Comment 55941

By slodrive (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 10:58:47

Well written and presented. However, I'm in disagreement.

From the outset, even the most ardent opposition for stadium building (Merulla) felt that an adequate, potentially sustainable, economically viable solution came in renovating of Ivor Wynne Stadium. Most, self-included, did not feel that this was palatable for the Ticats and discounted the notion rather quickly.

However, now that we've seen what the other sites have available AND a kumbaya-by-the-campfire has been held where, surprisingly, the team is on board with this initiative, then why would we look a gift-horse in the mouth and offer a 'thanks but no thanks'? Especially at this stage.

Like it or not, there's a deadline of Feb 1st that carries valuable infrastructure and facility money with it. Sure, we'd all prefer upgrades closer to downtown. But, to me, any improvement to the stadium area is some consolation.

This would also ensure the Ticats continue playing -- and, hopefully thriving -- in their traditional home. Regardless of whether you like the team, sport, or sports in general, this is a 130 year old institution that brings upwards of 28,000 into the lower city 10 times a year. It also provides strong, and emotional, exposure of the 'Hamilton' brand (and all that goes with that) to an additional 600,000-1.5 million eyeballs around the country each time they play.

If another institution did that, and was in need of facility upgrading, I'd sure hope we'd support that as well.

Looking at this as objectively as I can, I don't foresee a better deal arriving on our plates. Turning it down would really leave citizens and onlookers questioning how we value one our strong community and cultural ties.

Comment edited by slodrive on 2011-01-12 11:01:47

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

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

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds