrinks/#ixzz1CIg7cn8z

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 23:24:42 in reply to Comment 58499

I believe the numbers are wrong.

The Stadium naming rights (6M) are the Cat contribution with a guaranteed minimum of 3M.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 23:30:31 in reply to Comment 58494

44% of PanAM construction costs. Anything beyond PanAM is 100% cost.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kurious Kat (anonymous) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 06:53:15 in reply to Comment 58499

Would that TC $3m (<1% capital cost) be up front or portioned out over 20 years? Given previous "commitments," I suspect the latter but am willing to believe that a Cat might be able to change its stripes. Especially if Coors, Primus, Tim Hortons had just stepped up to put money in the club's pockets, as they allegedly have.

Also, a prediction: Even if the province steps up with the missing $25 (for $60m total from Queens Park) Hamilton could easily end up paying the lion's share for this build. Someone should start a pool as to what that number will be.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 06:53:29 in reply to Comment 58499

Replace Brian Timmis Stadium — 2.4

That's for just the stadium, without land costs, right?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 07:15:19 in reply to Comment 58503

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/478901--seasick-punch-drunk-or-having-a-baby

Dreschel suggests that what the Cats have offered is "a $3-million naming rights guarantee," which I'm guessing means that the above numbers would be $6m off. If they've pulled an MLSE/BMO and offered $3m for naming rights which they intend to sell for twice that, the city might not see the possibility of naming rights income until 2035, when the lease comes up.

If so, we're already talking about a commitment from the City of $57.5m before demolition and land acquisition costs.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 07:26:05 in reply to Comment 58482

If Hamilton is legally bound to pay 44% of stadium costs after signing on Feb 1 and the feds and the province can't pay into that 44% (which is my understanding), then the funding shortfall is ultimately 44% our problem.

So a $138m stadium would bring $77.28m from Toronto 2015, with the province making up the $8.18m gap from the current commitment; the remaining $60.72m would theoretically be Hamilton's share. That and the demolition costs, land acquisition costs etc.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 07:30:37 in reply to Comment 58487

So, the Ticats are putting $3 million toward the capital funding.

Please, they're offering to share naming rights money, not putting up there own money.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Mogadon Megalodon (anonymous) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 07:31:57 in reply to Comment 58425

I don't question that we can add 10,000 temporary seats to a 55,000 seater. We could probably even do it at the 25,000 seat IWS2. Given the CFL's previously stated 45K baseline, however, I have my doubts about cramming 20K temporary seats in. But maybe I just lack for imagination.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By JWoww (anonymous) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 08:59:52

Good point Cap'n Kirk; I think Council just signed a blank cheque.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Sumpture (anonymous) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 09:01:37

Jason said, "how many tenants get to own the business using the property and keep all the profits?

Bill Kelly was using that stupid argument today on air, as if the Cats are nothing more than some tenant in an apartment building. That's what Cat defenders have resorted to."

Are you ever bitter. Get over it. The WH plan was a bogus ruse at best. This plan is a face-saving gesture at best. What malarkey all around.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Seriouslyjadednow (anonymous) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 09:13:17

@JWoww

I think council just signed a blank cheque for stadium construction AND threw in an American Express Rhodium card with an expiry date 20 years from now.

You know the card -- it's the one where you don't have to clear the balance every month.

The one that doesn't even require a minimum payment every month.

The one that sees the balance owing just disappear from the page like the Visa ads in the series 'If Life Were Really Like That'.

For Machiavellian Bob Young, with this naive, pushover council, life really is like that.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Tybalt (registered) | Posted January 28, 2011 at 22:16:39 in reply to Comment 58518

Which isn't their money to begin with. Why are we even talking about sharing naming rights money with the Cats, let alone letting them take it and then "give" it back to us?

It enrages me that City Council can't even keep millions of dollars from walking out of the door in broad daylight.

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