Sports

Support for West Harbour at Summit Panel

By Jason Leach
Published May 17, 2010

I just read the live blog on the Spec with the stadium debate. It sounds to me like everyone is on board with West Harbour location.

Ticat President Scott Mitchell said the Cats love the West Harbour and love what the city is trying to do there...they just need to hammer out some details that will improve their income.

I wasn't there, so I'm sure others can fill us in on parts that the Spec didn't post online, but it sounded pretty calm and every person who spoke (that they mentioned on the blog) wants West Harbour.

Jason Leach was born and raised in the Hammer and currently lives downtown with his wife and children. You can follow him on twitter.

15 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Meredith (registered) - website | Posted May 17, 2010 at 16:46:16

Wow, that's a shift. Let's hope it continues...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 16:47:23

Ticat President Scott Mitchell said the Cats love the West Harbour and love what the city is trying to do there...they just need to hammer out some details that will improve their income.

In an earlier Spec article he also said that the West Harbour is "bordered by water on one side and a cliff on the other. You can't get in or out, there's no parking, no access, no public transportation."

I guess everyone who goes to Bayfront uses their teleportation devices.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Meredith (registered) - website | Posted May 17, 2010 at 16:50:02

Beam me up, Scott Mitchell..

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By bike hell (anonymous) | Posted May 17, 2010 at 22:07:07

The thousands(?) of people there this past weekend must have swam in from aldershot.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted May 18, 2010 at 11:13:38

I just read an interesting proposal in the Toronto Star:

Give track and field to University of Toronto, and instead give the Soccer Stadium to Hamilton! The writer seemed to imply that the Soccer Stadium was larger and more suited to the Ti-Cats needs than expanding the track and field Pan Am Stadium.

Think it's too late to explore such an idea?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted May 18, 2010 at 11:17:47

The article I discussed above can be found here:

http://www.thestar.com/sports/panamgames/article/810676--perkins-tory-s-the-man-to-save-pan-am-stadium-deal

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 18, 2010 at 11:33:43

He undermines his credibility with his ridiculous assertion that the West Harbour is "totally unworkable". Too bad, because it's an interesting idea, but his aversion to the West Harbour site makes me question his real motives.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted May 18, 2010 at 11:40:03

makes me question his real motives

You find concern trolls everywhere.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted May 19, 2010 at 11:15:07

Young was quoted as saying

"If the building doesn't work for us as prospective tenant ... it's up to the landlord to figure out how to fix the problem."

Oh I dunno, how about finding another tenant? Or how about this - if the Cats want to stay in Hamilton so badly as he says they do they find a way to make a stadium in Hamilton work, regardless of where it's put??? Major tenant or not, the Cats are subsidized at 1.3 million so how is them being the tenant a benefit to the landlord? MAKE money, then maybe the tail has a point in trying to wag the dog!

Also, here's a doozie: "'The location should be a secondary consideration to the business arrangements,' Young said."

Really?? Long term viability takes a second seat now? Legacy was the point in the first place right?

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/articl...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted May 19, 2010 at 11:18:14

^O NOES WE MIGHT LOSE OUR "TENANT" FOR 8 NIGHTS A YEAR! WHAT EVAR WILL WE DO?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted May 19, 2010 at 11:29:00

"'The location should be a secondary consideration to the business arrangements,' Young said."

Translation: "Long term viability takes a back seat to my short term self-interest. I'm cashing out, baby!"

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Wowza (anonymous) | Posted May 19, 2010 at 16:16:47

Great. Finally. Hamilton will retain it's heritage of compromising commercial potential in order to subsidize a national sports institution while annoying thousands of local residents a few days each year.

On to the next project!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jarod (registered) | Posted May 20, 2010 at 10:05:28

I wonder if sprinkling some cayenne or maybe some ground black pepper will keep the trolls at bay?

It seems to work for squirrels.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted May 20, 2010 at 11:08:37

@Wowza

What commercial potential is being compromised by this site? Is there some shortage of commercial property in the northwest end of downtown?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kiely (registered) | Posted May 20, 2010 at 16:21:07

Translation: "Long term viability takes a back seat to my short term self-interest. I'm cashing out, baby!" - highwater

DING DING DING!!!!

We have a winner in the Interpreting Corporate Jargon Contest!

Nicely done highwater : )

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