Comment 55947

By Ridiculous (anonymous) | Posted January 12, 2011 at 11:07:13

I think this latest drafted-on-a-napkin plan proves what we've been saying all along: The Ticats are desperate and need the City far more than the City needs them.

Having said that, there is a mutually beneficial relationship there, however lopsided it may be.

Hamilton's point of view: If we don't build a stadium, we lose the Ticats. Even if we do build a stadium, the Ticats may fold or move and we'll be stuck with a white elephant on our hands.

The Ticats point of view: If a stadium isn't built for us, we have nowhere to operate and the team will likely just fold. If do get a stadium and things don't work out, it buys us time to find a new place to play.

It would seem to me that this situation should require both sides to share in the costs and the associated risks of this project, even as a good-faith gesture. A 20-year lease is nice, but I'd bet anything there will be an exit clause tied to bad attendance or revenue losses.

My point: If the Ticats put up even $20 million it would go a long way with the citizens who see this whole thing as a giant waste of time and money and it might increase the chances of the stadium being built and luring all those sour people back to a game.

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds