Should he? No.
Will he? Yes.
I don’t care one way or the other. It’s Wrigley Field, that’s what I’ll continue to call it, no matter who ponys up the money. I think they should know it, too. They’ll get 82 advertisements a year and their name on the facade, no more and no less. I can all but guarantee that people will still call it what they’ve been calling it since time immemorial.
Maybe they should change the name to “Guests-With-Goats-Admitted-Free Stadium.”
Hey, it could only help.
Not a big deal- I mean hell in other countries legendary soocer teams such as Manchester United wear advertising on their uniforms, and no ones died from it yet.
[QUOTE=kaylasdad99]
Maybe they should change the name to “Guests-With-Goats-Admitted-Free Stadium.”
Hey, it could only help.
[/QUOTE]
If he has to do it, I was thinking “Century Field.”
I’m surprised to find that he owns Wrigley Field; I assumed that the city of Chicago owned the ballpark, just the way cities and counties own almost all of the MLB ballparks.
But if he owns the park, I guess he owns the rights to the name, unless whoever sold Zell the ballpark specifically retained those rights.
This is the part that gets me:
Why on earth should the state or the city pay money to buy back Wrigley? The city’s nonownership of Wrigley has essentially removed them from the role of being responsible for maintaining the ballpark, with all the crap that goes with that. Why should they buy back into that relationship?
[QUOTE=Wee Bairn]
Not a big deal- I mean hell in other countries legendary soocer teams such as Manchester United wear advertising on their uniforms, and no ones died from it yet.
[/QUOTE]
They can tattoo McDonalds logos on players’ foreheads for all I care. Just leave the name of the park alone.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
That’s fine, but then Chicago should have passes a law forbidding renaming the field–and then been prepared to defend itself against a lawsuit from a pissed-off owner who just saw the value of his property depreciated by $400 million by a law passed by the city. You can’t let the guy buy an asset, and then tell him he can’t use it in a particular way. And like I said before, I notice that these fans are very keen to demand the owner forego $400 million, but not so keen to start a fund to buy the naming rights themselves. It’s so easy to spend somebody else’s money, not so easy to spend your own.
[/QUOTE]
Perhaps you’d care to back up your assertion that this would be a valid lawsuit with some law on the subject? :dubious:
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Like it or not the name Wrigley Field as become a part of the culture of Chicago. As much an identifier of the city as the Water Tower…perhaps more so.
[/QUOTE]
FWIW, this San Franciscan identifies Wrigley Field as more uniquely Chicago than the Sears tower or pizza. Shit, maybe even more than the team itself. The team are those fuckers that beat us in 1998, but the ballpark commands respect.
If they want *me * to call Wrigley something else, they can pay me.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
I do not think anyone should be able to pay for control of the name. As I mentioned I think some things become a part of the culture at large. As such the people have a stake in what happens to the name even if they never paid a dime for it.
[/QUOTE]
I am a baseball lover of the first order, but a man’s right to do what he wants with his property trumps fans’ desire to see an old corporate name kept in favour of a new corporate name. If you don’t want the name changed, buy the naming rights and call it Wrigley Field.
In any event, let’s all bear in mind Wrigley Field was named after the Wrigley chewing gum magnate. This isn’t a stadium named after its team, like Yankee Stadium, or after the place it was built, like Fenway Park. IT’S NAMED AFTER A BRAND OF CHEWING GUM. It HAS a corporate name now, and has since 1926. So it’s an old corporate name; that’s great, but will it be any worse a place to see a ballgame with a different corporate name?
Name it something else and in 20 years people will identify with that name and bitch if you want to call it something else again.
Not clear, RickJay. Both the team and the company were owned by Phil Wrigley. There is not a good basis to believe he named the place after his company rather than himself.
[QUOTE=ElvisL1ves]
Not clear, RickJay. Both the team and the company were owned by Phil Wrigley. There is not a good basis to believe he named the place after his company rather than himself.
[/QUOTE]
Are you kidding?
[QUOTE=DSYoungEsq]
Perhaps you’d care to back up your assertion that this would be a valid lawsuit with some law on the subject? :dubious:
[/QUOTE]
Damn hamsters ate my post. Anyhow, IANAL, but my understanding was that if an government passes a law (such as a zoning law) which restricts your use of an asset (such as a piece of land), thereby reducing its value, then you have the legal right to demand compensation for that loss of value.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
Are you kidding?
[/QUOTE]
Well, it was William Wrigley (not Phil) but the park was named for the owner…not the company. Of course the company had his name as well but as I noted above the company was the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company and the park is not called the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company Field. It is just Wrigley field for the owner.
This was in a day before corporate sponsorship of this kind so no, Wrigley Field is not a corporate sponsored name. Hell, the Tribune Company didn’t slap their name on it or try to sell it. It is only now with this greedy troll that the effort is being made.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I’m surprised to find that he owns Wrigley Field; I assumed that the city of Chicago owned the ballpark, just the way cities and counties own almost all of the MLB ballparks.
But if he owns the park, I guess he owns the rights to the name, unless whoever sold Zell the ballpark specifically retained those rights.
This is the part that gets me:
Why on earth should the state or the city pay money to buy back Wrigley? The city’s nonownership of Wrigley has essentially removed them from the role of being responsible for maintaining the ballpark, with all the crap that goes with that. Why should they buy back into that relationship?
[/QUOTE]
Ah but, there’s an undiscovered wrinkle in this story (I think). Could be the little greedy mennonite-bearded bastard has a trick up his sleeve. When the idea of the state buying it was first floated in front of the populace, the idea was decried as wasteful, foolish etc. now, to save the name, the state can swoop in with an 11th hour bid that Zell will accept, and Robert’s your father’s brother, it’s Wrigley forever, as it should be in the first place.
That, or he’ll sell it to GM or Microsoft or whoever, and physically be run out of town on a rail, or be beaten to death with an Old Style Tall Boy in a sweaty gym sock.
[QUOTE=Sophistry and Illusion]
Damn hamsters ate my post. Anyhow, IANAL, but my understanding was that if an government passes a law (such as a zoning law) which restricts your use of an asset (such as a piece of land), thereby reducing its value, then you have the legal right to demand compensation for that loss of value.
[/QUOTE]
Youse ain’t from 'round here, are ya? The City of ChiCAHgo and the hizzoner the Mayer can get anyting done we set our minds to. Nevermind all dat legal crap.
[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
Youse ain’t from 'round here, are ya? The City of ChiCAHgo and the hizzoner the Mayer can get anyting done we set our minds to. Nevermind all dat legal crap.
[/QUOTE]
Along those lines it is times like this you wish Richard J. Daley (former mayor of Chicago) was still alive. After five minutes with that Daley Zell would withdraw the notion and quietly leave town if he knew what was good for him.
[QUOTE=RickJay]
I am a baseball lover of the first order, but a man’s right to do what he wants with his property trumps fans’ desire to see an old corporate name kept in favour of a new corporate name. If you don’t want the name changed, buy the naming rights and call it Wrigley Field.
In any event, let’s all bear in mind Wrigley Field was named after the Wrigley chewing gum magnate. This isn’t a stadium named after its team, like Yankee Stadium, or after the place it was built, like Fenway Park. IT’S NAMED AFTER A BRAND OF CHEWING GUM. It HAS a corporate name now, and has since 1926. So it’s an old corporate name; that’s great, but will it be any worse a place to see a ballgame with a different corporate name?
Name it something else and in 20 years people will identify with that name and bitch if you want to call it something else again.
[/QUOTE]
Some things simply go beyond what is right in front of you.
The fact is that both the park and the team are venerable institutions and here, in the City that Works, history counts for something. We’re not against progress, no sir, we offer some of the most avant garde (and IMO some of the ugliest) modern architecture in North America. We maintain, between police, fire and EMS, one of the best reactive forces in the nation and one of the most advanced public safety communications systems in the world.
We offer world class everything and we do it with the Midwestern sensibility that allows us to actually be nice to tourists. We do progress well. We are the crossroads of America, we work hard, we play hard and we live large. We earn every cent and every free moment to be spent as we see fit. We deserve, nay, demand certian things, whenever possible, remain as we, that is the people who actually live here, want them. We like our hot dogs without ketchup, our pizza deep dish and our politics, shall we say, colorful. We like things this way because they work. Things that work, ought not be tampered with unless you can find a reason they need to be. In this case the only “need” that exists is the one in Sam Zell’s wallet and as a lifelong member of this multi-cultural family of citizens, workers and fans, I’m here to tell you that ‘need’ just ain’t enough of a reason to take what has defined basically the entire north side of the City for the past 90 plus years and make such a drastic change. Wrigley is more than a ballpark, friend, Wrigley is an institution. Home to memory and history like almost no place else…
Babe Ruth’s “called shot,” when Ruth allegedly pointed to a bleacher location during Game 3 of the 1932 World Series … Ruth then hit Charlie Root’s next pitch for a homer.
Gabby Hartnett’s famous "Homer in the Gloamin’ " September 28, 1938, vs. Pittsburgh’s Mace Brown.
The great May 2, 1917, pitching duel between Jim “Hippo” Vaughn and
the Reds’ Fred Toney … both Vaughn and Toney threw no-hitters for
9.0 innings before Cincinnati’s Jim Thorpe (of Olympic fame) drove in
the only run in the 10th inning … Toney finished with a no-hitter.
Ernie Banks’ 500th career home run May 12, 1970, vs. Atlanta’s
Pat Jarvis.
Pete Rose’s 4,191st career hit, which tied him with Ty Cobb for the
most hits in baseball history … Rose singled off Reggie Patterson
September 8, 1985.
Kerry Wood’s 20-strikeout affair in 1998.
Sammy Sosa’s 60th home runs in 1998, 1999 and 2001.
the 1947, 1962 and 1990 All-Star Games
As for the unfortunate company that chooses to take up the Wrigley Field moniker change, well, Macy’s learned (and continues to be schooled about ) how Chicago works and I suspect so too shall that company when whatever deodorant, beer or cell phone company tries to erase Wrigley from the hearts and minds of her loyal fans, will end up out of the Chicago market.
It was this way with Fannie May, until they reopened. It is this way today with Frangos. Once you turn your back on what is important to the people of Chicago, the people of Chicago will turn their backs on you.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Along those lines it is times like this you wish Richard J. Daley (former mayor of Chicago) was still alive. After five minutes with that Daley Zell would withdraw the notion and quietly leave town if he knew what was good for him.
[/QUOTE]
I get the sense that it would take a little more convincing on the part of hizzoner, and may just have landed Mr. Zell under 6 and a half feet of northwest Indiana topsoil. Today though, no such luck.
[QUOTE=Whack-a-Mole]
Well, it was William Wrigley (not Phil) but the park was named for the owner…not the company. Of course the company had his name as well but as I noted above the company was the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company and the park is not called the Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company Field. It is just Wrigley field for the owner.
[/QUOTE]
That’s pure sophistry. The man was trading on his name, and used his position to give the park the same name as his chewing gum company. It’s no different than Rogers Centre, which is not actually called the Rogers Communications Inc. Centre, but I think we all understand Ted Rogers meant for the name to plug his company, not his person.
You’ve have to engage in a pretty heavy degree of self-delusion to pretend that the Wrigley in Wrigley Field is just coincidentally the same name as the Wrigley of the chewing gum company owned by the same guy. If you’re going to trade on your name, then when you use your name on something, you’re trading on it.
[QUOTE=buttonjockey308]
Home to memory and history like almost no place else…
Babe Ruth’s “called shot,” when Ruth allegedly pointed to a bleacher location during Game 3 of the 1932 World Series … Ruth then hit Charlie Root’s next pitch for a homer.
Gabby Hartnett’s famous "Homer in the Gloamin’ " September 28, 1938, vs. Pittsburgh’s Mace Brown…
[/QUOTE]
And of course all these historical events will be magically erased from time if and when Wrigley Field adopts a new name.
You wax at length on his Chicagoans are so prone to punishing corporations that allegedly mess with Chicago traditions. Yeah, right. Would you care to place a small wager on this? I will bet $100 attendance doesn’t decline by any significant amount if the park is renamed, unless the team’s on-field performance declines from the level established at the time of the name change, (which at this point would constitute a weak division champion - so, basically, a team that finished above .500 and maybe makes the playoffs or comes at least vaguely close to it, but doesn’t go much further) and if it does decline in concert with a performance decline will instantly recover when the team plays well again. Care to take me up on it?