New lease for the Cats and ticket surcharge for who?

Im not certain what to make of this but it sounds like the Cats are going to be paying more for IWS and somebody (us?) will be paying a ticket surcharge so the team and the City can share the revenue?
I really don't know what to expect from a ticket surcharge but the city asking for more seems like a stretch, and just a little pushy. It doesn't make much sense to gouge the only tenant in a stadium with an uncertain future and no definate replacement.

From the Spec.
[i]The city is negotiating a new lease for Ivor Wynne Stadium with the
Tiger-Cats.

The old five-year agreement, which saw the team pay $25,000 a year to
use the sporting facility, expired in December.

It costs the city $1.2 million a year to run the stadium with the
football team as the prime tenant.

Joe Rinaldo, the city's former finance chief who is part of the
negotiations, said he's hopeful the city will be able to secure more
revenue in the new lease. But he's also mindful of the team's
finances.

"They're trying to balance their books as well," he said. "It's a
matter of how far you push."

The Ticats recently predicted its sixth money-losing season.

President Scott Mitchell said the team isn't willing to pay more for
its lease, but is interested in additional revenue sharing with the
city. For example, he said the team would look at a special ticket
surcharge to support the stadium.

Mitchell said the lease cost doesn't accurately reflect the team's
contribution. Over the years, the Ticats have invested more than $5
million in renovations to the stadium, from the video board to locker
room upgrades, he said. "It's gone much farther than the $25,000."

The old lease price covered 11 games per year, plus office space,
locker rooms and a neighbouring practice field. The team also benefits
from the concession revenues. The city picks up the security costs for
games. If the team made the playoffs, it would pay an additional
$15,000 per game.

Diane Lapointe-Kay, director of recreation, noted the city must also
consider the non-financial benefits of the team, including the fact
the televised games give Hamilton national exposure. Besides the
Ticats, the city pulled in about $45,000 in other revenue from the
stadium.
[/i]

So THAT'S why the team hasn't made the play-offs! It's been a cost savings plan for the past five years or so. Purposely miss the play-offs to save $15,000.00 per year.

1.2mil to operate a building you lease for 25k? how do these people get elected? Its a sweet deal if you asked me. The ticats should just build a stadium, cus we all know that stadiums always make money and pay for themselves. Then the team could thumb their nose at city council and say "who needs ya?" while raking in cash from the new stadium, which.....as i mentioned, always make money and pay for themselves. Thats why all the private businesses are rushing to build them with their own money all the time and would never ask for taxpayers to contribute. Then the cats can call the shots and rent it out to the city for 25k a year.

Here is the whole article, folks

Ticats, city tackle new stadium deal

February 05, 2009
Nicole Macintyre
The Hamilton Spectator

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/507672

To offer a little balance to Beetlejuices perspective...

Points to ponder

Diane Lapointe-Kay, director of recreation, noted

  1. the city must also consider the non-financial benefits of the team,
    including the fact the televised games give Hamilton national exposure.

Besides the Ticats, the city pulled in about $45,000
in other revenue from the stadium.

So in effect, Ticats provide 55.5% of the revenue
the city pulls in for the use of Ivor Wynne Stadium

  1. If or when the Tiger Cats move to a new stadium
    in a few years the city is not likely going to replace that

  2. Mitchell said the lease cost [$25,000]
    doesn't accurately reflect the team's contribution.

Over the years, the Ticats have invested more
than $5 million in renovations to the stadium,

from the video board to locker room upgrades, he said.

"It's gone much farther than the $25,000."

The ticats should be fare market value for their lease. Maybe they should pay $100,000 a year, that sounds more fair.

Since the ticats paid $5 million in upgrades, that means the city can either pay the ticats the $5 million dollars now at a very low interest rate or the ticats have already paid their rent for the next 50 years. :? :?

Man Bob must love the TiCats that's all I have to say.

That's a nice idea, Beet, but do you think that Bob Young would want to spend the projected $150 million
for a new stadium so the Ti-Cats could thumb their noses at the city?
Don't get me wrong. I thumb my nose at the city on a regular basis! :smiley: :thup:

It is reasonable to conclude from what dummymaker is saying,
that the Cats have already been quite generous to the City.

what you also have to consider is that the city would never want to really upgrade those things because i have played there twice with my team and the lockerrooms were better than what we have (doesnt say much) but they were the bare minimum (sort of what IWS has become over the years) so really the Cats have only done the upgrades to the stadium to help themselves (and it was outside the contract, and to bring it up after the fact is pointless). From a financial standpoint the city needs to have more money from the Cats because they are not bringing in as much money as lets say 1999, because their performance has not been up to fan standards with having these horrible seasons. That is what i believe this is mostly about/caused by - FAN SUPPORT - as much as we love our Cats, its hard not to notice the amount of angry fans who dont want to come to games to see a loss, and now with the recession, they will lose more profit because the price of tickets have gone down