PDA

View Full Version : Zell Says He Might Sell Wrigley Naming Rights


havelj
12-20-2007, 07:11 PM
From the Loveable Loser's web site:
Tribune Co.'s new CEO Sam Zell said the Cubs will be sold by Opening Day, and that he may sell naming rights to Wrigley Field because such rights could be "extraordinarily valuable."

Any ideas on the new name?

drewcifer
12-20-2007, 07:13 PM
Litter Box

gobears1987
12-20-2007, 07:24 PM
From the Loveable Loser's web site:
Tribune Co.'s new CEO Sam Zell said the Cubs will be sold by Opening Day, and that he may sell naming rights to Wrigley Field because such rights could be "extraordinarily valuable."

Any ideas on the new name?
I really do like Zell. He is probably doing this because he is a part owner of the Sox and probably doesn't like the Cubs much. Either way Kudos to my AEPi brother.

bryPt
12-20-2007, 07:36 PM
Kohler Toilet park at Wrigley field.

NDSox12
12-20-2007, 07:38 PM
I vote for Bubble Yum Park. Might as well change it from one chewing gum to another.

SaltyPretzel
12-20-2007, 07:41 PM
I vote for Bubble Yum Park. Might as well change it from one chewing gum to another.

They probably couldn't use "Big League Chew" because of false advertising.

Daver
12-20-2007, 07:42 PM
Porta Potty Field, it's not just a smell, it's an ambiance.

ND_Sox_Fan
12-20-2007, 07:46 PM
I am thinking that Wizmark Park has quite a ring to it.

In case you don't know what Wizmark does ... link (http://www.wizmark.com/).

soxtalker
12-20-2007, 08:42 PM
I really do like Zell. He is probably doing this because he is a part owner of the Sox and probably doesn't like the Cubs much. Either way Kudos to my AEPi brother.

I think that it is more likely that he is doing it because he can make a ton of money on it. Why the Tribune didn't do it before is probably the bigger question.

thomas35forever
12-20-2007, 08:45 PM
Walter E. Smithe Field.

slavko
12-20-2007, 09:09 PM
Sam would sell anything if he thought he could make money on it. I can see it now: Vaseline Stadium, just because I like the sound; and the potential slogans are endless.

Frater Perdurabo
12-20-2007, 09:17 PM
Put a dome on it.

Sell the naming rights to Vlasic Dill Pickles.

For the name of the park, use their first and middle names, followed by the word "Dome."

:redneck

gobears1987
12-20-2007, 09:23 PM
I think that it is more likely that he is doing it because he can make a ton of money on it. Why the Tribune didn't do it before is probably the bigger question.
Of course he is doing it so Tribune can get money. But isn't it a great thing to do just before you sell the team? Tribune gets the money and the new owners are stuck with a name on their historic stadium.

TommyJohn
12-20-2007, 09:33 PM
The name will remain Wrigley Field. Why do I think so? A rich gazillionaire
and passionate Cub fan will pay a ton of money to keep the name "Wrigley
Field." Take it to the bank.

voodoochile
12-20-2007, 10:27 PM
The name will remain Wrigley Field. Why do I think so? A rich gazillionaire
and passionate Cub fan will pay a ton of money to keep the name "Wrigley
Field." Take it to the bank.

If they were going to do that, why not simply make a bid on the team when it comes up for sale? I mean, give Zell 250M to do nothing or give him 600M for the team... hmmmm...

Maybe the Sox can buy the naming rights...

spiffie
12-20-2007, 10:28 PM
JR reaches into the wallet and names it the "Real Baseball Is played 8.1 Miles South Field"

voodoochile
12-20-2007, 10:31 PM
JR reaches into the wallet and names it the "Real Baseball Is played 8.1 Miles South and chunks of concrete will crush your head if you attend games here Field"

I liked your original idea, but decided it needed tweaking...

Bill Naharodny
12-20-2007, 11:03 PM
JR reaches into the wallet and names it the "Real Baseball Is played 8.1 Miles South Field"

Rosemont Horizon.

It has a real ring to it. And it's not being used now.

Hitmen77
12-20-2007, 11:21 PM
How about "Chad and Trixie Park and Wrigleyville Shrine" or perhaps simply "The Urinal".

I agree with TommyJohn, knowing the Cubs, they'll make lemonade out of lemons and get a ton of money without ever changing the park name. However, I don't think the $ will come from an altruistic Cub fan. I wouldn't put it past them to be able to squeeze money out of the Wrigley Chewing Gum company to prevent losing their name on the park.

goon
12-21-2007, 12:04 AM
Wrigley Gum Field... oh wait.

I can only imagine what sCrubs fans are thinking about this.

pierzynski07
12-21-2007, 12:26 AM
Does Selig actually have a "best interest in baseball" clause, or is it all a myth? Because if he does, I can see him using it for this. :angry:

pagansoxfan
12-21-2007, 02:15 AM
"this is len kasper live from beautiful ky jelly park at wrigley feild, and here come the cubs!!" or sell the rights to pigley wiggley. name it pigley wiggley at wrigley. :D: or how bout trojen park? another idea is preperation h stadium. it's slogan could be we'll show you a different kind of roids.

kevin57
12-21-2007, 05:11 AM
Does Selig actually have a "best interest in baseball" clause, or is it all a myth? Because if he does, I can see him using it for this. :angry:

Yeah, keeping a park named after a millionaire is more critical to the best interests of the game than dealing seriously with 'roids. :angry:

Fenway
12-21-2007, 06:33 AM
Trixieland

WizardsofOzzie
12-21-2007, 07:45 AM
Steven F. Bartman Field :redneck

soxtalker
12-21-2007, 07:45 AM
Of course he is doing it so Tribune can get money. But isn't it a great thing to do just before you sell the team? Tribune gets the money and the new owners are stuck with a name on their historic stadium.

Yes. I suppose he has to do it in that order. Imagine being the new owner, and one of the first things you do is sell the name to the park. Nice way to start things off. Zell does it, and he takes the heat. Probably reaps a bit more of the profit, too.

Tekijawa
12-21-2007, 08:22 AM
Zell, I mean Cell, I mean Sell?!?!?!

skottyj242
12-21-2007, 09:21 AM
If they were going to do that, why not simply make a bid on the team when it comes up for sale? I mean, give Zell 250M to do nothing or give him 600M for the team... hmmmm...

Maybe the Sox can buy the naming rights...


They're worth a lot more than 600 mill. If the Dolphins were just about to sell for 1.1 billion, the Cubs are worth a bunch more than that.

RedHeadPaleHoser
12-21-2007, 09:31 AM
Century Field - by Century Tile.

That's how long it takes to host World Series play there.

And CT can re-do the urinals/troughs in 19th century tile work as well...

Dan Mega
12-21-2007, 09:37 AM
Hangar Field

DrCrawdad
12-21-2007, 10:53 AM
Let's see, lights are at The Shrine, ads, ads and more ads appear each year at The Shrine, there are the "Bud Light" bleachers and now they may even attach a paying corporate name to the already (non-paying) corporate named field of nightmares, "Wrigley Field."

Lights, ads and a new corporate name for the Cubbies park, so how exactly is this ballpark unique?

Thigpen "57"
12-21-2007, 11:04 AM
Kohler Toilet park at Wrigley field.

LOL! That's exactly what I was going to type when I saw the title!

Foulke You
12-21-2007, 11:37 AM
"Banana Republic Field at Starbucks Yard"

rocky biddle
12-21-2007, 11:38 AM
US Cellular should buy the rights.

Fenway
12-21-2007, 11:38 AM
Woo Woo Field

bryPt
12-21-2007, 11:40 AM
Didn't see this one posted, so. A buddy at work said this one:

Waste Management park at Wrigley field.

DrCrawdad
12-21-2007, 12:13 PM
Wrigley sells a corporate naming right. Grobber wept.

Tekijawa
12-21-2007, 12:35 PM
eHarmony field at travelIowa.com park

North Sox Sider
12-21-2007, 12:40 PM
How about The Billy Goat Stadium at Wrigley Field

southsideirish71
12-21-2007, 12:47 PM
http://www.goatcompany.co.uk/
http://www.billygoat.com/site/productLines.aspx

Or they could use this, and then use the product on the weeds on the walls.

http://www.roundup.com/

D. TODD
12-21-2007, 12:55 PM
Weed B Gone field. Start with the weeds in on the outfield

alohafri
12-21-2007, 01:17 PM
My question is why are they worried about "historic" Wrigley Field, a place where nothing has been won in nearly a century? If they can tear down Yankee Stadium, the House That Ruth Built, home of the umpteen time World Champions, why can't/won't they tear down that piece of crap?

Scottiehaswheels
12-21-2007, 01:19 PM
My question is why are they worried about "historic" Wrigley Field, a place where nothing has been won in nearly a century? If they can tear down Yankee Stadium, the House That Ruth Built, home of the umpteen time World Champions, why can't/won't they tear down that piece of crap?Cuz that's all they have?

Hitmen77
12-21-2007, 02:01 PM
Lights, ads and a new corporate name for the Cubbies park, so how exactly is this ballpark unique?

It smells and has obstructed seats.

jabrch
12-21-2007, 02:06 PM
Weed B Gone field. Start with the weeds in on the outfield


pst....

(we copied those "weeds" because they look cool.)

TornLabrum
12-21-2007, 07:56 PM
My question is why are they worried about "historic" Wrigley Field, a place where nothing has been won in nearly a century? If they can tear down Yankee Stadium, the House That Ruth Built, home of the umpteen time World Champions, why can't/won't they tear down that piece of crap?

Nothing was ever won at historic Wrigley Field. The Cubs were playing at historic West Side Park when they won it all in 1908.

Shoeless
12-21-2007, 08:22 PM
Luftschiffbau Zepplin Park
http://www.hydrogennow.org/Facts/hindenburg.jpg

It's like karma...

sox1970
12-21-2007, 09:25 PM
Put a dome on it.

Sell the naming rights to Vlasic Dill Pickles.

For the name of the park, use their first and middle names, followed by the word "Dome."

:redneck

:rolling:

Viva Medias B's
12-21-2007, 09:39 PM
...Wrigley Field, a place where nothing has been won in nearly a century?

Actually, something was won at Wrigley Field. I'm surprised nobody mentioned it yet.

:iron
"I was there when it happened."

grv1974
12-21-2007, 10:17 PM
Actually, something was won at Wrigley Field. I'm surprised nobody mentioned it yet.

:iron
"I was there when it happened."The Bears 1963 Championship?

JJPete7
12-21-2007, 10:34 PM
Didn't Deep Blue beat Garry Kasparov at Wrigley?

Fenway
12-21-2007, 10:52 PM
Nothing was ever won at historic Wrigley Field. The Cubs were playing at historic West Side Park when they won it all in 1908.

ahh but yes there were

1932 Yankees and the 1945 Tigers won the series at 1060 W Addison :smile:

RadioheadRocks
12-21-2007, 11:51 PM
For all the pants-pissing that happens there how about Depends Field???

Nellie_Fox
12-21-2007, 11:55 PM
Hangar FieldAnd somewhere in the cold, dark night, a head explodes.

RedHeadPaleHoser
12-22-2007, 10:44 AM
Not to thread hijack, but ****tard Moronotti adds in his web blog that Zell selling the naming rights could be a "South Side plot to muck up Wrigley" because Zell has minority interest in the White Sox.

I wish Sam Zell would wear his WS champion ring and punch Moronotti right in the middle of his ****ing forehead.

roylestillman
12-22-2007, 11:01 AM
Does Selig actually have a "best interest in baseball" clause, or is it all a myth? Because if he does, I can see him using it for this. :angry:

You know what's interesting in this whole discussion. If I'm reading Zell's comment's right he is talking about selling the naming rights and/or the ballpark before he sells the team. That means the proceeds will go into lowering the Tribune Company's debt burden and will not do a thing for the club or that rickety ballpark

Zell isn't a billionaire by accident. The bottom line is his bottom line and tradition/history mean nothing. Ask him whatever happened to that mega mural that he ripped off of the lobby of the old Daily News Building on Madison. He claims it was sent away for restoration That was about 15 years ago

areilly
12-22-2007, 11:37 AM
I realize this is getting dangerously close to becoming a political hijack, but our old pal Jim Thompson is taking a stand on the "when" of the state bailing out Wrigley and helping out the neighborhood around it:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/709385,CST-NWS-wrig22.article

Frater Perdurabo
12-22-2007, 01:03 PM
If it's available for the right price, it would be in the best interests of the taxpayers of the State of Illinois to buy the ballpark and then jack up the Cubs' rent. It would be a source of income for the state.

Say the state buys it for $200 million. Rent it to the Cubs for $20 million a year and it's paid off in 10 years. Every year after that is gravy.

The Cubs wouldn't dare leave Wrigley; they then would have to field a competitive team and even then still wouldn't draw as well if they were not playing in the World Largest Beer Garden.

Even if the Cubs foolishly left Wrigley, then they likely would demand that the state build them a new park. The costs of maintaining and improving the Urinal likely would not match the much higher costs of acquiring land and building a brand new stadium and infrastructure.

kba
12-22-2007, 11:25 PM
Even if the Cubs foolishly left Wrigley, then they likely would demand that the state build them a new park. The costs of maintaining and improving the Urinal likely would not match the much higher costs of acquiring land and building a brand new stadium and infrastructure.

I don't know about that. The cost of renovating and maintaining a 95 year old building can be exorbitant, especially when the structure has been neglected to the point that it's literally falling apart. Building a new ballpark could easily end up making much more fiscal sense, particularly when you consider the added revenue from skyboxes, parking, and other amenities Wrigley lacks.

This could all get very interesting soon. Somebody - either Zell, the new owners, or the government - is going to have to put some serious money into Wrigley to keep it safe and structurally sound. Couple that with the fact that it's sitting on some very valuable real estate (and that Zell is a shrewd real estate man), and it wouldn't surprise me to see an ugly political battle over its future.

voodoochile
12-22-2007, 11:29 PM
I don't know about that. The cost of renovating and maintaining a 95 year old building can be exorbitant, especially when the structure has been neglected to the point that it's literally falling apart. Building a new ballpark could easily end up making much more fiscal sense, particularly when you consider the added revenue from skyboxes, parking, and other amenities Wrigley lacks.

This could all get very interesting soon. Somebody - either Zell, the new owners, or the government - is going to have to put some serious money into Wrigley to keep it safe and structurally sound. Couple that with the fact that it's sitting on some very valuable real estate (and that Zell is a shrewd real estate man), and it wouldn't surprise me to see an ugly political battle over its future.

Oh, no chance they move, at the most, they'd tear it down, work out a deal to play at the Cell or somewhere for a year or so and build right on the same land, but it might only take an off season to tear down the upper deck and redo it if they got lucky. They could schedule an early season finale one year and a late home opener the next to add as much as a month to the rebuild time provided the flubbies don't make the playoffs that year.

Fenway
12-22-2007, 11:32 PM
I don't know about that. The cost of renovating and maintaining a 95 year old building can be exorbitant, especially when the structure has been neglected to the point that it's literally falling apart. Building a new ballpark could easily end up making much more fiscal sense, particularly when you consider the added revenue from skyboxes, parking, and other amenities Wrigley lacks.

This could all get very interesting soon. Somebody - either Zell, the new owners, or the government - is going to have to put some serious money into Wrigley to keep it safe and structurally sound. Couple that with the fact that it's sitting on some very valuable real estate (and that Zell is a shrewd real estate man), and it wouldn't surprise me to see an ugly political battle over its future.

Janet Marie Smith the woman who put together Camden Yards and Petco Field has been in charge of the Fenway Park renovations. She has been contacted by SOMEBODY in Chicago to do her magic at Wrigley but only she knows who that person is. I didn't think Fenway could be saved as it was in pretty tough shape in 2000. What she has done to improve it is simply astounding.

raven1
12-23-2007, 09:10 AM
I don't know about that. The cost of renovating and maintaining a 95 year old building can be exorbitant, especially when the structure has been neglected to the point that it's literally falling apart. Building a new ballpark could easily end up making much more fiscal sense, particularly when you consider the added revenue from skyboxes, parking, and other amenities Wrigley lacks.

This could all get very interesting soon. Somebody - either Zell, the new owners, or the government - is going to have to put some serious money into Wrigley to keep it safe and structurally sound. Couple that with the fact that it's sitting on some very valuable real estate (and that Zell is a shrewd real estate man), and it wouldn't surprise me to see an ugly political battle over its future.

All those years of marketing the "Wrigley Field experience" rather than baseball has now created an unfortunate myth around the place that will probably cloud the new owner's judgement about what to do. Looking at the Cubs as objectively as I can as a Sox fan, the team really would benefit from a break from the past which a new stadium & image could bring. Properly managed, they could be another Yankees and have revenue (& resulting salary levels) far beyond what the Sox could ever hope for. If they could forget their past & put a consistently winning baseball team on the field even I would wish them well. Ironically, the White Sox would be responsible for triggering the series of events to create this new powerhouse since losing can never be loveable again after 2005.

Grzegorz
12-23-2007, 10:56 AM
All those years of marketing the "Wrigley Field experience" rather than baseball has now created an unfortunate myth around the place that will probably cloud the new owner's judgement about what to do. Looking at the Cubs as objectively as I can as a Sox fan, the team really would benefit from a break from the past which a new stadium & image could bring. Properly managed, they could be another Yankees and have revenue (& resulting salary levels) far beyond what the Sox could ever hope for. If they could forget their past & put a consistently winning baseball team on the field even I would wish them well. Ironically, the White Sox would be responsible for triggering the series of events to create this new powerhouse since losing can never be loveable again after 2005.

I am not sure the Cubs have to break with their past if that past is defined as Wrigley Field and not one of being lovable losers. Sure, they have to get creative marketing wise because of their ever expanding payroll. That marketing creativity will probably be seen in the sale of the naming rights to the park.

Can you imaging if the Chicago Cubs could rebuild Wrigley, or whatever the name might be, in the city? That approach would be so much more a benefit to the club, and possibly the city if the plans were imaginative, than moving the stadium out of the city into the suburbs.

kba
12-23-2007, 11:58 AM
Janet Marie Smith the woman who put together Camden Yards and Petco Field has been in charge of the Fenway Park renovations. She has been contacted by SOMEBODY in Chicago to do her magic at Wrigley but only she knows who that person is. I didn't think Fenway could be saved as it was in pretty tough shape in 2000. What she has done to improve it is simply astounding.

The Red Sox have put more than $100 million into renovating Fenway so far. I don't know if improving Wrigley would cost the same kind of money, but it's easy to see why Zell is sniffing around for a government subsidy.

bigfoot
12-23-2007, 12:01 PM
I don't know about that. The cost of renovating and maintaining a 95 year old building can be exorbitant, especially when the structure has been neglected to the point that it's literally falling apart. Building a new ballpark could easily end up making much more fiscal sense, particularly when you consider the added revenue from skyboxes, parking, and other amenities Wrigley lacks.

This could all get very interesting soon. Somebody - either Zell, the new owners, or the government - is going to have to put some serious money into Wrigley to keep it safe and structurally sound. Couple that with the fact that it's sitting on some very valuable real estate (and that Zell is a shrewd real estate man), and it wouldn't surprise me to see an ugly political battle over its future.

One has to look only to the Art Modell scamming of Cleveland(Browns) to see the monetary arguement to be made in NOT buying THE URINAL from Zell. This would lead the new orwners, whoever they might be, to play a hand with the options being.....


Buy this dump and we'll stay, after you(taxpayers) renovate

Don't and we'll move to......Rosemont/Arlington Hghts/Des Moines/(enter your pick here) , where the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

:rolleyes:

raven1
12-23-2007, 10:48 PM
One has to look only to the Art Modell scamming of Cleveland(Browns) to see the monetary arguement to be made in NOT buying THE URINAL from Zell. This would lead the new orwners, whoever they might be, to play a hand with the options being.....


Buy this dump and we'll stay, after you(taxpayers) renovate

Don't and we'll move to......Rosemont/Arlington Hghts/Des Moines/(enter your pick here) , where the taxpayers will pick up the tab.

:rolleyes:
To be fair, the White Sox played this game successfully to get their new stadium. Given how inaccessible Wrigley Field is to automobile traffic the suburbs would be a big improvement. If the Sox had been able to go with their first choice of location in the western suburbs in the 1980's, there would have been no threat to move to Florida and probably much better attendance during the lean years of the late '80's & late 90's.

Steelrod
12-24-2007, 03:12 AM
A better economic choice would be to move to the urinal if they vacate!

Fenway
12-24-2007, 06:36 AM
I am not sure I understand how Zell thinks he can get more money by selling Wrigley to the state than including it with the team.

You would think the new owner would want the park.

IF the state buys it I see massive renovations and the Cubs playing at USCF for a year or 2.

Frater Perdurabo
12-24-2007, 07:08 AM
I am not sure I understand how Zell thinks he can get more money by selling Wrigley to the state than including it with the team.

You would think the new owner would want the park.

IF the state buys it I see massive renovations and the Cubs playing at USCF for a year or 2.

Zell wants to make a profit. He wants to sell overvalued, non-core assets to pay down debt and then focus on the core business. Obviously he thinks that previous Tribune ownership/management did a horrible job and there is plenty of potential for improvement and for profits.

Zell doesn't care to whom he sells it. He's been a real estate developer, so he wants to get the highest price for it. If the highest offer comes in from someone who wants to build a high-rise condos, then Zell will sell to that developer.

If Zell can make more money selling the Cubs and the Urinal separately; then that's what he will do.

raven1
12-24-2007, 09:13 AM
I am not sure I understand how Zell thinks he can get more money by selling Wrigley to the state than including it with the team.

You would think the new owner would want the park.

IF the state buys it I see massive renovations and the Cubs playing at USCF for a year or 2.
The reason that Zell can make more money by selling Wrigley to the state instead of including it with the team is that the state would pay in tax-free municipal bonds. The tax-free status of these bonds means that the net profits from the proceeds of the sale would be higher than the from the taxable interest the Tribune company would get by reinvesting the proceeds from a sale to a private owner. State & local governments commonly use this financial technique to pay slightly lower prices & interest rates.

voodoochile
12-24-2007, 09:16 AM
Zell wants to make a profit. He wants to sell overvalued, non-core assets to pay down debt and then focus on the core business. Obviously he thinks that previous Tribune ownership/management did a horrible job and there is plenty of potential for improvement and for profits.

Zell doesn't care to whom he sells it. He's been a real estate developer, so he wants to get the highest price for it. If the highest offer comes in from someone who wants to build a high-rise condos, then Zell will sell to that developer.

If Zell can make more money selling the Cubs and the Urinal separately; then that's what he will do.

If he sells it to someone who plans to tear it down and build condos, he better be prepared to deal with the firestorm. It would give him a massive black eye and might even carry over to damage other business he owns that rely on public goodwill (like selling newspapers).

I think it would be hilarious if the flubbies were the first team forced to leave the city proper to build a new stadium, and it would definitely affect their long term value, IMO. They'd be forced to build a winner to keep profits up and franchise value up, much the way the Angels are. It'd be so sad that it would actually be funny to see all those "new flubbie fans" prove they are nothing more than bar hoppers and it would probably raise property values and severely damage the local bar scene if they took Wrigley out of the neighborhood. In a few years several of these "cool bars" would simply fade away.

It would forever change the face of the neighborhood and of baseball in Chicago if Zell sold the Urinal so it could be torn down and turned into condos...

kba
12-24-2007, 09:39 AM
I think it would be hilarious if the flubbies were the first team forced to leave the city proper to build a new stadium, and it would definitely affect their long term value, IMO. They'd be forced to build a winner to keep profits up and franchise value up, much the way the Angels are. It'd be so sad that it would actually be funny to see all those "new flubbie fans" prove they are nothing more than bar hoppers and it would probably raise property values and severely damage the local bar scene if they took Wrigley out of the neighborhood. In a few years several of these "cool bars" would simply fade away.

I have a fear that if the Cubs seriously threaten to abandon Wrigley and move to the suburbs, the city and state would cave and build them some kind of showplace nostalgic ballpark downtown or on the near north side. That way the city gets to keep the Cubs, Zell gets to build his condos at Clark and Addison, and the taxpayers - again - foot the bill.

cws05champ
12-24-2007, 10:34 AM
I have a fear that if the Cubs seriously threaten to abandon Wrigley and move to the suburbs, the city and state would cave and build them some kind of showplace nostalgic ballpark downtown or on the near north side. That way the city gets to keep the Cubs, Zell gets to build his condos at Clark and Addison, and the taxpayers - again - foot the bill.

Why would they make all these renovations in the last few years if they were going to tear it down...it makes no sense. They will stay at Wrigley as long as possible because of all the tourism that it brings in(see Iowa buses outside the stadium). And to that point, if the City of Chicago owns it then why would they tear down a sure fire tourist attraction that brings in revenue for the city?

areilly
12-24-2007, 01:51 PM
If he sells it to someone who plans to tear it down and build condos, he better be prepared to deal with the firestorm. It would give him a massive black eye and might even carry over to damage other business he owns that rely on public goodwill (like selling newspapers).

...

It would forever change the face of the neighborhood and of baseball in Chicago if Zell sold the Urinal so it could be torn down and turned into condos...


We talked about this a lot in my sports reporting class.

The Cubs bring an average of $8 million to the area each home game, and even the most casual observer knows there is no way the city lets that much money walk out the door without a fight, and the state has to realize they won't see nearly as much from a Cubs team playing in Naperville, either, unless they can con someone into paying huge amounts for naming rights.

Odds are the Cubs aren't going anywhere. Everyone involved knows how much is at stake, and no one wants to be the guy that left it all on the table.

Nellie_Fox
12-25-2007, 01:06 AM
IF the state buys it I see massive renovations and the Cubs playing at USCF for a year or 2.It is my understanding that the Sox have it in their contract with the state that they can veto any other use of USCF.

I can't imagine the Sox allowing the Cubs to play there. First of all, they fully understand that the Cubs are their direct competition for the baseball dollar in Chicago. Second, 162 games a year would play hell with the condition of the field.

spiffie
12-25-2007, 09:01 AM
It is my understanding that the Sox have it in their contract with the state that they can veto any other use of USCF.

I can't imagine the Sox allowing the Cubs to play there. First of all, they fully understand that the Cubs are their direct competition for the baseball dollar in Chicago. Second, 162 games a year would play hell with the condition of the field.
How would something like this work, just on the off chance that it were to happen? Who gets the concessions money? The parking lot fees? Merchandise sold at the stadium?

jabrch
12-25-2007, 09:47 AM
I can't imagine the Sox allowing the Cubs to play there.

I can - JR could charge them a handsome fee for that right.

jabrch
12-25-2007, 09:48 AM
How would something like this work, just on the off chance that it were to happen? Who gets the concessions money? The parking lot fees? Merchandise sold at the stadium?

That would all be negotiable - and JR would make sure to get as much as humanly possible if it meant helping the Cubs.

voodoochile
12-25-2007, 10:59 AM
That would all be negotiable - and JR would make sure to get as much as humanly possible if it meant helping the Cubs.

Depends on how much pressure is needed or exerted from MLB. All the animosity between the two teams doesn't compare with the brotherhood of wealthy owners. If MLB feels it's in the league's best interest, they will exert pressure and JR will fall in line.

Nothing matters but the almighty dollar...

jabrch
12-25-2007, 11:27 AM
Depends on how much pressure is needed or exerted from MLB. All the animosity between the two teams doesn't compare with the brotherhood of wealthy owners. If MLB feels it's in the league's best interest, they will exert pressure and JR will fall in line.

Nothing matters but the almighty dollar...

Yup - I'm sure there would be a lot of backoffice dealmaking. But you can bet JR and the Sox would come out on the positive side of that ledger.

Fenway
12-26-2007, 11:52 AM
It is my understanding that the Sox have it in their contract with the state that they can veto any other use of USCF.

I can't imagine the Sox allowing the Cubs to play there. First of all, they fully understand that the Cubs are their direct competition for the baseball dollar in Chicago. Second, 162 games a year would play hell with the condition of the field.

I am sure that Illinois would make it very worthwhile to the White Sox to allow that to happen plus 20-30 years down the road the White Sox might need to play at Wrigley. The Mets allowed the Yankees in for 2 years in the 70's.

Nellie_Fox
12-27-2007, 12:22 AM
I am sure that Illinois would make it very worthwhile to the White Sox to allow that to happen plus 20-30 years down the road the White Sox might need to play at Wrigley. The Mets allowed the Yankees in for 2 years in the 70's.The Mets had no choice; they neither owned the park nor had the right of refusal. As I remember it, when the Sox were in the same position with old Comiskey, the Cubs made it pretty clear that the Sox were not welcome to play there during any renovation.

Frontman
12-27-2007, 08:15 AM
You know how to truly test who is a Cubs fan, versus a Flubbie fan?

Ask them the following question, and judge for yourself:

"What would you rather have. Wrigley Field to remain Wrigley Field; or for the park to be re-named and win a World Series?"

We as Sox fans faced that a few years ago. I don't think too many of us would rather have "Comiskey" on the side of the ballpark, instead of having this:


http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2006/04/02/YYQqSBlA.jpg

On the light tower. Ok, maybe its just me, but I prefer the banner versus the name Comiskey.

areilly
12-27-2007, 11:25 AM
Ask them the following question, and judge for yourself:

"What would you rather have. Wrigley Field to remain Wrigley Field; or for the park to be re-named and win a World Series?"

We as Sox fans faced that a few years ago.

That's the kind of bare-knuckled logic I like, but unfortunately it's false. $68 million over 20 years isn't that much of a difference in cash flow, at least not enough to buy up talent without hesitation and without resistance. Likewise, the park improvements didn't immediately translate to the spike in attendance.

One could just as easily argue that it was that banner that brought in the new money, and not the other way around.

Lip Man 1
12-27-2007, 11:54 AM
The Angels also played at Chavez Ravine for a few years after they played at L.A.'s Wrigley Field and before Anaheim Stadium was built.

O'Malley charged them an arm and a leg and openly laughed about it.

Lip

grv1974
12-27-2007, 05:08 PM
You know how to truly test who is a Cubs fan, versus a Flubbie fan?

Ask them the following question, and judge for yourself:

"What would you rather have. Wrigley Field to remain Wrigley Field; or for the park to be re-named and win a World Series?"

We as Sox fans faced that a few years ago. I don't think too many of us would rather have "Comiskey" on the side of the ballpark, instead of having this:


http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2006/04/02/YYQqSBlA.jpg

On the light tower. Ok, maybe its just me, but I prefer the banner versus the name Comiskey.

Yeah, I'm really starting to realize that even my friends who are die-hard cubs fans would mysteriously stop attending games if there were no more Wrigley. It really is all about that piece-of-crap-stadium and not about the team with those people.

Here's a link to my friend's personal Cubs blog, and you'll see the nauseating love for Wrigley.: http://infieldbox.blogspot.com/2007/12/wrigley-uncertain-too.html

pierzynski07
12-27-2007, 05:14 PM
You know how to truly test who is a Cubs fan, versus a Flubbie fan?

Ask them the following question, and judge for yourself:

"What would you rather have. Wrigley Field to remain Wrigley Field; or for the park to be re-named and win a World Series?"

We as Sox fans faced that a few years ago. I don't think too many of us would rather have "Comiskey" on the side of the ballpark, instead of having this:


http://mlb.mlb.com/images/2006/04/02/YYQqSBlA.jpg

On the light tower. Ok, maybe its just me, but I prefer the banner versus the name Comiskey.

I can just picture the negotiations in the 04-05 offseason.

Player A: Your stadium name sucks.
Kenny: Well good news then! We changed it.
Player B: Excellent! Where do I sign?

Frontman
12-27-2007, 06:31 PM
That's the kind of bare-knuckled logic I like, but unfortunately it's false. $68 million over 20 years isn't that much of a difference in cash flow, at least not enough to buy up talent without hesitation and without resistance. Likewise, the park improvements didn't immediately translate to the spike in attendance.

One could just as easily argue that it was that banner that brought in the new money, and not the other way around.

You're missing my point. Of course the money didn't go to making the team win, it went to park improvements. My point is that true Cubs BASEBALL fans won't care about the park name, they'd take the championship title, thank you very much.

Flubbie fans want it to remain Wrigley, product on the field be darned, as its more important that the experience is nice, versus a competitive product on the field.

Fenway
12-27-2007, 07:22 PM
Please let this happen

Sunnyvale, California - The Chicago Tribune has announced they have sold the naming rights for the Chicago Cubs baseball field formerly known as Wrigley Field to Yahoo Inc. who will rename the park YAHOO FIELD.

pierzynski07
12-27-2007, 08:36 PM
Please let this happen

Sunnyvale, California - The Chicago Tribune has announced they have sold the naming rights for the Chicago Cubs baseball field formerly known as Wrigley Field to Yahoo Inc. who will rename the park YAHOO FIELD.
Simpsons did it first.

"The Who will be playing at Springfield's historic Yahoo! Search Engine Arena."

grv1974
12-27-2007, 10:14 PM
Simpsons did it first.

"The Who will be playing at Springfield's historic Yahoo! Search Engine Arena."

How about "Woo Woo Field?" (named after Ronnie Woo Woo)

areilly
12-27-2007, 10:53 PM
You're missing my point. Of course the money didn't go to making the team win, it went to park improvements. My point is that true Cubs BASEBALL fans won't care about the park name, they'd take the championship title, thank you very much.

Flubbie fans want it to remain Wrigley, product on the field be darned, as its more important that the experience is nice, versus a competitive product on the field.

I guess I just don't get why you said we "faced that question," as though at the time of the USCF renaming there was such a thing as a...what's the South Side counterpart to Flubbie fan? Soxxie M.F.?

Anyway, it's not really an even comparison since the Comiskey experience (old or new) and the Wrigley experience were/are nowhere near the same thing - by which I mean both were/are good in their own ways, but definitely not in the same ways. Would I give up the eyesore blue seats and wind whipping around the nosebleed seats in exchange for a respectable ballpark and a stupid name? Yes. Come to think of it, I'd have traded away a lot about pre-renovation Comiskey II.

Besides, it's dismissive to say there aren't actual die-hard, knowledgable, baseball-minded Cubs fans who want the team to win and for Wrigley to remain Wrigley. As a Sox fan (and if they'd finished it at home), it would've meant a lot more to me if the Sox had won a World Series in a place called Comiskey Park rather than a place called U.S. Cellular Field. I can't see those true fans on the North Side not feeling the same way about their park, urine stink or not.

As a side note, my grandfather's been following the Sox since 1928 and still calls the park where they play Comiskey - and I know he's not the only one out there.

Frontman
12-27-2007, 11:44 PM
I guess I just don't get why you said we "faced that question," as though at the time of the USCF renaming there was such a thing as a...what's the South Side counterpart to Flubbie fan? Soxxie M.F.?

A bad choice of words not making myself clear enough. I was a Sox fan who got a bit bugged when they changed the name (as many re-named parks then needed to get re-named again when the company re-naming it went under) but in hindsight? If re-naming the park every few years brings in enough revenue to upgrade/upkeep the park, so that the team's finances can put the Sox into the playoffs/World Series? Rename it every other year, then baby!


Anyway, it's not really an even comparison since the Comiskey experience (old or new) and the Wrigley experience were/are nowhere near the same thing - by which I mean both were/are good in their own ways, but definitely not in the same ways. Would I give up the eyesore blue seats and wind whipping around the nosebleed seats in exchange for a respectable ballpark and a stupid name? Yes. Come to think of it, I'd have traded away a lot about pre-renovation Comiskey II.


Agreed. One smells of churros and brats, the other....well, you know.


Besides, it's dismissive to say there aren't actual die-hard, knowledgable, baseball-minded Cubs fans who want the team to win and for Wrigley to remain Wrigley.


Again, you're missing my point of the litmus test. If you ask the Cubs fan, "What would you rather have? A World Series Championship, or for the park to always be Wrigley Field?" Its either or, not the option of both. If they then answer Wrigley, then they don't care about their team ever winning a series. They'd rather have "the experience" versus "The Championship." And if they are that moronic, that the park's name is more important than see their team raise the "greatest prize in baseball;" then they can and should be dismissed. And if we could pass a law that they are not allowed to produce offspring, all the better.

For the fan, its to enjoy the team AS IT COMPETES for a shot at the title. If one is only there for the food and the beer? Have at it, I'll be watching the Sox try again to get back to the Promised Land.


As a Sox fan (and if they'd finished it at home), it would've meant a lot more to me if the Sox had won a World Series in a place called Comiskey Park rather than a place called U.S. Cellular Field. I can't see those true fans on the North Side not feeling the same way about their park, urine stink or not.


It didn't matter to me if they won it on the Moon. The won the Series, and that's all I ever wanted to see. Hell, the won the first Series ever played in Texas, and that in itself is historic. Nothing meant more to me, and nothing would of made it more special; but to see Ozzie and co. hoist that trophy? To actually touch it myself months later (my son decided to try and lift it during the trophy tour. I grabbed it before he could knock it off the stand/drop it. And I'll deny it to my dying day that I left my hand on it for my photo with it. :wink:) That's what a fan is all about. Oh sure, we had fandom of 88 years without the title. We enjoyed a ton of games during that run. But if the Sox organization had to make decisions to change the park, rename the park, etc. to bring home a title? The title means more to me than anything else.


As a side note, my grandfather's been following the Sox since 1928 and still calls the park where they play Comiskey - and I know he's not the only one out there.

Oh, I still call it "Sox Park" a alot of times. It might of meant more to me if it was the original ballpark, but it was "New" Comiskey anyways. US Cellular Field, Chuck Norris Facts.com Park, I prefer Pepsi over Coke Stadium. Call it what you will. As long as its home of the White Sox and they're competing for post season play, I'm a happy Sox fan.