Ticats/City of Hamilton Stadium Talks Thread

Good point Earl. Makes sense.

Although I agree he is trying to do what he thinks is best for Hamilton I don't believe he has any skills in understanding others needs and therefore is failing miserably with everything he touches

x2

Well said! :thup:
red24

Seems like a pretty sound investment of $1,000 bucks to get the Balsillie albatross off Hamilton's neck after Gary made it clear that it's his way or the highway and Redfield T. Baum supported him. Fred got the flight for just over $200, that's a steal. Hotels are very expensive in New York, but if anybody is to blame, it should be his travel agent!!

Incidentally, if Council had to sign off on every expenditure under $1,000, as someone asked, that's what they would be doing all day, every day. I'm sure the City has clear purchasing guidelines explaining what kind of approval is needed for what amount.

red24

when and if this all gets resolved,mayor fred should take a well deserved relaxing stroll with burlingtons mayor on their new waterfront pier. :lol:

Possibly before????? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

That mess was Started long Before Cam Became Mayor here.
He had to clean up Mayor Rob MacIsaac Mistakes
Just like Next Mayor of Hamilton will have too
when that 1 Term Wounder Is Replaced in The Fall

Now that was funny too! :lol: :lol:

onknight how much is burlington kicking in ?if the answer is nothing then enough burlington stadium talk,deal?

Because the only place in at least the US I know where this trend has garnered an actual tangible and intangible return for the public is in Washington DC and parts of Brooklyn NY, with the former in turn receiving a heavily disproportional share of federal taxpayer money down here to give it far more of a chance to be made to work.

I have no idea if any such efforts paraded by politicians, working under the premise of unlimited government spending everywhere, has worked anywhere else in the US or Canada after about seven years of its novelty too, but I know plenty of places where it has not worked for the long-term after the initial novelty effect in places such as Las Vegas (Fremont St/Old Vegas not the Strip as most know it), Atlanta, Philadelphia, San Antonio, Indianapolis, and New Orleans (not totally their fault after Katrina though) for starters.

Very conveniently of course after the novelty wears off, usually most of the politicians and all their cronies who had their palms greased with all the fanfare and mindless homering for a few years have moved on to leave the rest of the public at large holding the bag yet again. "Democracy" boo-yah! :roll:

Right now from my perspective there is very little interest in commercial real estate development and probably even more so in Southern Ontario than anywhwere else in Canada. Asper found that out too and now it is the tax payers of Manitoba that will front the 100 million dollars and that might not be a bad thing because stadiums can't make money, they are there to serve as a large meeting place for their respective communities, unfortunately in Canada and maybe a legacy from the Montreal Olympic installations going wrong, politicians are affraid to invest in these types of architectures.

But since this stadium looks like it will end up being 100 percent publicly funded. Bob Young becomes a tennant and a not very valuable one at that. Maybe his best solution might be to donate the team to the city of Hamilton after arranging a usefull fiscal deal ( If he can considering he lives in Carolina). Hamilton could than operate the team and the stadium under HECFI or something like it. This has worked well for Edmonton and Saskatchewan.

Fred has not kept his eye on the ball too well bot Bob was a no show with the money as well...

Hmmm...definatley food for thought.

(Not sure about the city owning the team though. This team needs caretaker, IMO)

Nice post.

Bob is a terrific owner but if he feels he needs to cut his losses, donating the team to the city would be a better thing for the city and the fans than him selling it to the Hunt Group or something like that.

Come on guys give it up!

Build the 15,000 seat stadium for the Pan Am Games and just have it as a showcase "Athletic Centre" for Southern Ontario.
Forget expansion to a football stadium be happy with the 15,000 stadium.

Please Bob sell the team to the Hunt group and bring them to Ottawa along with the CFL Hall of Fame.

I'll take that type of spending over some of the recent debacles coming out of both levels of government. We're about to spend over a BILLION dollars on a summit that will take up a few days while arguing over 20-30 million for a public building. So much for 'fiscal responsibility' I suppose ( considering this is 10 times more then has ever been spent on such a summit). At least there will be something tangible to show for it and there a many examples of vibrant down town cores as engines of a cities economic activity. With what is going on on James St. North, Augusta, the possible Mohawk-McMaster down town campus and the rebuilt Lister block, I dont think we are that far from achieving that.

I think ‘every thing he touches’ is a little broad. I think enough urban think tanks and urban planing experts have spoken in favour of the West Harbor site to justify his position. However his dealings with the Ticats on the issue have been a a debacle. After all of this is over the man needs to take a workshop on diplomacy and negotiation.

Preliminary meetings between Fenn The Cats and Hamilton reps kick off with separate meetings this week

http://thespec.com/News/Local/article/776427

Why so you can lose them and then start another bring back the Roughriders campaign version 4?

Thought this was interesting from the Field of Schemes site talking about the San Diego Chargers and their attempts at a new stadium. After reading this, hmmm, maybe it is better just for the Argos to survive and when we want our football fix, just drive (or take the GO) the x number of kilometres to Toronto and take in a game. :wink:

Chargers: We're such a crappy deal for San Diego, even paying to build a new stadium would be an improvement

[i]The slowly simmering San Diego Chargers stadium campaign has shown signs of heating up of late, with our old friend Mark Fabiani showing up on local radio to tout the team's latest plans for an $800-million-ish downtown stadium. Among Fabiani's arguments for the plan:

One, it costs, according to the grand jury, $17 million a year to operate and maintain that stadium. The City loses that amount of money every year. And, second, the City owns that 166 acres of land which could be put to better uses. It could be developed. It could be a park created along the riverfront. So there are all sorts of things that could be done that would be better for that piece of land.
These are legitimate arguments: There's always something else you could do with land and money, what economics geeks like to call "opportunity costs." Of course, though, a new stadium would take land and money as well, so the real question should be: Which is a better deal, the current one or spending upwards of $500 million to build a new stadium?

Right now it's hard to say without knowing more of the numbers — how much is the old stadium land worth, for example, as compared to the land that would be needed for the new stadium? — but Fabiani's case isn't helped by the revelation that the city's losses on Qualcomm Stadium are really only $12 million a year. Apparently his $17 million figure was what it would cost to run the old stadium if the Chargers left and no other events were held there, not even college football or monster truck rallies. At which point the city could always just knock down the place and build a park along the riverfront if they wanted.

Possibly the best summation of the situation comes from Voice of San Diego writer Liam Dillon (author of the last article linked above), who told KPBS radio that "the argument for a new stadium is simply coming down to the fact that taxpayers have such a lousy deal with the Chargers that they basically need to make a new deal with the Chargers. ... If the City keeps making bad deals with the Chargers, who's to say that this time the City is going to make a good deal with the Chargers?"

At this point, you have to wonder if the best option for San Diego would be for the Chargers to just move to Los Angeles, letting them keep their city money and reclaim the Qualcomm site as well. And anyway, a 116-mile drive is just a trip to the grocery store for most Southern Californians, right?[/i]