Tim Hortons Field | 40m | ? | Complete [Archive] - Page 13

SteelTown

Jul 20, 2010, 10:51 PM

From the proposal....

AEG & Katz (Rexall Sports Corp.) group would provide the capital of 250 million (approx.) secured by the “New Stadium and expand the base Stadium into a retractable roof, all seasonal, multi- purpose facility to accommodate upward of 45,000 seating capacity. The group would continue to attract an NHL team to the Copps facility, an MLS major league soccer team, and access to some of the greatest entertainment on the planet. They would agree to provide the extra capital to improve Copps Coliseum if successful. Pay 1 million as offered if not.
The AEG group is a sporting and music entertainment presenter. It is the world’s largest owner of sport teams and sports events, the owner of the world’s most profitable sports and entertainment venues and under AEG live the world’s second largest presenter of live music and entertainment events.
The company owns the Los Angeles Galaxy, Houston Dynamo, the Los Angeles Kings, Ontario Reign, Manchester Monarch, Eibren Berlin, Los Angeles Sparks, etc. The company makes a significant amount of its money by leveraging its sports interest’s already significant earners, by using the stadia in which these teams play to host various other entertainment events and most notably concerts.
Katz /The Rexall Sports Corp. owns the Oilers, the WHL Edmonton Oil Kings, and the minor; league Edmonton Capitals baseball team. The corporation owns the naming rights to Edmonton’s Rexall Centre and is currently in tense talks with the City of Edmonton to build a new arena and entertainment district in the city’s downtown core (1.5 Billion dollar budget).

Jon Dalton

Jul 20, 2010, 11:30 PM

$250M is a bit suspect when they're only putting up $100M in Edmonton. Nonetheless, I welcome anything that takes attention away from the east mountain proposal. As for the councillors' support, it seems to follow the scent of money and nothing else.

DHLawrence

Jul 20, 2010, 11:32 PM

As for the councillors' support, it seems to follow the scent of money and nothing else.

Now you're getting it ;)

dennis1

Jul 20, 2010, 11:34 PM

1 billlion?

SteelTown

Jul 20, 2010, 11:44 PM

$375 million initially for parking and stadium cost. It mentions a "leggo" design, investors can add more to the overall concept (hotel, condo, retail, etc).

dennis1

Jul 20, 2010, 11:50 PM

Ok fair enough.

What will be the total cost of the Mountain site?

dennis1

Jul 20, 2010, 11:58 PM

Wow the whitestar group are dreamers with a cost.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_378n3ao8sdY/S_5y2GIjk0I/AAAAAAAAAEk/EoaQfHo9eTM/s1600/bay5.jpg

SteelTown

Jul 20, 2010, 11:58 PM

$80 million so far towards the East Mountain proposal.

We don't know if the City will spend any of it's $45 million Future Fund towards the East Mountain proposal.

scott000

Jul 20, 2010, 11:58 PM

it's a pretty crazy and exciting proposal, however, there's a lot of hurdles to overcome to make this a reality.

From the site (http://hamiltonbay.blogspot.com/):

POTENTIAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS

1. Set up a new management corporation for the handling of the various city entertainment venues; Copps Coliseum, Hamilton Place, the New Stadium, The New Velodrome, etc.

2. The corporation to be owned by: City of Hamilton, AEG & Katz Group and the Tiger Cats Group and perhaps others. The company is to be managed by AEG & Katz Group.

3. Potentially the Tiger Cats roll the “Tiger Cats” franchise into the new corporation along with their 15 million dollar offer. In return they receive compensation by way of shares in the new corporation and share in the potential profits. It would minimize to exposure of economical loss for Mr. Young and the City of Hamilton (1.3 million annually currently)

4. The City of Hamilton would roll over into the corporation its 110 million dollar base Stadium Structure and Velodrome into the corporation along with long term lease arrangements on the other facilities.

Getting Bob Young and the Ti-Cats on board with something they would not control will be a challenge.

And assuming there is $375 million in funds available, how much of this proposal would that get?
The full cost of what's shown has got to be much higher.

SteelTown

Jul 21, 2010, 12:01 AM

From my reading $375 million will get you a new stadium and underground parking.

Below shows no retractable roof.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_378n3ao8sdY/TAfeanQU1jI/AAAAAAAAAIw/r8-4KGAKrYI/S730/PV+Imaging+Pan+Am+Stadium+approx+22000+seat+capacity_1-2010.jpg

SteelTown

Jul 21, 2010, 12:44 AM

New West Harbour pan am proposal

Scott Thompson with Bob Bratina on the new proposal
http://www.900chml.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocalGeneral/Story.aspx?ID=1254926

thurmas

Jul 21, 2010, 2:34 AM

ugh make up your mind hamilton i just want you guys to enjoy a new stadium for the ti-cats already!

Berklon

Jul 21, 2010, 2:45 AM

If I were the NFL, I wouldn't touch Toronto with a 10 foot pole. Put a team in a city that actually cares about football. There are probably 100 cities and towns in the United States alone that get more than 20,000 people out to support their football teams.

If Toronto cared about this sport, they'd support the football teams they have now. Toronto would quickly become the laughing stock of the NFL if a team landed here; we'd be the Phoenix Coyotes of the NFL. Big city, but do these people really care about football? NOPE!

Buffalo knows what terrible football 'fans' Torontonians are first hand. They weren't too happy at the comatosed people that showed up at that Bills game at Skydome. "Worst football fans in the world", was a common sentiment.

Going by this logic, Toronto is a terrible hockey market because they can't draw flies to the Marlies games.

Toronto has a major-league attitude and wants major-league attractions. There are a buttload of NFL fans in Toronto - they all have their own team they follow. The Bills in Toronto is hardly proof that the city doesn't care about football. First, the prices were ridiculously high and secondly, they'd be paying that money to watch someone else's team. The CFL is minor-league to most football fans in Toronto.

Give Toronto an NFL team of their own and it will be wildly successful. I have no doubt about it.

theman23

Jul 21, 2010, 3:16 AM

This is the way things are in almost every country in the world but apparently Canada (and Toronto even moreso) is "special"...

Probably because we're not some insular European country where people feign interest in a third-tier league for the sake of national pride.

But hey, if you like to pretend you enjoy watching a CFL game then all power to you.

matt602

Jul 21, 2010, 4:08 AM

Wow, I thought I'd accidentally clicked on a thread in the Canada forum for the last 2 pages.

(seriously guys, leave it alone please - lets concentrate on HAMILTON news)

The latest development is nice... too nice. I'm gonna hold my breath until some more concrete agreements happen. This just seems like way too much of a promise at one time. 45, 000 seat stadium, NHL team and MLS team all in the same proposal? Wow.

dennis1

Jul 21, 2010, 4:38 AM

Going by this logic, Toronto is a terrible hockey market because they can't draw flies to the Marlies games.

Toronto has a major-league attitude and wants major-league attractions. There are a buttload of NFL fans in Toronto - they all have their own team they follow. The Bills in Toronto is hardly proof that the city doesn't care about football. First, the prices were ridiculously high and secondly, they'd be paying that money to watch someone else's team. The CFL is minor-league to most football fans in Toronto.

Give Toronto an NFL team of their own and it will be wildly successful. I have no doubt about it.

Bingo! The Raptors have never won anything and they are up ther with the Knicks, Lakers, Bulls, etc. financially because they always sell out. They would draw flies to a Canadian Basketball League game

bigguy1231

Jul 21, 2010, 5:58 AM

iam sorry bigguy but these numbers are not from tsn they are from neilsen ratings and published in chris zelkovich's sports media column online on the toronto star's webiste they are not fake. Look at the other ratings in my post it shows sportsnets ratings for baseball and cbc's for world cup they are legit.

If the numbers were that high you would think that TSN and CTV would be playing it up on their sites. More viewers means higher advertising rates.

Anyways here's a link to one of the articles/ stories I was refering to in regards to the Ticats viewership. This is from last year.

http://www.ticats.ca/article/tiger-cats-expect-labour-day-sell-out

drpgq

Jul 21, 2010, 9:26 AM

If the numbers were that high you would think that TSN and CTV would be playing it up on their sites. More viewers means higher advertising rates.

Anyways here's a link to one of the articles/ stories I was refering to in regards to the Ticats viewership. This is from last year.

http://www.ticats.ca/article/tiger-cats-expect-labour-day-sell-out

They do. There was an article on the TSN site about the big ratings for the first game between Montreal and Saskatchewan for example.

drpgq

Jul 21, 2010, 9:29 AM

SteelTown

Jul 21, 2010, 11:21 AM

New proposal for harbour stadium
Plan includes developer's condo dream

July 21, 2010
Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/811397

A landowner with property interests in the west harbour has come forward with an expanded proposal for the Pan Am stadium site that includes condos, luxury hotels and a stadium with a retractable roof.

Marino Rakovac, who owns property near Bay and Barton streets, has created a website that provides extensive details about the proposal.

The plans, detailed at hamiltonbay.blogspot.com, include hotel and condo towers, a bayfront village with restaurants and shops, and a retractable roof on the stadium that "consists of four arch truss frames covered in synthetic fabric or solid panels." The proposal also includes walkways connecting the stadium to Liuna Station on James Street.

Rakovac's website proposes the new stadium should be managed by the City of Hamilton, the Katz group -- the company of Edmonton Oilers owner Daryl Katz, which has expressed interest in operating the Pan Am stadium -- the Tiger-Cats and "perhaps others."

Rakovac could not be reached for comment about his proposal.

David Adames, the city's Pan Am point person, said he has met with Rakovac and the man brought "lots of enthusiasm" along with his ideas.

"We welcome creative ideas and get a lot of proposals and concepts about the stadium. This one is a little more developed than others."

Adames said there was no conversation about financing when he met Rakovac.

Rakovac bought the White Star property -- home to the former White Star Auto Wreckers -- 13 years ago and had hoped to build a 150- to 200-unit condo complex on the site. However, as the area is zoned for heavy industrial uses, the property needs a rezoning to residential before those condos can go ahead. While the city supports the rezoning, CN says there should be no new homes within 300 metres of its tracks.

According to downtown Councillor Bob Bratina, the city told Rakovac he needed approval from CN before they rezoned the area. Now, Bratina argues the city should rezone the land regardless of CN's position.

"He's trying to combine his residential part with a grander vision that may be so big it may interest the Tiger-Cats, so we'll see," Bratina said.

"It doesn't mean it's a slam dunk, but we would be crazy not to evaluate the situation."

Ticats president Scott Mitchell said he hadn't heard of the proposal before today.

"This is the first we've heard about it, and any business that has any credibility whatsoever would have contacted us previous to this."

Mitchell said the new plans don't change the football club's stance on the west harbour.

"I think it begs the question, after these shenanigans continue to go on, of 'Who is benefiting from these developments in the west harbour?,'" he said.

"The deadline is upon us to find a compromise solution. And if we don't find a solution, the stadium and everything that goes with the stadium is in jeopardy, including the Tiger-Cats."

The city and the football club have until Aug. 31 to reach an agreement on a stadium site. The Ticats are backing a location on the east Mountain.

BCTed

Jul 21, 2010, 11:23 AM

Major ho hum to this White Star thing.

Acajack

Jul 21, 2010, 12:54 PM

Probably because we're not some insular European country where people feign interest in a third-tier league for the sake of national pride.

But hey, if you like to pretend you enjoy watching a CFL game then all power to you.

So places like the Netherlands, Switzerland and Sweden are insular? If you think that these and other places in western Europe are insular, then you obviously haven't been there.

And of course, being an NFL junkie is just sooooooooo cosmopolitan and worldly, isn't it? Why, just the other day I was sitting in a café in Dakar and started chatting with Mamadou and Boucar and their friends, all of whom can't wait for the new NFL season to start. Mamadou likes the Saints' chances to repeat, whereas Boucar is betting on the Packers. Of course, Boucar is a hopeless case - he's been a cheesehead since before he could walk! ;)

Now, don't get me wrong, though I am not a junkie I do enjoy watching the NFL. However, it always makes me chuckle when Canadians self-gratify about how worldly and cosmopolitan they are because they watch the NFL, or Conan O'Brien, or The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. And how being a fan of their Canadian equivalents is somehow unworldly, uncosmopolitan and insular.

Americanization does not equate to cosmopolitanism, people.

dennis1

Jul 21, 2010, 2:18 PM

Sure it is far better to take an interest in another country's teams and send the money their way.

Guilt Trip

Most CFL players are Americans

A lot of young people in Hamilton could give a damn about the CFL. You don't have to like it like we do just because you are Canadian.

dennis1

Jul 21, 2010, 2:21 PM

Reportedly, Katz nor Young is on board with either of this.

highwater

Jul 21, 2010, 3:21 PM

Acajack

Jul 21, 2010, 3:55 PM

Most CFL players are Americans

A majority (though a bare one) of players in the CFL are in fact Canadians.

thistleclub

Jul 21, 2010, 4:13 PM

If nothing else, White Star Group has supplied an answer to the question, "What if we revisited the Civic Square experiment six blocks northeast?"

markbarbera

Jul 21, 2010, 4:30 PM

Young isn't on board with anything that isn't sprawly sprawlsville with lots of proprietary parking built for him by taxpayers.

AEG didn't generate this proposal, but that doesn't mean it isn't something they might support.

From everything I have seen, accessibility to the site is the primary concern Young has for the site at Barton and Tiffany. Unless and until this is resoved, there won't be support for the site.

If Young's detractors would spend half as much time and energy trying to resolve the impasse as they do trying to villify him, this impasse would have been resolved ages ago.

theman23

Jul 21, 2010, 4:38 PM

And of course, being an NFL junkie is just sooooooooo cosmopolitan and worldly, isn't it?
I don't personally care for the NFL, but people should watch sports because they enjoy them, not because they feel some patriotic obligation.

As far as I'm concerned, football is the most boring sport on the planet. The CFL is simply the NFL without the glamour or hype. Its no wonder no one watches it.

Why, just the other day I was sitting in a café in Dakar and started chatting with Mamadou and Boucar and their friends, all of whom can't wait for the new NFL season to start. Mamadou likes the Saints' chances to repeat, whereas Boucar is betting on the Packers. Of course, Boucar is a hopeless case - he's been a cheesehead since before he could walk! ;)

Good for Boucar. Way to miss the point.

And how being a fan of their Canadian equivalents is somehow unworldly, uncosmopolitan and insular.
Because 99% of the defendants of the Canadian "equivalents" wax poetic about our patriotic duty to watch shitty TV shows and sports. So yeah, all of that is true.

I simply believe a person should watch what they enjoy. I have no problem watching hockey, a local product I actually enjoy.

Americanization does not equate to cosmopolitanism, people.

I would never claim to be cosmopolitan. You built up that strawman through your own obsessions and insecurities.

dennis1

Jul 21, 2010, 4:42 PM

A majority (though a bare one) of players in the CFL are in fact Canadians.

No way, I want to see this.

All the players that are mention on the TV are from the US college system.

dennis1

Jul 21, 2010, 4:44 PM

Regardless, why not just leave your car at home? Transit and walking is not a punishment or a chore.

Acajack

Jul 21, 2010, 5:37 PM

No way, I want to see this.

All the players that are mention on the TV are from the US college system.

The CFL has an import/non-import ratio that all teams must respect on their active roster. Anyone who follows the CFL to some degree would know this as the media regularly make reference to it.

But it is true (as you observe) that many if not most of the CFL's star players are Americans. Though many of the players that are identified on TV as products of US colleges are in fact Canadians who just played NCAA football and then came back up to CFL.

Urban_Genius

Jul 21, 2010, 5:39 PM

No way, I want to see this.

All the players that are mention on the TV are from the US college system.

You can be a Canadian, but play in a NCAA school.
The way rosters work in the CFL is that for games you dress 20 Non-Imports (usually Canadians), 19 Imports (usually Americans) and 3 Quarterbacks (usually Americans) for a total of 42.

As you can see it's almost 50/50, Canadian/American ratio.

Urban_Genius

Jul 21, 2010, 5:42 PM

Acajack

Jul 21, 2010, 6:02 PM

I don't personally care for the NFL, but people should watch sports because they enjoy them, not because they feel some patriotic obligation.

As far as I'm concerned, football is the most boring sport on the planet. The CFL is simply the NFL without the glamour or hype. Its no wonder no one watches it.

Good for Boucar. Way to miss the point.

Because 99% of the defendants of the Canadian "equivalents" wax poetic about our patriotic duty to watch shitty TV shows and sports. So yeah, all of that is true.

I simply believe a person should watch what they enjoy. I have no problem watching hockey, a local product I actually enjoy.

I would never claim to be cosmopolitan. You built up that strawman through your own obsessions and insecurities.

LOL!

If anything, it is precisely our NFL-or-die types (and those of similar ilk with respect to movies, TV, etc.) who are the ones who make their entertainment choices based on the country of origin!

I know and have known tons of people in Canada who will only watch four-down (generally NFL, but also NCAA) football, and who will almost literally run out of the room if a CFL game is on. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever met a CFL fan who doesn't watch the NFL at least on occasion.

Same with any other type of entertainment. There are scores of people in this country who only swear by what Hollywood produces. Having them to watch a Canadian movie or TV show would require nothing short of fastening them to a chair with padlocks.

On the other hand, I don't know of anyone who has a strictly Canadian entertainment diet. (I think this might actually be virtually impossible to achieve anyway).

In spite of all the rhetoric, the greatest insularity isn't to be found on the side you seem to think it is.

Finally, most people in my entourage would find it amusing that I of all people would be suspected of being a "defender of Canadian patriotism" or something to that effect...

To be quite honest, broad-level Canadian patriotism and identity is not something I am hugely concerned with. However, that does not mean I cannot comment on the bizarreness of the juxtaposition (on the part of some, or should I say many) of gushing Canadian pride on the one hand and the wall-to-wall Americana that pervades people's lives on the other...

theman23

Jul 21, 2010, 7:41 PM

LOL!

If anything, it is precisely our NFL-or-die types (and those of similar ilk with respect to movies, TV, etc.) who are the ones who make their entertainment choices based on the country of origin!

I know and have known tons of people in Canada who will only watch four-down (generally NFL, but also NCAA) football, and who will almost literally run out of the room if a CFL game is on. On the other hand, I don't think I've ever met a CFL fan who doesn't watch the NFL at least on occasion.

Same with any other type of entertainment. There are scores of people in this country who only swear by what Hollywood produces. Having them to watch a Canadian movie or TV show would require nothing short of fastening them to a chair with padlocks.

What does this prove? 99% of English entertainment worth watching comes from America. 99% of Canadian entertainment is garbage. It makes sense that, when making a choice without prejudice, most people don't watch any cancon.

Sure, there are the occasional good shows that come out of the UK, Australia, and even Canada, but those do get watched. Aside from folks like isaidso, I don't know anyone who avoids a TV show, movie, or sport because of its country of origin.

On the other hand, I don't know of anyone who has a strictly Canadian entertainment diet. (I think this might actually be virtually impossible to achieve anyway).

Of course. They would die of malnutrition if they did.

In spite of all the rhetoric, the greatest insularity isn't to be found on the side you seem to think it is.
You're wrong.

Finally, most people in my entourage would find it amusing that I of all people would be suspected of being a "defender of Canadian patriotism" or something to that effect...

Don't be silly. I never said anything of the sort. We all know your M.O. is to feed the anglo-Canadian cultural identity insecurity.

That doesn't mean you don't believe in the same things as isaidso. You'll just have to modify every thing I've said to include Quebec in place of Canada.

dennis1

Jul 21, 2010, 7:41 PM

The CFL has an import/non-import ratio that all teams must respect on their active roster. Anyone who follows the CFL to some degree would know this as the media regularly make reference to it.

But it is true (as you observe) that many if not most of the CFL's star players are Americans. Though many of the players that are identified on TV as products of US colleges are in fact Canadians who just played NCAA football and then came back up to CFL.

Makes sense. Thanks.

Acajack

Jul 21, 2010, 8:15 PM

What does this prove? 99% of English entertainment worth watching comes from America. .

99%??? And people like me are the ones who are "insular"? Riiiiiiight.

drpgq

Jul 21, 2010, 11:30 PM

Guilt Trip

Most CFL players are Americans

A lot of young people in Hamilton could give a damn about the CFL. You don't have to like it like we do just because you are Canadian.

That's not really an argument. There's many things that you could find a section of the population isn't interested in. I'm not interested in the Hamilton Philharmonic either and most would probably say the New York Philharmonic is of higher quality, but I certainly don't begrudge or belittle those that like their local symphony. Why like anything local?

scott000

Jul 21, 2010, 11:53 PM

Back on topic, in the Spectator article above, Scott Mitchell asks "Who is benefiting from these developments in the west harbour?"

The real question is, who besides the Tiger-Cats benefits from an East Mountain stadium?

I understand the ti-cats preference to not share any parking, concessions, stadium operation, etc. revenue with other parties. But it's not like the Cats are funding the stadium on their own. With so much gov't funding behind this, how can they really expect to give nothing back but tax revenue?
___

I'd like to work out a Ti-Cats-style deal for myself on a new house.
The house can be used for Pan Am Games delegates than I'll take ownership afterward.

The three levels of government will contribute $900,000. I'll put in $150,000 and also thousands over the next decade in general maintenance and upkeep, renovations, and personal expenses. I may also put a store and some billboards on the land, I'll cover any expenses these create and keep all profits they make. I'll also put a lot of money towards big parties I'll throw at the house, which will draw in visitors to Hamilton from across Canada. Also, I'll pay thousands a year in taxes. Deal?
Just one more thing, I'm kind of picky on location...

Northern Stroll

Jul 22, 2010, 1:01 AM

Cats are on the Offensive...goeastmountain.ca

dennis1

Jul 22, 2010, 1:40 AM

Well because people don't want them to have an NFL team so that's why there lashing out.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Anyway. The deadline for all this is in a couple of weeks. I would like to see if Young caves.

Jon D

Jul 22, 2010, 2:04 AM

Cats are on the Offensive...goeastmountain.ca

I visited this site wanting to post the following "I'm not huge football fan, but I just bought a condo downtown, and would probably go see a few games at the west harbour location when I'm looking for something to do since it's an easy walk from my place. But I can guarantee that I'll never get in my car to drive to a suburban stadium. You've just lost an opportunity to create a new fan."

However when I tried to click the link to "show my support" nothing happened, blank page....website-fail. Could this be foreshadowing for stadium-fail?

Berklon

Jul 22, 2010, 2:47 AM

The logo on that website makes it seem like there will be a nice busy skyline at that location. Hardly likely.

What a stupid idea for a stupid location. I'm embarassed that it's even an option.

scott000

Jul 22, 2010, 2:54 AM

this site does have the fan survey results posted in a powerpoint-style document.

http://www.goeastmountain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Fan-Research-and-Stadium-Survey-Results-Hamilton-Tiger-Cats.pdf

one point I find interesting:

When asked if they would use the GO Train if service took them directly to the West Harbour stadium, 39% of Season Ticket Holders and 53% of Single Game Ticket Purchasers said YES.

bornagainbiking

Jul 22, 2010, 8:24 AM

Hamilton in general is going to mess this up big time. We will not get a stadium as we couldn't organized ourselves on anything in a reasonable amount of time. We will lose the funding and a chance to participate in the games.
Like everything we do here. Too much time wasted. The Red Hill took 50 yrs, and it has it's issues that will be fine tuned but it had to be built to see the shortfalls to fix.
Like the RedHill. We waste so much money on consultants, lawyers, studies and major legal battles which eat up millions $$$$$$$$$ We had different levels of government interferring in the process with taxpayers dollars battling taxpayers dollars on legal issues, talk about a double whammy.
There are 500000 people in the area and even if every game is a sell out there are only 30,000 fans at a game for 3 hrs.
There are 365 days a yr and maybe a dozen football games. This place needs more tenants.
Sorry TiCat fans I been here 15 yrs and been to 3 games. I would prefer money not wasted and fix the streets and sewers. That is 24/7 as I use these alot more. :tup: :tup:
I lean towards the West Harbour as closer to hotels and other stuff, better chance for concerts.

SteelTown

Jul 22, 2010, 11:34 AM

Will Hamilton choose sprawl or revitalization?
Where to build Pan Am stadium is an issue between the city and the Ticats football team

Storm Cunningham
http://www.thestar.com/article/838701--will-hamilton-choose-sprawl-or-revitalization

The proposed Hamilton stadium for the 2015 Pan Am Games track and field events. The decision on where to locate it could play a key role in how the city evolves.

The Toronto Pan American Games won’t be here until 2015, but important decisions about them are being made right now. Despite the name, they are a southern Ontario-wide effort with equestrian events in Caledon, rowing in St. Catharines. Hamilton will host track and field events, plus swimming and cycling.

In Hamilton, the Pan Am Games are already front and centre as a public issue. Hamilton is debating where to place the new Pan Am stadium. Should the publicly funded stadium be sprawl or a restorative downtown investment? A final decision is due Aug. 12.

Most of Hamilton’s citizens, business leaders and elected leaders want Hamilton’s distressed downtown revived. They want the stadium in a revitalizing infill spot in their West Harbour, integrated with improved public transit, hotels and restaurants.

The Hamilton Tiger-Cats (Canadian Football League), the post-Pan Am Games tenant of the stadium, want it in Hamilton’s east mountain area, a greenfield site near a highway, far from downtown. Hamiltonians perceive an implicit threat that the team will move to another city if it doesn’t get its way.

...................

http://www.thestar.com/article/838701--will-hamilton-choose-sprawl-or-revitalization

highwater

Jul 22, 2010, 1:58 PM

Check out this inspiring video featuring photos by Flar:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H4XsXIHis2Q&feature=player_embedded

SteelTown

Jul 22, 2010, 2:07 PM

You can embed youtube clips here, click on "Quote" to see how I did it.

H4XsXIHis2Q

highwater

Jul 22, 2010, 2:20 PM

From everything I have seen, accessibility to the site is the primary concern Young has for the site at Barton and Tiffany. Unless and until this is resoved, there won't be support for the site.

If Young's detractors would spend half as much time and energy trying to resolve the impasse as they do trying to villify him, this impasse would have been resolved ages ago.

The West Harbour site is demonstrably more accessible than the EM site. The Ticats claims of accessibility issues are a red herring. It has never been about accessibility, and always about proprietary parking (parking that Bob Young's $15m won't begin to cover the cost of, so we'll be on the hook for that as well).

Oh, and here's what Michael Fenn had to say about the Ticats' willingness to 'resolve' the impasse:

"The parties disagreed on the ability of the West Harbour site to provide the appropriate level of local roadway access, despite the macro-level analysis provided by transportation consultants IBI Group indicating that the site could meet transportation demands ."

If Michael Fenn couldn't resolve the impasse without introducing a sprawl location, what exactly do you imagine Young's 'detractors' could accomplish?

Young has brought all this criticism on himself by being intransigent and holding a gun to our heads with our own goddamn money. You can hardly blame people for vilifying him.

highwater

Jul 22, 2010, 2:24 PM

You can embed youtube clips here, click on "Quote" to see how I did it.

Thanks! :)

markbarbera

Jul 22, 2010, 3:05 PM

"The parties disagreed on the ability of the West Harbour site to provide the appropriate level of local roadway access, despite the macro-level analysis provided by transportation consultants IBI Group indicating that the site could meet transportation demands ."

Was the IBI study based on traffic patterns for a 15,000-seat stadium or a 25,000-seat stadium?

It can also be argued that the city who is being intrastringent by refusing to consider any site beyond West Harbour, then refusing to consider improvements to infrastructure so its accessibility could be at a level that supported a sustainable stadium design.

With regards to the 'our goddamned money' angle, it is a relief that this kind of sentiment is not shared by all finaciers of the stadium, seeing that at least half the cost of the stadium is coming from outside the City of Hamilton coffers.

highwater

Jul 22, 2010, 6:33 PM

It can also be argued that the city who is being intrastringent by refusing to consider any site beyond West Harbour, then refusing to consider improvements to infrastructure so its accessibility could be at a level that supported a sustainable stadium design.

Why should they have considered improvements when the study indicated they weren't necessary? And in any case, that wouldn't have changed the Ticats position because access isn't the issue, proprietary parking is.

With regards to the 'our goddamned money' angle, it is a relief that this kind of sentiment is not shared by all finaciers of the stadium, seeing that at least half the cost of the stadium is coming from outside the City of Hamilton coffers.

You do realize that the federal and provincial funds are our goddamned money too, do you not? Why is it that the people putting up 90% of the funds for this project aren't entitled to a return on their investment, while the people putting up a fraction of the money are allowed to dictate a location that will harm the majority investor?

markbarbera

Jul 22, 2010, 8:15 PM

BCTed

Jul 22, 2010, 11:58 PM

Can anyone actually cite one single urban outdoor football stadium that has acted as as a catalyst for urban renewal?

I am kind of wondering what people expect the stadium to do for the West Harbour, especially if it's only used a couple of dozen times a year at most. A regular old community soccer field might have the same impact in the same place and might even have a larger impact in a way because athletes/spectators would not be walled off from the rest of the area by stands.

SteelTown

Jul 23, 2010, 11:08 AM

Web of intrigue over Pan Am site
Stadium issue heats up websites

July 23, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/811966

It's warring websites as the Tiger-Cats have launched their own -- goeastmountain.com -- to push the football club's choice for a Pan Am stadium site.

The launch Wednesday night was followed by ads in The Hamilton Spectator yesterday featuring club owner Bob Young and the title "There Are Two Sides to Every Story."

This comes on the heels of ourcityourfuture.ca, which supports the city's original preferred site at the west harbour.

One of the people who started that site, Ryan McGreal, said the Ticat site prompted a spike in people registering their support for the Bay and Barton streets option. That number stood at 1,209 yesterday.

"It's a good thing and it will help the discussion," he said of the east Mountain website.

But, he added, even new information provided on it fails to include an analysis which shows why the west harbour would not work.

Councillor Brian McHattie looked at the site and said it confirmed the Ticats' "antiquated thinking."

"I wonder about their business plan with an aging fan base and the young urban professions downtown who could be new fans," he said.

The city's Pan Am spokesperson, David Adames, said "the Ticats are absolutely entitled to their opinion and to back that up with initiatives like a website."

Meantime, the city will be launching an enhanced webpage today or Monday.

The current one gives basic information on the 2015 Pan Am Games, Hamilton's potential facilities and staff reports.

It's at: www.hamilton.ca/CityDepartments/PlanningEcDev/ NewsUpdates/PanAm_2015/.

The understated Ticat website was launched with an unsigned introduction outlining the football club's need for a stadium location that will allow them to be financially sustainable.

The club proposes to operate the city-owned facility at the east Mountain location and is working with the developer Osmington Inc. to see if land around the stadium can be developed. Financing for a 25,000- to 30,000-seat stadium is $35 million short.

The website introduction called the west harbour location for a stadium a "huge mistake" and noted "emerging interests who might be characterized as speculators who have been buying property there in the hopes they might make a profit from a foolish decision to locate a stadium there."

In a statement, Ticat president Scott Mitchell said the stadium issue was clouded by misinformation.

He explained later that The Hamilton Spectator ads had no specific meaning other than the football club felt an obligation to tell its side of the story to fans.

SteelTown

Jul 23, 2010, 1:01 PM

Bayview Hobbies at Westdale has a big sign saying "Support West Harbour Stadium!"

I've noticed a couple of signs like that across Hamilton from local businesses.

highwater

Jul 23, 2010, 2:35 PM

The club proposes to operate the city-owned facility at the east Mountain location and is working with the developer Osmington Inc. to see if land around the stadium can be developed. Financing for a 25,000- to 30,000-seat stadium is $35 million short.

The website introduction called the west harbour location for a stadium a "huge mistake" and noted "emerging interests who might be characterized as speculators who have been buying property there in the hopes they might make a profit from a foolish decision to locate a stadium there."

In a statement, Ticat president Scott Mitchell said the stadium issue was clouded by misinformation.

So it's ok for the Ticats to work with a developer to try to profit from the development of lands around an East Mountain stadium, but anyone trying to do the same thing in the West Harbour is a 'speculator'. Riiiight. No, there's no clouding around the stadium issue, Scott. We can see clear as day.

highwater

Jul 23, 2010, 2:58 PM

Highwater, if the traffic study was done for a 15,000-seat stadium then it is worthless. The city is notorius for mismanaging projects and West Harbour is no exception. In fact, several earlier studies have cited West Harbour as unsuitable for a stadium, an inconvenient truth often overlooked by West Harbour proponents.

I only know of one 7 year old report. Here's what Ryan McGreal had to say about the report on RTH:

"The report was written by John Kernaghan of the Hamilton Spectator, a journalist whose opinion of the West Harbour - and of urban revitalization in general - seems to have evolved in the intervening seven years.

A few other things have changed since then as well:

*

Cities in general are finally waking up to the fact that sprawl is not a sustainable development model.
*

Hamilton is on the threshold of getting high quality LRT that will dramatically increase transit access to the downtown.
*

James North and the surrounding area has made a remarkable comeback in that time (back in 2003, then-councillor Ron Corsini was still saying "Forget about it" to people who hoped the area would revitalize).
*

Back then, peak oil was a crackpot theory no one had even heard of. Now it's generally accepted, and North American driving rates have actually been falling for the past three years.
*

Back then, the Waterfront was just starting to turn around. Now it's a vibrant hotspot frequented by crowds of Hamiltonians engaged in a variety of activities.
*

Back then, the Red Hill Valley Parkway was the untested promise of automobile access to the East Mountain. Now it's a frequently-congested, frequently-flooded economic morass.
*

Back then, the sprawl housing bubble was just getting started. Now it's a continental glut of unwanted housing with a trillion dollar price tag that recently dragged the global economy into a sharp recession.

The age of suburban stadiums has passed."

Bob Young's Ticats are going to be the principal (only?) tenant of the stadium. In being so he has more say in its location than you or I. Bitter pill to swallow, but that's a fact of life.

Bottom line, this is a sports facility that should be designed and placed to cater to sports enthusiasts, the atheletes and the fans. It is not a tool for urban renewal. Can anyone actually cite one single urban outdoor football stadium that has acted as as a catalyst for urban renewal?

By the way, every other stadia used by the CFL was 100% publicly funded. You may think Young is getting preferential treatment, but that simply is not the case. Although you may think he is ripping us of with his "paltry" contribution toward the stadium, the fact that he is putting money into the kitty is an exception to the rule.

I doubt very much that other CFL stadia were knowingly placed in locations that would not only not provide any public benefit, but would actively harm efforts to revitalize their host cities. Young gets a say, of course, but he doesn't get to force a stadium on us that will be an economic sink hole.

I have never claimed a West Harbour stadium would be a catalyst for urban renewal, and I don't know anyone who has. However, of the two choices before us, WH will by far cause us the least harm, and since we are footing the vast majority of the bill, with our Future Fund no less, it is incumbent on our leaders to ensure that our economic future is not set back by this decision, as it would be in the case of a sprawl stadium. If nothing else, a toxic brownfield will be cleaned up. That in itself will spur some development in the immediate area.

Why not allow the feasibility studies to pan out in due course and make a rational choice rather than an emotional choice? ...Because when the facts get lost in a decision-making process, the wrong decision will inevitably be made.

Oh how I wish. The rational choice is of course, the West Harbour. My fear is that the emotions generated by the largely illusory promise of private money (even though it isn't even enough to cover the cost of the parking lot), Bob Young's threat to take the Ticats away from us if he doesn't get his way, and the comfort zone of greenfield, car-dependent development, will win the day and the wrong decision will be made.

markbarbera

Jul 23, 2010, 3:26 PM

I only know of one 7 year old report.

Bob Young has a summary of several city-commissioned reports highlighting the shortcomings of the West Harbour as a site for a stadium here (http://www.goeastmountain.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Summary-of-City-Reports-on-West-Harbour-Prior-to-2008.pdf)

(As a side note, I notice today that the pro-East Mountain site has 801 registered supporters listed within 24 hours of its launch)

I doubt very much that other CFL stadia were knowingly placed in locations that would not only not provide any public benefit, but would actively harm efforts to revitalize their host cities.

How would East Mountain location harm reviatalization efforts? West Harbour would be left to redevelop in the manner for which it was planned in Setting Sail.

I have never claimed a West Harbour stadium would be a catalyst for urban renewal, and I don't know anyone who has.

Please reconcile this statement with the previous statement, because they seem at odds. If you think West Harbour is not a catalyst for urban renewal, how would relocating it elsewhere harm efforts to revitalize?

If nothing else, a toxic brownfield will be cleaned up. That in itself will spur some development in the immediate area.

This implies the brownfield would not be cleaned up unless a stadium goes on the site, which simply not the case. There are only two reasons why this site remains in the condition that it is currently in. CN has been fighting Setting Sail at OMB, which has stalled redevelopment here. Also, development speculators holding parcels of land in the area have been holding out to flip the land for a stadium. Perpetuating the idea that a stadium here is the only way to redevelop this way is not an honest representation of what is going on in the West Harbour area.

Oh how I wish. The rational choice is of course, the West Harbour.

I beg to differ. IMHO neither option is truly rational as they both will cost the city dearly with little or no benefits derived from the use of Future Fund dollars to build a stadium at either location. Having said that, making a decision that will ultimately force Pan Am infrastructure investment out of the city is much less rational a decision. If the city opts for West Harbour, the Ticats are out of the mix, and Hostco is relocating the Pan Am stadium elsewhere.

c@taract_soulj@h

Jul 23, 2010, 5:49 PM

Wow...1995? This really is a second Red Hill Expressway debate...remember how big of a headache that was?

Maybe we should build the base of the stadium at either the West Harbour or on the East Mountain just like half an overpass was built at Mud Street if the RedHill plans had fallen through. I'm not a pessimist in any way, however this city with so much potential as I've always said, has an even greater potential of blowing it, time after time.

Honestly, I really was gung-ho over the East Mountain site for some reason, but I'll admit that I've flip-flopped my opinion and would much rather see it down by the water. Maybe if this was Saskatchewan it wouldn't matter where we built this thing since everywhere's flat although I'd like to see something in Saskatoon built by the river but thats another bowl of cherries.

Does Bob Young dictate the citys decision or vice-versa? I like Young but I'm not quite sure if he's familiar with our much needed revitalization.

SteelTown

Jul 24, 2010, 2:33 PM

Developers upbeat about west harbour stadium site

July 24, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/813286

There is plenty of interest in building in the west harbour to help generate money for a stadium there, a leading developer says.

"Guess what, there are lots of people, people like us, who are very, very interested in the waterfront," said Vince Molinaro of the Molinaro Group Inc.

The company has major projects in the Hamilton and Burlington area and has joined with The White Star Group and McMaster Investments to promote the west harbour for the Pan Am Games stadium and surrounding projects to support it.

The White Star Group yesterday unveiled a design proposal for a multi-use stadium and associated development at the brownfield site.

Molinaro contested views by west harbour critics that no reputable development companies have interest in it.

"They're always saying they're short these tens of millions of dollars (for a stadium) and where is it going to come from."

Just over $100 million in public funds have been committed to a 15,000-seat stadium but another $30 million to $50 million is needed for a stadium to house the Tiger-Cats after the Games.

He said that shortfall could be made up by developments from companies like his through highrise development, others who do commercial complexes plus low-rise housing developers.

Molinaro said interest by development companies in the Bay and Barton street area seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

"We speak up and they keep saying no one is interested. Well, here we are and yes we are."

He also noted the Tiger-Cats development partner for a proposed east Mountain site, Osmington Inc., has been very quiet about its interest.

The Molinaro Group doesn't own land in the west harbour but decided "to throw its hat in the ring" because of a unique opportunity, he added.

Ben Sauder of McMaster Investments said White Star principal Marino Rakovac has owned land in the area for more than 10 years with the idea of creating a gateway to the waterfront.

Sauder said west harbour development could connect the waterfront to downtown.

"Just look at what they've done in Toronto, taking former industrial land and replacing it with condos along the waterfront. We can do that here."

In a statement, The White Star Group said it was ready to proceed with development plans along with McMaster and Molinaro and urged the city to continue buying land in the area.

It also asked the city and the province for help in convincing CN Railway Corporation to be a participant and not be an adversary in the development of the west harbour.

SteelTown

Jul 24, 2010, 2:46 PM

*Cough* http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/LettertotheEditor/article/813221

:tup:

dennis1

Jul 24, 2010, 2:53 PM

haha. We will prevail.

FRM

Jul 24, 2010, 4:38 PM

Good to hear all this positivity with West Harbour, I hope the city can work with these developers efficiently to get not only the stadium built but also the other developments.

Janbe

Jul 24, 2010, 5:43 PM

emge

Jul 24, 2010, 6:06 PM

I'm getting fed up with how backwards of a city Hamilton is. And that's a huge understatement... can we just realize a city's a city and work for the good of it together? Geez.

bigguy1231

Jul 24, 2010, 7:36 PM

West Harbour is not going to happen. Bob Young is against West Harbour. there is no way the Hamilton Tigercats are going to play at West Harbour. He is not going to sell the team period.
The Tigercats WILL leave Hamilton if council chooses West Harbour.

I am going to lobby very very very very very hard to all Hamilton council member to vote for East Mountain for the Pan Am Games Stadium, because without it, there is no Hamilton Tigercats.

Just where will he go.

He won't go to the Toronto area. The Argo's have enough trouble attracting fans without more competition.

He won't be going to Ottawa, there is already an ownership group in place for an expansion team.

There is no other place with a stadium large enough so he is stuck here whether he likes it or not.

Berklon

Jul 24, 2010, 8:37 PM

West Harbour is not going to happen. Bob Young is against West Harbour. there is no way the Hamilton Tigercats are going to play at West Harbour. He is not going to sell the team period.
The Tigercats WILL leave Hamilton if council chooses West Harbour.

I am going to lobby very very very very very hard to all Hamilton council member to vote for East Mountain for the Pan Am Games Stadium, because without it, there is no Hamilton Tigercats.

The Ti-Cats aren't going anywhere.

If Bob Young doesn't like West Harbour, his only option is to sell the team to someone who will smartly accept the site. The East Mountain location is such a bad idea that it borders on the comical.

SteelTown

Jul 24, 2010, 9:14 PM

Ww0VMSs6vvA

dennis1

Jul 24, 2010, 11:29 PM

Guys Moncton NB and Halifax want the CFL

Janbe

Jul 25, 2010, 12:08 AM

Berklon

Jul 25, 2010, 12:08 AM

Guys Moncton NB and Halifax want the CFL

But at the expense of Hamilton? We have to remember, the CFL has a say in where teams go. They're trying to get Ottawa back into the fold and it would be bad for them to lose a market like Hamilton. A team in Moncton or Halifax, while great, wouldn't offset the loss of a bigger market like Hamilton.

You can't force Bob Young to sell the team, but the CFL can deny him the chance to move it. So it's up to him if he wants to put up or sell. I really doubt the CFL will want the team to move - especially when Hamilton is a good size market with what should be one of the nicest stadiums in the CFL.

Call his bluff.

The city should do this right, or just don't do it at all. The days of doing things half-assed should be over.

Janbe

Jul 25, 2010, 12:10 AM

I am going to lobby really hard for the East Mountain location.

Janbe

Jul 25, 2010, 12:16 AM

dennis1

Jul 25, 2010, 12:41 AM

But at the expense of Hamilton? We have to remember, the CFL has a say in where teams go. They're trying to get Ottawa back into the fold and it would be bad for them to lose a market like Hamilton. A team in Moncton or Halifax, while great, wouldn't offset the loss of a bigger market like Hamilton.

You can't force Bob Young to sell the team, but the CFL can deny him the chance to move it. So it's up to him if he wants to put up or sell. I really doubt the CFL will want the team to move - especially when Hamilton is a good size market with what should be one of the nicest stadiums in the CFL.

Call his bluff.

The city should do this right, or just don't do it at all. The days of doing things half-assed should be over.

I agree. Doesn't the east mountain violate the Place to grow act?

bigguy1231

Jul 25, 2010, 12:46 AM

Guys Moncton NB and Halifax want the CFL

Niether one of them have a stadium.

dennis1

Jul 25, 2010, 12:47 AM

You are telling me that Bob Young is just going to accept losing millions and millions of dollars to continue playing at Ivor Wynee Stadium. You are telling me that Hamilton City Council is going to spent over 100 million on a broken down Ivor Wynee Stadium, that the Tigercat would continue to lose money at.
Not going to happen.

The stadium is going to be located at East Mountain, and Bob Young is investing at that location.

You make this seem like a big deal. Its just the CFL. I would care more if Hamilton had a hockey team

West Harbour or nothing. I'm not going out there for sports.

bigguy1231

Jul 25, 2010, 12:50 AM

You are telling me that Bob Young is just going to accept losing millions and millions of dollars to continue playing at Ivor Wynee Stadium. You are telling me that Hamilton City Council is going to spent over 100 million on a broken down Ivor Wynee Stadium, that the Tigercat would continue to lose money at.
Not going to happen.

The stadium is going to be located at East Mountain, and Bob Young is investing at that location.

If Bob Young wants the stadium in a specific location then he can pay the full cost and build his own stadium.

The money he is willing to invest at the East Mountain location won't even pay for the parking lot he wants, let alone all the additional costs associated with building there.

bigguy1231

Jul 25, 2010, 1:01 AM

I agree. Doesn't the east mountain violate the Place to grow act?

It more than likely does.

It's almost guaranteed you will see an appeal to the OMB if they select the EAst Mountain site. With appeals it would take 3 or 4 years to go through the system.

SteelTown

Jul 25, 2010, 1:02 AM

Bob Young said the team is not for sale. You can't force the owner of a team to sell it.
It is either East Mountain or no stadium, because the cash strapped city of Hamilton is not going to build a 15,000 seat white elephant stadium with no tenant.

And the City certainly doesn't have the millions necessary to build up the infrastructure for the East Mountain stadium location with new ramps, hydro lines relocation, widen load roads and paving more land causing more flooding issues.

bigguy1231

Jul 25, 2010, 1:08 AM

Bob Young said the team is not for sale. You can't force the owner of a team to sell it.
It is either East Mountain or no stadium, because the cash strapped city of Hamilton is not going to build a 15,000 seat white elephant stadium with no tenant.

All stadiums in this country are white elephants. They are built by cities to serve the entertainment needs of it's citizens. Just like cities build arena's or rec centres or many of the other things that cities have to add to the appeal of living in a city.

Gurnett71

Jul 25, 2010, 2:16 AM

I don't think this video has been posted yet. Here is a link to the whitestar group and their WH proposal.

http://whitestargroup.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/9756885-watch-video-tour

:tup:

Berklon

Jul 25, 2010, 2:19 AM

I don't think this video has been posted yet. Here is a link to the whitestar group and their WH proposal.

http://whitestargroup.webs.com/apps/videos/videos/show/9756885-watch-video-tour

:tup:

Go back a page... Steeltown posted it. ;)

Gurnett71

Jul 25, 2010, 2:28 AM

Go back a page... Steeltown posted it. ;)

Whoops, don't know how I missed that one! Sorry about that.

Janbe

Jul 25, 2010, 3:06 AM

bigguy1231

Jul 25, 2010, 3:53 AM

And does the city have 500 million in infrastructure to get the Tigercats on board with West Harbour.

Or the millions upon millions to clean this up http://www.raisethehammer.org/article/1123/hamilton_it%27s_about_time_we_had_a_little_talk

Who cares about the Ticats? If they don't want to play there they can go elsewhere.

As for the property in the article you link to, the city doesn't own it. It is privately owned. The cleanup order was issued yesterday for the owner to clean it up by Monday. Check out todays Spec, there is an article about it. It's out of the city's hands.

markbarbera

Jul 25, 2010, 11:18 AM

Doesn't the east mountain violate the Place to grow act?

On what grounds? The East mountain site is within the urban boundary of the City, is part of the designated greenfield area for Hamilton's settlement area as defined by the Places to Grow Act, and it is not part of the Ontario Greenbelt. (A designated greenfield area is an area within the settlement area of a city that is as of yet undeveloped but designated for future development).

From what I can see in the Act, the development of the EM site would be supported by the legislation.

dennis1

Jul 25, 2010, 4:24 PM

You make this seem like a big deal. Its just the CFL. I would care more if Hamilton had a hockey team

West Harbour or nothing. I'm not going out there for sports.

Again for emphasis.

dennis1

Jul 25, 2010, 4:31 PM

It more than likely does.

It's almost guaranteed you will see an appeal to the OMB if they select the EAst Mountain site. With appeals it would take 3 or 4 years to go through the system.

And if we do this Milton, Vaughan, Oshawa, Barrie, et al. will file complaints and rightfully so as they have been raked over the coals for sprawl in the GTA.

dennis1

Jul 25, 2010, 4:32 PM

Who cares about the Ticats? If they don't want to play there they can go elsewhere.

As for the property in the article you link to, the city doesn't own it. It is privately owned. The cleanup order was issued yesterday for the owner to clean it up by Monday. Check out todays Spec, there is an article about it. It's out of the city's hands.

The CFL knows 1 team in Ontario will not look good. I personally have no problem supporting a Toronto NFL team.

BCTed

Jul 25, 2010, 5:06 PM

Again for emphasis.

Thanks for that.

SteelTown

Jul 25, 2010, 5:34 PM

dennis1

Jul 25, 2010, 5:53 PM

Thanks for that.

I deserve that.

bigguy1231

Jul 25, 2010, 8:52 PM

The CFL knows 1 team in Ontario will not look good. I personally have no problem supporting a Toronto NFL team.

That will not happen. There isn't enough of a market for it. They are having trouble selling out the 1 game a year they do get. Most of the tickets are given away by Rogers as freebees just to make the stadium look full.

dennis1

Jul 25, 2010, 10:18 PM

Well when the tickets are two times the highest in the league (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_in_Toronto#Regular_season_games) you won't sell out.
The average standard ticket price of C$183 was significantly above the highest average price in the NFL, that of the New England Patriots, at US$88, and nearly four times the Bills' ticket prices (which are the lowest in the league).

Both games had standard ticket prices ranging from C$55 to C$295 and VIP tickets from C$325 to C$575

If Rogers were to give the same prices all the other big market teams do, they would sell out. But this is Rogers.

Berklon

Jul 25, 2010, 11:21 PM

That will not happen. There isn't enough of a market for it. They are having trouble selling out the 1 game a year they do get. Most of the tickets are given away by Rogers as freebees just to make the stadium look full.

Give Toronto their own NFL team and they will support it like you wouldn't believe. It's as close to a sure thing as you're going to find.

dennis1

Jul 25, 2010, 11:30 PM

Berklon, it would honestly be sad that if the CFL fails in Ontario , it was because Bob Young was so greedy. This could start a domino effect.

Berklon

Jul 26, 2010, 12:13 AM

Berklon, it would honestly be sad that if the CFL fails in Ontario , it was because Bob Young was so greedy. This could start a domino effect.

No doubt. I don't really watch the CFL much anymore, but I was pretty hardcore back in the 70's and 80's. I'd love to see Hamilton stick around and have great support for the Cats, as well as Ottawa getting their team back - and I think it's time we have at least 1 more team added to the league from the east coast.

I think there's more interest in the NFL than the CFL in Ontario unfortunately. I hope Toronto gets an NFL team - I think it would be great. People claim it would kill the Argos (or even the CFL), but I'm not sure about that.

In any case, competition is healthy. We in Hamilton want an NHL team and hate that the Leafs are trying to kill competition. We also complain about the lack of competition for wireless and internet providers. Yet the same people who hate monopolies and like competition dont want Toronto to get an NFL team for fear it will hurt the Argos/CFL. I don't get the double-standard.