1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Today's sign of the apocalypse: Selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field????

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by ondeadline, Dec 22, 2007.

  1. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member



    Re the Cubs, Zell's just passing through. He's said repeatedly that if he landed the Trib, first thing he'd look to do is sell the Cubs.
     
  2. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    Re: Today's sign of the apocalypse: Selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field??

    Aren't the Cubs actually on the trading block right now? That's why Mark Cuban's being mentioned as a possible purchaser.

    Wrigley may be Wrigley under Cuban, but that disco chandelier over centerfield's gonna be a bitch.
     
  3. markvid

    markvid Guest

    Sharon Pannozzo's Palace?
     
  4. Does anybody really know if this naming right's thing is just a test balloon thing Zell's floating out there or is he serious about doing this? Also, is he really going to sell just the team and not Wrigley Field, too?
     
  5. Sad to see the possibility of naming rights even raised, but that's hysterical.
     
  6. Chef

    Chef Active Member

    Since Cuban may end up with them, how does American Airlines Field sound?

    Ugh.
     
  7. ondeadline

    ondeadline Well-Known Member

    Zell has said that he is selling both, but separately.
     
  8. BTExpress

    BTExpress Well-Known Member

    Re: Today's sign of the apocalypse: Selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field??

    Outrage over stadium naming rights has long passed me by.

    It just doesn't make any difference.

    Anybody going to a game will say "Hey, I'm going to Wrigley tomorrow" anyway.

    And even though it was named after a person, let's face it: 99.999% of people know it only as a brand name of chewing gum. Thus, Wrigley was the first corporate name on a stadium. It just doesn't sound corporate because you grew up with it.
     
  9. ondeadline

    ondeadline Well-Known Member

    And it hasn't changed names every three years like most stadiums with corporate names, thus plenty of tradition behind the name.
     
  10. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    Re: Today's sign of the apocalypse: Selling the naming rights to Wrigley Field??

    Nope, that would be Fenway Park.

    Commonly thought to be named after the Fens, the part of town where it was built. Actually named after the Fenway Realty Company, which was managed by the father of John Taylor, Red Sox owner from 1904-11. Fenway Realty Company had bought all the land in the Fens area, including the land that the stadium now stands on, and sold the property to the team for $300,000. Taylor sold the team, used the sale money to build the stadium, and rented it out to the new owners for a tidy profit. And all that land owned by the Taylors' real estate company just so happened to increase in value.
     
  11. steveu

    steveu Well-Known Member

    Some names on ballparks sound so cool. Like The Great American Ballpark, for example. What a great sounding name for a facility.

    Until you realize the Reds CEO and owner used to be Carl Lindner, head of Great American Insurance.

    Yeesh.
     
  12. ondeadline

    ondeadline Well-Known Member

    <a href="http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/?p=12441">Zell apparently wants the Wrigley family to pay to keep the name on the field.</a>
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page