BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Zell says he won’t hesitate to sell Wrigley Field naming rights

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Zell says he won’t hesitate to sell Wrigley Field naming rights

Say goodnight, Harry von Sell.

Tribune Co. CEO Sam Zell said Tuesday he won’t hesitate to sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field—even if baseball purists don’t like the idea.

“Wrigley is an obvious world-wide icon and Wrigley Field is world-wide known. But, in the world of economics, when I bought the Tribune, I didn’t get a discount because I wasn’t going to use the naming rights that field represents,” Zell said in an interview on the CNBC program “Squawk Box.”

“Perhaps the Wrigley Co. will decide that, after getting it for free for so long, that it’s time to pay for it.”

Zell said he plans to sell the Cubs and Wrigley separately and “on our own time frame.” He also disclosed that Major League Baseball had already approved “four or six” potential ownership groups and that “any one of those groups, as far as I know, would be fine.”

Repoz Posted: February 27, 2008 at 09:30 AM | 92 comment(s)
Related News: General, Business, Chi Cubs

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. hscs Posted: February 27, 2008 at 09:51 AM (#2700975)

Step 1 should still be letting Woo-Woo back in the place. At least I'll feel like my tax dollars are doing someone some good.

2. Johnny Clash Posted: February 27, 2008 at 09:51 AM (#2700976)

No respect.

3. The District Attorney Posted: February 27, 2008 at 09:52 AM (#2700978)

Wow, this will not go over well.

4. Craig Calcaterra Posted: February 27, 2008 at 09:52 AM (#2700979)

Old Style Park.

It's the only one that can work.

5. jolietconvict Posted: February 27, 2008 at 09:54 AM (#2700982)

I still wonder if Zell's plan is to dump the stadium on ISFA for a much needed cash infusion into TribCo and then hold onto the team to feed the synergies with WGN.

6. Crispix Attacks is in the best shape of his life. Posted: February 27, 2008 at 09:55 AM (#2700984)

Wrigley Field is already named after a corporation. Maybe now they'll have to start paying for the privilege.

7. RB in NYC (Now with Resolutions!) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 09:58 AM (#2700989)

How much would someone really pay for naming rights? Wrigley Field is pretty well entrenched as the name of the park, so there's some bad press there, to say nothing of how likely it is that the name will enter common usage. And if a company tries to call it, say, "Sony Park at Wrigley Field" then it won't stick at all.

8. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:02 AM (#2700994)

If memory serves, the red sign outside the park has achieved historical landmark status. So, the park could get a new name and still be forced to retain a giant signing claiming it is Wrigley Field.

9. hscs Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:08 AM (#2701004)

If memory serves, the red sign outside the park has achieved historical landmark status.

I believe the landmark documentation can be found in the syndication rights for "Perfect Strangers."

10. A Surfeit of Peaches Graham (SdeB) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:12 AM (#2701008)

Wrigley Field is already named after a corporation

Actually, it's named after a person.

11. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:16 AM (#2701015)

Wrigley Field is already named after a corporation. Maybe now they'll have to start paying for the privilege.

I can't see why the Wrigley company would want to pay for naming rights when people will continue to call it Wrigley Field regardless what the new name is.

12. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:20 AM (#2701021)

If the media stops complaining about this, and instead simply agrees to keep calling it "Wrigley Field" no matter what some dumbassed dot.com has paid to rename it, it might set a good example. It might even serve to discourage other teams from doing this. I've never understood why a newspaper or network plays along with a decision to do away with a ballpark's history simply because some faceless corporation has paid a ball club a few million dollars.

13. Shooty Did Not Kill McGurk

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:24 AM (#2701026)

I think I'm done with MLB if they ever go to European soccer style corporate logos all over the jersey. That'll be the end for me.

14. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:24 AM (#2701027)

Wrigley Field is already named after a corporation

actually Wrigley field was named after Philip Wrigley, not the company (minor quibble)

do you know the first stadium in american pro sports that WAS named after a company? i.e. a company that actually PAID for what's now called "naming rights"

15. Pat Rapper's Delight Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:25 AM (#2701030)

I've never understood why a newspaper or network plays along with a decision to do away with a ballpark's history simply because some faceless corporation has paid a ball club a few million dollars.

Could the club then play hardball and deny media rights to reporters for stations who won't carry the water and provide free advertising for said "faceless corporation"?

That's why I've always thought they played along with this stupidity.

16. Adam G Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:27 AM (#2701032)

This might be a dumb idea, but if I was the Wrigley Co., I would be all over using this for a marketing campaign. For example, they come out with a Special Line of Chewing Gum where 5 cents out of every sale goes towards the "naming rights fund" or the "save wrigley field fund". The company will match every sale dollar for dollar.

They would gain enormous good will with the community, sell many many additional packs of gum, and essentially end up buying the naming rights for half price becasue the public would be paying half.

I dunno about their amount of sales and profit margins etc, but it seems like a creative company could have their cake and eat it too in this situation.

17. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:30 AM (#2701035)

Could the club then play hardball and deny media rights to reporters for stations who won't carry the water and provide free advertising for said "faceless corporation"?

I think it's more likely the club would stop spending advertising dollars with said newspaper, which is the quicker way to get a response from newspaper publishers.

It doesn't explain why we fans follow along, particularly in instances when teams change stadium names two or three times. I still think BTF readers should choose our own names for every stadium, so we don't have to follow the various M&A;'s to know what to call the damn stadiums in Arizona or San Francisco.

18. Crispix Attacks is in the best shape of his life. Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:31 AM (#2701036)

If the media stops complaining about this, and instead simply agrees to keep calling it "Wrigley Field" no matter what some dumbassed dot.com has paid to rename it, it might set a good example.

If that didn't work for Mile High Stadium, it's not going to work for anything.

Wouldn't the owners/sponsors threaten to sue for knowing misrepresentation of their product or something?

19. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:32 AM (#2701037)

How can you be surprised? This is Zell, fer crissakes.

20. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:35 AM (#2701040)

I've never understood why a newspaper or network plays along with a decision to do away with a ballpark's history simply because some faceless corporation has paid a ball club a few million dollars.

Could the club then play hardball and deny media rights to reporters for stations who won't carry the water and provide free advertising for said "faceless corporation"?

I suppose they could, but that wouldn't do anything more than compound their stupidity, since it'd hurt the ballclubs a lot more than it'd hurt the media. I doubt if a baseball team would want to stage its games without any media coverage, and I doubt that it'd want to have it out in the open that they were revoking a media outlet's credentials over such an issue.

This is one of those petty annoyances that could have been nipped in the bud when it first appeared when Candlestick was renamed something like 3dotcom.park, or whatever it was. (Does that company still exist?) And it wasn't, and as a result these creepy names have spread like a plague of locusts. But better late than never, and maybe Wrigley Field would be an ideal place for the media to wake up and just say No. It could happen if just one or two prominent names take the initiative and explain why they're doing so.

21. RB in NYC (Now with Resolutions!) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:38 AM (#2701046)

do you know the first stadium in american pro sports that WAS named after a company? i.e. a company that actually PAID for what's now called "naming rights"

I believe Coors Field is the first of the modern stadium naming rights--or at least what's what I wrote in the Hardball Times Annual this year--but I doubt it's the first ever.

22. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:39 AM (#2701049)

If the media stops complaining about this, and instead simply agrees to keep calling it "Wrigley Field" no matter what some dumbassed dot.com has paid to rename it, it might set a good example.

If that didn't work for Mile High Stadium, it's not going to work for anything.

Honest question: What do you mean? Does the media still call it Mile High Stadium, but the fans don't?

Wouldn't the owners/sponsors threaten to sue for knowing misrepresentation of their product or something?

Yeah, that'd be another brilliant PR move, not to mention that it'd be laughed out of court in about five minutes. I wonder what overlawyered.com could make of a suit like that?

EDIT: Of course in Denver's case, "Coors Field" isn't the sort of objectionable name I'm referring to. For one thing, Joseph Coors is (or was) a real person, just like William Wrigley. But more to the point, Coors is a product with longstanding consumer name recognition, and "Coors Field" just sounds better than "Qualcom Park" or "Cinergy Field". Hell, I could even have lived with "Enron Field," if only they'd shot the top 50 or 100 people in charge of it as a substitute for cash payment for the naming rights. That would have been the purest "win-win" situation in naming rights history.

23. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:45 AM (#2701058)

I believe Coors Field is the first of the modern stadium naming rights--or at least what's what I wrote in the Hardball Times Annual this year--but I doubt it's the first ever.

actually, it was Schaeffer Stadium in Foxboro--Schaeffer paid all of (I believe) $25,000 to Billy Sullivan for the rights; only lasted a couple of years

24. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:46 AM (#2701060)

I'm not so sure about that. When they tore down the old boston Garden and replaced it with the Fleet Center, people at first called it the "new Garden" but eventually started calling it the Fleet center, mostly.

Kevin, the difference there is the whole "torn down" part. And it will take a long time before the people who know the field as Wrigley start dying off.

25. RB in NYC (Now with Resolutions!) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:46 AM (#2701061)

Well, hey now, that's a football stadium. That doesn't count.

26. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:48 AM (#2701064)

Well, hey now, that's a football stadium. That doesn't count.

little known fact: BB videotaped Schaeffer handing over the cash to Sullivan

27. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:51 AM (#2701069)

I'm not so sure about that. When they tore down the old boston Garden and replaced it with the Fleet Center, people at first called it the "new Garden" but eventually started calling it the Fleet center, mostly.

The difference is that the Fleet Center was a new building. It WASN'T the Garden, so calling it by a new name wasn't as difficult. Slapping a new name on an old building to which people have an emotional attachment is trickier. In NYC, plenty of people still call the Met Life Building the Pan Am Building (by which it was known for its first 28 years of existence), and that's an ugly building that people generally despise for having been plunked down on top of the beautiful beaux arts Grand Central Station.

28. David Concepcion de la Desviacion Estandar (Dan R) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:57 AM (#2701077)

Given a choice between keeping an old stadium name and using the money from the naming rights to sign a superstar, as a fan, I'll take the latter every time. Of course, so will every team, which means in the long run my team won't win any more games and the owners and players will just get wealthier as all the stadiums eventually have corporate names. But that's as it should be (at least as far as the players are concerned)--their (indirect) ability to make millions of people look at advertising and mention a company's name on a regular basis is valuable, and they have no reason not to make the most of it!

It's interesting that Steinbrenner seems to have decided the brand value of Yankee Stadium is greater than the potential naming rights payoff, which I imagine would be massive.

29. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:59 AM (#2701079)

I was way off--this site says Schaeffer paid $1.5 million

(the site DOES say it was the first naming rights sale in the US of A)

30. Boots Day Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:59 AM (#2701080)

Honest question: What do you mean? Does the media still call it Mile High Stadium, but the fans don't?

There is no Mile High Stadium anymore; it was torn down a few years ago. The Broncos' new stadium is officially called Invesco Field at Mile High, in part to give people an excuse to still call it Mile High, but for the most part fans and media alike just call it Invesco.

31. Ryan Posted: February 27, 2008 at 10:59 AM (#2701081)

I believe Coors Field is the first of the modern stadium naming rights--or at least what's what I wrote in the Hardball Times Annual this year--but I doubt it's the first ever.

It was the first modern baseball stadium to sell the naming rights, but a number of arenas preceded it. Off the top of my head, the Delta Center, United Center, America West Arena, and USAir Arena all came before Coors Field.

Edited to clarify: The Capital Centre was an existing stadium that had been renamed the USAir Arena in the early-'90s.

32. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:03 AM (#2701085)

It was the first modern baseball stadium to sell the naming rights, but a number of arenas preceded it. Off the top of my head, the Delta Center, United Center, America West Arena, and USAir Arena all came before Coors Field.

Delta Center was the first one I remembered, though it wasn't until America West Arena was opened that I realized the Delta Center and United Center were both named after airlines.

33. retro-shiite Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:04 AM (#2701087)

do you know the first stadium in american pro sports that WAS named after a company? i.e. a company that actually PAID for what's now called "naming rights"

Think it was 3com (formerly Candlestick) Park, no?

34. retro-shiite Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:05 AM (#2701089)

I'm not so sure about that. When they tore down the old boston Garden and replaced it with the Fleet Center, people at first called it the "new Garden" but eventually started calling it the Fleet center, mostly.

Then again, that was a completely new building. It's not like they were applying the corporate name to the original Garden, which is the analog to what Zell's proposing.

35. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:05 AM (#2701090)

I think the Great Western Forum predates all the other indoor arenas. And Rich Stadium, a corporate name so subtle nobody knew it was one until the contract expired and the Bills started playing in Ralph Wilson Stadium, dates back to the early '70s.

36. retro-shiite Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:06 AM (#2701091)

What's Rich Stadium named after?

37. retro-shiite Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:07 AM (#2701092)

OK--I was being baseball/football stadium-centric in thinking of 3com. (I don't really consider basketball and hockey arenas "stadia," but reasonable minds can differ.)

38. Boots Day Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:08 AM (#2701093)

Rich dairy products, I'm guessing.

39. Greg Maddux School of Reflexive Profanity Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:09 AM (#2701094)

Rich Products makes stuff like non-dairy creamers.

40. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:14 AM (#2701101)

Rich Stadium opened in 1973, Schaeffer Stadium in 71

coincidently, both then became named after the owners of the teams (at least, for a while: Schaeffer Stadium--> Sullivan Stadium--> Foxboro Stadium)

41. Clemenza Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:16 AM (#2701103)

This might be a dumb idea, but if I was the Wrigley Co., I would be all over using this for a marketing campaign. For example, they come out with a Special Line of Chewing Gum where 5 cents out of every sale goes towards the "naming rights fund" or the "save wrigley field fund". The company will match every sale dollar for dollar.

Wrigley Chewing Gum recently announced annual sales of $5.4 billion I don't think them coming hat in hand to the general populace will win them any points at all. It wouldn't from me anyway.

I'd like to be upset at Zell for this but, honestly, if I owned a team I'd sell naming rights to the urinal cakes if someone would pay me for them. I'd sink every dollar I made from said rights into payroll. Not sure if that's what Sammy Boy is thinking, however.

42. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:23 AM (#2701107)

actually, it was Schaeffer Stadium in Foxboro--Schaeffer paid all of (I believe) $25,000 to Billy Sullivan for the rights; only lasted a couple of years

The Forum in LA was dubbed the "Great Western Forum" in 1988 or so. Might be the first one.

43. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:23 AM (#2701108)

if I owned a team I'd sell naming rights to the urinal cakes

Betty Crocker?

44. Moses Taylor's bus bench has been Tom Sellecked Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:24 AM (#2701109)

We're all talking about the naming rights piece, but what about the confirmation that he's going to sell the team and stadium separately?

Zell said he plans to sell the Cubs and Wrigley separately and "on our own time frame." He also disclosed that Major League Baseball had already approved "four or six" potential ownership groups and that "any one of those groups, as far as I know, would be fine."

The sale of the team has been delayed by Zell's plan to sell the team and the stadium separately -- and to have a state agency acquire and renovate Wrigley.

Not sure how I feel about that. I guess it might keep the Cubs in Wrigley. But I thought he was gonna be forced to sell the team a lot quicker than this, due to his minority stake in the White Sox.

45. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:25 AM (#2701112)

But I thought he was gonna be forced to sell the team a lot quicker than this, due to his minority stake in the White Sox.

If you are tight with Bud, these rules are somewhat optional.

46. Randy Jones Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:26 AM (#2701115)

But I thought he was gonna be forced to sell the team a lot quicker than this, due to his minority stake in the White Sox.

Did you really think Selig would worry about a little thing like a blatant conflict of interest when there's money to be made?

47. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:30 AM (#2701120)

Older Chicagoans still say "Cubs Park," which was the official name at some point (1920s?) and has a nice symmetry with "Sox Park." Do people actually say "the Cell" for the new Sox Park? In my youth I never heard anyone say "Comiskey," it was always just "Sox" (which was even the name of the El stop, and may still be?)

One corporate name that simply did not take with the populace was "Ameriquest Field" here in Arlington. The Ballpark had only been there for about 10 years, but damn if we were going to call it anything but. And now it's the Ballpark again.

48. Charles S., enjoys the sparking period Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM (#2701122)

I've never understood why a newspaper or network plays along with a decision to do away with a ballpark's history simply because some faceless corporation has paid a ball club a few million dollars.

I don't know. Maybe because newspapers and networks are also part of faceless coporations, and there's no reason to take up a cause against one of your own.

49. SugarBear Blanks

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:32 AM (#2701123)

Slapping a new name on an old building to which people have an emotional attachment is trickier. In NYC, plenty of people still call the Met Life Building the Pan Am Building (by which it was known for its first 28 years of existence), and that's an ugly building that people generally despise for having been plunked down on top of the beautiful beaux arts Grand Central Station.

Which points out the truism that at some point calling a well-established structure/geographic entity by a store-bought name becomes little different than calling "red," "blue."

Unless we're overthrown by a foreign power, the Mississippi River is the "Mississippi River," the Grand Canyon is the "Grand Canyon," the Statue of Liberty is the "Statue of Liberty," Detroit is "Detroit," etc., and I see little distinction between those things and Wrigley Field.

50. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:37 AM (#2701132)

In my youth I never heard anyone say "Comiskey," it was always just "Sox"

really? how long ago? I thought everyone called it Comiskey

(except for those, like Bill White, who called it "Cominskey")

51. SoSH U at work Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:40 AM (#2701133)

Pasta,

Are you speaking nationally (where everyone called it Comiskey), or locally, where very few did? Sox Park remains the favored name for either building from the folks I know here in NW Indiana.

52. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:47 AM (#2701139)

Are you speaking nationally (where everyone called it Comiskey), or locally, where very few did?

nationally

I honestly never knew that Chicagoans had their own name for it

53. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:48 AM (#2701140)

In my youth I never heard anyone say "Comiskey," it was always just "Sox"

Depends on when your youth was. From 1962 to 1976 it was named White Sox Park, which was also its original name in 1910 when it was first built. Veeck changed it back to Comiskey in 1976 and it kept that named until it closed.

54. retro-shiite Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:49 AM (#2701141)

Do people actually say "the Cell" for the new Sox Park?

Yes. My preferred full name for it is "Joan Cusack's Ugly Mug Field," but "the Cell" is much more wieldy.

55. jolietconvict Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:52 AM (#2701144)

The El stop is "Sox-35th". When I was growing up on the SW side both Comiskey and Sox park were in probably equal use. IME among the under 40 set it's now referred to as the Cell but I still hear both Comiskey (or of course Cominksy) and Sox park. I don't hear Cubs park very often.

56. hscs Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:57 AM (#2701148)

I use the Cell too. There's going to be a lot of variations when fans (and non-fans) have had to refer to 2 different ballparks, and 3 different official names in less than 20 years.

57. Craig Calcaterra Posted: February 27, 2008 at 11:57 AM (#2701149)

58. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: February 27, 2008 at 12:07 PM (#2701157)

In my north suburban under-40 Cubs-fan world, its always been Comiskey, the Cell, and Wrigley. or the Happy Confines as a joke to hearing it called that once. I don't know if I've ever heard Cubs park in conversation.

59. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 12:11 PM (#2701159)

My Detroit-livin' great uncle Harry called where the Tigers played "Briggs Stadium" until the day he died in 1984. Which I always found odd, considering that he had been a Tigers fan since it was called Navin Field. He was over 30 when it was changed to Briggs.

Craig, your great uncle Harry probably didn't mind being considered old enough to remember Briggs Stadium, which was what it was called in the 50's, but OTOH he didn't want to be thought of as THAT old----by 1984 it would have been over 45 years since it was called Navin.

60. retro-shiite Posted: February 27, 2008 at 12:14 PM (#2701166)

Older Chicagoans still say "Cubs Park,"

Feh. If you're truly retro, you'll acknowledge that Wrigley wasn't even built for the Cubs. Weeghman Park, baby.

61. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: February 27, 2008 at 12:15 PM (#2701167)

You can tell its close to the season when we have more threads about baseball nothingness than steroids. :) :) :)

62. retro-shiite Posted: February 27, 2008 at 12:19 PM (#2701171)

I enjoy our being able to talk about baseball (complete with its nothingness) rather than Serious Topics Discussed By True Thinking Fans™ .

63. Stevens Posted: February 27, 2008 at 12:20 PM (#2701173)

if I owned a team I'd sell naming rights to the urinal cakes

It's been done.

64. Hack Wilson Posted: February 27, 2008 at 12:28 PM (#2701181)

My Detroit-livin' great uncle Harry called where the Tigers played "Briggs Stadium"

Me too. Of course I always referred to Riverfront Stadium as Crosley Field and Three Rivers Stadium as Forbes Field.

65. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 12:47 PM (#2701200)

My Detroit-livin' great uncle Harry called where the Tigers played "Briggs Stadium"

Me too. Of course I always referred to Riverfront Stadium as Crosley Field and Three Rivers Stadium as Forbes Field.

Only 32 more days till Griffith Stadium opens! Featuring all-Mystery Meat Briggs hot dogs, of course.

66. Hack Wilson Posted: February 27, 2008 at 12:57 PM (#2701209)

Problem is I went to a game in San Francisco 3 or 4 years ago and don't know what the name of it was. SBC? Pacman? Attica? I do remember going to Enron though.

67. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 01:14 PM (#2701222)

But I thought he was gonna be forced to sell the team a lot quicker than this, due to his minority stake in the White Sox.

I recently saw mentioned in passing that Zell no longer has a stake in the Sox. Don't know if it's true, but that would explain it to even Ralph Nader's satisfaction.

68. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 01:16 PM (#2701223)

Happy Confines

I think you mean Friendly Confines...didn't Brickhouse used to say "The friendly confines of Wrigley Field"?

My preferred full name for it is "Joan Cusack's Ugly Mug Field," but "the Cell" is much more wieldy.

Again with Joan Cusack. She is not ugly. Not, I tell you!

69. Andere Richtingen

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 01:20 PM (#2701229)

We're all talking about the naming rights piece, but what about the confirmation that he's going to sell the team and stadium separately?

Not sure how I feel about that.

Well I know how I feel about it: not good. I don't see how anything positive could come from that, from a fan's perspective.

Regarding the renaming Wrigley, I think Zell is being a bit naïve. First, naïve about what the public outcry would be to that. He might not care, but his stockholders might feel different about it. Second, that there is a company out there that wants to pay to be the company that pissed on one of Chicago's greatest traditions.

Either way, it doesn't make any difference to me. I will always call it Wrigley, just as PacBell will always be PacBell, and Enron will always be Enron.

70. Crispix Attacks is in the best shape of his life. Posted: February 27, 2008 at 01:20 PM (#2701230)

Pennsylvanians have long been disenchanted with the so-called wonderfulness of non-corporate-named stadia, with Three Rivers Stadium and Veterans Stadium being the best examples.

I've never heard anyone call PNC Park or Heinz Field by anything other than their corporate names.

The Mellon Arena still gets called the "Civic Arena" by a large fraction of people over 30, though. I've been trying to do that too. There's already enough buildings called "Mellon" around here, dammit.

71. Miguel Posted: February 27, 2008 at 01:31 PM (#2701244)

Dentyne Ice Stadium

72. Rocco's Not-so Malfunctioning Mitochondria Posted: February 27, 2008 at 01:33 PM (#2701246)

I still wonder if Zell's plan is to dump the stadium on ISFA for a much needed cash infusion into TribCo and then hold onto the team to feed the synergies with WGN.

I doubt it. The acquisition transaction was probably the most leveraged transaction I've ever seen. They need to pay off debt, and they need to pay it off fast. They're not selling newspapers, so they're definitely selling the stadium, the Cubs and the movie studio.

This is the guy who OKed selling advertising on the covers of his newspapers. That he's willing to sell the naming rights should come as a surprise to noone.

The writers aren't going to piss off the owners by calling the stadium whatever they want. The owners can cut off media access. It's been done before, for dumber reasons (i.e. Vince Naimoli banning a small local paper because one of their reporters used the owner's bathroom).

73. Nasty Nate Posted: February 27, 2008 at 01:46 PM (#2701256)

Was Fenway or Yankee Stadium ever called something else?

74. retro-shiite Posted: February 27, 2008 at 02:08 PM (#2701272)

Again with Joan Cusack. She is not ugly. Not, I tell you!

I've been using that moniker for the home of the White Sox for some time now. This isn't news (and as Joan's U.S. Cellular's spokesperson, it's pertinent).

We will agree to disagree as to Joan's aesthetic attributes, such as they are.

75. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: February 27, 2008 at 02:20 PM (#2701284)

I think you mean Friendly Confines...didn't Brickhouse used to say "The friendly confines of Wrigley Field"?

re-read the whole sentence I typed:

or the Happy Confines as a joke to hearing it called that once.

76. Hack Wilson Posted: February 27, 2008 at 02:33 PM (#2701306)

I found Brickhouse doing commercials undignified for the chief correspondent WGN would send to political conventions. Although I guess Jack yelling Hey! Hey! to Adlai Stevenson was equally inappropriate.

77. Andere Richtingen

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 02:48 PM (#2701325)

I've never heard anyone call PNC Park or Heinz Field by anything other than their corporate names.

Nor have I, but they've never been called anything else, either.

78. Styles P. Deadball Posted: February 27, 2008 at 02:54 PM (#2701335)

Yankee Stadium ever called something else?

When Jacob Ruppert was in a playful mood, he would refer to it as "F#*& You, John McGraw, Let's See You Fill This F#*∈' Barn Stadium".

79. RB in NYC (Now with Resolutions!) Posted: February 27, 2008 at 02:59 PM (#2701344)

He probably would've called McGraw a mick while he was at it.

80. Calvin Schiraldi Posted: February 27, 2008 at 03:05 PM (#2701349)

Older fans call it Cubs Park? Dead ones, maybe.

81. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 03:17 PM (#2701360)

Actually I was thinking of my godmother, who did die last month. She is probably sitting with Mike Royko in Heaven talking about Cubs Park.

82. Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 03:26 PM (#2701377)

The writers aren't going to piss off the owners by calling the stadium whatever they want. The owners can cut off media access. It's been done before, for dumber reasons (i.e. Vince Naimoli banning a small local paper because one of their reporters used the owner's bathroom).

Let's see them try that to a major newspaper and see what happens. It's not as if the teams are holding all the cards. And it's always notable how many "Can't Be Dones" are actually Done, simply because Someone went out and Did It. And then everyone says "Why didn't I think of that?" The problem is that too many media yakkers would rather complain about corporatization than just simply continue to use a park's historical name and not make a big deal out of it. Chances are that the worst that would happen to them would be a big fat harrumph.

Put it this way: If a black man can seriously contend for President and live to tell the tale, a f ucking newspaper can call a stadium whatever the hell it wants to.

83. Bob Dernier Cri

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 03:38 PM (#2701399)

Don't columnists frequently play around with park names? Game-story reporters have to use house style, which might as well use the "official name" that an entity wants to call itself by. But you do see columnists monkeying around with the names to make a point or just to be irritating.

84. Dedicated to Esoteric but he wasn't listening Posted: February 27, 2008 at 03:43 PM (#2701404)

What names would I like to see Wrigley renamed to?

GoDaddy Field
Viagra Field
Google Park
Amazon.com Park
Fox News Stadium

85. Player X Posted: February 27, 2008 at 03:48 PM (#2701410)

For a flavor that'll appeal to the local residents:

Wilco Field

86. Hack Wilson Posted: February 27, 2008 at 03:57 PM (#2701422)

Peoples Republic of China?

Picture a giant poster of Chairman Mao covering the centerfield scoreboard.

87. Robert Machemer Posted: February 27, 2008 at 04:06 PM (#2701434)

Chan Ho Park.

88. JMN Is Convinced He Has H1N1 Every Time He Coughs Posted: February 27, 2008 at 04:33 PM (#2701470)

Again with Joan Cusack. She is not ugly. Not, I tell you!

Geez, is this even up for debate? I guess the more people who disagree means more Joan Cusack for me.

89. Boots Day Posted: February 27, 2008 at 04:43 PM (#2701491)

Marshall Field. It's not like there's another one around to compete with anymore.

90. phredbird

Posted: February 27, 2008 at 04:45 PM (#2701496)

Let's see them try that to a major newspaper and see what happens.

you're kidding, right? a newspaper's got no reason whatsoever to refuse to use the name an owner of a building wants to call it. it's not like wrigley field is a town or body of water. it's owned outright by a person or a corporate entity. it's in the interests of accuracy and proper news dissemination for them to use the name the owners decide on. they'll maybe do a 'formerly known as ...' sentence for a while, then drop it at some point. happens all the time.
that said, sam zell really is a scary little homunculus ... this is going to be a rough ride for the cubs, wrigley field, the LA times, etc.

91. Slinger Francisco Barrios (Dr. Memory) Posted: February 28, 2008 at 01:17 PM (#2702200)

or the Happy Confines as a joke to hearing it called that once.

Sorry, I processed that part after "as a joke" as applying to all that preceded it. My bad.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Zell says he won’t hesitate to sell Wrigley Field naming rights

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics