View Single Post
Old Posted Jul 10, 2010, 8:41 AM
geoff's two cents geoff's two cents is offline
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 504
Originally Posted by realcity View Post
Geoff, we don't live in Narnia. I can't understand how 'profit' is bad. If someone didn't profit from something you'd be homeless.

For the TiCats to profit is necessary, is this so bad?

Go watch kids play soccer and football at your nearest sports park then. There is actually a market (a group of people) that wants to watch and enjoy and pay for watching some of the worlds greatest expert athletes employ their ability.

Forgive the free market (Bob Young) for capitalizing on a market that wants to pay for an experience.
1) Narnia? What the hell are you talking about? Did you even read my post?

You said "All the same, if the TiCats have a new owner, that new owner, will still have the same objectives."

2) I pointed to the (obvious) fact that different owners would see potential for greater profit in different locations. These same owners see different potential in up-and-coming players.

By the same token, not every restaurant serves the same food; not every clothing store sells the same brand of jeans.

The fact that Daryl Katz, billionaire Oilers owner, Rexall owner, and current naming rights holder for the Rexall Arena, sees economic potential in a West Harbour PanAm Stadium suggests that Bob Young is little more than a wealthy, narrow-minded curmudgeon ideologically fixated on a suburban stadium, and shows your statement for the facile over-generalization it truly is.

3) The fact that such profit-minded differences of opinion exist between millionaire- and billionaire sports franchise owners indicates that the city would do well to listen to Mr. Katz before selling out its economic well-being just because a one morally bankrupt team owner thinks he has preferential access to the city's purse strings.

If the Ticats end up playing in the new stadium on the suburban periphery under its current owners, have you thought of the possibility that their "regionally branded" name will no longer have "Hamilton" in it? Imagine the irony when it emerges that the city bankrupted itself funding a sports franchise that drops the city's name!

If, on the other hand, the Ticats leave for Halifax or Moncton, is there not a good chance the city would land a new franchise (perhaps run by a certain Edmontonian) at a brand spanking new stadium? Has the CFL not been talking for years about expanding?

What evidence does Young have that the CFL will actually approve his prospective move?

4) If the stadium ends up being built at the proposed location in Hamilton's hinterland, it would be the most suburban stadium in the entire league.

-BC Lions: downtown
-Calgary Stampeders: 7.5km from downtown, with an LRT stop
-Edmonton Eskimos: 2.8km from downtown, with an LRT stop
-Saskatchewan Roughriders: 1.4km from downtown, directly beside an established shopping centre
-Winnipeg Bluebombers: currently 3.5km from downtown; currently building a new stadium on the University of Manitoba campus, with established transit access
-Ottawa Roughriders: In an established, waterfront, inner-city, pedestrian-friendly, and culturally vibrant neighborhood
-Toronto Argonauts: downtown
-Montreal Alouettes: downtown

-Hamilton: 11 or 12km from downtown, no transit access to speak of. Wow.

5) This is not just about CFL television audiences; it's also about the PanAm games, and the parts of southwestern Ontario's winning bid that impressed the committee the most - transit access, cultural legacies, etc. The city has a mandate to fulfill on behalf of Hamiltonians and Ontarians at large. To compromise these responsibilities because of one, unelected, intransigent "business" interest is ethically abominable.

6) My two cents: Build the stadium on the waterfront as planned, with provisions to expand seating to CFL dimensions if Young's on board. If he isn't, build it on the waterfront to minimum PanAm specs but so that it's expandable to CFL/Grey Cup or USL proportions when the right owner comes along.

7) Based on my above reasoning, to follow through on the RHVP location would be fiscally irresponsible and morally reprehensible. It would amount to a gross misdirection of public "legacy" funds for the sake of a private interest. There is absolutely no reason (economically, politically or ethically) why the city need cower in the face of Young's (most likely empty) threats.

Last edited by geoff's two cents; Jul 10, 2010 at 9:51 AM.
Reply With Quote