Comment 53328

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted December 20, 2010 at 16:27:13

@Rober D: "Each side in a negotiation has certain minimum requirements. The ti-cats have a business plan, and had minimum requirements of a new stadium in order to make their plan succeed. The city has a plan, and had minimum requirements of the new stadium in order to dedicate city funds towards it. If the ti-cats and the city couldn't come together to decide on a site that's acceptable to both (ie. that meets at least the minimum requirements of both), it's regretable, but that doesn't mean either one "failed", or that one was trying to screw/murder the other. Maybe there are just no sites within Hamilton that would be acceptable to both parties? Whose "fault" would that be?

Should the city have lowered their standards to please the ti-cats? Should the ti-cats have just thrown their business plan out the window and played at the west harbour? I don't think it's required that either of them move any lower than their "minimum requirements". Maybe in this case there just wasn't any mutually acceptable solution."

Best Stadium comment I have seen in months. Very well said!

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools