The whole Bob is doing this to grab parking money is BS

I've said that all along. A downtown site is best, but thats not downtown, its adjacent to residential properties creating the same limitations as IWS with far worse access to boot

You can't access IWS by boat. :wink:

Tough to get the boat across the tracks to Rheem as well :wink:

Oh yeah. I forgot,

You’d have to walk a few minutes all the way from Bayfront Park. :wink:

Maybe we can have shuttles leaving the boat launch!

You can't moor your boat at Bayfront Park. You need to go over to Macassa McDonalds or beyond :wink:

The Tiger-Cats could have $20 boat parking.

I'm on a boat .At Empire they charge $30. Get on the boat.

I don't know what a 'parking tyrant' is, but of course a big part of this is about the parking, the Ticats have said so themselves. They think 75% of the fans attending a game must drive (and at the East Mountain site, this is a self-fulfilling prophesy) and one of their complaints for the past several months is that the WH doesn't have enough parking.

In dollar terms, the Ticats said they would lose $7M in the first year at a WH stadium (a figure I find very difficult to believe, but that's another matter). If there are 6,000 parking spaces at EM at $25 per car translates into $1.5M in additional revenue per season, 8,000 spaces means an additional $2M. That is a pretty big contribution to erasing the hypothetical loss.

Another way of thinking about it is with the list of other revenue streams posted above (leaving out Grey Cups, those are not regular revenues). He already has access to all of these revenue streams at IWS. Presumably he thinks some of these revenue streams will produce more revenue at a new stadium, but the only one that can improve substantially with a new stadium is parking.


You beat me to it. Using Buffalo as an example of how to do things right is a real stretch.

The Bills have to play some of it's home games on the road because they can't turn a profit playing them at home. They get lots of fans out , but their ticket prices have to be kep rock bottom compared to the other teams in their very prosperous league.

And the ownership just keep squeezing the city/state taxpayers for more, under threat of packing up and leaving town.

Wait, maybe there is a parallel there that's starting to sound familiar.

No, making a suitable investment, running a successful business and making money from your customers is a glorious thing. Isn't that how our economic system is supposed to work.

But when you want the public to make 95% of the investment, shouldn't the "public good" be a consideration. Especially when your track record is for running a mediocre business that can't make money from its customers. Under those circumstances, expecting to make money is a little bit unrealistic, don'cha think.

Why are so many people worried about the money Mr. Young is losing on his business, and not concerned about the money that the taxpayers of Hamilton are losing on his business. A partnership between the Cats and the city I'm all for, so long as both sides get what they want - once it becomes adversarial, I have to put my own interests ahead of Mr. Young's.

Well section, I have to but own interests above both Mr. Young and the city actually. Meaning I want the EM site even if it isn't Mr. Young's first choice or the city's. We don't live that far, it would so convenient for us, and all sorts of parking in the area if you're willing to walk a bit. We already go to WH for walks and that, I don't need a stadium to get me to go there. And I don't have to go down the mountain on game days, I mean we love walking we could actually park at the Mohawk 4 pad and walk to the stadium really, walking through beaufiful Kings' Forest or on night games around the brow down Pritchard.

EM is a really gorgeous area actually with Kings Forest and the new Mt. Albion trail that was once a road and the trail above Glendale golf course which we walk a lot. We love it walking there.

Cleaning up the WH is the city's problem, not mine, and Bob Young has to compromise as well with what the facilitator has said are the only 2 sites available.

If you want the public to invest 66% (not 95%) it is imperative the investment isn't a money hole. If you don't like the East Mountain the only other alternative that serves the public interest is not to build the stadium at all 72 and spend the entire future fund on acquiring and cleaning up brown field sites and either turn them into parks or resell them to private enterprise conditional on timely and satisfactory development. A stadium really has no place in remediation. It just sucks up money with no return, in fact it creates an ongoing expense in addition to the capital expense

What you say seems to make sense to me AKT.

People recognize pure greed when they see it.

Outside of remediation, I've seen little in this stadium debate that isn't motivated by greed or self-interest in some way.

Greed = welcome to the western world business civilization, we choose to live here, that’s the way it works. You start up a business, you try and make money out of it for yourself and your family and you hire if necessary to make the business grow. You aren’t starting up a social service agency.

Worse access than IWS....not sure about that. It isn't all that far from a highway...might be a pain getting there...but once you're there you're there. East Mountain would be a bottle-neck of large expanses of parking lots emptying out all at once to a single interchange. I've been to the Palace of Auburn Hills, have you? Yeah it's nice and easy to get to....far from the city but whatever. Everything is hunky-dory until you try to leave with the other 20,000 people....all at the exact same time. It has one interchange onto's a nightmare. Most people book it along surface streets to avoid the chaos. Which would equate to people at the WH location spreading out to the East, West & South to get away from the masses. At the East Mountain (from how it sounds) you wouldn't have that option...your options would be VERY limited. Leaving on foot or mass transit wouldn't be one of them either.

A downtown site is best....but if the West Harbour is as close to downtown as you can get....well I'd rather have 'downtown sprawl' (which would eventually happen) than 'urban sprawl' into fields.

I'd much rather go to a game and then stroll down to Hess Village to enjoy an evening than drive into a power centre to watch a game and then have to negotiate getting out after to find somewhere else to spend my money. If, on a good night, 30,000 people are drawn to the West Harbour...I can guarantee businesses downtown will benefit. If 30,000 are drawn to the East Mountain....people will spend what they budgeted for 'at the game expenses' then go home. Bob wants to do his best to make sure that whatever people are willing to spend on their day out to the game is spent AT THE STADIUM. Which I can't blame him for.....but it doesn't do anybody else any good. It was the entire reasoning behind suburban locations for stadiums and arenas. Everyone has acknowledged how flawed that logic is....ESPECIALLY when the bulk of the dough is coming from various levels of government.

I'd rather the City cough up a pile of parking revenue from the area....or LRT revenue to the Tiger Cats and build in the West Harbour. Make it work for the Cats....because it's obvious it is what is best for the city as a whole.

Ahhh.....that feels better. Time to give my fingers a rest....

At the East Mountain (from how it sounds) you wouldn't have that option...your options would be VERY limited. Leaving on foot or mass transit wouldn't be one of them either.

Not VERY limited at all, multiple access points - around the Brow to Pritchard, from Rymal road north, along StoneChurch, and of course the RHVP, forgot Mud coming from the east. I don't see that as very limiting at all. Leaving on foot is exactly one reason why I like the EM to be honest in a nicer area than along Barton where I walk to IWS now. I live on the old east mountain and I wouldn't have to drive down the mountain.

Hey, I don't really care where the stadium is but the EM works perfectly for me.

when you want the taxpayers to contribute 100 million to your business your on social service

Seems to me that City Hall applied to be part of the Pan Am games not Bob Young, would you agree? Their plan assumed that the TiCats self made millionair owner would just pony up about 50 million no matter what. The City wanted and again assumed this hand out from Bob Young was a sure thing. What right to we have as a City to ask Bob Young for a handout ?? Who is truly on social service? Why when he offers money for the EM has he become the bad guy? Maybe his plan is better but all I hear is "we cant get there" its really getting old.

Why are we begging others for this? Why dont we just build it? Use the entire FF if its that important. I cant believe this City sometimes but the reason we lack behind other cities is that we wait on others to solve our problems.

Simple solution the City puts up the 60 million plus the 50 million and we build at HW, and then offer Bob Young a lease, if he doesnt take that then forcing a sale of the team is more likely, but if we have our hand out to him then he holds all the aces.