Sports

Cunningham Advising Ticats, Di Ianni

By RTH Staff
Published July 31, 2010

Eric Cunningham, former Liberal MPP for Wentworth North from 1975 to 1984 and a columnist for the Spectator, is in the interesting position of acting as both a strategic adviser to the Hamilton Tiger-Cats and a behind-the-scenes adviser to Larry Di Ianni's Mayoral campaign.

Given that the Pan Am stadium has turned into a white-hot election issue and Di Ianni has been coy about his stadium preference, this sure looks like a conflict of interest.

33 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted July 31, 2010 at 14:39:39

Shocking that it's someone over 60 advising the Cats.

Comment edited by Jason on 2010-07-31 13:40:39

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By goin'downtown (registered) | Posted July 31, 2010 at 15:25:06

Di Ianni. Ticat chaos. Spectator strings. Election in four months. Audziss turncoating. You don't say.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ComeAgain? (anonymous) | Posted July 31, 2010 at 17:51:34

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 nobrainer (registered) | Posted July 31, 2010 at 18:38:42

I think it's Cunningham who has a conflict, not DIAnni.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Robert D (anonymous) | Posted July 31, 2010 at 19:04:19

"DiIanni has written and spoken in favour of the West Harbour as the stadium site."

Really? Can you provide a link? Last I heard he wasn't going to take a stance one way or the other...at least not publicly.

I'd be very interested in reading anything where he supports the West Harbour over the East Mountain site.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Kieran C. Dickson (anonymous) | Posted July 31, 2010 at 20:04:10

In the July 26th Spec, Di Ianni was quoted as having the following view (on this as just one of several hot topics):

The Pan Am stadium location: "This whole argument -- you do something here, it's city building, and if you do something there, it's detrimental -- I think it's a very, very corrosive argument. I think if you're the mayor of the city, you have to advance the whole city and not just part of it."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Hamilton (anonymous) | Posted July 31, 2010 at 21:13:43

[quote]
In the July 26th Spec, Di Ianni was quoted as having the following view (on this as just one of several hot topics):

The Pan Am stadium location: "This whole argument -- you do something here, it's city building, and if you do something there, it's detrimental -- I think it's a very, very corrosive argument. I think if you're the mayor of the city, you have to advance the whole city and not just part of it."
[/quote]

Wow! An excellent example of a true politician. How to say a whole lot without saying anything at all.

So, by "you have to advance the whole cty and not just part of it", I guess Di Ianni meant we have to build a multi-level stadium, starting below the escarpment and climbing alongside one of the Mountain accesses. Win-win!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted July 31, 2010 at 23:40:04

Diianni spoke in favour of the west harbour months ago but all of his online blogs were recently removed. The fact that he won't reiterate that pro- west harbour stance today tells me all I need to know on election day.

Comment edited by Jason on 2010-07-31 22:41:10

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 01, 2010 at 07:55:23

They're gonna try to use this issue to crucify Eisenberger. We've even got one troll on here spouting it already. For years Fred has been hung out to dry for not taking "strong" stands on issues (which he really isn't doing here, either), and now they're going to try to make him into the dictator. DiIanni's lack of comment on this issue is very telling (especially when it starts re-writing history). I've said it before and I'll say it again - somebody's playing games here.

And I suspect the best is yet to come.

It's also worth noting that something very different is happening here. RTH gets a lot more attention than any internet site like it in any previous attention. We're well spoken, we do our research, and we know how to throw our weight around. Just look at Jelly's contamination crusade. Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we are the wild card.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By RTHFan (anonymous) | Posted August 01, 2010 at 10:14:23

RTH is the wild card in all of this and is doing a good job. But I fear that the poker analogy is correct. Why are we playing poker with the future of our city? And who has the ace?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Jason (registered) | Posted August 01, 2010 at 15:44:27

Look no further than the lead characters in this blog entry.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Undustrial (registered) - website | Posted August 01, 2010 at 18:36:43

Who has the ace? Someone with a whole lot more power, influence and money than me. But it takes more than a high ace to win a hand of poker.

It's time to call some bluffs.

In any case, I'm not seeking to "win". I'm not sure that anyone here is. I simply value truth, transparency and democracy. And thus, this whole situation makes me a little sick.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By NewHere (anonymous) | Posted August 01, 2010 at 18:55:32

Man I'm wondering, do you guys think that Hamilton could lose the funding for the PanAm Stadium? I hope not, it would be good for Hamilton to get a new stadium for the TigerCats or MLS team I'm thinking?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Beware (anonymous) | Posted August 02, 2010 at 01:20:49

I kind of am glad Larry is running and crapholes like the guy above are the true enemies of democracy. I didn't vote for him last time cause I believed the puss that some peddled against him. But this time I am going to give him my vote...and so will thousands of others. Fred is in over his head and everyone knows it. Period!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Moveon (anonymous) | Posted August 02, 2010 at 10:15:10

Ok Beware - Let me get this straight. You don't like the current guy so you are are going to vote for the convicted criminal of Hamilton politics? DiIanni is an embarrassment and even the fact that he and his new-found cronies are still around is an embarrassment. We've moved on as a city and have much more important issues in front of us...like this stadium debate.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By ima 4 larry/ sortof (anonymous) | Posted August 02, 2010 at 12:18:27

Voting for Larry couldn't be any worse than re-electing the current bunch , Really, collectively , what have they done for the Hammer ? Fred tries but can't get support. They can't get through any major issue as a team.. always arguing and never looking what is good for all of us.. always parochial ..The one that really got me was the recent comment by Concillor Terry Whitebread saying that he is going to run again because "he is at the top of his game and wants to give the west mtn more parks " . What a platform . Isnt he in some sort of harrasment fiasco at City Hall ? Parks costs more money Terry , but he have never worked for a livig anyway. I wish Ferguson had run .or one of the Downtown guys for mayor.. we really need some changes at council

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By waitingforasign (anonymous) | Posted August 02, 2010 at 14:36:14

there is a few of us "downtown guys" thinking of taking the plunge - but in reality it is harder than it appears to be. How do you sit around a table with people you don't respect - imagine trying to work with someone so dense and uninspiring as Terry Whitehead. I think I would prefer getting hit on the head with a brick or two first - might make the meetings more interesting. We do need wholesale change at City Hall - will it happen this fall or is it back to the future?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Hammertime (registered) | Posted August 02, 2010 at 15:09:16

While I think we need some changes on council, I think Di Ianni would be a HUGE step back for this city. We are finally starting to get out of the muck of corruption, back room deals, and washed-up cronyism. We need new blood on council so that decisions like the pan am stadium are no-brainers. These politicians of the past have had their chance and their time in this city is done as far as I'm concerned.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Cityjoe (anonymous) | Posted August 03, 2010 at 04:03:29

From the Big Push that Larry D. got from the 'suburban weekly papers' (one of them being Stoney Creek) long before he declared candidacy, I kind'a 'think' I know where his loyalties lie.

I could be wrong, but that is the perception that the editorial beseeching, begging, pleading with L.D. to run again left. (& counter that with the 'Free the Suburban Serfs' editorial that came a few weeks later.. what else can you believe ???)

Here we go again! 'Burbs vs, City. :{ (I hope the candidates put complimentary barf bags in with the campaign lit.)

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Puzzling (anonymous) | Posted August 03, 2010 at 08:32:13

Judging from the libellous comments here you'd think that DiIanni has no chance of winning....so why the fretful almost panicky responses to his candidacy. He is just a candidate, not the elected one...yet!

Quit your anxieties, folks. Fred will win. Won't he? Won't he? Er...won't he??????

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By frank (registered) | Posted August 03, 2010 at 09:14:03

Mr. D would be a great step back for the city. Career politician is the phrase that comes to mind. What needs to happen is the individual wards need to be shaken up. Councilors who can't see further than the tip of their noses need to be shaken out and replaced with someone who has a city vision that includes their ward...not a ward vision that may or may not include the city.

Just my 2 cents!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By z jones (registered) | Posted August 03, 2010 at 09:34:09

A funny thing happened on the way to the west harbour.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 03, 2010 at 10:11:54

Wow! Great find, z jones. To be filed alongside "We will make it work, whatever the site."

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jason (registered) | Posted August 03, 2010 at 17:20:55

great work zjones. Now the pieces are starting to come together. We always knew that someone had gotten into someone else's pocketbook in order to orchestrate this whole fiasco. I think we now know who.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HistoryBuff (anonymous) | Posted August 03, 2010 at 17:54:28

Yes, great find: Also, the one about Fred Eisenburger saying that the West Harbour was the last place to put a stadium. He was Port Authority Chair at the time. Let's tell the whole truth folks.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Donald J. Lester (anonymous) | Posted August 04, 2010 at 10:25:50

The real issue is the location of "Pan Am stadium" lets leave politics out of the equation...while no one has the best interest of Hamilton...rebuild Cops...let the game players make a fool of them selves, rather than dragging the whole city into a swamp of a never never land of discontent...aren't we divided enough?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By nobrainer (registered) | Posted August 04, 2010 at 11:20:28

Also, the one about Fred Eisenburger saying that the West Harbour was the last place to put a stadium.

Yeah, ten years ago when urban revitalization wasn't really on anyone's radar. There's a difference between changing your mind over several years when alot has changed and changing your mind over a few months when nothing has changed except who signs your paycheck.

Comment edited by nobrainer on 2010-08-04 10:20:56

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By beware this election (anonymous) | Posted August 04, 2010 at 11:31:41

For those thinking of supporting Di Ianni in the next election remember:
1. He was convicted of a crime related to his election campaign funding
2. fought higher levels of government to avoid environmental assessments on a huge costly project we are still in debt for and now floods every summer.
3. sued another level of government to get them to take our tax money and give it to him to help fill the huge debt hole he put this city in.
4. Lost two previous election on his home turf for the liberals
5. Had the city charge 7 citizens for trying to save Hamilton greenspace and failed miserably in doing anything but dividing the city further.
6. Failed to help this city in any concrete way other than creating a road so people can avoid coming to it.
.............
I am sure there is much more that could be added to this list.

His term in government divided our city and caused more pain and suffering and debt than I have ever seen in years. We do not need to go through that again. This stadium deal is nothing in comparison.

I am not totally thrilled with Eisenberger's leadership but he did step into some rather messy shoes. Unfortunately it looks like this election will be more about who you want out of the position than who you want in showing Di ianni is already causing dissention and the election campaigns have not even really officially got started!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highwater (registered) | Posted August 04, 2010 at 11:58:22

Was just listening to the Bill Kelly show (glutton for punishment, I know). Di Ianni called in and came out in favour of East Mountain. While he was cagey enough not to utter the exact words "I support the East Mountain", he said that he supported the West Harbour in 2007, but now it was "no longer workable". Of course he then followed up his declaration by making noises about how we really must do something about the North End (with what money I wonder, after we've poured $150m into a sprawl stadium?). I wonder if he will show up at the 'rally' at Carmen's? He better get his ticket quick, I hear space is limited!

They also accused the WH rally organizers of having a vested interest because they stand to benefit from the WH location, but a few minutes later when someone said there would be no spin off benefits from the EM location, they were quick to point out how PJ Mercanti's hotel would benefit from the EM. Got that? So according to CHML:

people benefiting from WH = shady

people benefiting from EM = pro-business! Go East Mountain!

I'm going to sue CHML for the whiplash I got from all the cognitive dissonance.

Comment edited by highwater on 2010-08-04 10:59:50

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Arlene (anonymous) | Posted August 04, 2010 at 12:38:54

Fred has been a disaster as Mayor. A previous post talked about Larry making the election about the city vs the burbs. That is nonsense as since amalgamation that has always been the issue. Fred has managed to make it worse by telling those in the former municipalities everything they wanted to hear during the last election only to become the Mayor of Downtown Hamilton after being elected. Fred talks about collaboration, cooperation and consensus but his 'lone wolf' approach to Council has put him on the outside looking in. The federal government doesn't like or respect Fred niether does the provincial government. Transparency has not improved under Fred and he's voted several times in favour of greenfield development - something he earlier was opposed to. Di Ianni was not convicted of anything criminal and it's ridiculous that uninformed people try to mislead the general public. RTH is becoming all about downtown Hamilton and forgets that the aglomeration means Hamilton is much larger than just the old city. I'm sure this won't get posted as RTH only cares about advocating their narrow, know-it-all view of what's best for the city.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Ya (anonymous) | Posted August 04, 2010 at 20:27:33

^Ya!!!!

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Shhhh (anonymous) | Posted August 04, 2010 at 22:27:21

Arlene, you are way too rational and factual to be posting here. Please keep these message boards for the delusional only.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By endzone (anonymous) | Posted October 04, 2010 at 16:27:00

What was DiIanni convicted of, if not something criminal?

TheSpec "Di Ianni’s comeback attempt is, of course, handicapped by his conviction for accepting – albeit unintentionally – illegal donations during his winning 2003 mayoral campaign.'

TheHamiltonian:"..will have demons to battle -- especially his conviction for illegally accepting campaign donations in his 2003 mayoral run."

So if this is not criminal, then it was not a crime. If there was no crime, why the conviction? Isn't illegal activity criminal?

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