Hamilton Submitting Stadium Request

Maybe... but I'd only go because they come once a year. Driving there nine times a year would get a bit pricey.

Once a year (no more, no less) is all we require of you, unless and until you're either too broke to afford football games, or Edmonton is playing in Hamilton for the Grey Cup.

You know, it’s interesting that I haven’t gone to a Hamilton/Edmonton game yet… Or even a Toronto/Edmonton game. I should look at some weekend games next season…

Forget Windsor, they are a suburb of Detroit(Lions), and Ann Arbor(Wolverines) and consider themselves as such. London is confused, still close to Detroit and Toronto, Kitchener just about the same. There is potential for a CFL stadium in the Hamilton-Brantford-Kitchener-GTA area that is the CFL Southern Ontario mecca stadium, as I more or less mentioned above.

But won't happen, maybe room for 2 of these stadiums but one has to be a tailgate type of thing I think.

27,000 for a new stadium is too small. An extra 3,000 seats wouldn’t harm anyone and is an increase over what is available now. Even if they went to 30,000 seats between the goal lines and 5,000 seats in one endzone (which would only be used for home openers, Labour Day, and playoffs) and could easily be covered up with proper tarps and/or banners which would keep the "intimate feeling during the rest of the season. Also, if this proposed new stadium is along the same lines as bare bones BMO Field, then they shouldn’t even bother with a new stadium at all.

27,000 is too small? Why is that? In 2007 the Riders made nearly $2,000,000 by selling out a stadium with 28,800 seats. So 27,000 is probably big enough to make money.

Sure BC Place has 33,000 more seats, but the best 27,000 seats in BC Place don't have a better view than the best 27,000 seats in a smaller stadium.

Wow...you're quite the fan. I know people in Saskatchewan who drive 7-10 hours, and people in Fort MacMurray who drive 10 hours to Edmonton. Same in BC. You're looking at a 10 hour day easily if you're coming in from Victoria by ferry.

I live in the Yukon and would KILL to be able to see a CFL game within a 1.5 hour drive.

Yep... I don't know how I can even call myself a fan... :roll:

Actually, the Riders added extra seats this season to bring capacity to just under 31,000, so their capacity was over 27,000. They would have made even more money however, off of those seats if they were permanent, rather than temporary. This speaks nothing to the huge merchandise sales the Riders enjoy which really helps their bottom line.

Why strive just to break even or barely make money? The league has the luxury of having a few dates where large crowds can be expected. They should exploit those to the full in order to make as much money as possible.

Because in the CFL context, a break-even team is a successful team. Doesn't anybody remember all the empty seats in CFL stadiums in the 80's and 90's? Owners were walking away from the teams and the financial losses mid-season and subsequent fire sales of franchises to people like the Gleibermans. I bet Bob Young asked Santa for 2009 to be a break even year for the Ticats. In the CFL, break-even is good. Even in the NHL, break-even is good.

And... once you get past 20,000 or 25,000 seats, there are diminishing returns from every extra seat you add to a stadium because the good seats are built first. And the oversupply of a product (tickets) generally decreases demand. I think it is pretty instructive that an actual sports-entertainment businessman (Jeff Hunt) thinks he can make the CFL work in a 25,000 seat renovated Landsdowne Stadium. He is putting millions of his own money into the venture, and he could add more seats. But it seems that he has decided that the extra seats weren't a good investment.

If they are reporting that Hamilton is requesting a 27,000 seat stadium, don't you think they talked it over with Bob Young? He'll be the only tenant of the stadium after the games are over. I bet they asked him if 27,000 seats will work for him. Looks like he said 27,000 was fine.

Remember that a team like the Leafs could have built a 25,000 seat arena and sold it out every night and if they held a Stanley Cup final playoff searies, it could be 40,000-50,000 and they'd sell it out. But they built a 19,000 seater as the most important aspect regular season games, demand for tickets and keeping prices higher.

That's what every CFL team should be doing. The Grey Cup should be more of an afterthought as the CFL model with temporary seating to get it to 40,000 works if the league insists on 40,000 min.

I don't like it at all ...
What is in east in end of The City of Hamilton after we leave IWS.
Hamilton trying hide the poor it has by Moving Football Fans closer to downtown
Shameful.

Can't rest of world see hamilton has poor people. :lol:

I have the Answer Build in the East end or Fix IWS
People will start to build there
So many need the money they make working at IWS.
or Parking Cars on their Laws Every Season.
By Moving The Ticats you make other Suffer.

.

This article confirms that Hamilton would be the only destination for either stadium improvements or a retrofit in the event of a successful Pan Am bid.

Council fumbling Pan-Am bid: Braley
A mistake to drop Confederation Park option, he says

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/496471

Rob Faulkner and John Kernaghan
The Hamilton Spectator
(Jan 15, 2009)

[i]Hamilton city council made a bad call in rejecting the best stadium location available.

That's the view of an original architect of the Pan American Games bid, businessman David Braley.

The auto-parts magnate was shocked that council Monday deleted Confederation Park from consideration. He said that east-end gateway location presents the best chance to generate long-term revenue to cover operating costs of a $150-million facility. The 27,000-seat stadium would be home to track and field for the Games, then become a multi-use facility and home to the Ticats.

Braley, who took the Pan Am concept to council last April, said it is shortsighted to not fully examine a site identified by city staff as one of four contenders.

But no one on council yesterday showed much appetite for getting Confederation Park back onto a front-burner.

And the president of Toronto 2015, which is assembling the Golden Horseshoe-wide bid, said none of the three remaining sites presents a problem as part of a bid book to be submitted April 30.

Also, Jagoda Pike said the distance between Toronto and Hamilton isn't a drawback.

The 2015 bid company is expected to recommend an athletes village for Toronto with track and field competitors bused to and from the Hamilton stadium.

Pike said her group is waiting for a preferred site from [/i]Hamilton, the only city Toronto 2015 has been talking to about a stadium.

[i]Braley, meantime, laid out the business plan for the Confederation site. He stressed public ownership of the land, a mere eight-hectare dent in an 83-hectare site, and the possibility of private partners bringing more attractions to a site that already has a water park.

Braley, who sits on an eight- member Hamilton Pan Am community advisory board, said parking at the site and naming rights for the stadium would be lucrative long-term revenue streams.

The proximity to the QEW would elevate the value of naming rights and enhance Hamilton's image.

The Confederation Park site could be revisited later, said businessman Ron Foxcroft, an advisory board member.

"The key is winning the bid. Then you can make changes to locations and facilities. But you have to win."

Meantime, upset with the vote to kill the possibility of Confederation Park hosting a Pan Am Games stadium, Councillor Bob Bratina wants a study of future waterfront uses.

Bratina plans to ask staff to survey Lake Ontario sites and to advise council on the potential for acceptable recreational, residential and commercial developments. He felt councillors didn't have the information they needed about the area before Monday's vote.

"Whether we can revisit the stadium proposal remains to be seen, but I am trying to get the robust kind of discussion we did not get at the Pan Am presentation."

Still on the short list are the unserviced airport lands, the cramped downtown and the complex west harbourfront area.

There doesn't seem to be a move afoot to overturn the vote, which would need a supporter to change his or her mind, with two-thirds of council support.

Confederation Park is big, undeveloped, with highway access and waterfront views; but it also has noise and odours due to the QEW, has limited "legacy" impact due to its distance from population and transit, and needs upgraded water and sewer servicing.

But Councillor Brian McHattie, who supported Collins, says all three remaining sites have problems, so the list must be expanded. Downtown likely doesn't have a site big enough, housing is planned for the west harbour, and the airport is too far away.

Terry Whitehead, who opposed the Collins motion and is on the local community advisory committee for the bid, wants more creative ideas such as building atop Bernie Arbour Stadium and relocating its current activities.

He worries about the looming deadline to put a site forward, but says site selection need not be perfected during the bidding process.

"It's a bit of a game. You can change the location after a decision has been rendered, as I understand it, but you need something to go forward," he said.

Councillor Tom Jackson, who backed Chad Collins' motion to drop Confederation Park due to the loss of greenspace, said many National Football League stadiums are in suburbs outside the city the team represents. He likes the airport, south Mountain and west harbour, but doesn't want to rule out an Ivor Wynne retrofit.

Other Collins supporters, such as Sam Merulla and Bernie Morelli, likewise have no interest in repeating the vote on Confederation Park.

Morelli is waiting on staff to report back on the three remaining options before picking his preferred site. Merulla says the list should be expanded to include Turner Park, at Rymal and Upper Wentworth.

[url=mailto:jkernaghan@thespec.com]jkernaghan@thespec.com[/url][/i]

You are kidding, right? I hear people being excited all the time about being able to score a ticket for a game here. I get calls from friends all the time to see if I have a spare ticket for a game. Do you have any idea of the demand for a Labour Day ticket here in Regina? How about the past couple of playoff games? or heck just about any of the sold out games!

Yes CFL tickets are hot in some places and not just here in Regina.

I agree Earl. If you put 25,000 (good) seats on the sidelines, you'll be able to fit another 7,500 in each endzone to get to 40,000 for a Grey Cup game.

:thup:

Being a "break even" team is nothing to strive for OR to be proud of. The break even point is only "good" if the value of the franchise as a whole increases. This generally occurs at a snail's pace in the CFL. As for the "diminishing returns" after 20-25,000 seats, there is absolutely no evidence to support this theory. Who is to say what constitutes an oversupply of tickets. What might be 25,000 in one market, might be 35,000 in another.

You do bring up a good point with both the Jeff Hunt led Ottawa proposal and Bob Young's input into the planning of a new stadium. It does seem logical to suggest that he would be consulted as to how many seats would be appropriate, so if both those groups feel 25-27,000 seats are good enough for them, then I guess it is. However, on the flip side of that coin the BC Lions' ownership group stated emphatically to the province of B.C. when the future of BC Place was being debated that they needed a stadium with a capacity of at LEAST 40,000 with the ability to expand for Grey Cups. The Edmonton Eskimos president Rick LeLacheur was quoted as saying that if they had to do it all over again, they would have left Commonwealth stadium's capacity between 40-45,000 as it was before when the stadium first opened. Both Saskatchewan and Winnipeg have talked about constructing stadiums with capacities over 30,000. (Winnipeg's first 2 proposals had capacities of 40,000).

IWS has to close someday...if the Yankees in MLB closed old Yankee Stadium I'm sure the Ti-cats can close out IWS...Fans of the stadium will make a fuss because of history and events that have happend there but if the ol' stadium is so beat down and such an eye sore then its time to move on and look towards the future. A new stadium in Steeltown would be welcomed by me. :thup:

I have said many times, if our CFL delapidated stadiums like IWS, Mosaic, Canad I and FC were hockey arenas they would have been condemned a long time ago and new ones would have been built with tax money in this land of hockey pucks.
How sad indeed.

It will indeed be a sad day when IWS meets the wrecker's ball, but time marches on and nothing lasts forever. There's no reason why there couldn't be a wonderful and fitting tribute to the grand old place, maybe even a documentary for posterity.

I would rather see it retired gracefully and respectfully than to see it crumble miserably, only to be eventually condemned as the stadium in Ottawa was.

I wish I could do more to help Hamilton get a new stadium. It really saddens me to see a great city that has been so fundamental to the longevity of the CFL have to wait so long for renewal, even if the old place does have, in my opinion, the best football atmosphere of any stadium anywhere.

There's plenty of evidence supporting my opinion... but first of all, diminishing returns is a pretty well established economic concept. But diminishing returns doesn't mean that (for instance) the 25,001st seat is a bad investment, but rather that building the 25,001st seat is a worse investment than building the 25,000th seat in the stadium.

Look at aerial pictures or seating charts of any CFL stadium. I just don't think any of them have more than 25,000 seats between the goal lines. That means that the 25,001st seat would be in the endzone. Endzone seats are the cheapest tickets, so the 25,001st (endzone) seat in a stadium produces less revenue than the 25,000th seat. That's diminishing returns.

You actually agreed with some of the evidence of diminishing returns after 25,000 seats. Jeff Hunt is proposing renovating Frank Claire Stadium with only 25,000 seats. Why would he stop at 25,000 if he could squeeze 30,000 or 35,000 in there? Maybe because of diminishing returns.

And yes, oversupply of tickets depends on the market. But what is it about the Hamilton or Ottawa market that suggests 35,000 is an appropriate size stadium? We're not talking about Saskatchewan, Edmonton or even Vancouver.