Special Report: Pan Am

Troop on Velodrome Risks and Opportunities, Stadium Costs

Toronto 2015 CEO Ian Troop spoke to RTH today on the phone to discuss the Pan Am velodrome, the stadium, and the decision facing Hamilton City Council.

By Ryan McGreal
Published August 30, 2011

Ian Troop, CEO of Toronto 2015, was in Hamilton to talk to Councillors about the Pan Am Velodrome proposal at yesterday's General Issues Committee (GIC) meeting.

Mr. Troop spoke to RTH today on the phone to discuss the velodrome, the stadium, and the decision facing Hamilton City Council.

Toward a Velodrome Proposal

City staff and TO2015 staff have been in ongoing discussions over the proposed velodrome. "It's important to realize about this project that from its conception, we've been working on whether we can reach something more significant than what went into the bid book."

He added that the original bid "put money aside for a structure with a flexible roof that was driven by our work with a supplier" who went bankrupt in 2009. Since then, no alternative business has been able to match the price for that material.

Working together, city and TO2015 staff considered a number of potential velodrome locations before deciding Mohawk had promise. "The appeal of a partner is sharing capital costs and having a partner with a need to program on the infield", or the space inside the cycling track. "You can put three basketball courts in the infield, making it an important part of robust planning" for its legacy use.

"Mohawk stepped up, saying they believe their infrastructure needs to be updated for students. They have a mutual interest in the velodrome."

According to Troop, Mohawk came up as a serious site consideration in late spring, during the April-May-June period.

Deadline

Troop said the September 15 deadline for Hamilton to present a Velodrome proposal is "the first moment where we've established a date we need to hit," as TO015 manages the "bundle" of capital projects that includes the athletic stadium at York University.

Until now, there has been no firm deadline, and the prior deadlines "were trying to manage our workflow with regards to other projects and making sure the details and functional programming work was being done and making progress on the Velodrome."

TO2015's top priority is to ensure that the capital projects are completed and "delivered on time and on budget".

Troop has long been a big proponent of the Velodrome as a great opportunity for Hamilton to achieve an important legacy facility for high performance amateur sport. "We see the legacy benefit of a velodrome to serve the needs of athletes for years to come and a shot in the arm for sport in Hamilton." He pointed to the "impact of the velodrome in England" as an indicator of how it could benefit Hamilton.

He argued, "You need the facilities if you want to develop kids into athletes. It's hard to think your kid will grow up to be a piano player if you don't have a piano."

Capital and Operating Costs

Asked whether the Province and TO2015 can do more financially to support a higher-cost permanent velodrome, he noted that TO2015 has "prioritized and looked at our capital projects to generate $25 million toward a permanent velodrome. We've stepped up with our 56% of the capital cost."

However, given the budget and the current economic climate, he does "not see any extra money coming. We need to look for self-sufficient solutions to make this a reality."

As for Hamilton's 44% contribution, "Now we're at the point where we understand what the velodrome should be, does our partner have the 44% or not? I understand it's not an easy discussion."

On the operating side, the City report to councillors on the velodrome states that a capital commitment from the City would be conditional on an annual $500,000 operating fund from the Pan Am Legacy Fund.

Asked about this, Troop said, "I understand the motivation from staff, but that's not practical." As one of the Pan Am legacy facilities, the velodrome would receive its "fair share" of annual interest on the $70 million Pan Am Legacy Fund, but there is no way to guarantee how much that would be.

The Fund will be managed by an independent board of trustees who will allocate the interest on the $70 million fund to the Pan Am legacy facilities, including the velodrome, the York University stadium and Ivor Wynne stadium.

Troop added, "Interest rates change from year to year. There's a big difference between 2% of $70 million and 3% of $70 million. None of us can make a guaranteed statement around a number."

Benefits

The velodrome proposal has tangible synergies for Mohawk College next to their sports facility. However, they're only contributing $2 million toward the total capital cost, of which some will go to a shared parking facility.

Asked what benefits the partnership has for Hamilton, Troop responded, "It's important to remember they're providing the property as well" as some funding. While staff are "not clear yet on the parking need and what the right solution will be, we've said there's a lease opportunity to require parking without capital expenditure."

He added, "Capital is one side, land is another, and the ability to collaborate on a business plan is another." A good partner is "a partner who will use that facility." Troop proposes that we have a good chance of achieving "a facility where the track and the infield are being used and our problem is how to schedule all the demand. That's a wonderful place to be, and Mohawk is a great partner to help us see that future."

On the capital side, the planners have already worked hard on the "mechanics of affordability: you make sure you build a building that is cost effective. We have come up with a high-utility, utilitarian velodrome and driven cost on capital as low as possible."

On the operating side, "you've got to have users prepared to use the facility," Troop added. "The National Cycling Association is prepared to move their training centre from Carson to Hamilton. Mohawk will use the infield to host basketball courts and other multi-purpose intramural sports facilities."

Using the velodromes at Carson, California and Glasgow, Scotland as models, there are strong opportunities "to think about users and revenue streams. It gets about as positive as it can be in terms of an affordable cost platform with facilities that are used in a way with people willing to pay for it to get revenue streams."

With the addition of "international events and things over and above daily operation - and we need to do more homework to understand what that means - we could also be looking at three or four regional, national, international cycling events a year." That provides benefits from "sports tourism and other local business impacts, though again we need to define that better."

He acknowledged that Hamilton Councillors "challenged us to provide better perspective on what that means."

Council Concerns

Between now and the next GIC meeting, scheduled for September 13 at 9:30 AM to continue the discussion over the Velodrome proposal, city and TO2015 staff will have to provide some more details on how to close the funding gap for the capital cost and what we can expect in terms of operating costs and revenues.

Ultimately, however, the decision will have "a certain element of a leap of faith. [Mohawk President Rob] MacIsaac said, 'we will embark on a philanthropy plan' to generate more capital, but there won't be any checks ready by the end of the month."

The question for council is: "given everything we're trying to manage, will this fit? Do we want to support it? Are we willing to bet on this? How big of a risk are we willing to take?"

TO2015 can provide more information and perspective about long term benefits to the community, to business, to the image of Hamilton, but "at the end of the day, Council has to decide: what does this look like and are we prepared to support it?"

Under the current velodrome proposal, the City is responsible to cover 44% of the total cost. That City contribution includes $5 million from the Future Fund, an additional $5 million from some other source (the staff proposal suggests debenture financing), $2 million from Mohawk, and a balance of between $8 million and $12.5 million that will have to be funded from other sources, including fundraising and sale of naming rights.

The city would be responsible to cover any shortfall in funding to meet 44% of the total cost.

Asked if TO2015 has a Plan B in case the City takes a pass, Troop replied, "I don't want to open that up and consider it at this point. We have had a great partnership with the city, and our priority is to get council to get a full set of facts and make a decision. We'll cross that bridge if we have to, but this is a positive thing, an opportunity. Let's embrace the opportunity and make a quality decision."

The velodrome "will drive events internationally, will help the city's image, helps the college, a major institution, and will help both high performance athletes and the general community as well. We see this as a positive thing and are hopeful that as we sort through all the issues, that a positive decision for Hamilton is made.

Troop noted that the current capital cost estimate for the velodrome is an "upset number" - a high-end, worst-case estimate - and that "the current climate for bids is very good" because there is not a lot of international demand for capital sports facilities. "We're getting lots of interest from builders internationally."

The $45 million velodrome price may end up being high. "There's a chance that the costs could come in lower at the market" through a competitive bidding process.

Stadium Cost

Troop believes the final velodrome cost will be lower than the upset number because the cost to rebuild Ivor Wynne Stadium is also coming down. It came to light in an update from City Manager Chris Murray posted on Friday to the city website that the current plan is to completely rebuild IWS, instead of rebuilding the South Stands and refurbishing the North Stands.

By to the current cost estimate, the entire stadium can be rebuilt for the same capital funding that was confirmed at the end of January.

The update from Murray notes, "In the Spring of 2011 staff learned that the grade on the upper tier of the North Stands is such that it cannot accommodate seats with backs."

According to Troop, "The City came to us with a proposal in May-June saying we need to look beyond refurbishment of the North Stands. We took that away and looked at the cost: can we afford it within the funding envelope? We looked at net effect - is it cheaper to take down and build back up or to refurbish? We came back and said we think we we can fit this within the initial funding envelope. It seems like it's a better solution for the same money."

He added, "This is a positive story for Hamilton. You would hope that we, the city, IO [Infrastructure Ontario, which is managing the capital projects for the Pan Am Games], get the best possible value for money."

For some councillors, the higher cost to build new was a deciding factor in choosing a partial rebuild at Ivor Wynne rather than a full build at the West Harbour.

Asked why the earlier estimate was so far off the latest estimate, Troop replied, "I don't think it's so far off. The estimate was based on the knowledge we had at the time. You try to set up estimates where you won't have to go back and ask for more money. The estimate has got some contingencies, and as we move forward, we hope we can tighten it up."

He added that the plan can change as it comes into focus. "It's part of the process of getting a better definition of the true cost of what you're doing and being flexible enough to say, can we do this, and being open to that dialogue."

He noted, "There was lots of discussion in January about the number being way off, too high, comments to that effect. But as we get in, we can tighten up the number decide that we have enough to take down the north stands."

Another factor in making IWS more affordable is that it entails "building on a known quantity. With fewer complications, it's easier to fit the project into the budget. It also helps to have a tenant who is happy" with the location.

Asked whether he knew how much it will cost to relocate the Hamilton Tiger-Cats during the stadium construction or who will cover that cost, Troop replied, "No I don't. That typically is not something that is our responsibility. I don't know what they're going to do, but one of the things we're looking at is the amount of time they have to play at another location."

Troop said it would be a nonstarter to reconsider the location of the stadium given that it will be a full rebuild. "There's no possible way that you could look at that, and I don't want to be within ten feet of opening that discussion."

Ryan McGreal, the editor of Raise the Hammer, lives in Hamilton with his family and works as a programmer, writer and consultant. Ryan volunteers with Hamilton Light Rail, a citizen group dedicated to bringing light rail transit to Hamilton. Ryan writes a city affairs column in Hamilton Magazine, and several of his articles have been published in the Hamilton Spectator. He also maintains a personal website and has been known to post passing thoughts on Twitter @RyanMcGreal. Recently, he took the plunge and finally joined Facebook.

20 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By thehound (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 12:50:48

Ten feet or a thousand feet, the location is wrong as it stands. The West Harbour is where it needs to go.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Art Brut (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 13:01:12

Toward the end of a pseudo-transparent "community engagement" event at the AGH in May 2010, David Adames proclaimed that this was going to be at least a LEED Silver facility.

That ambition seemed to slip quietly away over the intervening months and almost seems to have been just another of those "words feel good in my mouth so I may as well just say them in a microphone" moments that has typified official conduct around the Pan Am file. I was almost convinced that I had misheard the comment until I reviewed the meeting's notes:

"Emphasize green technology in all Games construction ... all new construction will be at least LEED Silver (stadium looking at geothermal heating and cooling, reducing carbon footprint)"

http://www.hamilton.ca/NR/rdonlyres/EAE14D90-DECB-41B8-89D3-98AC3EBEF0B2/0/PanAm2015CommunityConsultationNotesFINALMay202010.pdf

(There are some velodrome notes in there as well: "Velodrome is actually more important than the stadium: highest dollar‐to‐outcome infrastructure element of the Games," for example.)

All the same, I don't anticipate this stadium becoming a jewel of sustainable design, accredited or otherwise. I mean, they were still talking about 25,000‐30,000 permanent seats at that point.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Saramom (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 13:01:30

Ryan, great job with this interview.

I am a daily cyclist, but the more I learn about the Velodrome, the more I think Council should vote against it. The timeley report from the Conference Board of Canada report yesterday about public $ for sports facilities asks very important questions about opportunity cost: sure there will be potential tourism and other benefits from a velodrome - but put that same $ into another project might give even greater benefits. I think it's too much money from the already over tapped Future Fund. Imagine all this money going to cycling infrastructure that Hamiltonians could actually use everyday instead of just one that will mainly be used by elite athletes? That would really transform the city and have enormous social and economic benefits!

I'm willing to be swayed, so I'll be interested in comments from others. But in general this issue is reminding me to why I was against Hamilton's bid for the 2015 Pan Am games in the first place. I'm also originally from Montreal and we used to have a velodrom from the '76 Olympic Games, but it required to much subsity they took out the track and now use the building for an eco-museum.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2011 at 13:51:03

I'm also originally from Montreal and we used to have a velodrom from the '76 Olympic Games, but it required to much subsity they took out the track and now use the building for an eco-museum.

Not only that, but it wasn't a standard-sized track, due to bad planning. So it wasn't really worth keeping in terms of international standards. (Exceptions were made for the Olympics.) This was all explained by a gentleman speaker at the conclusion of yesterday's GIC meeting.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Bobby1 (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 13:51:17

Funny how one of the oldest concepts in the world keeps getting repeated! The concept "are you selling or are you buying?" Ian Troop is obviously a seller,he needs venues to put on Pan Am Games. Nothing wrong with that,but, you have to take his justifications with a grain of salt! He will highlight what he thinks are the upsides and avoid the downsides as much as possible! Some of the downsides are the risk of much more financial liabilities for the City, totally uncommitted legacy maintenance costs (Ian Troop says they can't guarantee an amount),City wants $500,000/year committment! There is only one other facility in North America like this which is in Californa! Why? I believe it's because it's an Elite, high cost (cycles used are worth thousands)low participation, low interest sport. The facility being supported by the public,will not have access to the facilities! It will be high end clubs,professionals and Mowhawk students only! Future Fund money should be used to enhance the Future of large groups of Hamilton's citizens,this facility will benefit only a few! Lastly, City Staff second proposal is not to participate in a Veldrome facility,this proposal has not been generally communicated! It should be a serious consideration
As an aside,Ian said he doesn't want to revisit a site change even though the Stadium is now a total rebuild! Other sites were discarded due to SUPPOSELY lower rebuild costs at IW. Were the estimates artificially so high as to drive the decision to remain at IW Site? Recent information,kept secret for many months makes the whole Pan Am issue questionable! Any that is a comment from a buyer!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Dagbunga (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 13:55:25

Troop...sounds like another politician to me....glad his name isn't Truth....

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2011 at 13:57:23

Future Fund money should be used to enhance the Future of large groups of Hamilton's citizens,this facility will benefit only a few!

From another 'buyer': Then I'm against the Future Fund money being used to renovate/gut & rebuild IWS.

The notion of any 'games'...PanAm, Commmonwealth, Olympic in terms of building facilities to me should be about enhancing what's extant.

In other words, providing facilities that are not currently present.

But in Hamilton's case, this notion got hijacked by a professional team. This should never have happened.

Looking back, given everything that's happened, I would have preferred it if Hamilton had gone after the velodrome and left the stadium to another community. As it stands now, it appears as if we're going to have botched everything we've tried our hands at.

The real question is whether we'll have learned anything.

(And as for the paucity of velodromes in North America...maybe there's a parallel that can be made with indoor speed-skating rinks and other such esoteric facilities. I'll send a note to Ryan about obtaining the gentleman's presentation yesterday.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By rednic (registered) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 14:45:08

from the article ...

Asked what benefits the partnership has for Hamilton, Troop responded, "It's important to remember they're providing the property as well" as some funding. While staff are "not clear yet on the parking need and what the right solution will be, we've said there's a lease opportunity to require parking without capital expenditure."

Didn't the taxpayers already buy some property for this ? Wasn't it designated as the favored location ?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By H+H (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2011 at 16:03:08

I too was at the GIC meeting yesterday. I do not believe the gift of land has been decided at all, despite what Mr. Troop said to Ryan. Rob MacIsaac and Diane LaPointe-Kay said that this detail had not yet been negotiated.

As for the velodrome, based on everything I heard yesterday, I say we take a pass. This whole Pan Am process has been a disgrace. The synergies are for Mohawk, not for Hamilton. I get the point about elite class athletes coming to Hamilton to train, but so what? Brenda Johnson confirmed yesterday that there is no current plan to have the Mohawk facilities open to the public. Yes, Mr. MacIsaac did not outfight say no, but I watched him squirm when he answered and offered what appeared to me to be a very weak yes, we would think about it.

The critical mass of having a sports centre that was to include a stadium, velodrome and pool has not happened. Hamilton has already screwed this up nationally, so I'm prepared to be further embarrassed by pulling out now.

Save the money. Speaking of which, people, including Councillors and the Mayor, are talking about this stadium decision as a free gift to Hamilton. "Won't cost us any additional money." Where did people learn about finance? From Sesame Street. If something that you had decided to do can be done for $10 million less than budgeted, then you just saved $10 million! It's real money. It can go back where it belongs, to the Future Fund. This juvenile notion that "it's found money" is silly.

Permalink | Context

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2011 at 16:18:07 in reply to Comment 68711

I get the point about elite class athletes coming to Hamilton to train, but so what?

Graham, I respectfully disagree.

I don't think it's necessary...or even a good thing...to have the requirement that 'this is open to everyone'. What if you were building an equestrian facility? Or an Olympic-grade pool? There are requirements for these facilities (and many other examples) that effectively preclude use by 'the general public'.

To quote a very wise man, 'So what?'

: )

I don't believe the Mohawk location is a good choice for us. (In monetary terms, the students of the college are putting up $2million for the velodrome...but it's costing us and estimated $3million just to 'relocate the parking lost when the velodrome is built'. Huh...?)

This item cries out to be built at West Harbour. It should be a premier, unique facility that is not a tag-on to someone else's needs, that isn't compromised in a panic situation, that allows other opportunities to be built around it.

Otherwise yes, it should be passed on.

Permalink | Context

By Vod_Kann (registered) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 17:50:19 in reply to Comment 68714

"I don't think it's necessary...or even a good thing...to have the requirement that 'this is open to everyone'. What if you were building an equestrian facility? Or an Olympic-grade pool? There are requirements for these facilities (and many other examples) that effectively preclude use by 'the general public'. "

I think we have to define what "public" means. People can't take their Schwinn for a ride on the velodrome the same as I cant' take my kayak on the Henley rowing course. That I agree with

The question that should be asked is if this going to a high end venue for elite athlete only or will this be open to say high schools to get teens into this sport? What about an inner city program?

The answer in my opinion is both. you needs the elite and the grassroots

Permalink | Context

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 30, 2011 at 19:27:48 in reply to Comment 68726

The question that should be asked is if this going to a high end venue for elite athlete only or will this be open to say high schools to get teens into this sport? What about an inner city program? The answer in my opinion is both. you needs the elite and the grassroots

I agree.

What you can't have is the 'casual' participant; the upkeep and safeguarding at an indoor velodrome are extremely high.

Permalink | Context

By rscheffler (anonymous) | Posted September 01, 2011 at 00:22:11 in reply to Comment 68734

To get an idea of how the public has access to the Manchester velodrome: http://www2.nationalcyclingcentre.com/ride_the_track.html

This seems to be a logical approach, with intro classes (that include bike rental). Those who are interested can progress to higher levels after passing the required training and tests.

If it is built at Mohawk, and if Mohawk 'only' contributes $2M, there's no way Mohawk can rightfully restrict access to the venue as part of their private student athletic facility. It would have to be a separately managed, publicly accessible venue that happens to be on the Mohawk campus.

Permalink | Context

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted September 01, 2011 at 10:35:03 in reply to Comment 68835

I am not a cyclist but I lived in the west end when the Worlds were in town and it brought a lot of energy to the city. If it could serve the community as you have touched on above and be as accessible as Ivor Wynne is now and perhaps more so, than I'd like us to find a way to make this work.

Would cyclists move here because Hamilton had such a facility? Perhaps that is a question to research. The old build it and they will come. If California is the next best thing, it would lead me to believe that it's something that would attract that niche market?

Comment edited by lawrence on 2011-09-01 10:36:09

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Vod_Kann (registered) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 18:55:22

I'm in the minority but I'll say it- The more I think about it the more I like the Ivor Wynne-now new stadium.

I put my cards on the table first:

-I am an ex-pat I live in Bronte

-I am a lifelong Cats fans and ticket holder. I've been going to games since I was five. Did I like the tactics and politicking that Cat management did last year- no. While it had a positive results (at least to me), the carnage that got us there was dibiliating.

-However, at least to me, the team is bigger than a couple of individuals. The cats have been a part of this city since almost Confederation long before likes of Ballard, McDonald, and Young. The will be around a lot later. In many ways they are the one thing outside family that keeps me connected with this city. They are the thing that gets me off my duff and into Hamilton 10x per year. Nothing else does (yes shame on me and I am planning on doing and seeing more Hammer!).

-I wasn't so much pro west harbour (although I think it would have worked amazingly) as I was anti-Confederation Park & East Mountain (Bad ideas both)

I'm like Lawrence, I love that Balsam Avenue site. In a "monkey-see monkey do" world of LA Live copycats. We still have something that is becoming more and more unique to the sporting world- the neighbourhood ballpark. I love the walk to the stadium with the neighborhood coming to life every game- how many other things truly get people out of their houses in a sense of true community. In a time when most people avoid living by a stadium like the plague these people embrace it.

As somebody who lives out of town , we missed the boat on the GO train I'll admit but this work with a new LRT system when (not if) it comes in. The new bars and restaurants on Ottawa street are the same distance from IWS2 as Hess village is from the West Harbour. This could be the Hess of the east end?

It remains to be seen but some of the early talk truly points to keeping a community district. The Scott Park Arena, pool and ball diamond remain for instance. Even talk of closing off Cannon between Balsam and Melrose to create a real district. will it stay this way? Who knows but I'm want to give it a chance.

To paraphrase the immortal Norman Dale- "I would hope you would support what this is. Not, what this is not. "

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Vod_Kann (registered) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 19:11:36

Asked whether he knew how much it will cost to relocate the Hamilton Tiger-Cats during the stadium construction or who will cover that cost, Troop replied, "No I don't. That typically is not something that is our responsibility. I don't know what they're going to do, but one of the things we're looking at is the amount of time they have to play at another location."

For what it is worth the Ticats are covering the costs of being away one year. This was in the Jan 31 MOU.

Could it change? Maybe- but as of today the Cats are paying for their season away.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Velogirl (anonymous) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 21:01:51

The fact is that pools and velodromes are THE most community friendly builds of the Games. The public use of both of these facilities can be significant if there is a proactive program plan and if the wrong people don't get their hands on program control.

In Manchester and other successful velodromes there is up to an 80%/20% split between public use and use by elite level programming. The typical ratio between community and high performance is around the 50/50 range. School programs, seniors sessions, community youth programs, learn to ride, learn to race, women's track sessions, are all community use.

There has been a concerted effort by people on this site to claim that the velodrome is some rarified facility for gold-plated athletes. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you actually want to understand how a successful velodrome functions, drive down to London Ontario and visit the Forest City Velodrome. Or research the programming at Manchester, Newport Wales, Trexlertown, or any of the New Zealand facilities. You will clearly see that youth and community programs are the backbone of success.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RenaissanceWatcher (registered) | Posted August 30, 2011 at 21:25:23

Vod Kann wrote:

"Asked whether he knew how much it will cost to relocate the Hamilton Tiger-Cats during the stadium construction or who will cover that cost, Troop replied, "No I don't. That typically is not something that is our responsibility. I don't know what they're going to do, but one of the things we're looking at is the amount of time they have to play at another location."

For what it is worth the Ticats are covering the costs of being away one year. This was in the Jan 31 MOU.

Could it change? Maybe- but as of today the Cats are paying for their season away."

The MOU signed on January 31, 2011 does not state that the Ticats are covering their relocation costs during the stadium construction. It only states that the city will use its best efforts to work with Infrastructure Ontario and Toronto 2015 to ensure the stadium is completed in as short a time as possible.

Here is a link to the entire MOU: https://picasaweb.google.com/10284832901...

Here is a link to the relevant page of the MOU: https://picasaweb.google.com/10284832901...

If the Tiger-Cats are agreeable to paying all of their relocation costs during the Ivor Wynne Stadium reconstruction process, let's hope that this is clearly stated in the final MOU due by December, 2011.

Comment edited by RenaissanceWatcher on 2011-08-30 21:35:10

Permalink | Context

By lawrence (registered) - website | Posted August 31, 2011 at 11:13:58 in reply to Comment 68744

If the Tiger-Cats are agreeable to paying all of their relocation costs during the Ivor Wynne Stadium reconstruction process, let's hope that this is clearly stated in the final MOU due by December, 2011.

So this is perhaps why I read somewhere, that they will not announce where they will play in 2013, until January of next year?

Here is an article on TSN today, about the year of displacement.

Permalink | Context

By mystoneycreek (registered) - website | Posted August 31, 2011 at 06:47:39 in reply to Comment 68744

The MOU signed on January 31, 2011 does not state that the Ticats are covering their relocation costs during the stadium construction. It only states that the city will use its best efforts to work with Infrastructure Ontario and Toronto 2015 to ensure the stadium is completed in as short a time as possible.

Beautiful! Well done!

This is precisely the kind of contribution we need to these discussions: an actual fact.

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