Comic

Editorial Cartoon: Come on Seven!

A cartoon inspired by Mayor Bratina's comment regarding taking a gamble on the Ivor Wynne stadium funding.

By David Brace
Published January 25, 2011

'Come on Seven!' (Click image to view larger)
"Come on Seven!"

This cartoon was inspired by a comment that Mayor Bratina made to Emma Reilly in the Hamilton Spectator regarding taking a gamble on stadium funding:

[Bratina] added that he isn't concerned about taking a gamble on whether the province would ease the funding gap.

"I took a risk in running for Mayor, and I won. You have to do that. Life is full of risks."

David Brace is an artist who lives and works in Hamilton.

49 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 22:45:15

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 22:56:24

No it's not, it's only insulting to you.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 22:56:58

Well you should be OK with it then.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 22:57:16

What people don't seem to understand is that there would have been a funding gap no matter where they put the stadium, due to the fact that IO overestimates the cost to account for possible overruns. Even at precious WH, there would be a funding gap for this very reason.

The question: If this was WH we were talking about, and council and mayor were risking everything by asking for more money, would this cartoon had been drawn? And if it had, would RTH have displayed it on their site?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:15:01

What people don't seem to understand is that there would have been a funding gap no matter where they put the stadium

There would only be a funding gap in a stadium big enough for the Ticats.

A 6,000 seat community stadium at the West Harbour meets the Toronto 2015 mandate, is affordable today with the $115 million on the table, and will earn the city millions in new property tax by remediating the Rheem site and unlocking its neighbours for reinvestment. Several developers including Molinari Group are interested in the West Harbour, but the current soil contamination on Barton-Tiffany elevates the risk too high for those developers to invest.

The intention from the City, from Toronto 2015, and even from the Ticats has always been that the cost to expand the stadium beyond what $115 million in public money can buy must come from the private sector - the Ticats, their partners and sponsors.

The Ticats have not stepped up with significant additional funding at any of the proposed Hamilton sites.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-01-25 23:22:20

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:21:14

The Ticats have not stepped up with significant additional funding at any of the proposed sites.

Yes, and to be honest, Ryan, it does bother me that Bob Young has not offered any capital funding toward the IWS site (and I'm serious).

Comment edited by mb on 2011-01-25 23:22:33

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ryan (registered) - website | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:25:50

it does bother me

I believe you.

The 'RTH hates the Ticats' meme has been floating around lately, but I - and I expect most RTH contributors - really don't hate the Ticats - or their owner. We just don't like getting screwed over.

I'm happy to meet the Ticats halfway on a stadium that fulfills the Future Fund and Pan Am mandates while providing an opportunity for the team to be economically sustainable.

What I'm not happy with is the plan to meet them all the way on a stadium that fulfills none of the public objectives and requires no contribution from the team.

Comment edited by administrator Ryan on 2011-01-25 23:26:55

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:29:51

WH is the responible way to go.

No funding gap.

Does so much more for the city.

IWS does nothing other than give the Tiger-Cats a shinier place in which to lose more money along with the city. Really, what's the point?

It's been established long ago that IWS is a poor choice for a stadium location today.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:30:25

really don't hate the Ticats - or their owner

I've been a Cat fan my entire life!
But one can only take so much. I love my city more than one person or team. I used to sing the praises of Bob Young to anyone who would listen, but I worry about what kind of permanent damage he has done to his fanbase during this ordeal. He's certainly damaged my view of him and the team.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:33:20

The 'RTH hates the Ticats' meme has been floating around lately, but I really don't hate the Ticats - or their owner. I'm happy to meet them halfway on a stadium that fulfills the Future Fund and Pan Am mandates while providing an opportunity for the team to be economically sustainable.

What I'm not happy with is the plan to meet them all the way on a stadium that fulfills none of the public objectives and requires no contribution from the team.

Fair enough, Ryan.
I know you've heard it before and you're probably sick of hearing it, but you must remember that Bob Young is a businessman, and like all businessmen, he will try and get the most for the least. It's just doing business. It doesn't make it right, and even I don't necessarily like it (please see my comment above). While I disagree with the pro-WH viewpoint of the majority of this site, I do have to admit that Bob has played very rough with the city here.

The question is: If council is stupid enough to buy into it, then why fault Bob?

but I worry about what kind of permanent damage he has done to his fanbase during this ordeal.

If we can survive the ownership of Harold Ballard, we can survive the ownership of Bob Young. Seriously, though, people can support a team, without liking the owner (see: Ballard, Pocklington, Jerry Jones, Bill Wirtz, etc...). My gut tells me that attendance may suffer a little for a couple of years (but at 15,000 seat Ron Joyce Stadium, you'll hardly notice), but eventually people will make their way back. People have short memories. The diehards (like me) will remain faithful to the team forever.

Comment edited by mb on 2011-01-25 23:38:06

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 08, 2011 at 18:08:47 in reply to Comment 58041

Quoting: "I know you've heard it before and you're probably sick of hearing it, but you must remember that Bob Young is a businessman, and like all businessmen, he will try and get the most for the least. It's just doing business. It doesn't make it right, and even I don't necessarily like it (please see my comment above). While I disagree with the pro-WH viewpoint of the majority of this site, I do have to admit that Bob has played very rough with the city here.

The question is: If council is stupid enough to buy into it, then why fault Bob?"
********************************

Because "Council" isn't paying directly out of it's Own pocket, it's paying out of Our collective pockets, & it's not asking "May I ?" beforehand!

"Never give a sucker an even break." "There's one born every minute." ect. No fault found there, eh?

So you admit that, "Bob has played very rough with the City." (That would be the City that supports his team in more ways than just team $pirit.)
Biting the hand that feeds you comes to mind.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:37:59

I've been a Cat fan my entire life! But one can only take so much. I love my city more than one person or team. I used to sing the praises of Bob Young to anyone who would listen, but I worry about what kind of permanent damage he has done to his fanbase during this ordeal. He's certainly damaged my view of him and the team.

Me too, exaclty!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:38:28

If council is stupid enough to buy into it, then why fault Bob?

Exactly. There is suddenly no leadership on council. Young must be loving this.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:40:26

If we can survive the ownership of Harold Ballard, we can survive the ownership of Bob Young.

LOL. So true! Never thought of that.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 08, 2011 at 18:15:35 in reply to Comment 58044

Or... how about..
Just cuz we 'survived Harold Ballard' doesn't that make us Extra Special Stoopid to put up with this, both from Young & our elected officials?

There is a prize for winning 'Survivor'. There is no prize for this! Except maybe higher taxes, & the Blind Sheep Award!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:42:27

Harold Ballard wouldn't have even been this patient. He would have moved the team to Quebec City back in June if he were owner in all this.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:47:07

Harold Ballard wouldn't have to be this patient. He would have moved the team to West Harbour back in February if he were owner in all this.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mb (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:50:35

Harold Ballard wouldn't have to be this patient. He would have moved the team to West Harbour back in February if he were owner in all this.

While I don't like WH, you're probably right. But I was speaking hypothetically. If Pal Hal didn't get his way 'the team was going to London'. It became a yearly tradition! I remember the fan barricade outside IWS to prevent a midnight move (like the Baltimore Colts move to Indianapolis).

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By sbwoodside (registered) - website | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:56:16

Bob Young is a businessman, and like all businessmen, he will try and get the most for the least

Right. In business it always comes down to the bottom line. Bob Young can piss of 99% of the people in Hamilton, but if he gets a great deal for the team by doing that, then he still wins.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 25, 2011 at 23:59:03

The government of Ontario will help Hamilton bridge a funding gap when it comes to rebuilding Ivor Wynne Stadium, but it will not break the bank to make the project work.

“We’re at the negotiating table, but it’s important to be realistic about our expectations,” said Sophia Aggelonitis, MPP for Hamilton Mountain and a member of Premier Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet. “We want to make sure we are successful, but there isn’t a blank cheque available.”

Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/sports/Queen...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevin (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 00:11:33

If he is businessman, why doesn’t he act like one and dress like one? At the press conference, he was wearing a Ti-cats hat and a Ti-cat jersey over his shirt and tie. He was yucking it up and carrying on like he’s never had more fun. He made tastelessly offensive jokes as though this mess were a huge joke he had nothing to do with.

Perhaps he is getting bad advice, as his apologists reiterate, but he takes it. No better than Henry Ford with Harry Bennett, he pays a dim, sycophantic bully to gleefully do his dirty work, so he can play the innocent card his whole life.

The cheeky, precocious, little boy shtick may have been cute and effective 50 years ago, but it ain’t anymore. It’s offensive.

Comment edited by kevin on 2011-01-26 00:20:01

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By say what (anonymous) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 00:20:31

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevin (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 00:34:35

It's not 'its,' it's 'it's.' How old are you? Are you incapable of learning?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By say what (anonymous) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 00:41:34

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By hammy (anonymous) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 00:47:37

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.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 08, 2011 at 18:20:39 in reply to Comment 58059

You mean like spoiled children who threaten to "run away from home to Moncton?"

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By kevin (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 00:51:02

There should be a question mark after 'YOU.' 'grammar police?' is an incomplete thought, which is to be expected.

Seriously, calm down. I'm just amusing myself by trolling.

You know how fun it is.

Comment edited by kevin on 2011-01-26 00:54:58

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert B. (anonymous) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 01:26:08

I just read Clark's new blog where he addresses Infrastructure Ontario. It looks like Bobby and Floyd are over playing their cards or just making things up.

McGuinty is likely thrilled with I.O. since he created it and their client surveys SAY that 85% of clients are pleased I.O. came in under budget and on time. As for their estimates, they RFQ and RFP the projects. They have $30 billion worth of significant capital projects built or underway 2005 to 2010.

SO, who would you believe I.O. or two politicians complaining about numbers that have clearly embarassed them. I was there when they first discussed IW. I remember Clark questioning Murray about the estimates. Clark said the estimates could go as high as $150 million and he asked Murray to comment. Murray declined.

Let's face it Bobby gives us a history lesson when he is unprepared and Floyd always cites his 30 years of construction experience wherever he is blowing smoke. City Hall under budget when? the approved budget was $48 million and it was built for $73 million. I guess you can always spend more to get it ahead of schedule.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By brian (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 05:08:23

This has probably been mentioned before but he looks a little bit like the Amazing Kreskin so maybe he already knows what is going to happen.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 08, 2011 at 18:25:19 in reply to Comment 58073

IMHO, he knew at least a year ago, with a few minor glitches taken into consideration here & there.

He was Always going to get what he wanted, or something like what he wanted. You can take that to the bank, or rather -
He can take that to the bank.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Andrea (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 07:51:20

You never know, there is one more council meeting...we seem to have developed a habit of coming up with solutions the evening before. (tongue firmly in cheek). I have written a detailed plan on the back of my used napkin and it entails selling Ivor Wynne to the 'Cats for a buck and letting them rebuild Ivor Wynne with their corporate sponsors and the City of Hamilton keeping the Future Fund in tact for some city building initiatives.

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 08, 2011 at 18:26:44 in reply to Comment 58083

The Best Idea Ever, Andrea!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jonathan dalton (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 08:33:37

People seem to forget a couple key facts regarding stadium funding.

  1. The funding was for a 15,000 seat stadium. Any additional capacity for CFL use would have to be covered by the Ticats and / or private sector. None of this additional funding has materialized. Why then do we expect a CFL sized stadium?

  2. Cost overruns were to be covered by the provincial government. Anybody remember that? People were skeptical of this when it was announced. Well, it seems they've jacked their estimates to avoid any overruns, essentially pinning them on the municipality.

I'm not surprised at the lastest figures but make no mistake, the city is getting hosed.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realfreeenterpriser (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 10:55:32

"The question is: If council is stupid enough to buy into it, then why fault Bob?"

This buys into the mostly American, social darwinist, strictly business, approach that "if you can get away with it, it's alright". It isn't! It's immoral or, at best, unethical.

The City went through a lengthy process to choose a site, voted on it 7 times without a peep from the Tiger-Cats and then Young pulled the rug from under us when the city he claims to love was at its most vulnerable simply to extract more money from taxpayers. That's the ONLY reason we're here. Not access, not parking, not visibilty, all of which are worse at both IWS and IWS2.

If a tow truck driver jacked his prices up and up while you were stranded at the side of the highway to extract more money from you, would you fault him? Of course you would. But isn't that just business?

If you want to be an apologist for Bob Young on the basis that he's just a businessman doing business, then carry through on your principle and demand that the Tiger-Cats pay rent that reflects the full capital and operating cost of the facility wherever it might be without subsidized concessions, HSR and police. That's business too.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 11:23:08

The funding was for a 15,000 seat stadium. Any additional capacity for CFL use would have to be covered by the Ticats and / or private sector. None of this additional funding has materialized. Why then do we expect a CFL sized stadium?

Actually, that ship has sailed. All we are being offered now is a 6,000 seat soccer stadium. The original 15,000 seater was when we were supposed to host track and field.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted January 26, 2011 at 11:34:49

As in all other aspects of life, there are fair-minded people and jerks. Business is no different.

It is not the imperative of all those in business to squeeze the most money out of any sucker willing to pay the price. Some do it, for sure. Lots don't. Admittedly, stereotypes come from somewhere, but they're still stereotypes.

Although now retired, I can say honestly I can look myself in the mirror knowing I played the business game fairly. This notion that Bob is a businessperson, so of course it's understandable he would try to squeeze as much money out of taxpayers as possible, is inaccurate. You may conclude that BY is trying to squeeze as much as possible out of the deal, but if he's doing so, it's not simply because he's a businessperson, it's because he's misguided and/or greedy. They are not the same. Just sometimes.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 12:48:02

Okay, first, I may need to preface each and every comment I make on this issue with “I am a Tiger Cat fan. I want the Tiger Cats to continue to be a part of Hamilton for decades to come.” There.

Ballard wore his bastard personality on his sleeve; Bob Young now appears to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yuck.

In retrospect (doh!) I wish even Eisenberger had have just ignored the Ticats displeasure with the WH for a football stadium,and said “okay, well, we asked” and just gone ahead with a small stadium at the WH. Then dealt with the Ticats separately from the Pan Am Games issues. Could still have kept negotiating with them including leveling Brian Timmis once WH was built. Moot now, of course. This whole IWS stadium reno is just getting so absurd. Bad location, period - history, emotions and game enjoyment aside. Everyone has known that for ages. Just because your gravel driveway doesn’t look like Ancaster’s custom cobble-stoned circular driveways, doesn’t mean you don’t park in it. Yet here we go investing LARGE in a bad location. And once it’s renovated all around, it’s not even Ivor Wynne Stadium anymore (no disrespect to Ivor Wynne himself)! I’ve lost the point. It’ll be an old, prettied-up stadium in a location unprofitable to a CFL team. As for not costing the taxpayers anything, to my understanding, if you pay a hydro bill in Hamilton, you’re footing the Future Fund. Utterly absurd.

As for the National Post article, “If the numbers do not add up by that time, the facility will be moved to Mississauga or Brampton and built on a smaller scale. “ ??? McHattie confirmed yesterday in an email that we will be in competition with other municipalities for a smaller stadium. Not out of the running.

Aggelonitis is quoted as saying ““The city, federal government, Tiger-Cats and the provincial government are all in this together.” Tiger-Cats are “in this” Pan Am negotiation?

And why in the hell do we even have an Infrastructure Ontario? What kind of monopolistic, politico-financial back-scratching is that?

The Spec’s editorial cartoon from yesterday featuring Bob Young: http://www.mackaycartoons.net/2011/huh20...

My head is exploding.

p.s. Andrea for Mayor.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By MattM (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 13:48:10

In retrospect (doh!) I wish even Eisenberger had have just ignored the Ticats displeasure with the WH for a football stadium,and said “okay, well, we asked” and just gone ahead with a small stadium at the WH. Then dealt with the Ticats separately from the Pan Am Games issues. Could still have kept negotiating with them including leveling Brian Timmis once WH was built. Moot now, of course.

Problem is though, Fred DID try to do just that. It's council that let him down and flip flopped. And that routine has just carried on, even now.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Zephyr (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 15:13:25

Apropos quote from author Paulo Coelho's Facebook page today:

“This desire to get something for nothing,” she said, “has been very costly" (Aleph)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Big V (anonymous) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 15:53:35

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.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By George (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 16:56:25

@ Big V

1) I am not RTH

2) Toronto 2015's criteria as explained by Ian Troop clearly identifies a 5-6,000 seat stadium as not being a white elephant by virtue of it's size.

Its mandate is to ensure a no white elephant scenario, and they further explained that such a facility is manageable within the normal operating budget of a municipality.

Not such a stupid idea after all when you consider such things are clearly covered by Toronto 2015's manadate.

Comment edited by George on 2011-01-26 17:35:58

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By whitehorse (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 17:35:17

By George (registered) Posted January 25, 2011 23:29:51

WH is the responsible way to go.

No funding gap.

Does so much more for the city.

IWS does nothing other than give the Tiger-Cats a shinier place in which to lose more money along with the city. Really, what's the point?

It's been established long ago that IWS is a poor choice for a stadium location today.


Well said George! I totally agree!

The only thing I do not understand is WHY OUR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILORS DO NOT SEE WHAT WE SEE and still let the Cats take advantage of our taxpayer monies???

Comment edited by whitehorse on 2011-01-26 17:36:39

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 08, 2011 at 18:39:16 in reply to Comment 58214



The only thing I do not understand is WHY OUR MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILORS DO NOT SEE WHAT WE SEE and still let the Cats take advantage of our taxpayer monies???
**********************************

Because it Not Their Actual Hard Earned Money?
Because they can?
Because we let them?
Because they insist on seeing the name 'Ti Cats' as interchangeable with the City?
Because they are afraid of the fans that can't see that the Ti Cats are NOT Hamilton? (a minority)
Because we have a tradition in both Hamilton & Canada of not saying, "****!" if we had a mouthful?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By GrapeApe (registered) | Posted January 26, 2011 at 23:30:41

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ORiTV (anonymous) | Posted January 27, 2011 at 16:35:45

So while the Tiger-Cats may have no choice but to look elsewhere if a stadium site that suits all parties cannot be found, Jeff Hunt says Ottawa is not an option. “This isn’t the first time this has come up,” Hunt said Thursday. “We are not a candidate. We will stick with our expansion franchise. “I hope they will find a way to make it work in Hamilton. It would be a shame to see them move, but we are committed to our expansion franchise.” Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/sports/Ticats moving Ottawa/4020810/story.html#ixzz1CGg9wSp1

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By adam2 (anonymous) | Posted January 30, 2011 at 12:02:27

The mayor's comment is egotistical. Taking a risk in the mayoral race was a personal risk. Taking a risk on the funding for a city of over 1/2 a million is completely different. Losing sight of the role of a public servant is irresponsible.

Permalink | Context

By drb (registered) - website | Posted January 30, 2011 at 12:50:51 in reply to Comment 58764

Thanks for commenting on the subject of the cartoon. It only took 40 comments to get on topic. ;)

Permalink | Context

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted September 08, 2011 at 18:42:07 in reply to Comment 58768

"Dee-tales, dee-tales". ( The Malibou Rum weather man)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By closure (anonymous) | Posted January 30, 2011 at 16:03:37

Apparently Ted McMeekin and Sophie Aggelonitis will be announcing at 5PM today that Bob has rolled a seven. Not a big surprise seeing as the dice were weighted to land that way.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds