User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Vivid Seats is a sports ticket broker, concert ticket broker and theater ticket broker offering the best baseball tickets like Yankees tickets, Cubs tickets, and Red Sox tickets, as well as Police reunion tour tickets and Jersey Boys tickets. |
We have baseball tickets, the NFL schedule, college football tickets and Cowboys tickets. We have NBA tickets like Celtics tickets and Lakers tickets. Plus, buy Giants tickets, Patriots tickets and Colts tickets. Also check out our MLB baseball schedule |
Concerts Theatre NFL Angels Dodgers MLB Celtics Theater NBA Tickets Venues NHL Lakers Tickets NFL Yankees NHL Phillies NBA Wicked Marlins MLB Concerts Cubs Mets Red Sox Wicked WWE Red Sox Mets Yankees Dodgers |
Page rendered in 0.9066 seconds
81 querie(s) executed
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.
It's the only one that can work.
I believe the landmark documentation can be found in the syndication rights for "Perfect Strangers."
Actually, it's named after a person.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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 only people who will continue to call it Wrigley are the people who refuse to call it by it's real name,a nd eventually all of those people will die off.
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
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.
little known fact: BB videotaped Schaeffer handing over the cash to Sullivan
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.
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.
(the site DOES say it was the first naming rights sale in the US of A)
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.
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.
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.
Think it was 3com (formerly Candlestick) Park, no?
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.
coincidently, both then became named after the owners of the teams (at least, for a while: Schaeffer Stadium--> Sullivan Stadium--> Foxboro Stadium)
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.
The Forum in LA was dubbed the "Great Western Forum" in 1988 or so. Might be the first one.
Betty Crocker?
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.
If you are tight with Bud, these rules are somewhat optional.
Did you really think Selig would worry about a little thing like a blatant conflict of interest when there's money to be made?
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.
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.
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.
really? how long ago? I thought everyone called it Comiskey
(except for those, like Bill White, who called it "Cominskey")
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.
nationally
I honestly never knew that Chicagoans had their own name for it
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.
Yes. My preferred full name for it is "Joan Cusack's Ugly Mug Field," but "the Cell" is much more wieldy.
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.
Feh. If you're truly retro, you'll acknowledge that Wrigley wasn't even built for the Cubs. Weeghman Park, baby.
It's been done.
Me too. Of course I always referred to Riverfront Stadium as Crosley Field and Three Rivers Stadium as Forbes Field.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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).
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.
re-read the whole sentence I typed:
or the Happy Confines as a joke to hearing it called that once.
Nor have I, but they've never been called anything else, either.
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".
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.
GoDaddy Field
Viagra Field
Google Park
Amazon.com Park
Fox News Stadium
Wilco Field
Picture a giant poster of Chairman Mao covering the centerfield scoreboard.
Geez, is this even up for debate? I guess the more people who disagree means more Joan Cusack for me.
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.
Sorry, I processed that part after "as a joke" as applying to all that preceded it. My bad.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main