PDA

View Full Version : Sam Zell "won't hesitate to sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field"


Over By There
02-27-2008, 08:16 AM
"...even if baseball purists don't like the idea."

Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/chi-cubs-wrigley-field-naming,1,7238116.story)

:santo
"Ohhhhh nooooooooo!"

kraut83
02-27-2008, 08:46 AM
"Piggly Wiggly Field at Clark & Addison"

Perhaps? :dunno:

palehozenychicty
02-27-2008, 08:52 AM
Old Style Green Trough at Wrigley Field. :smile:

voodoochile
02-27-2008, 08:52 AM
Is Century Tile still in business? I think that would be a no brainer...

spiffie
02-27-2008, 09:21 AM
Harry's Hard Hat Field. Come be one of the first 20,000 fans and get yer free Cubs hard hat with optional Ronnie Woo Woo noisemaker attachment.

The Immigrant
02-27-2008, 09:24 AM
Joe Perillo Field would be absolutely perfect.

veeter
02-27-2008, 09:25 AM
Is Century Tile still in business? I think that would be a no brainer...Very, very nice.

kba
02-27-2008, 09:27 AM
"...even if baseball purists don't like the idea."




I'm getting the sense that Sam Zell won't hesitate to do anything if it results in more money for Sam Zell.

Steelrod
02-27-2008, 09:27 AM
Sybaris ?

soxfan13
02-27-2008, 09:34 AM
Is Century Tile still in business? I think that would be a no brainer...

Would love to see the old Magikist sign lighting up there at night:redneck


http://www.chicagobarproject.com/Memoriam/Berghoff/Magikist.jpg

Rocky Soprano
02-27-2008, 09:38 AM
I'm getting the sense that Sam Zell won't hesitate to do anything if it results in more money for Sam Zell.

He is a business man.

twentywontowin
02-27-2008, 09:40 AM
Empire Carpet at Wrigley Field.

Sounds like a winner.

itsnotrequired
02-27-2008, 09:54 AM
I'm getting the sense that Sam Zell won't hesitate to do anything if it results in more money for Sam Zell.

Zell would trade all the money and posessions he has for just a little bit more.

Mr.1Dog
02-27-2008, 09:57 AM
Walter E Smith, in correlation with OldStyle, Motorola and Empire Carpet presents Menards Field.

Frater Perdurabo
02-27-2008, 09:58 AM
Trojan Field :cool:

Vestigio
02-27-2008, 10:28 AM
I like the suggestion of Waste Management Field which was proposed in a previous "rename Wrigley" topic

thomas35forever
02-27-2008, 10:52 AM
"Piggly Wiggly Field at Clark & Addison"

Perhaps? :dunno:
Why not? When I was just learning about the place, I struggled to say it correctly. Wrig-a-rey Field and Wiggly Field were among my first attempts to say it.

btrain929
02-27-2008, 10:58 AM
Port-a-John Stadium: "Come experience THIS ****!"

SOXPHILE
02-27-2008, 11:06 AM
Port-a-John Stadium: "Come experience THIS ****!"

That's along the same lines that I was thinking:

American Standard Field : "Look at all the **** this thing holds !"

kaufsox
02-27-2008, 11:09 AM
I'm getting the sense that Sam Zell won't hesitate to do anything if it results in more money for Sam Zell.

isn't that why he bought the Trib Co. in the first place? He never announced any other intention than buying the company and selling off its parts for more money. Not a big mystery or malfeasance.

slavko
02-27-2008, 11:18 AM
Zell would trade all the money and posessions he has for just a little bit more.

Of course, you are right. He is not a hypocrite about it, anyway. He could say, for instance, that he is selling Wrigley, or Tribune Tower, or whatever, to protect us from terrorism, or to provide the people of Chicago with a richer living experience, or to ensure the survivial of Western civilization.

soxinem1
02-27-2008, 11:28 AM
How about a WSI original?

The Urinal on Addison?

Fenway
02-27-2008, 11:39 AM
Fenway-Midwest

gregoriop
02-27-2008, 11:40 AM
Summer's Eve Stadium.

You know, cause they play in the summer there.

jabrch
02-27-2008, 12:14 PM
Joe Perillo Field would be absolutely perfect.

I don't get it?

dwalteroo
02-27-2008, 12:25 PM
Summer's Eve Stadium.

You know, cause they play in the summer there.

Me likey. I was going to say Massengill Park.

gr8mexico
02-27-2008, 12:49 PM
:gulp:This is for you Sam Zell.

Jerko
02-27-2008, 12:50 PM
Should he Zell, I mean Cell?

raven1
02-27-2008, 12:55 PM
I think it's very telling that all of the angst expressed by Cubs fans over this relates to tradition or potential changes to their beloved park, but no real concern over whether the proceeds would be used to benefit or improve the team itself.

Jerko
02-27-2008, 01:02 PM
Me likey. I was going to say Massengill Park.

Yeah, but that would only apply to May games.

#1swisher
02-27-2008, 05:27 PM
Boer/Bernstein are discussing this on thescore now.

#1swisher
02-27-2008, 05:30 PM
Why not? When I was just learning about the place, I struggled to say it correctly. Wrig-a-rey Field and Wiggly Field were among my first attempts to say it.

wrigley... doublemint gum.

TDog
02-27-2008, 05:38 PM
wrigley... doublemint gum.

Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Cubs turn out to be trying to inspire some sort of consideration from the company that has its name on the ballpark.

Steelrod
02-27-2008, 05:41 PM
Don't blame him. He's not a fan, and has bought a failing corporation. This is how to turn it around. You maximize the assets.

WSox597
02-27-2008, 06:49 PM
http://www.sloanvalve.com/products_wes1000_ENU_HTML.htm

Here is the perfect sponsor for "the shrine".

Sloan Field has a nice ring to it.

About as close to a ring as anyone up there is likely to get.

DrCrawdad
02-27-2008, 07:53 PM
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Cubs turn out to be trying to inspire some sort of consideration from the company that has its name on the ballpark.

Zell mentioned this in the Sun-Times report and he has said it before.

"Perhaps the Wrigley Co. will decide that, after getting it for free for so long, that it's time to pay for it." - Sam Zell as quoted in the Sun-Times, 2/27/08

Fenway
02-27-2008, 08:16 PM
Zell mentioned this in the Sun-Times report and he has said it before.

For the money Zell wants Wrigley may just laugh at him.

No matter what the park is named people nationwide will still call it Wrigley.

When the new arena in Boston opened they tried calling it Fleet Center but we just called it the new Garden. After 10 years they finally brought back the Garden officially.

This is tricky because the park was named for the owner not the gum. From where Zell sits this is no different than changing Comiskey to USCF.

Have to give the Yankees and Red Sox credit as they have never considered doing it and walked away from a lot of money.

Qdiddy
02-27-2008, 08:44 PM
Tampax Field..."Come soak in the atmosphere"

DrCrawdad
02-27-2008, 10:48 PM
This is tricky because the park was named for the owner not the gum.

WRONG!

Wrigley is the name of the gum corporation AND the family. It was not named PK Wrigley Field, they went with the family name AND the name of their business.

Fenway
02-27-2008, 11:16 PM
WRONG!

Wrigley is the name of the gum corporation AND the family. It was not named PK Wrigley Field, they went with the family name AND the name of their business.

It was also called Cubs Park from 1920 to 1926 before finally being renamed for then Cubs team owner and chewing gum industrialist William Wrigley Jr..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Field

However Wrigley spends so much on advertising that another 20M a year they can absorb

Advertising Age estimated global measured advertising expenditure of $494m in 2006, making Wrigley the world's #64 advertiser.

http://www.mind-advertising.com/us/wrigley_us.htm

Nellie_Fox
02-27-2008, 11:36 PM
Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if the Cubs turn out to be trying to inspire some sort of consideration from the company that has its name on the ballpark.Ya think?

DrCrawdad
02-27-2008, 11:54 PM
It was also called Cubs Park from 1920 to 1926 before finally being renamed for then Cubs team owner and chewing gum industrialist William Wrigley Jr..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrigley_Field

However Wrigley spends so much on advertising that another 20M a year they can absorb

Advertising Age estimated global measured advertising expenditure of $494m in 2006, making Wrigley the world's #64 advertiser.

http://www.mind-advertising.com/us/wrigley_us.htm

Wrigley is THE name of both the family AND the corporation. That is a fact.

The Wrigley Building, was that named after the corporation or a man?

And if it was named Wrigley Field to solely honor the man, why wasn't it named William Wrigley Field?

Isn't it an interesting and odd coincidence that they choose the same name of the corporation? I mean they couldn't have had a reason beyond their stated one, could they?

And BTW before Chicago had a Wrigley Field, Los Angeles had one. How nice and quaint that they honored William Wrigley by naming fields for him in LA and Chicago.

Fenway
02-28-2008, 12:00 AM
Wrigley is THE name of both the family AND the corporation. That is a fact.

The Wrigley Building, was that named after the corporation or a man?

And if it was named Wrigley Field to solely honor the man, why wasn't it named William Wrigley Field?

Isn't it an interesting and odd coincidence that they choose the same name of the corporation? I mean they couldn't have had a reason beyond their stated one, could they?

Maybe the Tribune should have paid the City of Chicago for the name McCormick Place :tongue:

Wrigley can afford it....so I suspect they will keep the name.

Nellie_Fox
02-28-2008, 12:01 AM
And if it was named Wrigley Field to solely honor the man, why wasn't it named William Wrigley Field? Like Charles Comiskey Park?

DrCrawdad
02-28-2008, 12:15 AM
Like Charles Comiskey Park?

I hear you, but I've had this argument with Cubbie fans before. So many simply parrot the story as they've been told as though it was beyond reason that the Wrigley's could have had something commercial in mind when they named the second ballpark in the US, Wrigley.

Wrigley is a corporate named field. Now there is a chance that a corporation will have to pay for that corporate naming.

DrCrawdad
02-28-2008, 12:17 AM
Maybe the Tribune should have paid the City of Chicago for the name McCormick Place :tongue:

Wrigley can afford it....so I suspect they will keep the name.

Your Honor, the witness is non-responsive. Your Honor will you compel the witness to answer the questions?

:)

DrCrawdad
02-28-2008, 12:54 AM
At least one Cubbie fan agrees...

I see in today's Tribune...that the Sox are negotiating to sell naming rights to U. S. Cellular. Now, in fairness, Wrigley was and still is a corporate logo. - "Former Ranger", 01/2003

BlackHat91
02-28-2008, 01:53 AM
From the Chicagoist.com blog:

"And now the Sun-Times is freaking out. "How would you like the sound of Depends Field? Or Preparation H Ballpark?" they pant (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/baseball/cubs/815403,zell022708.article). Considering how often the Cubs play like ass, would that be so bad? [S-T (http://www.suntimes.com/sports/814904,CST-NWS-wrig27.article), AP (http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/cs-080227-chicago-cubs-zell-wrigley-field,1,670643.story)]"

:D:

Frontman
02-28-2008, 06:36 AM
I'm getting the sense that Sam Zell won't hesitate to do anything if it results in more money for Sam Zell.

And that is the attitude needed with that organization, to a point. To ever put a winning ballclub together, the ownership needs to be doing whatever it takes to make the most money; then put it funds back into the club.

The whole "status quo" philosophy, of 'tradition, the ivy, getting out of work for a summer afternoon game, etc.' is the reason that the Cubs never have gone all the way. You cannot hold onto the past traditions so tightly (like having guest performers do the 7th inning stretch 10 years after Harry passed) and every time show Harry's cartoon pic and not have the philosophy that things remaining the same not permiate the philosophy of how to play the game.

DrCrawdad
02-28-2008, 06:56 AM
And there is this quote too...

...Wrigley. Once, it was among the first corporate-named parks, honoring gum-maker William Wrigley Jr. back in the 1920s and lasting into the next century. - Sun-Times columnist, 12/21/07

asg2003ws2005
02-28-2008, 07:11 AM
For the money Zell wants Wrigley may just laugh at him.

No matter what the park is named people nationwide will still call it Wrigley.

When the new arena in Boston opened they tried calling it Fleet Center but we just called it the new Garden. After 10 years they finally brought back the Garden officially.

This is tricky because the park was named for the owner not the gum. From where Zell sits this is no different than changing Comiskey to USCF.

Have to give the Yankees and Red Sox credit as they have never considered doing it and walked away from a lot of money.But it still has a corporate name attached to it, correct?

Viva Medias B's
02-28-2008, 07:41 AM
A certain someone in the Sun-Times sports secton, so beloved by us in the White Sox World, opines about this today. Having seen YouTubes of Zell's talks to Tribune Co. employees, I bet a response to this person by Zell would be priceless.

Fenway
02-28-2008, 07:45 AM
But it still has a corporate name attached to it, correct?

Today it is Toronto Dominion BankNorth Garden but everybody simply says Garden. The old Garden was never called by its official name which was Boston Madison Square Garden as it was built by the New York arena owners. When Fleet Bank had the rights to the new building it backfired as the building was nicknamed Fleece Center. When Bank of America took over Fleet they paid the Bruins to cancel the deal.

Back in 1926 I think naming the park after the owner was their main intention since Charlie had done the same with his park. It was not named Wrigley Gum Park.

Still I had no idea Wrigley Corp spend nearly a half billion in ads in 2006 so this is affordable for them. Zell just wants to make back his money any way he can. The sum of the parts is worth more than the whole. Many think he is talking to Murdoch to buy the LA Times which Rupert covets. Already the California edition of the NY Post is LA's second biggest paper. Unlike the version sold in Chicago which is identical to NY the LA Post has LA ads, local TV listings and they cover LA sports.

DoItForDanPasqua
02-28-2008, 08:19 AM
WRONG!

Wrigley is the name of the gum corporation AND the family. It was not named PK Wrigley Field, they went with the family name AND the name of their business.


It was common during this era for parks to be named after the owner's surname. Ebbets Field, Comiskey Park, Griffith Stadium, and Crosley Field are four examples. I can't think of any old park that has both the owner's first and last name as the name.

Either way, I would agree that Wrigley, like Crosley who sold cars under his own name, likely saw some promotional benefit by naming the park after himself, but I think the reason both his ballpark and his gum company were named Wrigley is because he was a bit egotistical.

tebman
02-28-2008, 09:05 AM
I'm getting the sense that Sam Zell won't hesitate to do anything if it results in more money for Sam Zell.

And that is the attitude needed with that organization, to a point. To ever put a winning ballclub together, the ownership needs to be doing whatever it takes to make the most money; then put it funds back into the club.

The whole "status quo" philosophy, of 'tradition, the ivy, getting out of work for a summer afternoon game, etc.' is the reason that the Cubs never have gone all the way. You cannot hold onto the past traditions so tightly (like having guest performers do the 7th inning stretch 10 years after Harry passed) and every time show Harry's cartoon pic and not have the philosophy that things remaining the same not permiate the philosophy of how to play the game.
Making the most money is all the Tribune has ever cared about. Despite their carefully-tended image as a benevolent corporate citizen, they've always been about making money. The reason they bought the Cubs in the first place was to provide a guaranteed program stream and brand identity for WGN radio and TV. The synergy with the newspaper was too good to pass up, and they've skillfully milked that over the years.

At least with Zell there's no pretense of "journalistic integrity" that he hides behind. He's a hustler and a businessman and is unapologetic about it. It's a nice break from the phony claims of virtue we've been hearing from the Tribune for the last century. That's why the company needed the White Sox and its fans to be here -- we're the "other" that could be referred to as they marketed the Cubs, the newspapers, and the radio & TV stations to the demographic that they try so hard to reach.

As to the ballpark, maybe Abercrombie & Fitch would like to name it -- they'd have a huge customer base right there in one place. :tongue:

kba
02-28-2008, 09:25 AM
And that is the attitude needed with that organization, to a point. To ever put a winning ballclub together, the ownership needs to be doing whatever it takes to make the most money; then put it funds back into the club.

After the Zell buyout, Tribune Co. is $13 billion dollars in debt. So when Zell talks about selling the naming rights, I doubt he's planning to put the funds back into the club. With all the complex potential scenarios about selling the ballclub and the ballpark separately, who knows if a dime of that money will go into anything that benefits the fans or improves the team on the field.

The Immigrant
02-28-2008, 09:34 AM
With all the complex potential scenarios about selling the ballclub and the ballpark separately, who knows if a dime of that money will go into anything that benefits the fans or improves the team on the field.

It won't. Zell's strategy is to sell choice assets on a piecemeal basis in order to raise cash to pay down the Tribune's debt. He could not care less about the team or its fans.

If anything, I'm surprised he didn't raise ticket prices 300%.

roylestillman
02-28-2008, 09:37 AM
After the Zell buyout, Tribune Co. is $13 billion dollars in debt. So when Zell talks about selling the naming rights, I doubt he's planning to put the funds back into the club. With all the complex potential scenarios about selling the ballclub and the ballpark separately, who knows if a dime of that money will go into anything that benefits the fans or improves the team on the field.

This is exactly right. There is no indication that Zell would put the money back into the club. If the deal is a lump sum he more than likely just pay down corporate debt. If it is an annual amount, he will simply use that cash flow to up the price of selling Wrigley, whether to a private entity or to the ISFA. Its also the reason why he's attempting to increase "events" at the ballpark. Zell knows that rent = asset value. and right now he has an asset that is empty 280 days a year.

chaerulez
02-28-2008, 09:40 AM
If naming rights generate more money for the team and it's put back into the team, fans should have no ground to complain. Hell, Arsenal FC played at Arsenal Stadium/Highbury for nearly 100 years but their new pitch is called Emirates Stadium after the airline company made a deal for the naming rights. Sure some fans didn't like it, but the club made a lot of money off of it and it doesn't really diminish any tradition or the past.

palehozenychicty
02-28-2008, 09:48 AM
As to the ballpark, maybe Abercrombie & Fitch would like to name it -- they'd have a huge customer base right there in one place. :tongue:

:kneeslap:

Fenway
02-28-2008, 09:54 AM
I am a little confused on how Zell is working this.

Since he intends to sell Wrigley separately from the team I would assume the buyer of the park would get the naming rights income.

I suppose that income would slighly inflate the value of the park but in reality how much more would Zell pocket from this.

I do expect the new owners of the Cubs will follow the model the Red Sox have shown the last 6 years. It was thought that the massive debt service the new owners took on would hurt the team as it would make it harder to compete against NY who before they decided to build a new park had no debt. Of course just the opposite has occurred with the team being creative in finding new revenue streams and achieving on the field success not seen in 90 years.

I don't think Chicago would tolerate the ticket prices Boston charges as it is a 2 team market. Also Wrigley has less revenue enhancing options that Fenway offered. Fenway had a roof that was under utilized and is now filled with high priced seating and suites. The seats built on top of the wall created space that did not exist. However a rebuild of the grandstand would allow a true club level similar to USCF.

cub killer
02-28-2008, 10:52 AM
U.S. Cellular has a big ad budget and is trying to win back the north side fans they alienated when they affiliated themselves with us. Don't be surprised if the urinal becomes U.S. Cellular Ballpark

PalehosePlanet
02-28-2008, 11:25 AM
Does Zell still own a part of the Sox or was he forced to sell it because he could not sell the cubs by the end of last year? I remember the league giving him an extension on the conflict of interest issue, but I believe that originally they only gave him through November of 2007.

Also, I think cubs fans won't gripe too much after the field is completely rebuilt in a few years. The stadium will have a somewhat different appearance, I'd imagine, and the old name will have gone the way of the old stadium.

TheVulture
02-28-2008, 04:29 PM
He is a business man.

Perhaps it is a foreign concept, but it is possible to apply ethics to business...not that this is really an ethical issue.

DrCrawdad
02-28-2008, 11:00 PM
It is a little hard to get too exercised over the corporate renaming of Wrigley Field, technically named after team and stadium owner William Wrigley Jr., the chewing gum magnate, though it wasn't lost on the old man, a marketing titan, that the Wrigley name on the park wouldn't hurt gum sales.

Well said!

jabrch
02-28-2008, 11:59 PM
I am a little confused on how Zell is working this.

Since he intends to sell Wrigley separately from the team I would assume the buyer of the park would get the naming rights income.

I suppose that income would slighly inflate the value of the park but in reality how much more would Zell pocket from this.


If the ISFA owned the park, it would be very attractive to a team owner. ISFA will do what they want, when they want, to that place. A private owner might have a bit more trouble and a bit more politics.

End of the day - Chicago is all about politics. If one of Blago or Da Mayor's people can make a few bucks on the deal, they will clear a lot of roadblocks that a team owner might now want to get involved in. There's a lot of ugliness in politics and business in Chicago that someone stepping into a high profile role - managing partner of the Chicago Cubs, wouldn't want to touch.

34rancher
02-29-2008, 06:19 AM
I hear you, but I've had this argument with Cubbie fans before. So many simply parrot the story as they've been told as though it was beyond reason that the Wrigley's could have had something commercial in mind when they named the second ballpark in the US, Wrigley.

Wrigley is a corporate named field. Now there is a chance that a corporation will have to pay for that corporate naming.

I am under the perception is reality idea. It doesn't matter what the intention was when Wrigley renamed the stadium (Wrigley field is not the real name people), it is the reality that people attach it to the Wrigley Gum corp fair or not. Therefore, they have benefited from a free name. In reality who cares? It is a name, people get their panties in a bind over the dumbest things. Maybe that is why they are cub fans, they care more about image and name than actually winning and the product on the field. In all fairness, I guess anyone can have a bad century..

cws05champ
02-29-2008, 06:50 AM
I am under the perception is reality idea. It doesn't matter what the intention was when Wrigley renamed the stadium (Wrigley field is not the real name people), it is the reality that people attach it to the Wrigley Gum corp fair or not. Therefore, they have benefited from a free name. In reality who cares? It is a name, people get their panties in a bind over the dumbest things. Maybe that is why they are cub fans, they care more about image and name than actually winning and the product on the field. In all fairness, I guess anyone can have a bad century..
My god I know....this is now a national story picked up by ESPN and they are treating it like someone is burning bibles. Do I think they should rename it, no, for the same reason I thought Comiskey should not have been renamed. But if they want to make some $$ off the name...more power to them for being in that poition.

RedHeadPaleHoser
02-29-2008, 07:14 AM
My god I know....this is now a national story picked up by ESPN and they are treating it like someone is burning bibles. Do I think they should rename it, no, for the same reason I thought Comiskey should not have been renamed. But if they want to make some $$ off the name...more power to them for being in that poition.

Sox fans were against the renaming of Comiskey because the man founded the team...not bought them. IMO however, the Comiskey name died when the new park opened in 1991. When the stadium renovations started, the name became a non issue because the park itself became better.

The name change on the North Side is inevitable; if Cubs fans want to stay true to tradition, chip in your salaries or a few bar tabs at Murphy's, buy it from Zell, rename it Weeghman Field and let it go.

Weeghmanville? Sounds like a skin disease.

kba
02-29-2008, 08:45 AM
If the ISFA owned the park, it would be very attractive to a team owner. ISFA will do what they want, when they want, to that place. A private owner might have a bit more trouble and a bit more politics.

End of the day - Chicago is all about politics. If one of Blago or Da Mayor's people can make a few bucks on the deal, they will clear a lot of roadblocks that a team owner might now want to get involved in. There's a lot of ugliness in politics and business in Chicago that someone stepping into a high profile role - managing partner of the Chicago Cubs, wouldn't want to touch.

Any private owner who tries to re-build Wrigley could be in for quite an ordeal. In addition to running the political gauntlet at City Hall, there would be "historic landmark" restrictions to deal with, and almost-certain protests from neighborhood groups. All of this would add time and money to the project, and perhaps even preclude the possibility of building luxury suites, club-level seats, and other revenue-producing amenities that would change the overall look of the ballpark. Clearly, getting the ISFA to take over the ballpark and manage the renovations would be the best option for Zell and whoever the new owners turn out to be.

rdivaldi
02-29-2008, 09:20 AM
:whocares

Sorry, had to get it in...

stockonline2
02-29-2008, 10:35 AM
This is a really big deal. How dare they change the name of what should be the "Church of Baseball" The rich tradition that dates back hundreds of years is going to be forever tainted.

I think they should go with the hundred year theme.

I think "Century One Financial Field" would be fitting.

PatK
02-29-2008, 12:03 PM
Some of the outcry over this shows what idiots Cubs fans truly are.

I keep hearing about how "successsful" the Cubs are.

Of course, that success= attendance and has nothing to do with winning baseball.

Ziggy S
02-29-2008, 04:55 PM
He is a business man.
He's not a businessman. He's a business, man. Let him handle his business, damn.

Fenway
03-03-2008, 11:52 PM
maybe the Sun-Times tho :tongue:

If Sam Zell is so rich, how come hes not smart? (http://www.bostonherlad.com/sports/columnists/view.bg?articleid=1077374&srvc=sports&position=1)

The Immigrant
03-04-2008, 07:09 AM
I'm glad to see we're not the only town with terrible sportswriters. Was there a point to that article?

cws05champ
03-04-2008, 08:27 AM
Yea, Sam Zell got to be rich being "blissfully ignorant". He knows exactly what he is doing...he just doesn't have the emotional attachment to the franchise, stadium and name. That's business...deal with it!

SOXPHILE
03-04-2008, 08:35 AM
The Tribune is too busy printing story after story after story after story in Tempo, Business, Sports, Weekend, etc. about whether or not Wrigley Field should be re-named. There was a story in Tempo yesterday, and now, today, on page 1 of the front section, basically the same story re-hashed for the umpteenth time,

Iwritecode
03-04-2008, 09:33 AM
If the past is prologue, all the people cursing at the idea of corporate names covering the marquees of their beloved ballparks can save their breath. Precious few have staying power.

There's a ballpark just 8 miles south of the subject of this article that has a corporate name that seems to be doing just fine. How convinient they overlook this.

Wrigley field has had a corporate name for over 100 years and nobody has ever complained...

ode to veeck
03-04-2008, 10:04 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080303/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbn_naming_rights;_ylt=AoYQBNJGzCMUw3e2fkIVt_ULMxI F

Any Sox fans with a few $100M to blow that would like to make The Urinal the official name?

twentywontowin
03-04-2008, 10:06 AM
I'm still waiting for American Standard toilets to put in their bid and make it American Standard Stadium.

You could call it The ASS for short. Perfectly fitting considering the stench.

Taliesinrk
03-04-2008, 10:26 AM
There's a ballpark just 8 miles south of the subject of this article that has a corporate name that seems to be doing just fine. How convinient they overlook this.

Wrigley field has had a corporate name for over 100 years and nobody has ever complained...

I haven't read the article, but from the excerpt, I read it to mean that the name doesn't have staying power.. not the ballpark (not sure how that helps their argument though).

Chicken Dinner
03-13-2008, 01:35 PM
Looks like the Wrigley name is staying.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-thu_wrigley-field-sidebar-mar13,1,6943623.story

kittle42
03-13-2008, 02:11 PM
Looks like the Wrigley name is staying.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/chi-thu_wrigley-field-sidebar-mar13,1,6943623.story

Good. Now the Sun-Times can stop with its completely self-serving and embarassing campaign to promote the change.

RedHeadPaleHoser
03-13-2008, 02:12 PM
There's a fun little link for you to "rename" Wrigley. I'm saving all of them so I can upload them later.

Fenway
03-13-2008, 02:33 PM
Good. Now the Sun-Times can stop with its completely self-serving and embarassing campaign to promote the change.

We have been paying for car wrecks for 100 years..... State Farm Park at Wrigley Field

Frontman
03-13-2008, 02:35 PM
We have been apying for car wrecks for 100 years..... State Farm Park at Wrigley Field


Should stay with a local company:

http://c66.yellowpages.com/displaygif/sbc/96/1152796.jpg

KenBerryGrab
03-13-2008, 02:40 PM
Call 588-2300, Em-pire!