Comment 53737

By Sask_Resident (anonymous) | Posted December 23, 2010 at 15:58:48

@Shempatolla

The constant thread that I hear through the WH support is that it is great for revitalizing the area, I can't comment on this, but based on general history and development that is a fair statement. However, why should the Ticats be forced to settle for anything less than what is a satisfactory business agreement for their business. Again, what would them showing their reports prove? If they presented a report saying WH would not work for the Ticats would you accept it? Or would you begin looking at report and telling them why you disagree and the mistake they made in forecasting this or that? Simply put, if they provided a professionally done independent report that stated WH is not a suitable location for the Ticats would you drop all support for putting the new stadium in WH?

Perhaps it will take a strange hold on revenues to break even in the tough environment. If that is the case, then the city and team will have to agree to part ways if a deal can't be worked out. It would be a sad ending to a great partnership, but in the end it may be the only viable solution for both parties. It would be no one's fault, just two entities that no longer work for each other. I doubt that is the case, and I suspect the Ticats supporters wish to see the team stay. However, if they continue to lose money why would they? If their only option is to enter into an undesirable agreement why sign on the dotted line?

PS- We have plenty of ways to spend out discretionary income (the minimal amount the government doesn't tax us) as well. It is all about making the team a desirable option to spend that money. People here seem to think that the waterfront stadium would achieve this result, the team does not. Obviously, there is some disconnect.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds