Ahm from Texas. We have a much more civilized approach to law and justice. 
Ask the supporters of Meigs Field. They’ll attest to the truth of that statement.
Whether Wrigley Field is named after the man or his company, the fact remains that, long after William Wrigley’s death, the company now benefits for free in a manner that other companies happily pay millions of dollars for. I’m no fan of corporate-named stadiums (my team plays in Kauffman Stadium, named for a man whose company does not bear his name), but Zell really is sitting on an asset, currently being used for free, that the market has set a substantial value for.
Nothing’s stopping the Wrigley company from paying to keep this asset, they can make Zell an offer just like anyone else can. Maybe Zell will be accept a smaller offer from Wrigley to keep the name (and make Cubs fans happy) rather than a larger offer from another source to change it.
Can’t he sell the naming rights but insist it be called “Company Name” Stadium (or Park) at Wrigley Field?
What, like Invesco Field at Mile High? Nobody calls it Invesco, just Mile High.
Then again, I still use names for parks that don’t even exist or aren’t used. I still think of the Giants playing in Candlestick, the White Sox in Comiskey (old Comiskey), the Patriots in Foxboro, and so on.
Quite possibly, but the distinction is surely more that it wasn’t a separate entity with no connection to the ground paying to have its name on it. The fact that the ground was built by a guy named Wrigley gives the name (in my view) more historical meaning than if it had been built by a guy called Spaffenmeyer who then simply sold the rights to a chewing gum manufacturer. Rich guys stick their name on all sorts of stuff (Carnegie, Rockefeller etc.); how come just because one of them also owned a still-extant company, his naming is reduced to the level of mere sponsorship? If Wrigley’s had gone bust in the intervening years, would you still say it was mere corporate plugging?
Regardless: yes, the guy has every right to rename the stadium if he owns it. I can only see it backfiring on any potential sponsor, though, at least in the short term. There was enough pissing and moaning here in the UK when Arsenal moved from Highbury to The Emirates Stadium, despite said naming payment having essentially made the move possible in the first place. I dread to think of the hoo-ha when Liverpool’s new Stanley Park stadium turns into the Carlsbergeum or something. Fortunately Carlsberg tastes like piss so will be no great hardship to boycott. 
I’m just all warm and tingly with all the veiled (and not so veiled) threats that seem to indicate that to some people, the name of a fricken’ baseball stadium is worth killing a man for.
Seems to me I heard much the same disaster-speak about night games, and when I woke up this morning Chicago still wasn’t on fire and Satan had decided to walk the earth another day.
I would agree… if that were actually true. But it WASN’T built by William Wrigley. It was built by Lucky Charlie Weeghman, who named it… Weeghman Park, the facility’s actual original name.
The stadium started being called Cubs Park around 1919 as Charlie Weeghman ceded control of the team to a group of owners, which eventually became mostly William Wrigley. The stadium was renamed Wrigley Field in 1927, with Wrigley firmly in control of the team.
Ah but, I didn’t say we would stop going to the games, I merely said that should, say Verizon, or Charmin choose to rename the Freindly Confines say, Charmin Field (as opposed to Wrigley Field, brought to you by Charmin) that sales of Charmin would dip to levels that would indicate to the makers of Charmin that the citizens of Chicago had given up on their morning crap for lent.
True Cubs fans however will avert their eyes and hold their noses, but they will still show up. Sure, they will grumble about the bastard that is Sam Zell, the old guys will curse his zionist heart, the young ones will decry the overbearing capitalism, but we’ll still pay 6.50 for an Old Style tall boy and 3.25 for a hot dog with nuclear green relish, onions and warm mustard from the pump dispenser, and if we’re truly Cubs fans, we’ll still only go to day games.
Using the attempted naming of Soldier field as an example, why would a company purchase the naming rights? It seems like the enitre city will turn it’s back–not on the team–but on the sponsor unlucky enough to drop $400 million to replace the name.
A similar thing happened in Denver. Invesco had to keep the “Mile High” part of the name, or face a revolt. As it is, you can wonder if Invesco got full value for it’s naming deal. Many in the community, not just Bronco fans, now have a negative view of the company as a result. Maybe that changes as time goes by?
Frankly, I wonder how any compny gets value out of these crazy naming deals. Citi Financial is paying $20 mil a year for 35 or so years for the name of the new Mets stadium. How does a company feel a return on that investment?
Before they were bought out, Bank One got the naming rights to the Diamondbacks facility. Bank One Ballpark. Not too bad. But the announcers had to call every home run hit a “Bank One Boomer.” That was pretty damn silly. But they wanted their investment to pay, dammit.
Now listen ‘ere Teach, sometings is wort fightin’ over, yer history is one ah dem tings. Now today, unlike the good old days I was referrin to, you caint just dispose of problems da way you useta, tuhday, you gotta be nice, you gotta play by dese rules and dose rules and everybody is lookin atcha, so no, the name of a ballpark ain’t wort a man’s actual life, but it could be wort his financial life, if ya get my meanin.
Oh, right; I misunderstood some of the earlier posts. In that case, I agree. Although I still think that the weight of historical usage will make any renaming a bit of an error from any potential sponsor’s perspective. I certainly can’t see naming rights being worth nearly half a billion dollars for a ground which by now is inextricably linked with another brand. But what do I know? Marketing is a mystery to me (or at least much of the modern practice thereof).
No, he’s not that civic minded, at least not toward the joe six pack Chicagoan. If he can get $400 Mil from some rube who thinks it’ll be a real investment, he’ll take it over the $399 Mil from Wrigley, were they to even offer.
Oh, please, someone save me from Cubdumb! It’s shades of Marshall Field’s being renamed Macy’s. Money talks, and you-know-what walks! Cub fans (if one can be a fan of a never-ending losing team), it’s time to stop worrying about a commercial name (gee, I thought Wrigley was a chewing gum magnate) going on top of the hallowed, vine-covered walls and start worrying or at least questioning why the Cubs are in their 100th year without a World Championship. Let’s face it, they can rename the place Bartman Field or Billy Goat Stadium, and the lemming fans will dutifully march in by the droves no matter how the team performs. Close isn’t good enough. No one ever remembers the “also ran” in any race. FYI, Sox fans still call U.S. Cellular Field by the name Comiskey. Grow up and start paying attention to the game, not the name on the building. Barbarella
Not much, any more. There was some of that in the first few years. The White Sox, however, drew a connection between the sponsorship money and the renovation and improvement of the park, and as people came to like the improvements this mitigated a lot of the resentment. Nowadays people mostly call it “The Cell”, which gives the sponsor half a loaf.
If the Cubs go ahead with this, I’d advise them to do likewise. Don’t say you’ll spend the money on player payroll–nobody will believe it, and everybody hates high ball-player salaries anyway (even though they bitch that the owner is cheap when the team doesn’t win.)
Rather, promise that you’ll use the money to replace the washrooms, add concession stands, add a Cubs Hall of Fame et cetera. (Even Wrigley-philes admit the bathrooms and concessions suck.) If you do those things, and if people like them, the name change goes down more easily.
Yes of course, because winning is the only thing that is ever important. :rolleyes:
Away with you.
That would be why the Rogers company logo is all over the place, especially where the TV cameras will pick it up. Not so the Wrigley Gum logo at Wrigley Field, though.
:shrug: *You * claimed the park is named for a company. Wave those hands in the air like you just don’t care …
Should Mr. Wrigley have avoided putting his name on his ballpark just because he had already used it elsewhere? That’s the only way your argument icould be even logically consistent, never mind its lack of evidentiary support.
As per usual, you’re arguing against straw men. I’m not saying what Wrigley should or should not have done. It was his park, he could have called it Asshole Field if he wanted.
The point here is not that Wrigley should have kept the name “Cubs Field,” as it was known by that point, but simply that “Wrigley Field” quite obviously constitutes a corporate name. At the time the name was changed, the hand-operated scoreboard had a huge Wrigley chewing gum advertisement on it. You cannot pretend the Wrigley name didn’t constitute a degree of advertising for Wrigley gum. If Wrigley wasn’t interested in pushing his gum, why’d he name the stadium Wrigley Field? It was known as Cubs Park by that time; why not call it that? Do you really think there’s wasn’t a selling gum angle to this, that the name and the big Doublemint Twins ad on the center field scoreboard were just a lucky accident?
It’s a corporate name. Deal with it.
Ahh, the lengths of baseball puritanism!
I tip my hat to you sir!