Cubs sale delayed? / Trib may own Cubs on Opening Day

[mdwilla]

They don't need to prostitute themselves in this way.

 

What do you have against prositutes?

 

They're too expensive?

 

:lol:

Not in mexico. $6

[Garwilly]

You still need to repay me that 6th dollar.

[Irrelevant Dude]

Next up, replacing the ivy with poison ivy... better known as the Zanfel Wall.

[Omar]

They don't need to prostitute themselves in this way.

 

What do you have against prositutes?

 

They're too expensive?

 

:lol:

Not in mexico. $6

 

sucky sucky five dolla

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Renaming Wrigley would be a bummer for a while, but it wouldn't be a big deal. If they rename it though, can they stick to a name for a couple decades? I'd rather not go down the "whatever the Giants park is called this week" road.

[shnsajax]

They don't need to prostitute themselves in this way.

 

What do you have against prositutes?

 

They're too expensive?

 

:lol:

Not in mexico. $6

 

sucky sucky five dolla

 

I think $1 of the $6 went to the new donkey fund?

[TruffleShuffle]

hey what do the two MLB teams with the highest payrolls in baseball have in common?

 

they haven't sold off the naming rights to their ballparks.

 

 

the cubs are based in the third most populous city in the nation, have a national fan base, and will have a team payroll higher than 80% of the league.

 

They don't need to sell off the name to be competitive. They need non-idiots running the team. A good GM and good ownership will win games with or without whoring out the name of the ballpark.

[shnsajax]

hey what do the two MLB teams with the highest payrolls in baseball have in common?

 

they haven't sold off the naming rights to their ballparks.

 

 

the cubs are based in the third most populous city in the nation, have a national fan base, and will have a team payroll higher than 80% of the league.

 

They don't need to sell off the name to be competitive. They need non-idiots running the team. A good GM and good ownership will win games with or without whoring out the name of the ballpark.

 

It has nothing to do with the need to, has to do with the potential suck out every little penny possible. Just be thankful Zell wants nothing to do with the team whatsoever. He simply could careless.

[jiml60]

hey what do the two MLB teams with the highest payrolls in baseball have in common?

 

they haven't sold off the naming rights to their ballparks.

 

 

the cubs are based in the third most populous city in the nation, have a national fan base, and will have a team payroll higher than 80% of the league.

 

They don't need to sell off the name to be competitive. They need non-idiots running the team. A good GM and good ownership will win games with or without whoring out the name of the ballpark.

 

It has nothing to do with the need to, has to do with the potential suck out every little penny possible. Just be thankful Zell wants nothing to do with the team whatsoever. He simply could careless.

 

Which is probably why he is floating the idea of naming rights. It could be entirely possible that the prospective new owners are in full support of this idea; Zell sells the naming rights, takes the heat and the new owners get the added revenue without any backlash.

[shnsajax]

hey what do the two MLB teams with the highest payrolls in baseball have in common?

 

they haven't sold off the naming rights to their ballparks.

 

 

the cubs are based in the third most populous city in the nation, have a national fan base, and will have a team payroll higher than 80% of the league.

 

They don't need to sell off the name to be competitive. They need non-idiots running the team. A good GM and good ownership will win games with or without whoring out the name of the ballpark.

 

It has nothing to do with the need to, has to do with the potential suck out every little penny possible. Just be thankful Zell wants nothing to do with the team whatsoever. He simply could careless.

 

Which is probably why he is floating the idea of naming rights. It could be entirely possible that the prospective new owners are in full support of this idea; Zell sells the naming rights, takes the heat and the new owners get the added revenue without any backlash.

 

It also boosts the value of the team prior to sell. I do believe Zell has only his best interest in mind, not what the potential owners best interest is.

[Derwood]

nothing is sacred anymore. there are naming rights on the Rose Bowl, i'm sure there will be on the Olympics, etc.

 

I agree about the Giants stadium, but that is simply a matter of companies getting bought by other companies (Pac Bell by AT&T, etc., whatever or Bank One getting bought by Chase)

[Guest]

nothing is sacred anymore. there are naming rights on the Rose Bowl, i'm sure there will be on the Olympics, etc.

 

I agree about the Giants stadium, but that is simply a matter of companies getting bought by other companies (Pac Bell by AT&T, etc., whatever or Bank One getting bought by Chase)

 

The Rose Bowl game, not the Rose Bowl itself.

[Post Count Padder]

If they rename Wrigley, then I won't care what it's called, I'll always call it Wrigley Field. And I will shun ownership for eternity.

[3Dog]

Don't forget, the Yankees and Red Sox both own lucrative cable networks that televise their games. Could be at least part of the reason they haven't sold stadium naming rights.

[jiml60]

If they rename Wrigley, then I won't care what it's called, I'll always call it Wrigley Field. And I will shun ownership for eternity.

 

Lighten up, Francis.

[AlwaysaCub]

Maybe they should first go to the Wrigley company and ask if Wrigley will pay to keep its name on the stadium. I don't think they'd agree to pay but you never know.

[TruffleShuffle]

Don't forget, the Yankees and Red Sox both own lucrative cable networks that televise their games. Could be at least part of the reason they haven't sold stadium naming rights.

 

there's also dodger stadium and angel stadium - neither bearing a corporate name. my point is, a team like the cubs does not have to put a corporate name on the ballpark to be one of the larger-revenue teams in the game.

[Derwood]

Don't forget, the Yankees and Red Sox both own lucrative cable networks that televise their games. Could be at least part of the reason they haven't sold stadium naming rights.

 

there's also dodger stadium and angel stadium - neither bearing a corporate name. my point is, a team like the cubs does not have to put a corporate name on the ballpark to be one of the larger-revenue teams in the game.

 

wasn't the Angels stadium called Edison Field for a long time?

[Guest]

Don't forget, the Yankees and Red Sox both own lucrative cable networks that televise their games. Could be at least part of the reason they haven't sold stadium naming rights.

 

there's also dodger stadium and angel stadium - neither bearing a corporate name. my point is, a team like the cubs does not have to put a corporate name on the ballpark to be one of the larger-revenue teams in the game.

 

wasn't the Angels stadium called Edison Field for a long time?

 

6 years from 1997-2003.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Don't forget, the Yankees and Red Sox both own lucrative cable networks that televise their games. Could be at least part of the reason they haven't sold stadium naming rights.

 

there's also dodger stadium and angel stadium - neither bearing a corporate name. my point is, a team like the cubs does not have to put a corporate name on the ballpark to be one of the larger-revenue teams in the game.

 

wasn't the Angels stadium called Edison Field for a long time?

 

6 years from 1997-2003.

 

Back when I was in school..... 1997-2003 would be 7 years, no?

[Derwood]

Don't forget, the Yankees and Red Sox both own lucrative cable networks that televise their games. Could be at least part of the reason they haven't sold stadium naming rights.

 

there's also dodger stadium and angel stadium - neither bearing a corporate name. my point is, a team like the cubs does not have to put a corporate name on the ballpark to be one of the larger-revenue teams in the game.

 

wasn't the Angels stadium called Edison Field for a long time?

 

6 years from 1997-2003.

 

interesting, since it was a 20 year naming rights deal

[Guest]

Don't forget, the Yankees and Red Sox both own lucrative cable networks that televise their games. Could be at least part of the reason they haven't sold stadium naming rights.

 

there's also dodger stadium and angel stadium - neither bearing a corporate name. my point is, a team like the cubs does not have to put a corporate name on the ballpark to be one of the larger-revenue teams in the game.

 

wasn't the Angels stadium called Edison Field for a long time?

 

6 years from 1997-2003.

 

Back when I was in school..... 1997-2003 would be 7 years, no?

 

Oops you are right. What I meant was 6 seasons, they renamed it after the 1997 season.

 

interesting, since it was a 20 year naming rights deal

 

Edison had an option to exit the deal in 2003 and took it.

[AlwaysaCub]

 

Edison had an option to exit the deal in 2003 and took it.

 

Really? 1 year after they won the WS? Seems strange.

[mhuber92211]

 

Edison had an option to exit the deal in 2003 and took it.

 

Really? 1 year after they won the WS? Seems strange.

 

Not since Edison is bankrupt and exited after the rolling blackouts nearly did them in

[Old Style]

I'm one that would really be pissed if they sold the naming rights. I guess I'm old school and it sickens me to see all the corporate whoring at stadiums these days and I don't want it in "my" stadium. I'm fed up with MLB enough as it is. This might be the final straw.