Comment 54702

By geoff's two cents (registered) | Posted January 06, 2011 at 09:04:02

One important thing to keep in mind: As the article suggests, the Aldershot location likely won't work for Burlington or the Ticats if Hamilton accepts the HostCo funding for a scalable stadium. This would leave the Ticats with the option of either bankrolling a new stadium themselves or finding another city who will - or (and this seems more likely to me) - settling for West Harbour, folding or getting bought out by someone else who embraces the location. The scalable option, in other words, can't lose - from a city-building, tax-paying perspective.

In case a free, much-needed 6,000 seat stadium isn't incentive enough, isn't there additional funding (for up to 15,000 seats, if I recall) available should a legacy tenant be secured? If so, it's imperative that the city make a firm, final commitment toward the scalable West Harbour option as soon as possible. If they do this soon enough, it might give the Cats enough time to come to their senses and accept the West Harbour before Feb. 1, thus giving Hamilton a much larger, free, scalable stadium that consolidates the North End and West Harbour as a regional cultural attraction.

Given this scenario: If the Cats bail, Hamilton wins; if the Cats accept, Hamilton wins more. Where's the dilemma?

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds