Home› Sports Talk

Some Chicago Cubs fans are unhappy over the prospect of selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field

MichiganMichigan Posts: 4,942 ✭
in Sports Talk
Is nothing sacred? What is next, pulling out the famous ivy?

It is all about money of course and big money could be made by the new owner if they did this.

The record for naming rights is the 20 year $400 million deal with the New York Mets for their new ballpark to be name Citi Field (is that a bank?)

Some of these new names like Comerica and Qualcomm (a phone co?) are just plain ugly.

Monster Park (a website I believe) is the only one that sounds interesting (I have visions of Godzilla coming out of SF bay to attack the
place) image

Comments

  • baseballfanbaseballfan Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭
    i'm not a cubs fan, but i route for them to win beacuse i think it would be great to see, and changing the name of wrigley field would be just wrong!!!!!!

    that guy who is running the team seems to be a tool from what i've heard, how can you think about doing that, next fenway will be changed???
    Fred

    collecting RAW Topps baseball cards 1952 Highs to 1972. looking for collector grade (somewhere between psa 4-7 condition). let me know what you have, I'll take it, I want to finish sets, I must have something you can use for trade.

    looking for Topps 71-72 hi's-62-53-54-55-59, I have these sets started

  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,658 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Hey it might change their luck! image
  • MichiganMichigan Posts: 4,942 ✭


    << <i>Hey it might change their luck! image >>




    Could be, they have that "curse of the Billy Goat" that has dogged them since the 1945 world series.

    If the Red Sox can break that kind of thing so can the Cubs. image


    Change is hard for some fans to take but the Cubs gave in on the lights and most likely they will fall in line with the rest of MLB (except for Fenway of course) on the naming rights issue. Just don't ever get rid of the the ivy, it really adds a special charm to the stadium.
  • stevekstevek Posts: 29,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yes, of course it's about the money, big money, and anyone who doesn't believe that the #1 priority of all sports team owners is money, would be very naive. That's the way it's always been and always will be. Professional sports is entertainment to us, but to them it's a business first and foremost.

    That being said, there's good and bad business decisions and changing the name of Wrigley field would be a bad business decision in my opinion, and it illustrates the further downward spiral of MLB. Years ago, I never thought MLB could possibly kill itself because of the beauty of the game of baseball, but they are sure trying their greedy best it seems to me, and that's a dam crying shame.

    Having a sponsor's name for a brand new stadium doesn't bother me one bit and is okay in my book, although "slightly" vulgar in my view...but again, that's okay...it's business. Changing the name of a longtime cherished ballpark I think borders on despicable and at the very least is repugnant to me...which can't help but escalate the decline of overall fan interest in MLB.


    -
  • alnavmanalnavman Posts: 4,129 ✭✭✭
    Money talks for the stadiums now a days......Here in Cleveland we used to have Gund Arena, now it's the Q...and the Indians stadium is being renamed Progressive Park or something like that....no more Jacobs Field.
  • MichiganMichigan Posts: 4,942 ✭
    Could you imagine them tearing out the Ivy at Wrigley Field in order to put up those annoying ads that decorate nearly every other
    MLB site.? I hate to even think of that happening but I'll bet you it has at least crossed the mind of the new owner.
  • perkdogperkdog Posts: 30,658 ✭✭✭✭✭


    << <i>Could you imagine them tearing out the Ivy at Wrigley Field in order to put up those annoying ads that decorate nearly every other
    MLB site.? I hate to even think of that happening but I'll bet you it has at least crossed the mind of the new owner. >>




    Or how about using the ivy for relic cards from Topps! image
  • EstilEstil Posts: 7,058 ✭✭✭✭
    Just some Chicago fans? As if to say there's some that support this idea? Gimmie a break. image
    WISHLIST
    D's: 54S,53P,50P,49S,45D+S,44S,43D,41S,40D+S,39D+S,38D+S,37D+S,36S,35D+S,all 16-34's
    Q's: 52S,47S,46S,40S,39S,38S,37D+S,36D+S,35D,34D,32D+S
    74T: 37,38,47,151,193,241,435,570,610,654,655 97 Finest silver: 115,135,139,145,310
    73T:31,55,61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,80,152,165,189,213,235,237,257,341,344,377,379,390,422,433,453,480,497,545,554,563,580,606,613,630
    95 Ultra GM Sets: Golden Prospects,HR Kings,On-Base Leaders,Power Plus,RBI Kings,Rising Stars
  • JackWESQJackWESQ Posts: 2,133 ✭✭✭
    Selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field is bad. But you'll know the apocalypse is at hand when Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Lambeau Field or Madison Square Garden or become Microsoft Stadium/Park/Field or Garden.

    /s/ JackWESQ
    image
  • MichiganMichigan Posts: 4,942 ✭


    << <i>Selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field is bad. But you'll know the apocalypse is at hand when Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Lambeau Field or Madison Square Garden or become Microsoft Stadium/Park/Field or Garden.

    /s/ JackWESQ >>




    Only one I would worry about is Yankee Stadium, since the Mets made big money selling the rights to the name for their new stadium
    will George or Hank be able to resist the bonanza they could get for the new Yankee Stadium? My guess is they would still want
    "Yankee" in the title.
  • MichiganMichigan Posts: 4,942 ✭


    << <i>Just some Chicago fans? As if to say there's some that support this idea? Gimmie a break. image >>




    USA Today said some Cubs fans didn't care one way or another which would be like tacit approval I guess.

    I have a hard time believing it myself.
  • Bosox1976Bosox1976 Posts: 8,551 ✭✭✭✭✭
    There are a great percentage of Chicagoans who call the two stadiums "Sox park" and "Cubs park" - maybe 25%. Obviously, they don't care. For myself (I am a Cubs season ticket holder), I am against it. Wrigley gum should step up and buy the rights, but absent that, I wouldn't blame the Cubs/Tribune if they sold rights. They paid Wrigley a fair price for the assets, they can do with them as they please. They are already the second highest ticket prices in the league - so an easy million or two in advertising and naming may defer some costs. Just won't feel right though - but probably inevitable.
    Mike
    Bosox1976
  • jaxxrjaxxr Posts: 1,258 ✭✭
    Times have changed,
    The money from name rights might provide a talent influx, a winner, and then,....all is well.

    Wrigley is also a product name anyway, famous Wrigley's Chewing Gum gets the current endorsment value.
    This aint no party,... this aint no disco,.. this aint no fooling around.
  • stevekstevek Posts: 29,034 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Yea...some fans "don't care" - that should be a warning signal to MLB owners but they're too greedy to change.

    Changing their stadium name isn't going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but for sure, it's another straw.

    What's next? Changing the team name? Don't think it couldn't happen for enough money. How about the Chicago Tribunes instead of the Chicago Cubs? - got a nice ring to it?
  • TheCARDKidTheCARDKid Posts: 1,496 ✭
    It'd be sick if they did anything to Wrigley.

    Wrigley should be saved as a historic landmark, similar to what the government does to other important buildings, landmarks. Save it the way it is and don't touch it. Same with Fenway and others.

    What good do naming rights do corporations? Do they sell more product? Do they increase profits?

    No one cares about the name of the stadium. It does virtually nothing for the companies mentioned. Maybe if they're an upstart company and they want to get their name out there. But for well established companies, the naming mania is insane.
  • gotsparks09gotsparks09 Posts: 957
    The first tragedy started with this:

    image
    image
  • megatronmegatron Posts: 955
    The dump should be torn down, rebuilt as a marvelous lakefront stadium, and given another name. The money spend by a bank on the naming rights could be invested into the team so we true Cubs fans wouldn't be stuck with a perennial loser of a team. If Wrigley wants to pay for the naming rights, then that is fair.

    Wrigley as it stands now is a place few people with baseball knowledge go to pay $6.00 for Old Style beer and act like buffoons.

    And it is too bad that Wrigley has gained landmark status preventing my comment from coming to fruition.
    image

    Remember these Chuck Norris Facts

    1. When Chuck Norris does a pushup, he isn't lifting himself up, he's pushing the Earth down
    2. According to Einstein's theory of relativity, Chuck Norris can actually roundhouse kick you yesterday
    3. There are no such things as lesbians, just women who have not yet met Chuck Norris
  • MichiganMichigan Posts: 4,942 ✭
    Wrigley and Fenway are both outdated by modern standards but baseball probably more than any other sport is about tradition, lore and
    of course stats. I remember the fierce battle over replacing Tiger stadium but the traditionalists were fighting a losing battle. Comerica Park
    is decent but you don't have that up close feel that you had with the old Tiger stadium (on the plus side none of those annoying steel post
    blocking the view for some fans as well.)
  • stownstown Posts: 11,321 ✭✭✭
    It shouldn't matter if the stadium is called something different, it's still the same stadium.

    Change is good, regardless if we like it or not.
    So basically my kid won't be able to go to college, but at least I'll have a set where the three most expensive cards are of a player I despise ~ CDsNuts
  • alnavmanalnavman Posts: 4,129 ✭✭✭


    << <i>

    << <i>Selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field is bad. But you'll know the apocalypse is at hand when Yankee Stadium, Fenway Park, Lambeau Field or Madison Square Garden or become Microsoft Stadium/Park/Field or Garden.

    /s/ JackWESQ >>




    Only one I would worry about is Yankee Stadium, since the Mets made big money selling the rights to the name for their new stadium
    will George or Hank be able to resist the bonanza they could get for the new Yankee Stadium? My guess is they would still want
    "Yankee" in the title. >>



    McYankee Stadium.....sorry I couldn't resist.
  • AlmostPerfectAlmostPerfect Posts: 275
    The Cubs need to front a winner, they should leave the stadium name the same and spend some loot on talent.
  • mercurynutmercurynut Posts: 3,207
    They should name it Steve Bartman Stadium. image
  • MichiganMichigan Posts: 4,942 ✭


    << <i>They should name it Steve Bartman Stadium. image >>




    I read an article about him a year or so ago, he still lives in the Chicago area and has an average everyday kind of life but does
    not want to call attention to himself.
  • TheCARDKidTheCARDKid Posts: 1,496 ✭


    << <i>

    << <i>They should name it Steve Bartman Stadium. image >>




    I read an article about him a year or so ago, he still lives in the Chicago area and has an average everyday kind of life but does
    not want to call attention to himself. >>



    I wonder if he uses his real name when making reservations. Man, I wouldn't want to do that, assuming you want to stay in one piece.
Sign In or Register to comment.