Comment 45112

By arcadia (anonymous) | Posted August 07, 2010 at 20:45:02

you may be a bit hasty in this assessment. In today's spec article ( on this latest twist - reminds me of Days of Our Lives - Ian Troop says:

"On Friday, I was informed by the federal government that funding for the PanAm Games stadium in Hamilton was contingent on having an anchor tenant, and that they would not be interested in funding a stadium at the West Harbour. I passed that information along to representatives of the provincial government, who are a major partner in the Games. I've now learned that Minister of State for Sport Gary Lunn has clarified the federal position and stated that their funding is not contingent on the location of the stadium.

As I've said before, the organizing committee is looking for a long-term plan with viable future usage for this facility. The city's own report has said that an anchor tenant is required to make the stadium viable. The PanAm Games organizing committee looks forward to the decision from the City of Hamilton about the stadium later this week."

One way to read this is Troop misinterpreted Lunn's statement that the stadium needs an anchor tenant as being that the Ticats are this anchor tenant. He affirms this blinkered view of 'anchor tenant' in the next paragraph, where he again assumes this equals Ticats. Then it was his passing of this misinterpretation along to the Provincial government that led to yesterday's shocker.

Anyway, Braley may be involved but better not to levy a barrage of accusations, I did so myself and I'll gladly take them back.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools