Tim Hortons Field | 40m | ? | Complete

[SteelTown]

25,000 seats PLUS probably another 5,000 to 10,000 ground space so it could hold 30,000 to 35,000 people for concerts no problem.

65,000 people attended the Pink Floyd concert at Ivor Wynne.

[bigguy1231]

Why would it be too small for concerts? If arenas are big enough, then why wouldn't a 25k seat stadium be big enough.

If you're just going by outdoor venues - the Molson Amphitheatre holds 16,000 and gets a good number of concerts of pretty decent acts.

The Molson Ampitheatre is built specifically as a music venue. It would be classed as an arena setup. Indoors or outdoors does not matter.

There are 2 kinds of concert tours, ones for arena's and the other for stadiums. Most acts play either one or the other. The ones that play stadiums, are usually the biggest acts with the huge stages and all the bells and whistles. It is not economically feasable to play small outdoor venues. They need a certain size venue to make it profitable. There are some who do both but that is usually only the biggest acts who can afford to have setups for both types of venues. Arena setups just do not work in stadiums the stages would be too small and get lost in the background.

[bigguy1231]

Even if that means the Ticats leaving Hamilton? He's not going to foot the bill alone, heck no CFL owner has ever built their own stadium. So I guess you're cool with the Ticats heading off to Burlington or elsewhere, leaving that beloved West Harbour stadium as one big old white elephant money pit post Pan-Am...

First of all the team isn't going to move anywhere, especially Burlington. Burlington doesn't have 110 million to build a stadium. Besides that, they can't even find a place to put a 5000 seat temporary stadium let alone a larger one.

Secondly, stadiums in this country are all white elephants. Even the Rogers Centre in Toronto loses money and they are probably the busiest venue in the country.

The taxpayers of this city are putting up the lions share of the money for this facility and will be on the hook for operating expenses for the lifetime of the stadium. Therefore we, our elected officials, will decide whats in the best interests of the city, not the Ti Cats.

[thistleclub]

This naming rights thing is arguably the nub of what the cash-starved team is irritated about, which it's the main reason why "visibility" is the first grievance that Young lists. But it's a canard. As he notes in the first sentence of his Fred Rogers-like think piece, "When the City insists that they are building a stadium, and the Tiger-Cat Football Club is simply a tenant, they are correct." So it's basically settled, for the same reason that his car isn't wearing a wrap advertisement for the dealership he bought from. But even if you assume that the city would give away those rights to a two-week per year tenant and forgo the revenues that tend to go straight into capital improvement and venue maintenance budgets, naming rights are not what Young makes them out to be. Not by half. He says: "Stadium “naming rights” can sell for millions of dollars per year." Can. But won't, unless the venue is exceptionally busy, at which point the Cats' clout is considerably reduced.

Look at the high water mark for Canadian pro sports, the ACC (capacity 19,800): The Leafs and Raptors each play 40 regular season home games apiece, to say nothing of concert and event dates (the average annual attendance is upwards of 750,000). It's right beside highway access and the transit hub for a city of 5 million, and walking distance from the continent's third largest stock exchange. Plus it's in Canada's largest city, and is the home venue of the most business-savvy pro sports team in the country, the most valuable franchise in the NHL. So with all of those positives, how much are they raking in on naming rights? $2 million a year -- $40M over 20 years. Even if you overlook all of the other factors and assume that naming rights are just indexed to attendance, divide that $2M annually by a third, or around $670K a year. If it's relative exposure to eyeballs that counts, the numbers get even worse.

[SteelTown]

Ticat dissent threatens Pan Am plans

May 07, 2010
John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/764805

The Tiger-Cats' rejection of a west harbour stadium site and call for a 90-day moratorium on planning could be risky business for Hamilton, says Toronto 2015 CEO Ian Troop.

Team owner Bob Young's comment yesterday that the site will not work for professional football caught the city and the Pan Am Games host corporation by surprise.

But Mayor Fred Eisenberger and city manager Chris Murray promised to forge ahead.

And they drew a line in the sand at May 17, the date by which Troop asked the city and the CFL club to confirm the west harbour location.

"Mr. Young's position is a new development," Troop said in a statement from Merida, Mexico, where he is due to lay out Toronto 2015 plans to the Pan American Sports Organization today.

Young's demand may not square with the timetable Toronto 2015 has set out, Troop indicated.

"We need to assess the risks and impacts of a 90-day schedule delay on our ability to have a stadium ready for test events in the summer of 2014."

The CEO of the host company (or HostCo) has noted in the past that the Pan Am organizers would have backup plans for all Games facilities in case a city could not deliver.

Troop said, "We look forward to hearing how (Hamilton) intends to proceed. We appreciate the importance of this issue for the people of Hamilton and to the success of the 2015 Games."

Young set off a firestorm when he told a private meeting of Tiger-Cats supporters yesterday that the team could lose as much as $7 million a year if it were forced into the city-preferred west harbour option.

He followed that with a letter to Ticat fans on the club's website, repeating Ticat concerns about access, parking and visibility at the Bay and Barton streets location.

He cited three options that have not been fully explored by the club or the city. The Tiger-Cats spokesperson, chief financial officer Doug Rye, suggested the options are talking points as the club tries to find a viable location.

One option, which Young identified at the intersection of the QEW and the Red Hill Valley Parkway near Confederation Park, was a site near a proposed Walmart store on Centennial Parkway. Sources said that possibility hinged on a stadium using Walmart parking.

The second is "on the Hamilton side of Aldershot," Young said.

Rye said the attraction of this area, which is in Burlington, was the Aldershot GO station near Waterdown Road, future access to Highway 403 and substantial parking.

The third option is Chedoke Park, although Young acknowledged this site would be complicated because the land is under the protection of the Niagara Escarpment Commission (NEC).

The NEC rejected another Pan Am facility, a soccer stadium at Kerns Road and Highway 5 in Burlington, as inappropriate.

Jagoda Pike, CEO of the Pan Am bid corporation, noted it was late in the day for the Ticats to reject the west harbour.

She pointed out it was the city's preferred location since 2003 and was an important part of the winning bid because it centred a Hamilton cluster of facilities for the 2015 showcase. It also dovetails with public transit plans that include Go, Via and light rail transit.

Outside the breakfast meeting, Young stressed "failure is not an option" and said he will work with the city to find a successful resolution.

Young's demands appear like negotiating in public, said Patrick Dillon, who sat on the Toronto 2015 bid board and is on the board of Infrastructure Ontario, which will oversee planning and construction of Pan Am facilities.

Dillon, who is business manager of the Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario and a strong supporter of the west harbour location, said it seems the Ticats were "playing games to get the city to put more money into the stadium."

Young once indicated he would invest "in the millions" in the stadium in the right circumstances.

In his letter to fans, he called buying the team "easily the worst financial idea I've ever had."

He wrote that reports the city relied on to make its case for the west harbour were flawed, in one case assuming more than $2 million of Ticat revenue would go to the city.

Advisers and partners of the football club claim the location limits revenue from parking, sponsorships and naming rights.

Young charged that there has been no real collaboration in the stadium project and the football team has fruitlessly pointed out many unresolved problems with the location.

[SteelTown]

'Moving full steam ahead': City
Mayor says city won't abandon west harbour site

May 07, 2010
Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/764810

The city isn't backing down to the Tiger-Cats' demands to move the Pan Am stadium away from the west harbour.

"We are moving full steam ahead on the west harbour site," said Mayor Fred Eisenberger. "We will not waver from that because it is best for Hamilton."

Early yesterday, Ticats owner Bob Young rejected the west harbour plan and asked the city for a 90-day moratorium on any stadium decisions to look at other sites.

Eisenberger fired back at a press conference yesterday afternoon, saying the city has no intention of abandoning west harbour for a tenant that hasn't yet committed any money to the project.

"The statements made by Bob Young only talk about what is best for the Tiger-Cat organization," he said. "There is no mention of the community interest and the community building that we've been talking about."

He hasn't "seen anything that indicates their interest or their desire to invest in this stadium at all," Eisenberger added.

The city won't look into the other sites Young proposed, Eisenberger says, as it has already made significant investments in the west harbour site. Deals to purchase up to 85 per cent of the properties in the Tiffany, Stuart, Bay and Barton street corridor are already completed or in the works, and the remediation costs -- initially thought to be as high as $37 million -- will be closer to $3 million or $5 million.

A 90-day moratorium isn't on the table either, Eisenberger says, as the Games' host corporation has instituted a May 17 deadline for a site verification.

Young's announcement came two years after the city first identified the west harbour as its preferred location for the 2015 Pan Am Games stadium. The site, which was included in the Golden Horseshoe's bid book, was officially endorsed by council with a 10-5 vote Feb. 18 -- though rumblings quickly began circulating that high-powered movers and shakers were hatching plans for alternate sites.

Despite rumours about the west harbour's unpopularity, the city took aim at the Cats yesterday for the explosive -- and public -- manner in which Young vetoed it. City officials say they have spoken with the Ticats in the past several days and were given no signs Young's announcement was brewing.

City manager Chris Murray said he met with Bob Young, Cats president Scott Mitchell and financial adviser Doug Rye last Wednesday to hash out the details of the west harbour location and received no notice of their dissatisfaction with the site.

"When I left that meeting, very clearly I left it thinking there was going to be more discussion, more dialogue, which I thought was a very positive result," he said.

Chief Pan Am lieutenant David Adames said he spoke to Mitchell early this week after the Ticats passed on their draft business report. Adames said that document consisted of four spreadsheets analysing numbers in the city-commissioned Deloitte report as well as its own calculations. It didn't contain any information about the Cats' plan to say no to the west harbour, Adames said. "I was surprised that all of a sudden it was announced (yesterday) morning that west harbour is just not on, period. We've always been working in a spirit of collaboration."

The mayor is planning to host a Pan Am community engagement session that will include the Tiger-Cats and other stakeholders to review the west harbour site.



The stadium:

What do the 2015 Pan Am Games need? A 15,000-seat stadium to host track and field events. The city selected a site at the west harbour northwest of Bay and Barton streets.

How is it being paid for? The city is funding $60 million for the $102-million stadium, a $11.4-million velodrome and land. The federal and provincial governments are contributing about $32 million each.

What do the Tiger-Cats need? They need to expand the stadium to at least 25,000 seats -- an upgrade that will cost $50 million.

How is that being paid for? The city has challenged the Tiger-Cats and the private sector to come up with the funds.

The sites:

What has the city looked at? Confederation Park, the Hamilton airport and a downtown site. Councillor Bernie Morelli has proposed an east harbour slag site owned by Lafarge Canada on Windermere Road as a Plan B if the west harbour site doesn't go.

Why did it choose the west harbour site? The stadium would provide a vital connection between the harbour and downtown and help revitalize downtown Hamilton.

What sites do the Tiger-Cats want? The intersection of the QEW and the Red Hill Valley Parkway near Confederation Park, the "Hamilton side of Aldershot" and Chedoke Park.

Why doesn't the team like the waterfront site? Owner Bob Young says the location has accessibility and visibility problems, with the site bordered by a residential neighbourhood that lacks driving and parking access for fans. Young says the Tiger-Cats would lose as much as $7 million a year with the harbour choice.

The decision:

When was the waterfront decided? In February. Young is asking for a 90-day moratorium on the stadium decision.

Who decides where the stadium goes? The city. The Tiger-Cats would be a tenant.

What is the timing for a decision? HostCo, the board overseeing the Games, has set a May 17 deadline.

What roles does HostCo play? It has said it prefers not to interfere with debates over local venues. However, it has said it will work on backup plans of its own for all sites in the Games in case one or more of the 17 municipalities don't come through with a facility or event.

[markbarbera]

First of all the team isn't going to move anywhere, especially Burlington. Burlington doesn't have 110 million to build a stadium. Besides that, they can't even find a place to put a 5000 seat temporary stadium let alone a larger one.

Secondly, stadiums in this country are all white elephants. Even the Rogers Centre in Toronto loses money and they are probably the busiest venue in the country.

The taxpayers of this city are putting up the lions share of the money for this facility and will be on the hook for operating expenses for the lifetime of the stadium. Therefore we, our elected officials, will decide whats in the best interests of the city, not the Ti Cats.

And given the historical track record of our elected officials' inability to identify and act upon the best interests of the city in their decisions, and given their decision on this stadium in particular, we are doomed.

If council was truly intersted in the best interests of the city, what was with the lack of a public consultation process on this topic? Council made a decision based on a consultant's report, a report commissioned by council with a scope engineered to prop up the mayor's pet project.

Furthermore, instead of being a blind cheerleader, why isn't the Spec looking into the land deals going on right now? Ferguson called out a potential land-flip scam last week, how many more are going on as we speak? Why are there no hard questions about the viability of the site hinging on intense commercial development surrounding the site, which has direct implications on the residential neighbourhoods that hem in this site.

A lot of these online west harbour cheerleaders have posted in other SSP threads expressing outrage over the city's proliferation of surface area parking in the core, yet are supporting a business model for this stadium which relies on the preservation, indeed the expansion of surface parking in the lower city. Those who bemoan the 'expressways' of Main, York Blvd and Cannon/Wilson are advocating a stadium site that will not only preserve their expressway status, will lead to the expansion of it along Barton East and Locke North. Those who decry the extended decline of the core are advocating the establishment of a competing commercial centre within a kilometre of Gore Park which will cannabalize any remaining downtown retail and commercial business. How can you reconcile these hypocricies?

[SteelTown]

Well here's why you won't hear about the Ticats business plan (from Dreschel's article)....

"According to Eisenberger, the club’s business analysis of the harbour site — which was finally submitted to the city last Friday — is nowhere near as definitively negative as Young’s comments. (Don’t expect to see a copy of that report anytime soon. The city says it’s confidential unless the Ticats release it.)"

[Jon Dalton]

I have basically zero enthusiasm for the project at this point. The only reason I cared in the first place was the potential to speed up light rail, now apparently that's out of the question. We should know by now that these projects are all money losers, and without rapid transit this one is just another shot in the dark. $60M could do alot - that's 2 Lister Blocks, 3 TH&B Hamilton GO Centres, 1 crappy City Hall. If I had that much money to spend on downtown I can think of many things I'd rather do with it.

[SteelTown]

Part of the West Harbour plan includes 146,000 sq feet of commercial space.

[bigguy1231]

And given the historical track record of our elected officials' inability to identify and act upon the best interests of the city in their decisions, and given their decision on this stadium in particular, we are doomed.

If council was truly intersted in the best interests of the city, what was with the lack of a public consultation process on this topic? Council made a decision based on a consultant's report, a report commissioned by council with a scope engineered to prop up the mayor's pet project.

Furthermore, instead of being a blind cheerleader, why isn't the Spec looking into the land deals going on right now? Ferguson called out a potential land-flip scam last week, how many more are going on as we speak? Why are there no hard questions about the viability of the site hinging on intense commercial development surrounding the site, which has direct implications on the residential neighbourhoods that hem in this site.

A lot of these online west harbour cheerleaders have posted in other SSP threads expressing outrage over the city's proliferation of surface area parking in the core, yet are supporting a business model for this stadium which relies on the preservation, indeed the expansion of surface parking in the lower city. Those who bemoan the 'expressways' of Main, York Blvd and Cannon/Wilson are advocating a stadium site that will not only preserve their expressway status, will lead to the expansion of it along Barton East and Locke North. Those who decry the extended decline of the core are advocating the establishment of a competing commercial centre within a kilometre of Gore Park which will cannabalize any remaining downtown retail and commercial business. How can you reconcile these hypocricies?

Let's face it, it doesn't matter where they propose to build it you will oppose the selection.

As for more public consultation, that is the problem in this city we spend too much time consulting and not enough time building. Over the years we have lost so much time consulting that nothing ever seems to get done. We elect these people to make decisions, if we don't like the decisions they make we can vote against them. Public consultations are generally a waste of time since only the most vocal opponents tend to participate. This gives the elected officials a skewed view and quite often leads to them making decisions that are not in keeping with the views of the majority.

[markbarbera]

Let's face it, it doesn't matter where they propose to build it you will oppose the selection.



Wrong, wrong, wrong. How did you reach this conclusion? Have you read my past posts here suggesting alternatives? I have pointed out many sites that would be preferable to this poor choice. I would whole-heartedly support a 'real' downtown location (remember my suggestion for Bay/King/Caroline/Main block?). I would definitely support a location in Kay Drage (anyone who actually reads this post knows this is my first choice for a location). While it is not a favourite in my list of spots, there still is more merit in a Confederation Park location than west harbour.

Please don't try to put words in my mouth, it only makes you look silly.

[bigguy1231]

Wrong, wrong, wrong. How did you reach this conclusion? Have you read my past posts here suggesting alternatives? I have pointed out many sites that would be preferable to this poor choice. I would whole-heartedly support a 'real' downtown location (remember my suggestion for Bay/King/Caroline/Main block?). I would definitely support a location in Kay Drage (anyone who actually reads this post knows this is my first choice for a location). While it is not a favourite in my list of spots, there still is more merit in a Confederation Park location than west harbour.

Please don't try to put words in my mouth, it only makes you look silly.

If you actually made some suggestions that were viable then I wouldn't have concluded that you would oppose anything that might be selected. The first 2 sites you mention are too small and the Confederation park site would be tied up with environmental assessments and other complaints by the tree huggers for years to come.

[thistleclub]

Everyone – the city, the club, the fans -- has seen the need for a new stadium coming for years if not decades. Which is a big part of why the indecision and penny ante business plans are disconcerting. Everyone had lots of time to get their houses in order. Dial it back to 2007 and you'll see that it was Ticats president Scott Mitchell himself who made a new stadium a hot-button issue, and who even then was networking in business and political circles rallying support and shopping his vision.

Hamilton Spectator, October 31, 2007 (http://www.thespec.com/article/274880)

...sundry interests are at work, upfront and in the background, to solve the most pressing problem -- the little bit of shelf life the home of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats has remaining.

Ticat president Scott Mitchell put that issue squarely into play recently with a challenge to the city.

The cost to renovate Ivor Wynne Stadium could be almost as much as a new stadium and would remain a limited-use facility in a residential area.

A new pigskin palace has plenty of obstacles, particularly in the forum of public opinion where it would be seen as $200-million minimum for a place to play nine football games a year.

But there is an ongoing effort at coming up with a plan that would make the City of Hamilton's financial hit on a stadium much smaller.

Mitchell believes a new stadium can come together either as a stand-alone project or in the context of a big multisport event for southern Ontario.

....

Two sites come to mind, Confederation Park and the past Commonwealth Games bid location, Barton and Bay streets, which was touted as a revitalization project that links the waterfront with the city's core.

The key to a Games bid this time is that the private sector has to take the lead. Principals in the most recent bids believe the public is exhausted by city efforts in that regard. It will take high-profile business leaders levering money first from higher levels of government to win public favour.

The alternative isn't pretty. The Ticats would make noises about leaving or worse, suspending operations, and that could prompt the end of the Canadian Football League.

The paper obviously missed this passive-aggressive gem from a month earlier, where the threat is arguably unsheathed:

Globe & Mail, September 28, 2007 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=15630358&postcount=10):

"At some point in the next three years there's going to have to be a major decision made over whether to renovate Ivor Wynne Stadium or look at a new project," said Tiger-Cats' president Scott Mitchell.

"The Tiger-Cats would be happy with either scenario. We're just a tenant that needs a place to play.

"We'd be happy to stay or to talk about the bigger picture of where sport development fits in Hamilton and the Niagara region."

Mitchell says he has quietly discussed the stadium issue with prominent businessmen and local politicians over the past few months, hoping to get a proactive start on what he believes is an inevitable decision and a potential opportunity.

You might argue that right from the opening of this discussion, the team has inhabited two personae: the aw-shucks, thanks-for-thinking-of-us, go-along-to-get-along hometown team and the my-way-or-the-highway hardball businessmen, in this case both at the same time, as in Mitchell's "happy to play... happy to stay... or" remark.

Given that volatile mix of constipated candour and borderline personality disorder, maybe it was inevitable this would turn into a farce with national exposure.

[drpgq]

I'm wondering if at this point, the city is just better off in the end now to just use $20 million from the Future Fund for more renovations at Ivor Wynne and wait for the 2030 Commonwealth games for a new stadium. Obviously Aldershot and Chedoke are not happening no matter what and I can't see the city blowing $60 million at Confederation Park.

Stadium showdown divides councillors (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/765674)

Emma Reilly
The Hamilton Spectator
(May 8, 2010)

The Tiger-Cats' announcement that the club won't support a Pan Am Games stadium at the west harbour has left council even more divided over whether the city's preferred location is the best site.

Though Mayor Fred Eisenberger has resolved to forge ahead, several councillors aren't so sure.

Some, such as Councillor Sam Merulla, say the battle with the Ticats proves why the city shouldn't have gotten involved with the 2015 Games. Others -- who have long been Pan Am and west harbour supporters -- are questioning whether their choices reflect what's best for the city.

"It's getting to the point now that I'm second-guessing myself whether -- without the Ticats being on board -- it's even worth pursuing the Pan Am Games at all," said Councillor Terry Whitehead.

Cats owner Bob Young set off an uproar Thursday when he rejected the site as a viable home for his CFL team. He suggested three other sites and asked for a 90-day moratorium on further stadium decisions.

In response, Eisenberger said the city has no intention of slowing down on the west harbour and is moving "full steam ahead."

Councillors Brian McHattie, Scott Duvall and Russ Powers say they agree with the mayor's stance and are disappointed with Young's comments.

"He deserves a 25-yard misconduct penalty for illegal blocking from the rear," Duvall said of Young's revelations. "I fully support our mayor's position and response."

However, not all council members are rallying behind the mayor.

Whitehead says he's now wondering whether the $60 million the city is putting into the stadium would be better spent on roads or sidewalks.

Tom Jackson says he doesn't "see any absolute rights or wrongs here," and wants more time to hash out a compromise with the Cats. Both Whitehead and Jackson voted in favour of the Games and west harbour.

For Merulla, the standoff demonstrates what he's maintained all along -- that the Games were a bad idea for Hamilton.

"I want to say 'I told you so' - but the sad component of saying 'I told you so' is that the taxpayers are getting victimized."

Council was never united behind the games or that site. The west harbour location was formally approved in mid-February by a 10-5 vote.

There is a provision for a Plan B site if something were to go wrong with the majority choice.

The day after Young's rejection of the west harbour, there was little reaction from provincial representatives. A call to Premier Dalton McGuinty's press secretary went unreturned. MPP Sophia Aggelonitis, Hamilton's cabinet minister, declined to speak over the phone and instead issued a prepared statement via e-mail.

"I'm confident the city and the Ticats will work together to produce the best possible resolution for our city," it read.

MPP Ted McMeekin said any Pan Am problems are under the jurisdiction of the 2015 Host Corporation and its CEO, Ian Troop.

However, he added he was concerned that the stalemate between the city and the Cats could jeopardize Hamilton's chances of keeping the stadium.

"My own view is that both the mayor and the Ticats seems to have painted themselves into a corner.

"That's unfortunate."

ereilly@thespec.com

905-526-2452

[drpgq]

OK, the Cats have finally produced some numbers and they are somewhat interesting. I had heard previously that it costs around $14 million to run a CFL team so $17 million seems plausible on the surface, but I think is overestimating inflation. 4.5% increases for four years? Where is that coming from? The salary cap has been stuck at just over $4 million for years now and I am pretty sure the increase of the cap will be negligible for the next four years (and there is rumours the Cats haven't been spending up to the cap anyways). So for the other $10 million to reach 4.5% total, you're looking at 5% or 5.5% increases. This I find hard to believe. Are the Cats giving their office staff 5.5% increases over the next four years? Somehow I doubt that.

But the real interesting info is that Cats are saying the West Harbour option will only be 20,000 seats. It seems to me the real complaint is not that there are parking problems per se, but that the Cats don't want to contribute any appreciable amount of money.

I suppose with Confederation Park, pretty much every person will go there by car and will have to pay for parking at probably $10 per car. For 8,000 cars and 10.5 games per year (nine regular, one preseason, 0.5 playoff games per year) that is $840,000 a year maybe that justifies the Cats putting in a big chunk of coin.

City wants to resume talks (http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/765650)

Stalemate with Ticats centres around projected losses

City staff will be on the phone to the Ticats Monday to revive talks about the west harbour stadium location.

"We'll be contacting the Cats to resume discussions about the stadium and Pan Am planning," said David Adames, Hamilton's Pan Am pointman.

"We're doing this in the spirit of collaboration. The Ticats are too important to the process."

Meantime, as the Ticat-city hall stalemate headed into the weekend, the football club outlined how it would lose up to $7 million a year at a west harbour stadium.

Owner Bob Young used that figure Thursday when he rejected the location as the future home of the Tiger-Cats.

He said limited access, parking and visibility crippled revenue streams for the team.

He also suggested three other potential locations and asked for a 90-day moratorium on a firm stadium commitment to the 2015 Pan Am Games' host corporation.

Mayor Fred Eisenberger fired back that the city would go full steam ahead on the Bay and Barton streets site. And Hostco CEO Ian Troop warned of the risks to Hamilton's part in the Games because of delays.

The $7-million loss Young forecast "is not magic, it's pretty simple," said the Ticat owner's financial adviser, Doug Rye.

Rye laid out a balance sheet for 2014, the first year the stadium would be available.

He said Ticat expenses would be about $17 million for that season based on 4.5 per cent budget increases over the next four years.

Rye used the projected operations on a 20,000-seat stadium in a Deloitte report commissioned by the city and current practice at Ivor Wynne Stadium to arrive at a bottom line.

That 20,000 figure is the greatest number of seats the $102-million in public funds could build.

The club anticipated $6 million in gate revenues, assuming average $30 tickets and Rye said the team forecast about $1.1 million from concessions, souvenir revenue and stadium advertising.

The Canadian Football League would provide another $2 million from television rights and sponsorships.

Another $1 million would come from team-specific advertising.

That's $10.1 million, leaving a near $7-million loss.

"You can't predict what will happen in four years," Rye said. "Could the CFL land a huge TV deal? But you have to project realistically."

He said revenues might be stretched to $11 million at the location, leaving a $6-million loss.

"If everything went right, you might get it down to a $5-million loss."

Asked what difference a 25,000-seat stadium would make, Rye said that would bring in another $1.5 million.

But no one, including the Tiger-Cats, have come up with the money to expand the stadium.

Rye stressed it would be hard for the football club to justify contributing to a stadium when it already expects to lose money.

[markbarbera]

In a nutshell, given the limitations of the west harbour stadium site, the Ticat organization has two scenarios available to them to operate from this site:


Spend tens of millions of dollars to expand the site to a 25,000 stadium and lose $3.5 million per year
Spend nothing and operate out of a 20,000 seat stadium with operating losses of $7 million annually


Pretty simple math, really. Given the lose-lose scenario, it should come as no shock to anyone why Young does not want to locate his CFL team to a west harbour site.

BTW, I notice the spec poll asking if the city should re-open discussion about the west harbour location is pretty much split (as of 8:30 this morning 54% say yes, 46% say no). While it is an unscientific poll, I think it is pretty clear that Eisenberger's claim that Hamilton's citizens support this location is overstated. On the contrary, the city seems quite divided on this issue. And council is certainly not rallying behind the mayor's stance, either.

[drpgq]

Does it really have to cost tens of millions for an extra 5,000 seats? Why not tack 2,500 in bleachers at the end of either endzone. If it can be done cheaply out in Moncton and BC, surely it could be done here, with the public funding covering the main 20,000 seats.

[SteelTown]

Bob Young and the rest are just trying to get more subsidy from the City and they'll get it.

Watch and you'll see the City give the Ti Cats organization parking revenue during game day. That's probably a million right there. Probably include a deal to freeze rent for 10 years as well.

I'd like to know what the situation is like with Ivor Wynne (probably lose more than $7 million a year), it can't be any better than the approved stadium at West Harbour.

[SteelTown]

Cats say no at a terrible time

May 08, 2010
Howard Elliott
The Hamilton Spectator
http://www.thespec.com/Opinions/article/765571

Talk about bad timing. Hamilton Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young's high-volume declaration that the west harbour site does not work for his football team could scarcely come at a worse time.

Ian Troop, CEO for the 2015 Pan Am Games, says the 90-day moratorium sought by the Ticats would throw the Games' planning schedule off kilter, and jeopardize the objective of having a stadium ready for test events to be held in 2014.

Young had to have known that before he declared his strong opposition at a team supporters' meeting Thursday. So why did the owner deliver this sucker punch at such a crucial time? Probably because he's involved in a high-stakes game of poker with the city, and is trying to get the very best deal he can. Still, it's a questionable ploy, and doesn't reflect well on the Ticats overall.

It has been two years since Hamilton said the west harbour is the preferred location. The Ticats were initially silent. Then, much later, Young's organization said it would make a significant investment, and would work with the city on whatever location was chosen. Later, the Cats said they had significant concerns about the west harbour, but still, would work with the city on a positive outcome.

Now, and only now, Young comes forward with his strongest condemnation yet, basically saying the site won't work for a professional football team. This, after meetings last week left the impression with senior Hamilton decision-makers that progress was being made toward an agreement, although many issues remained unresolved.

Much as we respect and appreciate that Young rescued the Ticats and has kept them afloat, at his own expense, it needs to be said that this particular act is hardly an expression of good faith.

Now what? Troop and Hamilton Mayor Fred Eisenberger agree a 90-day freeze isn't in the cards. Property acquisition and costing of required remediation in west harbour is under way (it's worth noting that remediation costs, initially feared to be as high as $37 million, will be more like $3 million to $5 million). Back to square one is not an option.

The west harbour location remains the best option in terms of city-building, and that has to be the main driver for key proponents such as the mayor and city council. The city has been, and will continue to be, willing to put all sorts of things on the table to try and make the location work for the Ticats. It might be wise to bring in an independent third party to broker or mediate those negotiations, but it has to happen in a much shorter time period than three months.

All sorts of revenue streams, and maybe a management contract, are options to be considered to sweeten the opportunity for Young. But not the location itself. Let's remember that Hamilton and taxpayers in general have $60 million on the table for a new stadium. We have no indication what the Ticats are prepared to invest, only that they don't want to invest it in the west harbour location.

The Ticats have every right to negotiate hard for the best deal possible. But ultimately, this stadium needs to go in the best place for Hamilton, first and foremost. The mayor and his colleagues are correct to remain resolute on that point.

[bornagainbiking]

What I see and from what I would consider in the foreseeable future, What would I like for my retirement (downsize boomer).
The West harbour has to be cleaned up and it has an excellent view of the water. So I suggest a large complex of say 6 story condos with roof top patios, to include a small plaza with a restaurant/lounge and mini grocery store, connected to the waterfront by a cyclepath. Not too tall as to block off the view of the occupants of low rental apts on lower Queen st. I believe in this as I see the success of all the homes or townhouse on the beach strip and downtown Burlington, Toronto (from downtown out to almost the bottom of the 427). This land for the stadium could be worth tidy sum if promoted right.
As for a stadium, we redeem the land (which is half light industry and half residential) for a stadium and use it for the games and after that what once a week in the late spring to early fall. What a waste.
What I suggest (and who am I a regular joe).
I think the best option would be to redeem some waterfront industial land and build a stadium as no one is living there now and the standards would be of a lesser degree for a stadium with raised seating and acres of parking. Seal the soil and pave it with recycled tires. it could be the start point of the Around the Bay and some outdoor concerts, who would conplain Stelco?
To go within sight of the QEW would be an asset as people would see where they are going from the Skyway.
i don't agree with the beach strip or too close to it as it works for the QEW but robs from the West end or the 403.
Downtown would be excellent too if you had space as the infrastructure is there but so is the old industrial sites and less traffic on weekend and neighbours who don't care (they would have parking for events for their employees).
The airport is out of the question. As most American stadiums outside the cities, huge complexs under utilized and replace with an eventual move to the city. Look at Buffalo and Detriot. You have to be close to the people so they have easy access.
So time is short but i think the West harbour site is ill advised. Who do they use as consultants or who do they ask not the possible users.:shrug: :shrug:

[markbarbera]

Opinion piece from Thursday's online Globe and Mail:


Build it for football
JEFF BLAIR

The sense in Hamilton is that they’ll screw this up somehow – that the stadium that was supposed to be built here for the 2015 Pan Am Games that nobody seems much interested in will never see the light of day because it’s an issue too big to be handled by a city council that always seems bereft of ideas.

Thursday, Hamilton Tiger-Cats owner Bob Young flatly rejected a cock-eyed idea to wedge the stadium in the city’s West Harbour. Here’s The Spec’s website piece and here’s a design of the place with more background.

As usual, there are two sides to this argument. Young’s a great guy and god love him for bankrolling the Ti-Cats but there is no such thing as a private businessman without an agenda, so let’s just put that out there and be done with it. But civic politicians never cease to amaze me: they see waterfront and they think automatic success! Camden Yards! Picturesque views!

I used to spend a fair amount of time in a stadium that was built without any input at all from its future main tenant. A place that had so many bells and whistles it became unusable. A place that was like some goofy architectural and engineering acid trip. That was Olympic Stadium, and while I’m not equating this modest little pigskin paradise in our modest little burg with the Big Owe, I’d like to remind the people my tax dollars go to – yeah, I have a vested interest in this thing - that much like the Montreal Expos were ultimately done in by their concrete tomb there will be no second chances if Young tires of the nonsense. This will be the Ti-Cats Stadium. Nobody else's. If it doesn't work for them, give it to Burlington or Oakville or some other place.

This whole thing has been predictable from Day 1. Anybody who lives here and has gone down to the harbour had one simple question: how the hell do we get in and out. On bikes? Helicopters? Boat? What if there’s an evacuation necessary? Whatever ….

I’m not a big fan of hooking urban development onto a stadium to begin with because there are more than enough economics to show that a new stadium does not generate as much income for an area as sports owners and their amen lobby like to think. At best, there’s a redistribution of existing money. (And the fact of the matter is Baltimore’s Harbourfront revival owes more to its stunning, world-class, year-round aquarium than a now often-empty ballpark.)

But this is pretty simple. The stadium is about the Ti-Cats, not some B-list international event being held to soothe Toronto’s pain at never landing the really big show. That’s just an excuse to get government money (Oh come on, you all know that as well as I do!) It needs to be economical and accessible. It needs to be football-first. Hamilton’s already been screwed by its blind love affair with Jim Balsillie – who, while it was all good fun and yucks, had no real hope in hell of ever bringing an NHL team here. Build the stadium for football. Add all the other stuff later. Because David Braley already owns one-quarter of the CFL. Tough to ask him to make it three of eight, no?

...and another piece in the Toronto Star:

Time is right for Argos and Ticats to share a home
May 07, 2010

Dave Feschuk

They’re hemming and hawing in Hamilton, where the city and the CFL team can’t agree on a site for a stadium to house the Pan Am Games for 2015 and the Ticats for decades.

So here’s a solution that will serve common sense and, for sports fans in the Golden Horseshoe, a common good: Bid Hamilton adieu. Build a stadium between the one-time steel town and Toronto. Build it on a spot with access to a QEW interchange and the GO train line. And make it the home not only of the Pan Am Games and the Ticats, but of the other sports team in the area that has long been in search of a new home — the Toronto Argonauts, currently tenants at the football-unfriendly Rogers Centre.

It’s hardly a revolutionary proposal. The NFL’s New York Giants and Jets shared Giants Stadium for years and they’ll share the new Meadowlands Stadium, slated to open this summer in New Jersey, for years to come. Considering Hamilton’s would-be stadium is estimated to cost $162 million — considering stadium estimates are often lowballed and the majority of that money is going to come from taxpayers — sharing public funds seems downright sensible in these lean times.

Building the stadium somewhere other than Hamilton — in Oakville, say, at provincially owned Bronte Park — would be a tough blow for the Hammer, which is fresh from having its NHL chain pulled for the umpteenth time. The proposed building, after all, was a welcome gift. The Ticats, residents of decaying Ivor Wynne Stadium, need a new place to play. The Pan Am Games need a track and field venue. And currently falling from the sky are wads of Pan Am-tied government cash to help defray the costs.

Alas, Bob Young, the Ticats owner, has torn to shreds a plan to build the stadium on the city’s west harbour. Young estimates his team would lose some $7 million in the first year it played there. He has inferred that those conditions would precipitate his exit as a CFL owner. Given that the league already has more teams than owners, and that the city isn’t chock with civic touchstones, that’d be bad news for many.

Now, I’m no fan of using public money to cater to pro sports owners, but we’re past that point in the argument. A stadium is going to be built. And one of the reasons it was promised to Hamilton was to give the Ticats a home for the coming decades.

So it’s ill-advised to proceed with a project that will alienate the Ticats owner, especially one spiced with the misguided rhetoric of urban renewal that stadiums almost never bring. And shame on the city of Hamilton for getting this deep into the project without more fully engaging Young.
Young, who has asked for a 90-day moratorium on the project, has proposed a slew of Hamilton-based sites he considers more favourable, with higher visibility and more parking, among other perceived plusses. But time is of the essence here. Ian Troop, the CEO of the 2015 organizing committee, has said his group will need to assess the impact of such a stoppage; Pan Am dry runs, after all, are scheduled for 2014.

So it’s hard to imagine Troop is thrilled. There’s nothing that says Hamilton has to be the site of the stadium. And Young, if he is inclined to look elsewhere — and he didn’t return a call for comment Friday — could have himself a powerful ally in David Braley, the Argos owner.

Braley, when reached Friday, wouldn’t comment on the idea of sharing a stadium with the Ticats. But a simple look at Braley’s resume suggests he might be the most influential player in this drama. He’s not only the owner of the Argos and the B.C. Lions. He’s also a member of the 2015 Pan Am Games board of directors.

Still, every new proposal is a logistical challenge, and certainly there is a stadium alternative that’s more taxpayer-friendly. The Pan Am committee, if bickering in Hamilton is untenable, could build a temporary track and field stadium in any old field by erecting portable aluminum seats, along with the requisite portable toilets and concession stands. It could be done for a fraction of the cost of a more permanent stadium.
Otherwise, the bill is steep. It’s been estimated a bricks-and-mortar 15,000-seater sufficient for the Pan Ams would run $102 million. The provincial and federal governments have promised to chip in some $32 million apiece. Hamilton, meanwhile, has committed to laying out $60 million — to help build the stadium, buy the land and also build a Pan Am Games velodrome — and it’s a question mark whether cities such as Burlington or Oakville or Mississauga would be interested in raising that kind of coin, and quickly. But money is why a Ticats-Argos partnership makes sense. To transform the track and field stadium into a CFL-worthy showpiece will require an upgrade from 15,000 to 25,000 seats and an estimated price tag of an additional $50 million or $60 million. The idea of splitting that tab is too sensible — which means, given the way these schmozzles usually play out, it’s probably doomed.

[SteelTown]

Sure shame on the City for not thinking about the other 356 days of non Ti Cats home games.....

Burlington Ticats? No way

May 08, 2010
Ken Peters
The Hamilton Spectator
BURLINGTON
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/765647

The Burlington Tiger-Cats? Not happening.

Tiger-Cat owner Bob Young suggested Thursday that the City of Hamilton investigate a possible Pan Am Stadium site "on the Hamilton side of Aldershot."

Tiger-Cats' chief financial officer Doug Rye gave credence to his boss's suggestion, telling the Spec the attraction of a stadium in the area, located within the Burlington city limits, was the Aldershot GO Station, close access to Highway 403 and substantial parking.

But Tiger-Cat president Scott Mitchell, who noted the comment was made in a private meeting with Tiger-Cat supporters, threw cold water on the Burlington option yesterday.

"Well, I think Bob said that fairly flippantly in a private setting and it was probably misconstrued," Mitchell said.

"Bob is on the record, as we all are, saying that he is absolutely, positively committed to building this stadium in Hamilton. There is no scenario that exists other than every possible scenario in Hamilton being dead, that Bob would even contemplate anything else."

So in short, no Burlington stadium. No Burlington Tiger-Cats. No Burlington-based Canadian Football League franchise.

"There is no 'there' there with respect to Burlington," Mitchell said, adding there have been zero discussions with Burlington Mayor Cam Jackson or Burlington council about a stadium site. And none are planned.

Young raised the Burlington spectre after rejecting the west harbour stadium site. He suggested the City of Hamilton investigate three other sites, one of which was the Aldershot area.

Burlington Mayor Cam Jackson is away on city business and was unavailable for comment.

[markbarbera]

Sure shame on the City for not thinking about the other 356 days of non Ti Cats home games.....

The problem is the city has not been thinking. Period. In the 80's they spent millions on a white elephant arena with hopes it will rejuvinate the core and attract an NHL team. Neither happened. Today they want to build a stadium in west harbour thinking it will rejuvinate that area and retain the Ticats. History repeating itself.

And, despite what Ken Peters may think, the idea of the Ticats moving is a real possibility. From Bob Young's recent statements I get the distinct feeling that his is reaching his wits end with this city (who wouldn't in his position?). Mayor Fred's defiant statement the other day will only add to his frustration. (really Fred, you expect us to actually believe you were surprised by Bob Young's statement?) Frankly, I would not be surprised to see him dump the team. Why keep throwing good money after bad?

This is not the first time the idea of a shared Argo/Ticat facility has been floated. And whoever inherits the team from Young is not likely to have the same sentimental attachment to this city.

[SteelTown]

The Ti Cats aren't going anywhere. Bob Young is just trying get the best deal possible. It's all a ploy and very business-like of him to do so.

Back to square one is not an option and the stadium is going to West Harbour period. The City and the Ti Cats needs to work out a deal and that's exactly what they will do starting on Monday. Hopefully an agreement will be reached by May 17th.

[markbarbera]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4830852&postcount=515

Who remembers where the Plan B site is located?

[SteelTown]

The Lafarge site. A real picturesque scenery that should probably only require a power wash once a week since it's next to Columbian Chemicals.

[markbarbera]

Actually, no specific site was officially decided upon as a plan B site. Bernie Morelli pushed for the need to have a plan B site identified and wanted it to be the former Lafarge site. Instead, as reported in the Spec on Feb 19 (http://www.thespec.com/article/724419), council passed an amendment to the motion to consider any option as a plan B site. Could be Lafarge, could be Confederation park, could be the airport. Or anywhere else they can think of for that matter.

Given the council was so divided on the original vote (10-5), and with councillors Jackson and Whitehead now wavering in their support of west harbour, I wouldn't be surprised to see a motion to revisit that decision presented and passed at an upcoming council meeting (scheduled or special session).

[SteelTown]

10 to 5 isn't a divided council especially if you look at the councillors who voted against.

Nays: Bratina, Clark, McCarthy, McHattie, Merulla

Merulla is dead against the Pan Am bid and doesn't want a new stadium anywhere in Hamilton, McCarthy is against spending any new money and doesn't want a new stadium, Clark is the same as Merulla against the Pan Am bid and doesn't want a new stadium anywhere in Hamilton, Bratina doesn't want the stadium at the West Harbour and McHattie voted against the West Harbour because of the parking issue.

I doubt McHattie would vote for a stadium next to a highway that would include even more parking space.

[bigguy1231]

Bob Young and the rest are just trying to get more subsidy from the City and they'll get it.

Watch and you'll see the City give the Ti Cats organization parking revenue during game day. That's probably a million right there. Probably include a deal to freeze rent for 10 years as well.

I'd like to know what the situation is like with Ivor Wynne (probably lose more than $7 million a year), it can't be any better than the approved stadium at West Harbour.

The more I think about it the more this scenario makes sense. Bob Young knows he is actually going to have to pay rent in a new stadium and is looking for a way to offset the extra expense.

In order for council to reverse it's decision it would require a 2/3 vote of council. That would require 7 councillors changing their votes. In the Spec today 4 members of council came out against reopening the issue. All it will take is one more councillor to oppose reopening the discussion and any motion will be defeated.

[bigguy1231]

10 to 5 isn't a divided council especially if you look at the councillors who voted against.

Nays: Bratina, Clark, McCarthy, McHattie, Merulla

Merulla is dead against the Pan Am bid and doesn't want a new stadium anywhere in Hamilton, McCarthy is against spending any new money and doesn't want a new stadium, Clark is the same as Merulla against the Pan Am bid and doesn't want a new stadium anywhere in Hamilton, Bratina doesn't want the stadium at the West Harbour and McHattie voted against the West Harbour because of the parking issue.

I doubt McHattie would vote for a stadium next to a highway that would include even more parking space.

I thought I read that McHattie was against reopening the issue. He agrees with the Mayor.

[SteelTown]

Councillors McHattie, Duvall, Powers, Ferguson, Collins, Pearson, Pasuta and Mayor Eisenberger will obviously vote against going back to square one.

[bigguy1231]

Councillors McHattie, Duvall, Powers, Ferguson, Collins, Pearson, Pasuta and Mayor Eisenberger will obviously vote aganist going back to square one.

If thats the case then there is no chance of reopening the issue. The West Harbour it will be.

[markbarbera]

Councillors McHattie, Duvall, Powers, Ferguson, Collins, Pearson, Pasuta and Mayor Eisenberger will obviously vote against going back to square one.

Well, so far only McHattie, Duvall and Powers have voiced support for the Mayor's position to spurn the Ticats and move "full steam ahead" with the west harbour location. The others have been pretty darn quiet so far.

Don't know why you would count Ferguson among the others. He was a reluctant supporter of west harbour and was only convinced to vote in favour of the site under the premise that council would move to address parking and accessibility issues (the same issues Bob Young has cited in his lack of support for the stadium). Seeing as these concerns have been ignored to the point of jeapordizing the Ticat's presence at the stadium, I doubt Ferguson feels the same about this proposal as he did back in February.

By the way, all that is needed is a simple 8-7 majority vote on a motion to move forward with Plan B for the stadium and we would be off the hook for this west harbour white elephant.

PS going back to square one is easy when you are only at square two...

[SteelTown]

Ferguson have stated many times that he supports the West Harbour location for many reason. One being is that it'll enhance the area and community. Parking was an issue but that is being dealth with especially if you read the latest west recreational master plan with regards to parking.

[markbarbera]

Ferguson have stated many times that he supports the West Harbour location for many reason. One being is that it'll enhance the area and community. Parking was an issue but that is being dealth with especially if you read the latest west recreational master plan with regards to parking.

I am afraid you are grossly overstating Ferguson's support for this project. Let's watch to see what he has to say in the coming days.

Now I may be wrong, but I am quite certain the west harbour waterfront recreational master plan's scope does not cover parking provisions to support a 20,000 seat stadium south of the plan site, but maybe I am missing that bit. Can you tell me which pages of the plan cover stadium parking allowances? All I see mentioned is some basic parking provisions for the waterfront recreational sites. There is no mention of stadium parking anywhere that I can see.

The West Harbour parking situation has certainly not been addressed. If it had been, Bob Young would be more inclined to endorse the west harbour, not to oppose it as he does.

[drpgq]

I saw Feschuk's article and thought about posting it, but frankly it was terrible. Go on and on about having a stadium somewhere between Hamilton and Toronto and then only at the very end mention the salient and crucial point that the city of Hamilton is contributing $60 million for the stadium. It is annoying how the national media is making the city out to be the bad guy, but what other city in Canada is willing to contribute $60 million for a stadium?

[thistleclub]

what other city in Canada is willing to contribute $60 million for a stadium?

Even if someone else somewhere else did plunk down $60 million (or, in the potential absence of a bricks-and-mortar Pan Am Stadium, $100+ million) for a stadium, they'd probably be disinclined to cut any sweetheart deals with the tenants. So the team would still be expected to come up with a goodly chunk of change, especially since the facility owners would probably be immune to the sentimentality card that the Ticats love to play. On paper, the club is a loser: Decades past their best-before, passed through a half-dozen owners in the last 30 years, flirting with bankruptcy regularly. That profile only gets worse if you bundle the Argos into a twin-residency equation. Sure, you pretty much double the amount of home games, but that's still just three weeks out of the year. And the notion of the Cats and the Argos sharing a home could also do some damage to the most reliable profit engine these teams have, their heated inter-city rivalry. Outside of a couple of western clubs (Saskatchewan, Edmonton), the CFL has never been especially profitable, a fact that league shill Doug Rye surely appreciates. Teams chiefly make money by filing the stands or by operational efficiencies (in which I'll include charity-grade facility rates, which as fiscal responsibility goes is something like a child getting a raise in allowance). To my eyes, the fact that the Cats are having trouble even in Ivor Wynne is a red flag.

[markbarbera]

To be accurate, the $60 million the city is putting forward is not just to build the stadium, it's to cover the cost of all Pan Am facilities (the stadium, the practice track and the velodrome). Granted the stadium does make up lions' share of the facility costs. OF course, all the facilites will be city property, so I don't understand the sentiment that Young should pay for something he won't own. He is after all just a tenant, as Mayor Fred is so fond of pointing out.

Comparatively speaking, the City of Toronto recently covered $19 million of the cost of the $72 million BMO field ($10 million cash plus the $9 million value of the land), with the other costs covered by the province (8 million), the feds (27 million) and MLSE (18 million). In return for their investment, MLSE secured rights to all stadium naming revenues. MLSE raised their contribution by selling 10-year naming rights for the highly visible stadium to BMO for $27 million.

Which also begs the question, how is it the 22K-seat BMO Field only cost $72 million to build in 2006, while the cost for a proposed 15K-seat west harbour stadium is tagged at $105 million?

[BCTed]

Which also begs the question, how is it the 22K-seat BMO Field only cost $72 million to build in 2006, while the cost for a proposed 15K-seat west harbour stadium is tagged at $105 million?

BMO Field is a completely bare-bones no-frills stadium that is pretty much made of aluminum. They have to tighten/reinforce the fasteners/bolts that keep the thing together because of the stomping of the TFC fans. Something like that would not be suitable as a main stadium for the city of Hamilton.

As things stand, I am worried that the overall budget for the new stadium is too low. The new Yankee Stadium and Cowboys stadium each cost well over a billion dollars. The new BC Place roof alone will cost more than three times the proposed cost of the proposed Hamilton stadium. If this thing is going to serve this city for decades to come, it makes sense to avoid skimping on costs.

[SteelTown]

Now I may be wrong, but I am quite certain the west harbour waterfront recreational master plan's scope does not cover parking provisions to support a 20,000 seat stadium south of the plan site, but maybe I am missing that bit. Can you tell me which pages of the plan cover stadium parking allowances? All I see mentioned is some basic parking provisions for the waterfront recreational sites. There is no mention of stadium parking anywhere that I can see.

The West Harbour parking situation has certainly not been addressed. If it had been, Bob Young would be more inclined to endorse the west harbour, not to oppose it as he does.

The parking garage will be 4 storey and support well over 400 cars. Being that it is in the West Harbour and the stadium will be in the West Harbour it makes logical sense that it can support the stadium use. We are getting close to 2,000 parking space surrounding the stadium. Thousands more within 15 minute walk to the stadium.

I'd like to see the poll results from season ticket holders and their business plan. I would demand it if we are going to have an open debate on stadium location that uses taxpayers money.

[SteelTown]

As things stand, I am worried that the overall budget for the new stadium is too low. The new Yankee Stadium and Cowboys stadium each cost well over a billion dollars. The new BC Place roof alone will cost more than three times the proposed cost of the proposed Hamilton stadium. If this thing is going to serve this city for decades to come, it makes sense to avoid skimping on costs.

Winnipeg's stadium got chopped down, I think it'll be cheaper than Hamilton's stadium.

[thistleclub]

Granted, I've cited the overall games figure. The city's contribution to the stadium is a slender $55 million.

The city's original request was for private investors to foot the expansion costs. That meant the Cats in part, but also corporate partners and private backers who have a soft spot for the team, as well as MLSE-like third parties who simply understand how to run a profitable business.

It's interesting that the local private sector component has remained so ambiguous/non-existent since the $50 million number was put cited over a year ago. How did the team envision achieving their original dream of a $200 million replacement for Ivor Wynne? In all likelihood, the same way they paid for their last home: public funds. And that works, to a point. But the more municipal funds that get shovelled into a new stadium for the Cats, the fewer breaks they're likely to get when it opens, both financial and in terms of civic goodwill. And it still doesn't buy them immunity from the bottom line. If not for Bob Young's cash drip, the team would likely be bankrupt before the ribbon cutting. (On the upside, maybe David Braley could buy them again and play chess against himself every Labour Day.)

[markbarbera]

The parking garage will be 4 storey and support well over 400 cars. Being that it is in the West Harbour and the stadium will be in the West Harbour it makes logical sense that it can support the stadium use. We are getting close to 2,000 parking space surrounding the stadium.


The 400-spot parking garage at the foot of Bay will barely meet requirements for the waterfront district let alone the stadium. On game days are we going to forbid people from going to the harbourfront so there's parking available for the stadium? Not to mention it would easily be at least a 15 minute walk from there to the "plan A" site.

While it is being called a West Harbour stadium, we all know the plan A site is not really in the West Harbour. It is in a landlocked location south of the West Harbour, physically separated from the harbour by the CN rail yards (allbeit a pedestrian bridge is supposed to link it to Bayfront Park).

[SteelTown]

I've never once seen a parking lot at the West Harbour completely full other than during special events.

How come a 15 minute walk is bad? I and vast majority at McMaster walk 15 minutes or more from a parking lot to work each week day. Currently fans probably walk well over 15 minutes from an available parking spot to Ivor Wynne. Must we really build a sea of 10,000 parking spots for an event that's held nine times a year?

[thurmas]

Wonder if there are any legs to this story but in the toronto star today one sports writer wrote maybe the argos and ti-cats should team up and build a shared outdoor stadium in between t.o. and the hammer. The NY Jets and Giants have been doing that since 1984 and will continue to do so when they move into their new stadium this year. To me it makes sense especially for the argos because TFC will not accomodate them with BMO field and Rogers Centre sucks for football. Also with Brayley refussing to comment on it and him being the huge CFL, Hamilton and Pan AM honcho that he is this could get interesting. Here is the article:


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4831098&postcount=522

[SteelTown]

Burlington Ticats? No way

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4831106&postcount=523

[markbarbera]

Wonder if there are any legs to this story but in the toronto star today one sports writer wrote maybe the argos and ti-cats should team up and build a shared outdoor stadium in between t.o. and the hammer. The NY Jets and Giants have been doing that since 1984 and will continue to do so when they move into their new stadium this year. To me it makes sense especially for the argos because TFC will not accomodate them with BMO field and Rogers Centre sucks for football. Also with Brayley refussing to comment on it and him being the huge CFL, Hamilton and Pan AM honcho that he is this could get interesting. Here is the article:


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4831098&postcount=522

I can actually see this happening. Argos have been looking for a new stadium for several years now and splitting operating costs would be financially advantageous. I'd imagine a shared stadium would be placed close to the Oakville side of Burlington. We'll have to see how the city staff discussions with Young's staff go on Monday, but given the city staff's miserable track record on this portfolio so far, I am not holding out hope for a resolution.

[BCTed]

I can actually see this happening. Argos have been looking for a new stadium for several years now and splitting operating costs would be financially advantageous. I'd imagine a shared stadium would be placed close to the Oakville side of Burlington. We'll have to see how the city staff discussions with Young's staff go on Monday, but given the city staff's miserable track record on this portfolio so far, I am not holding out hope for a resolution.

I cannot ever see this happening.

[markbarbera]

I've never once seen a parking lot at the West Harbour completely full other than during special events.

How come a 15 minute walk is bad? I and vast majority at McMaster walk 15 minutes or more from a parking lot to work each week day. Currently fans probably walk well over 15 minutes from an available parking spot to Ivor Wynne. Must we really build a sea of 10,000 parking spots for an event that's held nine times a year?

The idea is to offer a model more successful than Ivor Wynne, which is currently failing in case that has gone unnoticed. West Harbour is basically the reinvention of the Ivor Wynne mistake wheel. For the record, no one is calling for a sea of parking spots, but a more sensible plan requires significantly more onsite parking spaces than the 600, unless of course you are planning a stadium that will host events zero times a year...

[BCTed]

The idea is to offer a model more successful than Ivor Wynne, which is currently failing in case that has gone unnoticed. West Harbour is basically the reinvention of the Ivor Wynne mistake wheel. For the record, no one is calling for a sea of parking spots, but a more sensible plan requires significantly more onsite parking spaces than the 600, unless of course you are planning a stadium that will host events zero times a year...

I can agree with you here. I do not believe it would a good idea to build a stadium with a near-negligible amount of available parking.

[bigguy1231]

Wonder if there are any legs to this story but in the toronto star today one sports writer wrote maybe the argos and ti-cats should team up and build a shared outdoor stadium in between t.o. and the hammer. The NY Jets and Giants have been doing that since 1984 and will continue to do so when they move into their new stadium this year. To me it makes sense especially for the argos because TFC will not accomodate them with BMO field and Rogers Centre sucks for football. Also with Brayley refussing to comment on it and him being the huge CFL, Hamilton and Pan AM honcho that he is this could get interesting. Here is the article:


http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=4831098&postcount=522

This is what Braley wants. He is the one pulling Bob Youngs strings.

[paleale2]

The Argonauts playing in Oakville/Burlington?........

You're kidding me right!
Think about that......do you really think people from Toronto, and points east of the city, would be willing to drive to Oakville/Burlington, to see a game?

I would think not.......

Much greater likelihood of the Argos playing at an expanded BMO field

[SteelTown]

There's already 1280 parking spots and probably another 1000 parking spots once the warm up track is replaced with asphalt. Park 15 minutes away and you've got yourself thousands more of parking spots. If you don't want to walk than take the free shuttle bus.

http://www.raisethehammer.org/static/images/downtown_parking_highlighted_lg.jpg

[markbarbera]

Is it really the official plan to pave the practice track over to be a surface parking lot? WHere are you pulling these parking figures from? Please be kind and send a link to wherever these numbers were drawn from.

Even still, what you describe is exactly the same conditions present at the existing stadium at Ivor Wynne. Free bus service and scattered offsite parking hasn't worked there, why would it suddenly magically work at the plan A site?

And what about the inadequate support infrastructure (i.e. road access)? What about the visibility issues? All these issues have not been addressed at this plan A site to the satisfaction of the principle tenant (can they?). We can talk off the top of our head as much as we like, that still does not change the fact that if this stadium is not good for the Ticats we will have spent $60 million building a tenantless stadium in 2016. That is a collosal waste of cash.

[SteelTown]

Is it really the official plan to pave the practice track over to be a surface parking lot? WHere are you pulling these parking figures from? Please be kind and send a link to wherever these numbers were drawn from.

Even still, what you describe is exactly the same conditions present at the existing stadium at Ivor Wynne. Free bus service and scattered offsite parking hasn't worked there, why would it suddenly magically work at the plan A site?

And what about the inadequate support infrastructure (i.e. road access)? What about the visibility issues? All these issues have not been addressed at this plan A site to the satisfaction of the principle tenant (can they?). We can talk off the top of our head as much as we like, that still does not change the fact that if this stadium is not good for the Ticats we will have spent $60 million building a tenantless stadium in 2016. That is a collosal waste of cash.

Back when I was part of the 2010 Commonwealth Games it was stated that the warm up track would be temporary. If you google it you'll probably find it, good guess would be the 2010 bid book. The same will happen here.

The difference with East Hamilton and West Hamilton is that East Hamilton doesn't have vast amount of parking lots. In East Hamilton you either have to park curbside or on someone's front lawn. I have to park on my uncle's front lawn. Sometimes I just take the bus, which is free if you show your ticket. It's a lot easier that way than driving down in my opinion.

For road access Bay and James will turn into one way streets during events to keep the traffic flowing.

The City and the Pan Am committee, especially Jagoda Pike, prefer to keep all the venues in clusters, McMaster and West Hamilton. Plus they want it next to the GO Train. You aren't going to have that with Confederation Park.

Bob Young and the Ti Cats organization is just doing this to get a better deal.

[markbarbera]

Your right, Bob Young is doing this to try to get get a better deal, because the current deal for West Harbour is simply bad for the Ticat organization. No organization should be expected to enter a money-losing deal like this. The question is, can the city offer a deal involving the plan A site that is good for the intended tenant? I can't see how, neither can the Ticat organization. Let's see what comes from the discussion with city staff today.

Meanwhile, in today's Spec:

HAVE YOUR SAY
TheSpec.com - Opinions - HAVE YOUR SAY

The Hamilton Spectator

(May 10, 2010)
The weekend's question was:

Should Hamilton re-open the discussion about putting a new stadium at the west end of the harbour in view of Ticat owner Bob Young's now- public strong opposition?

Yes 56% 2,104 votes

No 44% 1,622 votes

[SteelTown]

City staff under the direction of the City Manager is united on the West Harbour location.

[thistleclub]

No organization should be expected to enter a money-losing deal like this.

Except perhaps the City of Hamilton, who'll probably end up cutting their renters an even sweeter deal in the name of "civic pride." After all, the Cats speak to a long-standing Hamilton tradition -- that of squeaking by on handouts.

Might someone looking to make some of their millions back off the Ticats will be in a selling mindset? Is it possible that Young is angling for the most financially advantageous position for this reason? He's certainly held them long enough that nobody could fault him for doing so.

[markbarbera]

As posted on thehamiltonian.net:

Sunday, May 9, 2010
Clr. Bob Bratina- on the Harbourfront Stadium

Clr. Bratina, in his own words:

There is no sound business case for a Harbourfront Stadium. The consultant's report by Deloitte-Touche states that stadium has to be supported by 150 to 200,000 sq ft of new commercial development, whose taxes would help offset the excessive and indeed unknown cost of the Pan Am site. The spending required to support the restaurants, bars, retail shops, hotels, etc. would be in the order of 50 to 60 million dollars. Bob Young did his best to find developers who would consider the "Stadium Precinct". He found none and neither has the City.

The Mayor publicly stated that a final decision had to be presented to the Host Corporation on May 17th. I asked staff to explain the significance of this date. The response clearly shows that this is not the case.

"On April 16........Host Corp. and IO provided an outline of key work and associated timelines that needed to be undertaken in collaboration over the next few months. The timelines were provided as "target dates" and further discussions are underway to firm up these deadlines. The working timelines included the following:
May 17: A working agreement with the Tiger-Cats that the City and the Cats are meeting/planning/collaborating on the stadium plan."

The Mayor is desperate for a mega project to support his campaign in the upcoming Muncipal Election. He failed to convince enough Councillors to support a new Civic Centre which would have replaced City Hall, and McMaster's proposed Downtown Faculty of Family Medicine went instead to Westdale. Along the way he was humiliated by the standing recorded vote, called by Councillor Collins, which almost unanimously defeated his proposal to naturalize the medians along the Linc. So rather than beat them he has joined them, supporting the Harbourfront stadium, which will be sold as part of an $80 million dollar proposed make-over of the West Harbour.

Bob Young has made a significant commitment to Hamilton. He took over a bankrupt football team, and shortly after purchased property in the Downtown core which houses three of his companies. All professional sports teams receive some kind of consideration from their home cities. The Bulldogs' full operating costs are picked up by tax-payers, almost $2 million dollars. In return we have the right to sell tickets and advertising, and over the year lost over $250 thousand dollars. The Mayor's criticism of Bob Young and the Tiger Cats is unprecedented and unfortunate and could well result in the loss of either the team or the owner. The value of this team to the City is not easy to quantify, but how do you put a value on Danny McManus or Marwan Hage visiting ill youngsters at McMaster Children's Hospital. This has been a far better city thanks to the contributions of people like Ralph Sazio and Bernie Faloney, who came here for football but left a profound legacy of community involvement. All issues regarding this site should have been discussed directly with the team and resolved before making the announcement. The failure to communicate lies with the City.

This scheme will not address the conditions Downtown which are an embarassment to most Hamiltonians, will not provide a viable future for the Tiger Cats, and worst of all will not address in meaningful anyway the sad realities faced by so many people outlined in the Spectator "Code Red" series. We're spending $10 million dollars to acquire property, when we already own suitable sites. We're spending at least $4 million to remediate contamination, and we have no idea what the costs will be related to the geotechnical or sub-surface conditions. I asked staff if we would have this information prior to our decison, and the answer was "yes". We did not, and that process is only starting now.

Despite what the Mayor said, we still have time to change course and get out of this mess.
Bob Bratina

[realcity]

BMO Field is a completely bare-bones no-frills stadium that is pretty much made of aluminum. They have to tighten/reinforce the fasteners/bolts that keep the thing together because of the stomping of the TFC fans. Something like that would not be suitable as a main stadium for the city of Hamilton.

As things stand, I am worried that the overall budget for the new stadium is too low. The new Yankee Stadium and Cowboys stadium each cost well over a billion dollars. The new BC Place roof alone will cost more than three times the proposed cost of the proposed Hamilton stadium. If this thing is going to serve this city for decades to come, it makes sense to avoid skimping on costs.

This is my huge fear. I don't care where it's built now. Just build a quality stadium. Something Hamilton can be proud of. Ted is right, BMO is giant set of aluminum high school bleachers. I'm afraid we'll build same thing.

Without a solid business plan, that would include naming rights, high-end food & beverage, executive accommodations and parking, all these are additional income streams that if ignored will mean we get the cheapest stadium possible.

Regardless of where it is, people are looking at what's on the field and what the stadium experience is like from the inside. Not how wonderful it looks from a helicopter.

[SteelTown]

West Harbour recreational master plan includes 150,000 commercial space that the Waterfront Trust will fund and build.

[realcity]

As posted on thehamiltonian.net:

thanks for posting that.

Remember that the TiCats are one of the last few remaining things that keep Hamilton a 'bold' dot on the map.

Bratina has guts. and he knows more about football than anyone else on council.

This argument is less about the west harbour location and more about the process or non-process that lead to the selection of the site. They didn't get the Cats' buy-in first. and that's what the problem is.

[realcity]

West Harbour recreational master plan includes 150,000 commercial space that the Waterfront Trust will fund and build.

At this point we don't even know how many seats will be in the stadium. Let alone if the seats will have backs, will there be a partial roof, how many washrooms, concession stands, will there be an executive lounge? how many? will the stadium be open like Ivor Wynne, what?

We have a photoshopped rendering.

Those things can't be decided until they make a business plan. A business plan that has to include the TiCats or else the city will be building a stadium for high school football games. And what are HECFI's plans? I assume their business plan is well underway for making the stadium be used more than 10 times a year.

I think they skipped step one, that is, making the stadium viable first. So it's *like mark said* "it's easy to go back to square one when you're only on square two".

I would not have this council run my lemonade stand.

[realcity]

Waterfront Trust couldn't even keep Aquafest and has since never replaced it, since what ten years ago.? They are nothing but talk., planning, and more talk and more planning. If they have a plan i've never seen something executed in such slow motion.

[markbarbera]

West Harbour recreational master plan includes 150,000 commercial space that the Waterfront Trust will fund and build.

What does this have to do with the stadium site? The commercial space planned for the waterfront is completely separate than what the Deloitte-Touche report calls for. They are talking about a need for another commercial site altogether.

The commercial development in the recreational plan is meant to support the capital and operational costs associated with the West Harbour waterfront, not the stadium site.

[markbarbera]

This argument is less about the west harbour location and more about the process or non-process that lead to the selection of the site. They didn't get the Cats' buy-in first. and that's what the problem is.

Exactly.

[SteelTown]

I don't believe the Trust was around when Aquafest was happening. Aquafest ended with Royal Bank not sponsoring the event. Wingfest is something the Trust got. Along with Williams, Scoops, steakhouse restaurant, trails, trolley bus, skating rink, amphitheatre, Festival of Lights, Harbour Queen, Hamilton tour boat, and soon they'll be an independent waterfront development agency.

[realcity]

Mark, I thought that was an odd remark too.

I pointed out like ten relevant topics to discuss. The big one being a business plan... and no TiCat buy-in, only to get a reply like that??? Wonder y I decided to stop posting? I guess I made a mistake in coming back here to actually believe is was discussion board.

[SteelTown]

What does this have to do with the stadium site? The commercial space planned for the waterfront is completely separate than what the Deloitte-Touche report calls for. They are talking about a need for another commercial site altogether.

The commercial development in the recreational plan is meant to support the capital and operational costs associated with the West Harbour waterfront, not the stadium site.

The commercial space is right next to the approved stadium, you can't expect the commercial space won't support the stadium. Since the Waterfront Trust will operate the commercial space I wouldn't be surprised if the City worked out a deal to have the Ti Cats take a portion of the revenue during game day.

[realcity]

see! Now we're talking about how wonderful the Waterfront Trust is. That Aquafest no longer exists because of evil Royal Bank. But nevermind.. the fact that if Waterfront Trust was in charge or not... the point is they DONT DO anything like Aquafest anymore.

Now Hamiltonians are left *and embarrassed* by the hugely successful RibFest on Burlington's waterfront.

[realcity]

The commercial space is right next to the approved stadium, you can't expect the commercial space won't support the stadium. Since the Waterfront Trust will operate the commercial space I wouldn't be surprised if the City worked out a deal to have the Ti Cats take a portion of the revenue during game day.

Dude> Are you aware that the TiCat's have not signed on to this stadium? They might just continue to keep playing at Ivor Wynne if it makes more business sense.

[SteelTown]

Yes, so? Stadium will be built with or without the Ti Cats support. I would certainly hope the City and the Ti Cats can work together. Both have failed miserably. I'm willing to bet the Ti Cats wouldn't lose as much money compared to Ivor Wynne than a new stadium at the West Harbour.

[realcity]

DUDE????? How many seats are they building????????

are you willing to bet your money or their money?

[realcity]

i have to keep the questions and comments limited to one. or else comments can get cherry picked.

How many seats?

[realcity]

clearly no answer. or you would've replied about how wonderful Mac is something.

Without the Ticats it will be built to meet a minimum requirement of a 2-week lifespan and max 15k spectators. I hope this thing is foldable... or recyclable.

I even hate more that Merulla is going to be able to gloat about it. Even tho his reason for not participating in the Games has nothing to do with this stadium location snafu, he'll spin it like he does and has "I don't want to say, 'I told you so'". well good on you .... you politically spun a way to say "I told you so" without "saying it".

Only a career politician could do that. *Merulla have you ever had a job? a real job?* And same for you Collins? let me see your resume since you left high school.

Fred... this was not a good issue to play hard-ball on. Not against the TiCats, total Fail. Please Fred go back and discuss this. ask the Games committee for what Bob is asking for, that is, a 90 day grace period.

Make a viable business plan. I'm not saying west harbour is not the best location, but it needs to have a plan. Right now we have a location.... but we don't even know if the stadium will have 15k or 30k seats. How do you expect construction to begin? How does an architect even begin? Great you gave me a location but don't tell me what to build there?

This is so so moronic.

Actually, Mr. Young play hardball back, because the City needs you more, than the City needs PanAm for 2-weeks. Let them build their 15k bleachers and you continue at Ivor Wynne business as usual.

And Fred pisses away our 'eternity fund' or whatever stupid name it is.. the 'hamilton hydro fund'..... on a useless eyesore of 15k aluminum bleachers

[SteelTown]

I have to bite my lips because really there's 29 pages telling you the number of seats, there's the Deloitte report, there's the Ti Cats website telling, there's thespec telling you, chml, hamilton,ca. check the first page on this section, google it up.

[realcity]

What does 'bite my lips mean'? Sorry I don't communicate like that. I guess I'm not 'out of the box' or 'at the end of the day'. Don;t talk to me like that. I asked you since you know everything. How many seats? U tell me to google? You know what I tell you to do?

So ask Fred, about his lip biting? We have the location, so let's start building. How big> what does this stadium look like? Im really excited about this "full steamer-job ahead" *non* plan.

*Fred has zero game without the Cats* He knows he can't put one single shovel in the ground without knowing if the Cats are in or not. He can have a location but it's pointless not knowing what you're going to build.

[realcity]

How many seats?

[markbarbera]

The commercial space is right next to the approved stadium, you can't expect the commercial space won't support the stadium. Since the Waterfront Trust will operate the commercial space I wouldn't be surprised if the City worked out a deal to have the Ti Cats take a portion of the revenue during game day.

Okay I don't think you understand what the consultant report is calling for. What it says is, in order to support the costs of operating the stadium, the city needs to develop 150K-200K of commercial retail space in the stadium district in order to generate enough additional property tax revenue to cover those costs. The commercial development in rec plan is there to generate enough property tax revenue to cover the costs of improvements and operations at the waterfront. Two separate columns.

There would be absolutely no commercial enterprise that would even think of locating somewhere where a portion of their income is redirected to another business, nor would any municipality even think of imposing such a measure. Heck cities don't even have that kind of power available to them to utilize, except maybe in China or Cuba or some other holdout Communist country.

[realcity]

That;s the third or forth time i've asked. I know you can't answer. Don't worry. cuz no 1 knows.

That means construction on any given site will not start until even the most basic question, "what are we building?" is answered.

This is fun isn't it? Only it would be more fun if I moved to Toronto and got to watch Hamilton implode itself from there.

[SteelTown]

FYI...

Just to clear things up, this is the stadium at 15,000 seats for the Pan American Games.

http://coldneck.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/panamstadium.jpg


Download Full Toronto 2015 Bid Book Here (42MB) (http://www.gamesbids.com/cgi-bin/lnkinlte/to.cgi?l=Toronto2015BB)

[markbarbera]

How many seats?

Seeing as we're all guessing at this point, I'll say 5000.

How can that be? Because I can see the Pan Am committee jumping in to clean up the location messes Burlington and Hamilton have created for themselves. They will relocate the unresolved 5000-seat soccer stadium site meant for Burlington to Hamilton's west harbour, and they will relocate the Pan Am Stadium to a GTA site so it may be reutilized post-games as a new Argonaut football stadium. Then everybody will be happy, right?

[SteelTown]

There would be absolutely no commercial enterprise that would even think of locating somewhere where a portion of their income is redirected to another business, nor would any municipality even think of imposing such a measure. Heck cities don't even have that kind of power available to them to utilize, except maybe in China or Cuba or some other holdout Communist country.

The Waterfront Trust is in partnership with the City and the Trust buy franchises such as Scoops and Williams. The money collected from that goes to certain projects such as operating cost of the trolley, skating rink, etc. So really it's the City and the Trust take will be building and making money from the commercial space. From that the City could work with the Ti Cats to direct some of the funds to the Ti Cats during game day.

[realcity]

Okay I don't think you understand what the consultant report is calling for. What it says is, in order to support the costs of operating the stadium, the city needs to develop 150K-200K of commercial retail space in the stadium district in order to generate enough additional property tax revenue to cover those costs. The commercial development in rec plan is there to generate enough property tax revenue to cover the costs of improvements and operations at the waterfront. Two separate columns.

There would be absolutely no commercial enterprise that would even think of locating somewhere where a portion of their income is redirected to another business, nor would any municipality even think of imposing such a measure. Heck cities don't even have that kind of power available to them to utilize, except maybe in China or Cuba or some other holdout Communist country.

That's exactly what doesn't make business sense to me.

Okay. look. Im Bob Young.
I charge 30$ per seat. I hope you bring an extra 30$ to spend on F&B and merch. Maybe even another 20$ i take off you for parking *if there is gawdamn parking*. I leave you $50 lighter than the original ticket price. That means you don't go off to wallyworldwilliams or some other place Waterfront Trust sets up to spend the extra money you brought to MY Football game. If I do my business right, I bring in a spectator/patron with a certain amount of money, and they don;'t leave without spending all that money on me.

[thistleclub]

Okay. look. Im Bob Young.
I charge 30$ per seat. I hope you bring an extra 30$ to spend on F&B and merch. Maybe even another 20$ i take off you for parking *if there is gawdamn parking*. I leave you $50 lighter than the original ticket price. That means you don't go off to wallyworldwilliams or some other place Waterfront Trust sets up to spend the extra money you brought to MY Football game. If I do my business right, I bring in a spectator/patron with a certain amount of money, and they don;'t leave without spending all that money on me.

Aside from the parking, that math is in place right now and yet the club is still in the toilet. How will that change when they get the shiny new palace of their dreams? A: The city will undoubtedly cowed by the team yet again, selling them goods (ie. rent) at or below cost (in addition to losing out on the projected tax revenues from the associated businesses that will not materialize regardless of where this thing is built). Because if that doesn't happen, it's only a matter of time before the team is either cast adrift by Young or wrapped up in another bankruptcy drama. Welcome to the big leagues.

[realcity]

that stadium rendering is just how i say "rendering". It actually sucks. if you sit anywhere beyond the first half of the lower bowl you can't even see the game. Plus it has an oval that further separates the spectators from what is supposed to be a live entertainment. I might as well watch it on TSN. Oh but I might miss the experience of the wonderful Waterfront Trust venues.

*And where did I park my car?* O crap, forget it. i got to get my hiking boots on and my nana can't walk well and I don't trust drivers with my children along a busy, frustrated Bay Street.

*The 'walking distance' only considered here by a healthy walking 30-ish male-ish* and forgot that other people have mobility issues, some might be young children. But then again... Me Realcity is a real person. With real children and real old parents so I tend to remember what it's like to be the 'average' patron of ticat gamers.

So is Bob Young. A 15 minute walk does eliminate about 600k thousand *guessing* patrons. No parking also eliminates about $600,000 in parking revenue. 10,000 spaces at $20 per. per game = $200,000. $2,000,0000 per season. plus the fact that people feel they got moneys worth for $20 bc they could tailgate and bbq before the game. Adds to the experience... which is football. some vegans forget that fact that TiCat fans drink beer from plastic cups and eat meat. Bob Young doesn't. Heck even Mr Young might be a vegan non drinker. But that's not his problem, he trying to run a business called the Tiger-Cats Inc.

[realcity]

Aside from the parking, that math is in place right now and yet the club is still in the toilet. How will that change when they get the shiny new palace of their dreams? A: The city will undoubtedly cowed by the team yet again, selling them goods (ie. rent) at or below cost (in addition to losing out on the projected tax revenues from the associated businesses that will not materialize regardless of where this thing is built). Because if that doesn't happen, it's only a matter of time before the team is either cast adrift by Young or wrapped up in another bankruptcy drama. Welcome to the big leagues.

OMG why do i bother?

Pro teams have a built in revenue booster when they change stadiums or logos. Brands need to keep reinventing interest.

[thistleclub]

I appreciate your feistiness, RC, but I think the question is an honest one.

The supposition here is that a new stadium will be a decisive game changer. The reality is that it may well alienate as many fans as it catalyzes -- you yourself have expressed distaste at the proposed design. In all likelihood, this new build will not be as intimate as Ivor Wynne. History has proven the fan base to be allergic to ticket price hikes, which seem pretty much inevitable, especially if they try to put them off until 2015. And maybe you've read Bob Young's list of grievances: increased rent, potential loss of advertising revenue, and disputed naming rights. All of which arguably would be the prerogative of the building's owner. Hardball tactics, maybe, but it also smacks of wanting to sweeten a faltering franchise before a sale.

[realcity]

Plus there is no math in the business plan for, executive, upscale food & beverage and accommodations, parking and naming revenues. ?? which has been very effectively eliminated from the business plan by non business people called 'city council'. Those money revenues could almost equal 50% of a pro teams franchise business revenue.

NO PRO SPORTS TEAM EXISTS EXCLUSIVELY OFF GATE REVENUE. The Cats need parking, f&b, merch and sponsors $ just like any pro franchise.

[realcity]

So the Ticats' business model is to be parking lot attendants for a $100m taxpayer-funded facility. I'll drink to that. ;)

this is why this forum is ridiculous now.

[realcity]

pretend you're elderly... maybe even pretend you're hetero.... pretend you eat meat.... and need a walker... and want to take your grand children to a Ticats game... Can you walk from Main and Bay to Stuart and Burlington? With your walker and with your grandchildren?

No way way in freaking hell... you'd have a better chance of succeeding than Sisyphus.

[SteelTown]

People can take the HSR for free, just wave your Ti Cat ticket to the driver.

I take the HSR since it's way easier, no hassle of driving and finding a parking spot. Plus the bus stop right at the front of the place. Easy peasy. If you need to drive down find an abundant parking spot at downtown core and than proceed to hop on the HSR for free, again just wave your Ti Cat ticket to the driver.

[thistleclub]

Thanks for the homophobic aside. Always the high road.

I'm not saying that the city is blameless. I think I've expressed before my exasperation that neither side in this skirmish has much of a game plan, despite the fact that Ivor Wynne has been crumbling for decades. The Cats started this discussion in earnest almost three years ago, and the options on the table back then were pretty much the same as they are today. You could certainly argue that the city and the club have both had their heads in the sand.

It's nitpicky, I know, but the tussle over naming rights is something that I find kind of ridiculous. Young faults the city's inexperience on selling naming rights as a deciding factor as to why the Cats should helm the initiative. But it's not as if the Ticats have a great track record when it comes to selling naming rights. As naming rights are generally gravy, they tend to go into venue upkeep and infrastructure improvements that benefit all users of the venue, not the bottom line of a single tenant. (Wasn't this the proposed case with Copps Coliseum before sentimentality won the day?) Besides which, naming rights can be a relative pittance:

Hershey Center (Mississauga) = $1.9 million over 10 years
John Labatt Centre (London) = $5 million over 10 years
Ricoh Coliseum (Toronto) = $10 million over 10 years
General Motors Place (Vancouver) = $18.5 million over 20 years
Pengrowth Saddledome (Calgary) = $20 million over 20 years
Scotiabank Place (Ottawa) = $20 million over 15 years
BMO Field (Toronto) = $10 million over 10 years (*MLSE later flipped it to BMO for $27 million)

[realcity]

I appreciate your feistiness, RC, but I think the question is an honest one.

The supposition here is that a new stadium will be a decisive game changer. The reality is that it may well alienate as many fans as it catalyzes -- you yourself have expressed distaste at the proposed design. In all likelihood, this new build will not be as intimate as Ivor Wynne. History has proven the fan base to be allergic to ticket price hikes, which seem pretty much inevitable, especially if they try to put them off until 2015. And maybe you've read Bob Young's list of grievances: increased rent, potential loss of advertising revenue, and disputed naming rights. All of which arguably would be the prerogative of the building's owner. Hardball tactics, maybe, but it also smacks of wanting to sweeten a faltering franchise before a sale.

Forget about 1.2$ million in possible revenue that doesn't exist now.

*Thistle.... you can still ride your bike if there is a parking lot*

[realcity]

you're still looking at about $1mil in naming rights and $1 mil in parking with the right location. at about a $20 million operation that means a lot.

Look,, I dont care anymore where this is built. As long as its in Hamilton's tax paying borders and can accommodate the TiCats. It has got so lame, that we have the worst possible combination of decision makers making decisions for business makers.

And this City wonders why the rest of the country has left this recession with jobs and the actually apex of the Golden Horseshoe "Hamilton" the GH, the most profitable, diverse economic region in Canada, happens to have a hollow in the middle... called "Hamilton".

I mean, let monkeys run it. They couldn't do any worse.

[realcity]

call the homophobe card.... isn't that like 1988?

[realcity]

I call it demographics. I don;t care if you do sheep. All I care is that I take your $60 on game day.

[thistleclub]

I dont care anymore where this is built. As long as its in Hamilton's tax paying borders and can accommodate the TiCats. It has got so lame, that we have the worst possible combination of decision makers making decisions for business makers.

This is arguably what happens when you make the head of Tourism Hamilton pointman for a sports infrastructure project.

I don;t care if you do sheep. All I care is that I take your $60 on game day.

Easy, now. Let's keep this tailgating family-friendly. ;)

[realcity]

lol^ totally a sense of humour and sensibility can still exist on SSP

Uhhm this is so sticky. And Adames has put himself in real danger with this one. I can 100% agree that that Hamilton's pointman on this was a disaster. The person who will fall for this is David Adames... *Google alerts going crazy* Yes, Adames was doing his job and what he was told. but David,,, get your resume updated.