Comment 76232

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted April 25, 2012 at 12:56:35 in reply to Comment 76231

I don't think the citizenry should be on the hook for the losses either. It is a tough way to begin a new year and the last season at Ivor Wynne, to be asking for money. But as a tennant wouldn't you be asking for some guarantees? Actually, I thought they were supposed to tell us about their plans for 2013 relocation early this year?

Anyway, what isn't thought about is what is going on and has been all along, behind the scenes as -Hammer- pointed out. There are good things happening. As humans we just dwell well on negatives.

This whole story first came across as rather absurd the Cats asking Hamilton to sign a gurantee. My first thought was 'take a hike'. Take some responsibility here too. Bottom line it's a situation that has to be addressed and one party shouldn't be held accountable for the entire thing. If anything, I would agree for the province or feds to sign that guarantee themselves and going forward, to get their noses involved in these stadium/arena proposals a little earlier in the game to ensure they don't have to keep paying for city and teams inability to communicate and act in the best interest of the people.

There is an analogy in everything and ideally, both sides walk away whether in business or in personal matters, stronger, better people with lessons in hand to pass on.

I have learned so much from this process and still do. We all have. Learning the hard way is unfortunate but the lessons really stick when we do.

Perhaps the big problem here is the whole idea of 'ownership' when you are talking teams housed out of civicly owned buildings. The stadium is ours in the end. Hamilton's. The problem is so is the brand the 'Tiger-Cats'. They are ours. Our history, but technically I assume an owner could take the players and names and all of that history with them. Is this true?

If so, maybe the name and it's branding, should all be turned back over to the city of hamilton. Maybe we can work towards more of a civic ownership of even the team itself? Maybe instead of owners, they are labelled as 'promoters' or 'sponsors' of 'our' teams?

That was a hard lesson through this debate as well. The harsh reality that they weren't ours. That they could be packed up and moved away as Ballard once tried to threaten as well. That's not a good hand for cities who are footing the majority of the bills, to not have control over. Neither is a statement from the league itself that if they leave, you will likely never get a team again.

So ya I remember the jabs and threats, but what have 'we' done to secure the future of our cities?

I think personally I don't like seeing the name 'Tiger-Cats' thrown around in reference to the past. If we are angry with something, it should be the owners or ownership bodies we use to reference these situations, and not the name of something that at it's core and as it relates to our history, has significant emotional and civic meaning.

Maybe none of this can be created with a for profit entity. But I don't believe that. Instead of going on about what we don't want, how about we talk about what we do want? That's the only we we are going to be able to create change.

Comment edited by lawrence on 2012-04-25 13:09:51

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds