Special Report: Pan Am

Troop, Councillors Respond to IWS Proposal

Troop is still waiting to see formal proposal, while several Councillors remain concerned about funding details and other lost opportunities.

By RTH Staff
Published January 11, 2011

this article has been updated

Toronto 2015 CEO Ian Troop issued a statement today stating that the Pan Am Games organizing corporation "will not be in a position to provide additional commentary on today's announcement" about the proposal by Hamilton Tiger-Cats CEO Bob Young and Hamilton Mayor Bob Bratina to partially rebuild Ivor Wynne Stadium, "until Hamilton's plan has been received, reviewed and evaluated against our Games' criteria."

He added that Toronto 2015 is continuing to plan for an alternate stadium site if Hamilton's proposal does not meet its guidelines.

Markham has withdrawn its interest in playing host to a stadium in the event Hamilton does not submit a successful proposal, but Brampton and Mississauga are still working with Toronto 2015's contingency plan to build a community sized stadium.

Troop stated again that the February 1 deadline to submit a stadium proposal "will not be extended under any circumstances and applies to all candidates based on environmental assessments, construction timelines and testing schedules - all required to ensure the facility is ready in time for the Games."

Councillors Respond

RTH asked Hamilton City Councillors for their thoughts on the IWS proposal, which Bratina and Young unveiled in a press conference at 11:00 AM today. Several Councillors pointed out that Council has not yet received any briefing on the proposal.

Councillor Brian McHattie does not support the Ivor Wynne proposal, writing, "I am suspect of the Ticats and the financial arrangements around this deal, given their history on this file."

He pointed out that the financial details are still unclear and their implications for the Velodrome are unknown, and that the proposal "leaves the west Harbour lands bereft of any obvious redevelopment plans, which is unacceptable."

Noting that the host corporation previously said it would not approve a plan to refurbish an existing stadium, McHattie added, "it would appear that the Cats have friends in high places so anything is possible."

Councillors Jason Farr, Scott Duvall, Brad Clark and Judi Partridge demurred that they need more detailed information on funding before they can comment on the proposal.

Clark wrote that he is "profoundly disappointed with the way Hamilton has been treated! I need to understand that if a renovated Ivor Wynne makes sense now, why doesn't the West Harbour make sense?"

He also expressed skepticism that this proposal will be ready by the February 1 deadline. "With 15 days left, I do not know how we can properly cost the stadium at Ivor Wynne."

Update: Councillor Russ Powers replied and wrote: "I won't consider the proposal seriously until I get all of the details."

Update 2: Councillor Tom Jackson replied and wrote: "I will be supporting the re-build of Ivor Wynne, in order to keep the Federal and Provincial money in Hamilton, to ensure the Games are here and to keep our beloved Ticats here too!!"

Read about our contributors.

147 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Mark-Alan Whittle (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 17:48:36

Local community channel Cable 14 will be televising tomorrow nights council meeting.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 17:49:38

I'm not surprised most councillors are suspicious/ need more info. Seems this whole last minute plan is designed to give them little time to make an informed decision.

I hope someone raises the loss of brian timmins field and scott park as being concerns during the meeting. We're essentially proposing to rip out park/recreation land in one of the wards that needs it most.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By hopeful (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:06:26

It seems that the true colors of the Cats have now appeared in the media. Backed into a corner by a Council that would not allow city funds to be taken hostage. I just hope that this all works out for the best. I for one have always loved Ivor Wynne and take great pride in the history it holds. It is unfortuate that it has taken this much toll on our community to just keep what we already have.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Bob 3 (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:08:11

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By rayfullerton (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:14:56

What are the TiCats contributing to IWS? IWS funding: Toronto 2015 $70,000,000; Hamilton Future Fund $ 45,000,000; Molsons ?; Primus ?; Tim Hortons ? and Ticats ???

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:17:10

the more I think about it, the more I hope council ratifies WH tomorrow. This is a desperate last minute attempt by the Cats, with our mayor standing there no less, representing them instead of us.
They aren't paying a DIME. WE will say where the stadium goes, thanks.

Email your councillors. This ain't over yet.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:17:46

Why is this still costing 115 million on land we already own which does not need to be remediated?

And still no ticat contribution?

How much public land is being converted to surface parking under this plan? And who gets the parking revenue?

Something doesn't sound right.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Steve (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:18:29

@Bob 3, I believe he was referring to the baseball diamonds. Personally, I don't have enough information to know what is proposed for the b-ball diamonds, to form an opinion on that aspect. I'm in full support of the Ivor Wynne site, being used.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By 3Hunded and un (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:19:03

>>WE will say where the stadium goes, thanks.

Ya, that will work.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:22:59

Reports today suggest that Mayor Bratina and Bob Young estimated the cost of refurbishing Ivor Wynne Stadium at $115 Million with Hostco paying $70 Million and the City of Hamilton paying $45 Million.

Unless something has changed, the numbers presented by Bratina and Young do not jive with the original agreement in which Hostco agreed with the City of Hamilton on a 56 per cent/44 per cent split of the construction costs of the Hamilton Pan Am facilities.

For a $115 Million stadium, this would calculate to Hostco paying $64.4 Million and the City of Hamilton paying $50.6 Million.

Therefore, unless the agreement with Hostco has changed, the Bratina/Young numbers presented today seem to overestimate the actual Hostco contribution by $5.6 Million and underestimate the amount Hamilton would have to pay by $5.6 Million.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2011-01-11 18:45:15

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:23:30

"We haven't been talked to directly, but I will tell you that it's important that Hamilton Council and staff look very closely at the reported costs being talked about for the Ivor Wynne stadium."

-- Ian Troop (slightly edited)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Ty Webb (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:26:33

I'm sure Jason Farr will have a very balanced, unbiased look at the numbers considering he is the Ticats announcer!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:26:41

If its edited claiming thats what was said is a lie. Not a good technique to gain credibility for your position

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Henry and Joe (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:29:38

I feel kind of weird saying this, but...I'm proud of Brad Clark. He just may have redeemed himself for the Buble incident. In the words of Winston the WOLF... "Let's not start (expletive deleted) each others (expletive deleted) just yet!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:30:51

"If its edited claiming thats what was said is a lie." whooosh

Comment edited by z jones on 2011-01-11 18:30:59

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By whitehorse (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:36:34

Quote from the article above:

Councillors Respond

RTH asked Hamilton City Councillors for their thoughts on the IWS proposal, which Bratina and Young unveiled in a press conference at 11:00 AM today. Several Councillors pointed out that Council has not yet received any briefing on the proposal.

Councillor Brian McHattie does not support the Ivor Wynne proposal, writing, "I am suspect of the Ticats and the financial arrangements around this deal, given their history on this file."

He pointed out that the financial details are still unclear and their implications for the Velodrome are unknown, and that the proposal "leaves the west Harbour lands bereft of any obvious redevelopment plans, which is unacceptable."

Noting that the host corporation previously said it would not approve a plan to refurbish an existing stadium, McHattie added, "it would appear that the Cats have friends in high places so anything is possible."

Councillors Jason Farr, Scott Duvall, Brad Clark and Judi Partridge demurred that they need more detailed information on funding before they can comment on the proposal.

Clark wrote that he is "profoundly disappointed with the way Hamilton has been treated! I need to understand that if a renovated Ivor Wynne makes sense now, why doesn't the West Harbour make sense?"

He also expressed skepticism that this proposal will be ready by the February 1 deadline. "With 15 days left, I do not know how we can properly cost the stadium at Ivor Wynne."


  • Should Hamiltonians let the Cat bullying the future of our City by their own agenda?

  • [Clark wrote that he is "profoundly disappointed with the way Hamilton has been treated! I need to understand that if a renovated Ivor Wynne makes sense now, why doesn't the West Harbour make sense?". ] Well said !!! Thanks Mr. Clark!

  • I think all three level of government should really look into building something that good for our young peoples for years to come: - high performance sports activities in a scalable stadium at West Harbour, plus other spin-off business.... around this stadium is still the # 1 answer!!!

Comment edited by whitehorse on 2011-01-11 18:38:23

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By ImproveTheHammer (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:40:49

What are the TiCats contributing to IWS? IWS funding: Toronto 2015 $70,000,000; Hamilton Future Fund $ 45,000,000; Molsons ?; Primus ?; Tim Hortons ? and Ticats ???

I don't get why people think the Ti-cats are obligated to put any money in this.

When you rent an apartment, do you pay for the construction of the building? When Cadillac Fairview builds a mall, does The Bay contribute money?

Now agreed, as a tenant, you usually don't get a chance to direct the builder where to build. But if you're building a stadium in a location where no one wants to rent --- well, as a builder, you probably wouldn't build there.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Go GO (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:42:46

"why doesn't the West Harbour make sense?"

because in the WH there would still be a shortfall to upgrade from 15,000 seats to 25,000. At Ivor Wynne that shortfall doesn't exist.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:49:18

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By anonymous (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:51:52

The saddest part about all of this is the opportunity that we could all be losing in this. The fact is that the west harbour required a project of significant enough size to bring about the ancillary benefits we've all been hoping for, that being cleaning up the toxic mess at our west harbour. Some of the other benefits that we'll be losing out on are the complimentary nature of the project to other city building initiatives that could have benefitted from this stadium, ie the west harbour waterfront recreation plan. A recent article said that some 500,000 people visit bayfront park, pier 4 park and the waterfront trail on a yearly basis. Imagine how many more people would use our waterfront and how attractive it would be to potential investors if the stadium and a surrounding mixed use living/entertainment district were located down there.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:53:02

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:55:02

So Ward 3 doesn't need a similar remediation of brownfield (Consumers Glass) and area investments?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:58:29

If you are going to throw around the landlord tenant analogy...generally speaking a tenant also doesn't ask for the rent from all the other suites in the building, the money from the coin op laundry room or the right to control the party room (in this case; parking revenue, naming rights, etc).

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:58:54

umm, Improve the Hammer. Your analogy is close but no cigar. Try this for a better example:

I'm a condo developer looking to build a new building and sell units in Hamilton. However, I strike gold and get the City of Hamilton to pay for the entire construction of MY building, and then I get to sell all the units and rake in all the profit. Oh, and if the market ever changes and I start losing money month to month, I'll just go back to the city and have them bail me out so I don't ever have to worry about losing money.

It's called corporate welfare.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By LoveIt (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 18:59:43

"I don't get why people think the Ti-cats are obligated to put any money in this."

Because this involves the city into spending to specifically satisfy their needs.
What if they declare bankruptcy, what city will do with the stadium ?
That might lead to city having to buy the team.
Will it be proper spending of city money meaning the goal is to make it the best to rise a child ?
To rise a child is a lot of money by itself.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 19:07:44

told you so, HamiltonFan, here is the statement in full:

As the City of Hamilton and its community partners continue to work towards a stadium solution, TO2015 looks forward to seeing the City's complete plan before the February 1, 2011 deadline. 

Hamilton City Council is scheduled to meet January 12th to determine what's in the best interest of the community. T02015 will not be in a position to provide additional commentary on today's announcement until Hamilton's plan has been received, reviewed and evaluated against our Games' criteria.

TO2015 continues its active contingency planning in regard to the soccer venue. While we continue to work with the municipalities of Mississauga and Brampton, the Town of Markham has officially withdrawn its expression of interest.

The Town of Markham remains a vital part of the Toronto 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games from both a sport and cultural perspective. TO2015 looks forward to working with this enthusiastic community in the years to come.

To move forward on the contingency plan, the municipalities of Mississauga and Brampton are working toward submitting detailed plans for a community-sized stadium by late January 2011 in order to meet the February 1st deadline.

All proposals received will be evaluated against a consistent set of criteria concerning confirmation of site, funding commitment, delivery timetable and sport legacy.

The deadline to submit detailed plans will not be extended under any circumstances and applies to all candidates based on environmental assessments, construction timelines and testing schedules - all required to ensure the facility is ready in time for the Games.

The Toronto 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games' legacy is to create much-needed infrastructure which promotes healthy, active communities and high performance amateur athletic development. 

I'm at a loss to understand what relevant information we might have missed in our summary.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 19:18:13

"As the City of Hamilton and its community partners continue to work towards a stadium solution, TO2015 looks forward to seeing the City's complete plan before the February 1, 2011 deadline"

This statement in conjunction with this one

"Hamilton City Council is scheduled to meet January 12th to determine what's in the best interest of the community. T02015 will not be in a position to provide additional commentary on today's announcement until Hamilton's plan has been received, reviewed and evaluated against our Games' criteria."

doesnot suggest there is any problem with the concept of the plan but your version suggests that there is. Selective quoting to make something fit your agenda is not reporting its dishonest editorializing whether its RTH, The Hamiltonian, CHML or The Spectator.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 19:20:06

Apparently Ward 3 is not part of some people's Hamilton.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Ty Webb (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 19:34:40

"I don't get why people think the Ti-cats are obligated to put any money in this."
1)If not for the Cats we could get away with a 6000 seat stadium for many millions cheaper.
2)If not for the Cats we could build it where the Councillors had voted to build it.
3)If the Cats paid anything close to market rent and let the city keep concession, parking, ad revenue, etc. that might make sense.
4)The public takes all of the risk and makes no property tax revenue by owning the facility, the team gets a free ride!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By arienc (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 19:51:34

anonymous said:

A recent article said that some 500,000 people visit bayfront park, pier 4 park and the waterfront trail on a yearly basis.

Those 500,000 people don't mean anything to Hamilton's business community. Now if they were speeding through the area in cars, now we're talking.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:07:20

I think it's just a handful of developers and those aligned with them who would prefer that they be cars. Nonetheless, an influential bunch.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:10:35

told you so wrote:

...doesnot suggest there is any problem with the concept of the plan but your version suggests that there is. Selective quoting to make something fit your agenda is not reporting its dishonest editorializing whether its RTH, The Hamiltonian, CHML or The Spectator.

There is a problem with he plan as far as some councilors are concerened. Doesn't mean they're not resolvable once council gets more details.

Where's the "dishonesty" that you mention?

Can you quote the "dishonest" portion?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:12:19

If you compare every proposed site you'll find that, of all of them, this plan takes the most money from taxpayers and the least money from Bob Young.

For once Brad Clark is right. If this works, then why doesn't the West Harbour? Answer: because it requires money from the Tiger-Cats. At Ivor Wynne taxpayers get to pay it all and the Tiger-Cats get to control it with no spin-offs for anyone else.

Has anyone seen the 20 year lease?

Clearly, Bob Young has been blowing smoke all along. All of the "reasons" the West Harbour wouldn't work according to him and Scott Mitchell exist at Ivor Wynne in spades. When asked about access and visibility on CH Young actually said this site is close to Burlington Street????????

The scalable stadium at West Harbour is looking better by the minute.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By rayfullerton (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:16:09

The proposed TiCat lease with the CIty should be made public to clarify the following: who is collecting the revenue from stadium naming rights, who is paying the annual operating costs ( turf, maintenance, utilities), who is collecting the revenue from parking and concessions.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:17:35

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By PeterF (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:19:24

realfreeenterpriser, you are absolutely dead on. From day one that is what this has been all about. How can they go from saying IWS just does not work to we can now be sustainable. Maybe Wednesday we will hear that WH can work. The best approach would be if WH gets voted in, Cats jump on board get the 15K stadium and work the next few months for the extra funding.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Simon (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:30:44

Seems to me - this latest scheme is just another excuse for the TigerCats to avoid putting up any money towards construction.

At WH, $115 million buys you 15,000 seats - TigerCats responsible for the remaining 10,000 or another $35 - $65 million (assuming a total cost of $150 - $180 million according to past reports).

At IWS $115 million buys you 25,000 seats - no responsibility to the TigerCats.

So at WH we'd be looking at roughly 33% from the TigerCats. Based on the same ratio council needs to see the TigerCats put in roughly $40 million before they take a re-built IWS seriously.

And I mean $40 million - present value construction cost - up front - none of this bullshit ooohhhh operating costs, or $1 a year for 40 million years.........

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By d.knox (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:33:46

I'd just like to say that I love Brian McHattie, and I'm warming up to this Ian Troop fellow too.

Troop has seemingly done whatever he can to throw wrenches into the machinations of our well-connected ball-tossers. I like him for that. McHattie goes on the record with real positions.

But this Bob Bratina guy. It just gets worse and worse. Who voted for him?????

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:37:32

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Avenger (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:51:08

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:56:29

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By GO GO (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 20:58:27

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:00:32

@Avenger -- its not the Cats who will decide where this stadium is to be built. It is the PanAm organizing committee. The CEO of which has gone on record saying a scalable community stadium is Hamilton's for the taking -- if we can get our act together enough to present a well-thought out, costed plan with a construction timetable. His latest statement on the IWS proposal, on the other hand, indicates to anyone with an ounce of discernment that should Hamilton submit the IWS proposal the other cities who are proposing a community stadium with a real amateur sports legacy will definitely be in the running. We as a city need to make this about amateur sports, and NOT the Ti-Cats... and fast. Once we secure the funding for a community WH stadium the Ti-Cats can perhaps come to the table later with some real dollars and negotiations can begin in good faith. This process should NEVER have been about the Ti-Cats. An new stadium for them only ever was a nice by-product of the PanAm games, but not the primary intent.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:02:50

Ivor Wynne is going to be a totally redone.

No, one stand will be replaced and the other will be renovated with new seats.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:07:25

The more I contemplate this latest "proposal" by the two Bobs, the more absurd it grows. By Bratina's own admission this resulted from Young musing...hmmmm... how about we put IWS back on the table as a site. Bratina grabbed Young by the arm and literally melted with joy. This as mayor of a city that held all the negotiating chips in this game. So it seems the two Bobs spent a gleeful night of talk, culminating in a 5.45am email to city council by our mayor. And then a press conference. Suddenly the Ti-Cats are claiming this stadium upgrade will cost .... $115M ... which coincidentally is the entire funding available to Hamilton for the PanAm games ($70M fed/prov funding and $45M Future Fund money). It is a PanAm games miracle materializing before our very eyes. Now they are going to ask council to approve a completely uncosted proposal, with no studies, no construction estimates, no timelines. The City does not even own all the land under discussion. Its just so amateur. If we continue down this path we wil end up with nothing and the PanAm money will end up in Mississauga or somewhere else in the GTA.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:13:13

Bob Young must pinching himself and thinking "this Bob Bratina guy is an idiot, but I'm not complaining".

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:17:16

It's being mentioned here that the Ticats might control parking revenue and naming rights. Is this for real? Is that a possibility? Why in the world would the city give them that?? That would be the worst deal imaginable! The way I think it should go is who ever puts up the money above and beyond the hostco dollars gets their percentage of revenue. So, if Hamilton puts up 100% of the money above and beyond Hostco, then they should get 100% of revenue generated by the stadium and it's parking etc. If The Ticats want to put up, lets say, 1/2 of the money , and split the cost above and beyond the Hostco contribution, then the city and ticats can split the revenue 50/50. Unless the Ticats are making an investment, it boggles the mind that anyone would even think about giving up revenue.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By PeterF (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:21:00

Once again council has to vote and on the eve of the vote another location. Ticats keep saying our partners HOSTCO, I am sure Troop disagrees that Cats are part of the process. We are not partners, the city is using the fact we signed up for Pan Am and the taxpayers FF money to possibly build you a new stadium.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Simon (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:21:04

Told u so - dude - you answered the skill testing question to post - but I will try to simplify the mathematics!

Roughly:

Using the same ratio that the City, Province & Feds were all expecting from private investment, when they included WH with the Pan Am bid:

2/3 Public + 1/3 Private = 1 Stadium

or if you prefer integers:

$120,000,000 Public + $60,000,000 Private = $180,000,000 West Harbour Stadium

Using the same ratio applied to the reported IWS rehab cost:

$80,000,000 Public + $40,000,000 Private = $120,000,000 Rehabed Ivor Wynne.

Out of the $80 million in public money at 56% per cent Hostco to 44% City the final funding should work out to:

$50 million from Hostco $30 million from City of Hamilton $40 million from TigerCats and other private investment.

That is the kind of numbers the TigerCats need to put up to be taken as a FAIR partner.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:21:26

There is nothing in Troops statements that suggest IWS is disqualified just by being IWS and with the provincial government pushing hard for a site in Hamilton and actually acting as a mediator in getting the Tigercats and the mayor to sit down and talk about IWS I think its safe to say Toronto2015 will accept a complete package for IWS if its in by Feb 1

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By YaNeverKnow (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:23:01

According to the Spec.

Call from Queen’s Park brings Cats and city together

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:23:03

It's being mentioned here that the Ticats might control parking revenue and naming rights. Is this for real? Is that a possibility?

We have no idea if this is the case because there are 0 details about the plan that council is supposed to vote on tomorrow. However, this is what the Cats were asking for at East Mountain (and I believe CP as well).

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:24:20

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:24:37

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/389601--call-from-queen-s-park-brings-cats-and-city-together Just when this story seemingly could not get any uglier... we now have confirmation that the Government of Ontario interfered in our city's legitimate political process and suggested our Mayor give the Ti-Cats a call re: the IWS site. Why on earth was the province negotiating with the Ti-Cats? Why is our provincial government so intent on getting a new stadium for the Ti-Cats (at the expense of a the stated goal of the PanAm games to create a lasting amateur athletics legacy)? It seems to me that this is why the Ti-Cats, seemingly with not a card to play, keep hijacking this process again and again. The old story of friends in high places. This is so undemocratic... just sickening really. I hope our council does not cave in to this travesty of a process and this travesty of a deal. Its the taxpayers of Hamilton who will end up cheated.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Simon (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:27:34

told you so - I had to divide 12 by 3 to post this - so I know you can't possibly be as daft as you put on lol!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:33:18

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By PeterF (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:36:13

Zephyr, Cats had no leverage with Aldershot gone, WH had traction! Our bumbling mayor helps the Cats with the BS his time and shares a press conference to boot. Travesty for sure, cheated betcha! Council meeting should be gem.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:36:33

@told you so - I assume he meant the Ti-Cats invested $40M to make a better stadium, bringing the total to $155M, rather than reducing the city's contribution.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:38:59

@SpaceMonkey - Perhaps Young is thinking, this Bob Bratina is an idiot, glad he is MY useful idiot.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:43:55

Can someone answer why someone making $0 contribution to this stadium, and who is not a PanAm games partner, is negotiating with the provincial government? This debate transcends just a stadium and speaks to a city that has long been held hostage to political cronyism and the old-boys club. I await the end of an era at council tomorrow. Hamilton residents need to urge their councillors to vote for a community soccer stadium at WH and recommend the savings be used for a permanent velodrome and community athetics centre. Make the stadium scalable for such a time as the Ti-Cats big-time corporate partners with their likely-never-to-be-disclosed-contribution (according to Bob Young) step up and allow the Ti-Cats to contribute suitable monies to this project. At which time they can start discussing revenue streams like naming rights, parking, and a "sports precinct".

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:43:55

@mgrande THAT would be a huge waste of money that could be put to much better use and not jeopardize any Toronto2015 funding.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By RightSaidFred (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:44:44

This is unbelievable and would be utterly laughable if I weren't from and living in Hamilton. Bratina should be impeached for even suggesting this farce. Mayor of Tiger-Town

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Simon (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:44:50

All I am saying is that the RATIO of private sector investment should be exactly the same as was originally expected at WH.

At WH, Hostco and the City were expecting 1/3 of the money to be private investment - the so called "shortfall"

Therefore, to even consider IWS - I would like to see 1/3 of the money also to be private investment.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By PeterF (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 21:57:53

@Simon In a nutshell the whole crux of the issue is that the Cats never ever put any money forward except for the $10 Mill over 10 years at EM. Which by the time it is paid is more like 7 Mill in todays dollars. Call it 4 to 5 %. They never had any intention of bringing 1/3 to the table. In Aldershot, they were putting in a grand total of 0. I wonder if Paletta was going to let the Cats keep concessions, parking and naming rights?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:09:12

Sorry, I've lost track of details. If we were to opt for a scalable stadium at the WH (and hopefully woo the Cats there later) and a velodrome, would we still need a tenant for that new stadium? By February 1st?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By SpaceMonkey (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:10:09

Any lawyers around? Is there a case to be made for the Hamilton Citizens to form a class action law suit against the Tigercats for saying they wouldn't ever play at IW, causing the city to waste millions of dollars exploring other sites?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:13:40

@goin'downtown - NO we do not need a confirmed tenant for a scalable WH 6,000 seat stadium. As confirmed by Ian Troop in the excellent interview with RTH a few days ago, this solution would fit the PanAm criteria for a legacy amateur athletics use for the community. I encourage you to read Ian Troop's interview, and then compare to his statement on the IWS renovation made today. I would suggest that the PanAm Committee is much more amenable to a community stadium. Troop clearly states that this was never about the Ti-Cats......

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Simon (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:14:15

@PeterF Exactly my point. At least in Aldershot Paletta was paying for something!

I suppose the question that also needs to be asked is - How much can the TigerCats afford?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:14:22

I'm no lawyer but it would be hard to prove that he ever even said those exact words

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:16:08

In case my last statement was unclear, we have NO assurance that the IWS solution will be acceptable to the PanAm committee (except perhaps for the fact that the provincial government seems to be having their own negotiations with the Ti-Cats on the side). However, I fail to see any amateur athletics legacy being created by simply improving what we have.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Simon (registered) - website | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:20:40

@Spacemonkey

Oh - If the stadium goes anywhere but WH - I think there is a very very very good case to be made against the TigerCats on a whole number of issues.

At the very least the City could hold them responsible for the full cost of WH remediation, land acquisition, consulting fees and staff time.

Tack on lost taxbase due to lack of development around WH too. If we loose HostCo's $70 mil you could also tack on lost economic benefit of engineering and construction to the local economy.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By cityfan (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:24:26

No One is Guilty but Everyone is Responsible! Couldn't have said it better myself Ted McMeekin. I guess the Governemnt of Ontario was the real Ombudsman in this debacle. Lets hope the ONT GOV will help out the city councilors with deciding what to do about LRT as well. Lesson to councilors with regards to the City of Hamilton. DON'T YOU DARE TURN DOWN MILLIONS OF GOVERNMENT DOLLARS TO IMPROVE THE CITY!!!!!!!! I don't like it entirely because there isn't anything to do with a amateur athletics legacy, but if money is alocated to build a velodrome then I will be somewhat happy.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By RightSaidFred (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:30:53

What about going after Bratina for abandoning taxpayers money spent the last 10 years or more at the West Harbour and just giving to Ivor Wynne? Instead of forward thinking like fixing a brownfield so it makes money and then in turn that revenue can be spent down the road fixing up other sections of town (ie, Ward 3 and others) TigerBoy gives it all to Uncle Bobby. Like I said before, this is unbelievable and should be an impeachable offence!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By d.knox (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:30:56

It might be the lovely Taylor Fladgate First Estate (highly recommend) or the desperate times (how is one to distinguish exactly), but I'm calling on all vaguely spiritual people to make vague pleas to save us from this(okay, probably mostly the Taylor at this point). For that waters are come up, even unto our souls... This just isn't what Hamilton wants. Put your foot down, Ian, hard. No refurbished stadium. You thought the Pan Am Games was your moment to shine. But it's not. This, this little tempest in a teapot, this is the moment that Justice has to trump legalities, and Hamilton has to win. Just once. Please.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By RightSaidFred (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 22:35:27

@d.Knox I LOVE Taylor Fladgate, especially the 20 year old. oooooooooh, the 20 year old. warms the tummy just right, makes me 'almost' forget about all this mess

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By ImproveTheHammer (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 23:01:55

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By ImproveTheHammer (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 23:10:49

Any lawyers around? Is there a case to be made for the Hamilton Citizens to form a class action law suit against the Tigercats for saying they wouldn't ever play at IW, causing the city to waste millions of dollars exploring other sites?

Can't we start to mend some fences? The city had grandiose plans for the cash. The Ticats had grandiose plans for the cash. Both have been quashed in a compromise agreement that at least has some cost certainty.

The last thing I want is for our city to air its dirty laundry in a courtroom against one of its most oldest and most famous businesses. If the city votes to go ahead, we need to put on our fake smiles and work together. Let's build a stadium (on budget) that we can be proud of. Let's revitalize the surrounding area.

Suing a company does no one any good. Convincing others that Hamilton is a good place to spend lots of money on the other hand does.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By ImproveTheHammer (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 23:21:37

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By d.knox (registered) | Posted January 11, 2011 at 23:44:29

For goodness sakes. This isn't a restaurant. There aren't many takers for this rental. The city doesn't actually need a new stadium - the TiCats think they do. I was there and thought it was fine, but then I go to Cdn university and US high school and university games, so I can't really compare to professional sports requirements. I think, as a landlord, with a tenant prepared to pay such low rates (?? 27,000/year!!???), I may decide to get out of the stadium business. But let's be clear. Hamilton, by itself, has no requirement for a 25,000+ capacity stadium.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Simon (registered) - website | Posted January 12, 2011 at 00:02:28

A stadium is not an "asset" any more than a bridge, or a sewer, or a telephone pole, or a car.

A stadium is a liability that costs money to run and maintain and has near zero value at the end of its lifespan.

Was the Skydome an "asset" to taxpayers when it was sold to Rogers for $545 million LESS than it cost to build in 1989.

A property with a loss of value of more than $500 million dollars over 15 years is not an freaking asset.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 01:48:15

Bratina said numbers still need to be crunched to determine how much the rebuild will cost, but there should be “extra left over” from the $45 million from the city and the $70 million from HostCo.

http://www.torontosun.com/sports/footbal...

"Extra left over"?

Who gets the leftovers?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Enterprise (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 06:38:01

"Specious"...Having the ring of truth, but is actually deceptive or false. Yesterdays press conference was a sad exercise in speciousness. Add to that the gov. interference from higher levels, & well , it's all ugly.

This is not what is best for our city.

I'm for a scalable stadium in WH, with a world class permanent velodrome.

The velodrome should be our priority if the budget does not cover both.

Comment edited by Enterprise on 2011-01-12 06:39:25

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 07:28:06

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2011-01-12 07:29:20

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 09:47:30

I continue to be impressed by the quality of the responses readers at this site post here. I keep seeing new angles to this story that I would not think of without this resource.

I trust that people are devoting the same care and thought in writing (and calling) Hamilton City Council -- write early, write often! And attend the meeting tonight!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Hipgnosis (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 10:00:44

I would be interested to hear what Mayor Fred has to say about this development.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 10:05:22

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 10:34:28

After reviewing all the commetns posted here over the past 24 hours, I can say with quite confidence (and a bit of sadness) that RTH followers have now officially jumped the shark. A movement that once was an admirable effort to promote a stadium solution with an urban focus has devolved into a "screw the Ticats" mob rife with conspiracy theorists.

IWS is not WH, but it is an urban-centric site for a stadium. It is not a exurban/suburban site like Em, Aldershot or the airport sites. It is not threatening to reduce urban parkland like the Confed Park site (allegedly) did. It is a site in the city's urban core. As an urbanist, why is this a bad thing?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 10:37:03

As an urbanist, why is this a bad thing?

Give me a break, you have criticized RTH all along. IWS may not be a bad location for a stadium, there was even an article for IWS a couple of days ago BEFORE yesterday's notice, but as a taxpayer the deal still sounds pretty crappy. I'm not going to support it until I see some real money from the Ticats. Look at Winnipeg, there CFL team is assuming most of the costs, so far the Ticats are putting up nothing and we get no remediation, that's a bad deal no matter how you slice it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 10:42:36

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 10:44:35

@realitycheck --

I think a lot of commenters on this site (myself included) believe that investment in the WH, including remediating the land there, will spur private investors that are just itching to build there but cannot incur the costs of clean-up.

I cannot see investment in the IWS area spurring the same development. That said I have no objection to renovating IWS if that is what the majority of the residents of Hamilton want to see happen. What I do object to is the absolutely atrocious negotiating tatics shown by our mayor --that he was willing to appear at a press conference with the Ti-Cats knowing that they are claiming the cost of the stadium would be $115M, of which 100% would come from the fed/prov governments and Hamilton's Future Fund. That he would appear and announce a plan that is not costed and does not have any appropriate level of detail. Apparently he is now claiming there might be some "leftovers" available to the WH. All this and the PanAm legacy was supposed to be amateur athletics, not a new stadium for the Ti-Cats.

We do know the Ti-Cats claim to be unable to make money at IWS as things stand -- even with a sweetheart nominal rental agreement with the city. So it stands to reason that the Ti-Cats will be wanting a "management fee" to operate IWS, likely parking fees and naming rights, etc. (they have been demanding that at every location under consideration so far).

All this for no capital investment into this new stadium.

These are the only facts we have been given so far and a lot of folks are not comfortable that council will be asked to make a decision on this tonight.

I fail to see how pointing out the facts is "anti-Ti-Cat". I also have not seen any conspiracy theories on RTH -- please could you post some of them so I can enjoy them (love me a good conspiracy in the morning).

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Ridiculous (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:07:13

I think this latest drafted-on-a-napkin plan proves what we've been saying all along: The Ticats are desperate and need the City far more than the City needs them.

Having said that, there is a mutually beneficial relationship there, however lopsided it may be.

Hamilton's point of view: If we don't build a stadium, we lose the Ticats. Even if we do build a stadium, the Ticats may fold or move and we'll be stuck with a white elephant on our hands.

The Ticats point of view: If a stadium isn't built for us, we have nowhere to operate and the team will likely just fold. If do get a stadium and things don't work out, it buys us time to find a new place to play.

It would seem to me that this situation should require both sides to share in the costs and the associated risks of this project, even as a good-faith gesture. A 20-year lease is nice, but I'd bet anything there will be an exit clause tied to bad attendance or revenue losses.

My point: If the Ticats put up even $20 million it would go a long way with the citizens who see this whole thing as a giant waste of time and money and it might increase the chances of the stadium being built and luring all those sour people back to a game.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:18:36

We should have just sold them Ivor Wynne for $1 and let them do what they want with it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:22:27

As an urbanist, why is this a bad thing?

1) it restricts the benefit of the entire future fund and the Pan-Am funding to virtually one private business/multi-millionaire which/who appears to be investing nothing or, at the very least, a disproportionate amount. It's all for some rather than some for all.

2) it leaves the WH lands, which were purchased for this purpose, in limbo.

3) it rewards an individual/organization for being disingenuous and outrightly lying about what they needed for a stadium as a means of attempting to blackmail our city at the last minute when it was most vulnerable. Clearly, all of the reasons that Young/Mitchell said WH wouldn't work, exist in spades at Ivor Wynne. The difference is the Tiger-Cats would have to contribute at WH but not at IWS.

4) While it is, at least below the mountain, it draws more people away from the City's core. Remember when many of the WH opponents said a stadium wouldn't help the core citing Copps etc.? Well now, all of a sudden, this development is going to transform Barton Street, a place even more deserted than our downtown.

5) It does nothing for the Waterfront, the key to urban revitalization in cities across North America such as Pittsburgh and Portland Maine.

Perhaps the question shouldn't be "why is this a bad thing?" but rather "why don't we embrace a better thing?"

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:29:08

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:29:41

Let's name the new Ivor Wynne. My suggestion: "Lipstick on a Pig" Pen.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:45:46

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:00:55

Lipstick on a Pig is fine by me, pork tenderloin is probably my favourite meat. ;)

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:03:38

"The difference is the Tiger-Cats would have to contribute at WH but not at IWS"

Well, that my friend is called cost-benefit analysis on their part. You might not like it but believe it or not, many organizations and businesses actually do perform these types of analyses.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Boomer (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:06:45

@told you so: You have no sense of humor. You resort to name calling. Says more about you than it does me.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:20:41

Some of you may enjoy this read. Yes, even the mighty Yankees were looking for "free" money.

"Baseball and Bailouts"

"The Yankees built their $2 billion stadium—with state and federal help, naturally. It now stands as a relic of an era long gone." ...

Read more: http://www.portfolio.com/culture-lifesty...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By ROI (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:34:52

“The big improvement” [of Ivor Wynne] over west harbour or east Mountain options is “simple costs.”

-Bob Young


If the only remaining issue for Bob Young is costs (not location), then I think the stadium decision has to based on what is the best return on investment for the Hamilton Future Fund dollars. Further, at tonight’s meeting there will likely be a request of staff to bring back a report on costs associated with Ivor Wynne before the Feb 1st deadline so there is an opportunity now to ask staff to review the two proposals together. There are a few issues here:


I would look hard at the Deloitte business plan that was presented to Council last February (http://hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/DC3BBCD6-82D8-45C1-AB04-B2B108A9087B/0/Feb18CM09006brevised.pdf).


It pointed a way to get to a 20,000 seat stadium without ANY contribution from the ticats (there was a mix of naming rights revenue, ticket surcharge, etc.) – Page 56. To get to a 25,000 seat stadium, there was a funding gap of $38-$51 million. This included a budget of $26M for site acquisition and remediation which is large completed so those costs are already sunk into the project. Also, this doesn't include the tax uplift that would occur in the surrounding region due to development and the establishment of a GO/VIA node, nor does it include the costs raised from the sale of land not needed after the games (e.g. the practice track land that is no longer needed with no track and field).

I would suggest getting staff to report back on BOTH proposals side by side so that the full costs of the Ivor Wynne proposal are considered (demolition costs, etc.).

Other considerations:

* The Deloitte business plan projected that the larger stadium would generate $4.1 million in tax revenues a year for senior governments (page 63) so this could lead to a case for additional money from senior governments (they were willing to kick in some during the CP debate).

* The Future Fund dollars were dedicated to this project based on the transformative impact of the west harbour location. Does Ivor Wynne achieve this objective?

Getting staff to report back on the detailed costs of BOTH proposals is the most responsible way forward now that location is not the issue.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Council:"show us the Money". (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:42:46

One forgotten fact of this saga is that when Mayor Fred and Council voted to proceed at the West Harbour they had no idea where they were going to find the missing $50-100 million dollars. WH requires Environmental assessments, clean up, zoning changes, sewer system work, street reconfigurations, and 10,000 seats that the Ivor Wynne site does not require.

PanAm had reduced their funding contribution to being adequate for only a 15,000 seat stadium. No one had figured out where the money was going to come from to build the missing 10,000 seats to get the stadium to 25,000 seats that the sports teams (football, soccer, whatever) using the Stadium were going to need. But the North stands at Ivor Wynne are in good shape, so all the City and Hostco have to build there are the 15,000 seats already budgeted.

The only reason Bratina is pushing building the PanAm stadium at Ivor Wynne is because he looked at the numbers and realized that it is the only option given that the City only has $115 million to work with.

I suspect despite all our frustrations with the process of this debate over the last year, council is going to vote for this because, at the end of the day, they are responsible people who understand that the only way to actually get something built is to know in advance that you have the money necessary to build it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:43:11

Really good post ROI. If the team could be sold on the WH, I think everyone here would be on board. And, (while I have my reservations about that site) the team could have a rosy future -- at least as good as what IWS could provide.

All comes back to whether there's a willing tenant unfortunately.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By slodrive (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:44:51

Addendum - Looks like I've had my first 'greyed out' post here on RTH! Well, only surprised it didn't happen sooner! Feels a bit like a badge of honour...like racking up 17 PIMs in one game!

Anyway -- thanks for your honesty. It's much respected!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:49:51

Comments with a score below -5 are hidden by default.

You can change or disable this comment score threshold by registering an RTH user account.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:50:36

Does the new IWS plan meet the Future Fund criteria (as some proposed locations don't)? Have they weighed in since EM?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 12:53:26

Excellent read ROI. That is a reasonable approach I believe.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Mando (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 13:11:45

@ By Council:"show us the Money"

Your numbers are way off..

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 13:17:13

Actually the numbers are very close. There was $105M for a 15,000 stadium and $15M for a velodrome. In order to increase the size of the stadium was estimated at $50M. Now there is $115-120M available to renovate IWS district. One would hope this includes the velodrome because the 07 estimate of an identical IWS reno was $93M

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted January 12, 2011 at 13:50:29

I have to say...the idea of a IWS revamp is probably the best I've heard so far. If that's what it's going to take to finally end this nonsense, then I'm not necessarily opposed. It is at least as good of a site as the West Harbour.

What I take great exception to is the way that the costs of such a revamp seem to have been calculated by adding what the city can offer to the Federal/Provincial/Hostco money. $115 for stadium rennovations? This town isn't made of money. We all need to make a serious decision if we're going to be spending this kind of money - are the Ti-Cats a public asset, or a private corporation? Because if they're just a private business which doesn't have to or want to "play ball" with the public, then we need to treat them as such. It wasn't that many days ago that they were promising Burlington that they, as a city, wouldn't pay a cent - well, what about us?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 14:01:03

Aldershot was a whole different kettle of fish Unindustrial with much more private investment in the site from the Paletta group in the area surrounding the stadium which the TigerCats would benefit financially from much more than an IWS stadium and there is no Paletta group for IWS.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Huh? (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 14:07:07

I Read over and over again that IWS reno would be about 20 million.

Aldershot had 30 million private investment in land. (we already own WH land). So with IWS at 115 million less 30 million is 85 million. A more than 20!

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 14:39:14

Wasn't that Sam Merulla's bare-bones approach to "upgrading" IWS? The $20 mill figure.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Win Wynne (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 14:46:11

If BY and the Tigercats want to beat lingering hostility to the IWS bid, they should find a way to get total renovation cost below $100m and put in at least $10m private money. That gets total public contribution down to $90m tops. Given ratio split of 2/3 : 1/3 for Hostco : City, that means the Pan Am host corporation puts in $58m and the City puts in $32 million. This does two things: 1) Frees up at least $12m Hostco money to invest into a more permanent Velodrome. 2) Frees up at least $12m FF money to clean Rheem. I don't see any reasonable WH supporter not accept this.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 14:58:24

The private money will have to come mainly from developers though or naming rights, whatever and I'm not sure those are there for the IW site. It's still a gamble that the site can work and with a 20 year lease, if I'm BY, I'd be edgy. Can a Grey Cup work at the IWS site?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 15:14:57

Since the 2007 study say the stadium rebuild thats being proposed would cost $93M I'm sure at least part of your hope is already accomplished Win Wynn. With talk of building a sports complex to replace Scott Park and Brian Timmis some more might be accomplished If the 3 governments are providing $115M and the Tigercats are contributing in "a significant way" what we have no clue about is how much and for what purpose. Judging by the EM proposal there very well could be some investment offer at Rheem in the form of an amphitheatre. Guess we'll have to wait for details before we canonize or cannibalize BY

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 15:37:01

I'd be interested to know what naming rights for a new IWS could bring seeing that it's not in a visibile area. Yes, will have to wait for the details. An ampitheatre at the WH could bring in some naming rights for the theatre, with this you can bring in some big name type somewhat alternative type groups like Death Cab for Cutie, Fistful of Mercy, Arcade Fire, Broken Social Scene, Interpol, Elbow, Snow Patrol etc. that would be of interest to some companies for naming rights there. An ampitheatre there could be the key in this and getting some groups that are bit off centre but very much of interest. Take a group like the Decemberists, which I love. They are playing the horrible Sound Academy venue in Toronto. Not good. A WH ampitheatre would be a great spot for them.

Comment edited by HamiltonFan on 2011-01-12 15:43:35

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By anonymous (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 15:46:40

Anyone else feel like we're being duped into footing the whole bill for a bad deal???

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/241902--developers-upbeat-about-west-harbour-stadium-site

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By JBJ (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 16:04:11

The provincial government got involved in the IWS reno for one very simple reason: politics. Hamilton has two MPPs (Sophia Aggelonitis and Ted McMeekin) that could well be in trouble getting re-elected come October. The fear was that if the Ti-Cats left town and there was no stadium, people would blame those in power. There is not another municipal election for 4 years but the provincial election is less than 10 months away.

The karma around the deal made by the two Bobs reeks. As a taxpayer in the City of Hamilton, I expect that the Ti-Cats make a substantial contribution to either renovating IWS or remediating Barton-Tiffany so that economic development can occur.

Here's hoping that Council rejects this "arrangement" and opts for the WH.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 16:12:13

Again with the 'naming rights'. Physical visibility has little to do with the value of said rights. Put a bilboard up on a highway, it's cheaper. The value is in the use of the name by the media and in pop culture.

'Naming rights value is principally related to variables reflecting the size of potential target audiences including the economic size of the host city, the facility’s capacity, the league status of the resident teams, and the diversity of the facility usage. It is also found that sponsors are prepared to pay a significant premium for virgin sites with no previous name associations.' http://ideas.repec.org/a/jsf/intjsf/v2y2...

Here is some more light reading: http://cba.unomaha.edu/faculty/mohara/we...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 16:12:32

Here's hoping council ignores any special interest group and does what the majority of Hamiltonians want. Saw the Spec polls. Love to see if Whiteheads poll matches the results.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 16:14:56

Highway signage and visibility is a very specific topic that was covered yesterday. It appears that improved highway signage is an important part of the deal. That cannot happen without the help of the province. They own the rights to signage

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 16:19:45

The Spec poll is hardly a reflection of what Hamiltonians want. It would be about as inclusive as putting a poll on RTH.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 16:58:54

JBJ wrote:

The provincial government got involved in the IWS reno for one very simple reason: politics. Hamilton has two MPPs (Sophia Aggelonitis and Ted McMeekin) that could well be in trouble getting re-elected come October

Could very well be. There sure was a lot of gushing over their's and McGuinty's names as well as the "provincial government" during the announcement, that's for sure.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 17:00:16

A little better balanced that RTH but not a scientific poll to be sure. Thats why I mentioned Whiteheads poll. If it is being done by professionals it could be revealing

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By seancb (registered) - website | Posted January 12, 2011 at 17:29:43

Whitehead's poll would be interesting if it didn't immediately eliminate anyone who uses a cellphone or IP phone instead of a landline - and if it had a way of including those who don't sit around at home all day and night waiting for their landline to ring.

Ask the bottom-of-the-barrel ward 2 candidates how well their auto-dialer campaigns worked out for them...

Comment edited by seancb on 2011-01-12 17:30:12

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By HamiltonFan (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 17:34:22

Why is it always sports? The WH is a perfect ampitheatre, let's make Hamilton different. Toronto doesn't have a nice 3000 seat indoor/outdoor ampitheatre to get some pretty neat groups. The Avett Brothers at Wh - incredible and showcase some of our own before. Hamilton is changing, it's not just bang, bang, bang music any more.

And the TigerCats? Well, it would be nice to have them here, it would add to the flavour of our "alternative" type of WH music scence connecting with James St. North and Hess. Canadian football is "alternative" in many people's minds. LOL But if no TigerCats, Hamilton will survive.

Let's be careful with WH, very careful, there is a huge opportunity there beside just a stadium, scalable or otherwise.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 21:52:55

Good news for WH scalable stadium supporters, it's still in play as back-up according to council's vote tonight. IWS re-build to be studied as main option, could be lots of issues there, many councilors are worried. Velo mentioned but lost in any voting.

Comment edited by mrjanitor on 2011-01-12 21:53:21

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 22:03:21

They voted to receive a report on the feasibility of Ivor Wynne and to create a Plan B based on a scalable stadium at the WH. Lots of work for the City Staff over the next few days.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Wentworthst (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 22:11:17

Even the radio hadn't reported at 10:00pm
http://hamilton-on.ca/2011/01/news-council-approves-study-of-ivor-wynne/

That's the break-down... It's not a full report, just the notes..

Comment edited by Wentworthst on 2011-01-12 22:14:44

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrgrande (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 22:18:11

How long does city staff have to prepare their reports?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 22:20:35

This should be easy. Establish the cost to taxpayers of a scalable stadium at the West Harbour then establish the cost to taxpayers of a renovated Ivor Wynne as proposed by the Tiger-Cats and any accompanying subsidies, sweetheart deals and management fees contained in the, as yet undisclosed, 20 year lease. If the former costs less than the latter Council has an obligation to demand that the Tiger-Cats pony up the difference just like any private business would be expected to do.

Both proposals are on publicly-owned land, both appear to get Hamilton into the Pan-American games, neither will pay taxes, so the only real difference is cost.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 22:23:24

@mrgrande

They have to submit a letter to Toronto 2015 by Jan 20th (corrections welcome) regarding the intent to potentially go for the scalable WH. They also have to get the Ivor Wynne report done ASAP because the business plan is due to Toronto 2015 by Feb 1. The Council needs a draft prior to that date. This is a VERY short timeline.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Troop? (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 22:57:13

troop will have press conference tomorrow about Hamilton.

What do we expect him to say?

1. Gotta build at WH.
2. Here is more money for IWS rebuild.
3. IWS does not qualify for pan am funds
4. we suggest 6,000 stadium with vela at WH
5. Other?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 23:05:05

OK, I won't be mean and name names...but wow there are a couple of city councillors that are thick as two short planks.... but then there are a couple of others that are very bright. So it all balances out to what we got tonight - a reasonable suggestion to study IWS and WH as a back-up. My observation is that Bratina does not seem highly-regarded by this council... and the IWS does not seem to have a great deal of support from many of the councillors. The IWS reno is not even close to being a done deal. In fact my prediction is the IWS option will not muster up enough votes in the end. My other observation is the emails and phone calls and this website are having an amazing impact. RTH was even mentioned by name and alluded to a couple of other times...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 23:06:09

@Andrea - I think we also need to submit a "marker" to the PanAm committee by January 20th signifying our intent. Didn't quite understand what was meant by that...

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 23:07:31

There was something strange from Ian Troop, a letter that is absolutely confusing in light of his MANY recent comments. Something about that if we build a small stadium we will now have to compete with Markham, and the two other cities Troop was talking about as back-ups.

Weird and disturbing, did anyone catch a better explanation of the letter than I did? It sounds to me like some last minute back-room dealing pressure tactics from the Provence, but that's just my take on it.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 23:13:31

I think the dates are to submit our IWS proposal by January 20th, with February 1st being the date for a smaller stadium submission (some fudge time should Council not agree with the reports for the January 20th submission). Monkey wrench is...we have been awarded the Pan Am Games for a 15,000+ stadium with tenant. If we switch to the smaller stadium, we will be submitting on par with competing municipalities.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By mrjanitor (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 23:24:57

Thanks goin'

Now compare that to what he said here and here

How many times have the rules changed for council and city staff, I really feel for them. That letter only came Jan. 10/11.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By PeterF (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 23:29:44

@mrjanitor, no doubt the province is in highgear doing some backroom dealing. The sense I get is Troop would go along with Hamilton Councils will, but at every turn he gets slapped down and basically contradicts his previous instructions. Imagine how quickly the city could of made a decision if all parties were upfront without the hidden agendas. Too many puppet masters behind the scenes add to it the CHML crew and you get a muddy confusing process.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 23:30:54

I'm with you on that, Brother MrJanitor, and my letters to council thanked them vehemently for their time and mental gymnastics on all this. Honestly. WTH????

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 23:42:48

Here is a link to a Hamilton Spectator article by Emma Reilly about tonight's decision by Hamilton city council to study the Ivor Wynne Pan Am stadium idea: http://www.thespec.com/news/local/articl...

And here is a link to a Globe and Mail article by Anthony Reinhart about Hamilton city council's decision: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/sports/fo...

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2011-01-12 23:47:58

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By CaptainKirk (anonymous) | Posted January 13, 2011 at 00:21:21

A post on the TiCat website shows, what claims to be the letter, but no source was given.

http://forums.ticats.ca/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=64151&start=15

If it's accurate, looks like the letter gives Hamilton the option to also submit a Plan B as well.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By tnt (registered) | Posted January 13, 2011 at 03:04:41

Shouldnt their be hard numbers coming from the Ticats and BY about the involvement that they will be doing. Also, shouldn't this project be going together with the LRT? How much land is available for BY in the area? An MLS search shows nothing for sale. Does the city expropriate land and just give it away to private companies to develop as they see fit?

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 13, 2011 at 07:52:39

CH has been reporting that the staff reports are due to the Councillors by Jan 24th (to give them time to review before the deadline).

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By hammy (registered) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 18:43:16

TNT, the city isn't giving anything away to the cats. The city will hold the lease, meaning they own the land. Anything built on these lands will have the cities approval.

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
[ - ]

By told you so (anonymous) | Posted January 15, 2011 at 19:04:45

You are wasting your breath. RTH contributors are convince that Bob Young will be the new owner of the Pan Am Stadium. They are also convinced that he cashes a cheque for $1.3M for his own personal bank account each and every year

Reply | Permalink | Context

You must be logged in to vote on this comment.
View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

Comment Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you multiply 5 and 1?
Leave This Field Blank
Comment

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds