Zell will consider selling naming rights to Wrigley Field

[swordsman]

Actually I'm not sure the building is considered a landmark but the bleachers, outfield wall and marquee are.

 

Wait...did he say the marquee? The one that says "Wrigley Field Home of the Chicago Cubs". can't change that right?

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

Does anyone know since it is considered a landmark or a historic building, can they legally change the name?

The stadium itself is not a landmark. The scoreboard is, and I'm pretty sure the marquee got landmark status as well. They can change the name to whatever they want, but I believe the marquee has to stay the same.

[BleedCubbieBlue81]

He's basically trying to ruin a part of American culture just to put more money in his pocket. You can call it business if you want, but I call it selfish. Wrigley Field has imbeded itself into "Americana" much like Fenway Park, Yankee Stadium, Lambeau Field, etc. He's willing to throw all that away, and disappoint MANY people just to put more money in his already over- bloated pocket. He has no sense of history or tradition, he only sees the bottom line. He'd probably put a giant Burger King mask on the Statue of Liberty if they were willing to pay him for it.

 

The only way I would ever respect him for this is if he said all the proceeds from selling the naming rights (and I mean 100%) were going to charity. And it'd have to be one hell of a charity.

[Larry Horse]

He's basically trying to ruin a part of American culture just to put more money in his pocket. You can call it business if you want, but I call it selfish. Wrigley Field has imbeded itself into "Americana" much like Fenway Park, Yankee Stadium, Lambeau Field, etc. He's willing to throw all that away, and disappoint MANY people just to put more money in his already over- bloated pocket. He has no sense of history or tradition, he only sees the bottom line. He'd probably put a giant Burger King mask on the Statue of Liberty if they were willing to pay him for it.

 

The only way I would ever respect him for this is if he said all the proceeds from selling the naming rights (and I mean 100%) were going to charity. And it'd have to be one hell of a charity.

 

It's called business.

[hawkcub]

What will probably happen is they will call it Wrigley Field presented by "a companies name". Sort of like the Rose Bowl does. All the other bowls are called stuff like the Tostito Fiesta Bowl or the FedEx Orange bowl. I think the the Rose Bowl is called the Rose Bowl presented by AT & T. They will do that with Wrigley as that's the only way this happens without a huge backlash.

[Mizzou]

How big of a PR move would it be for a company to buy the naming rights, and then announce that they're leaving the name as Wrigley Field? It would definitely generate a ton of buzz. I know I would have a huge amount of respect for anyone that did that. It's definitely a guerrilla tactic, but one that I think would pay off quite nicely.

[Sosa21MVP]

I'd rather not see this happen but I'm not all that concerned as long as they leave the marquee alone.

[CubColtPacer]

I think I'd have less of a problem with selling the naming rights if he was planning to keep the team .

 

Instead, I almost feel like MLB should step in a little bit here. I don't quite think it's ethical for Zell to be making these huge decisions for this franchise while he's in charge when he already is an owner of the White Sox. He has a financial incentive to get all the money out of the Cubs he possibly can in the short-term, and he has a financial incentive to bury the Cubs in the long-term (if the Cubs bomb out, the White Sox get more revenue). Look at his track record:

 

1) Naming rights. It will probably be structured so most of the money comes up front so that Zell can pocket it. The new owners will see little of the money, but will lose the iconic Wrigley name.

2)Splitting off Wrigley in the deal. This is the one that is the most legal for Zell to do. He can split it off any way he wants. At the same time, this is another thing that will hurt the new owners in the future, and the more dispute there is over Wrigley's lease in the future the more the White Sox and Zell benefit.

3) Renovations to Wrigley. Quite convenient that Zell can arrange a deal to have the Cubs play at the Cell, which puts more money in the White Sox pockets (including his own), and then have the new owners be the ones who will have to go through the headaches of the renovation?

 

There is a huge conflict of interest going on here. While each of the moves are somewhat defensible, putting them together along with Zell's short-term ownership of the team and also his minority ownership in a team who is competing directly for the same market share makes this a situation that needs to be looked into and fast.

[Geech]

Sam Zell is a schmuck.

 

Here, he tells a journalist "f*** you":

 

 

Here, he calls an executive a "mother f***er" :

 

 

Sam Zell is awesome.

[TruffleShuffle]

It's called business.

 

this is a cop-out

[OleMissCub]

From a purely business perspective I'd imagine that renaming it could conceivably have a detrimental effect for the purchaser, although I guess in the short term it won't for Zell personally.

[Springfield_CUBBY]

I think I'd have less of a problem with selling the naming rights if he was planning to keep the team .

 

Instead, I almost feel like MLB should step in a little bit here. I don't quite think it's ethical for Zell to be making these huge decisions for this franchise while he's in charge when he already is an owner of the White Sox. He has a financial incentive to get all the money out of the Cubs he possibly can in the short-term, and he has a financial incentive to bury the Cubs in the long-term (if the Cubs bomb out, the White Sox get more revenue). Look at his track record:

 

1) Naming rights. It will probably be structured so most of the money comes up front so that Zell can pocket it. The new owners will see little of the money, but will lose the iconic Wrigley name.

2)Splitting off Wrigley in the deal. This is the one that is the most legal for Zell to do. He can split it off any way he wants. At the same time, this is another thing that will hurt the new owners in the future, and the more dispute there is over Wrigley's lease in the future the more the White Sox and Zell benefit.

3) Renovations to Wrigley. Quite convenient that Zell can arrange a deal to have the Cubs play at the Cell, which puts more money in the White Sox pockets (including his own), and then have the new owners be the ones who will have to go through the headaches of the renovation?

 

There is a huge conflict of interest going on here. While each of the moves are somewhat defensible, putting them together along with Zell's short-term ownership of the team and also his minority ownership in a team who is competing directly for the same market share makes this a situation that needs to be looked into and fast.

 

Quoted for emphasis! This is exactly what I wanted to say, but wasn't smart enough to say . . .

[SouthSideRyan]

For all the conflict of interest talk, don't expect to get anything out of it. Baseball is a one man dictatorship and it's not Selig who's pulling the strings. It's Reinsdorf.

[OleMissCub]

If Congress is going to insist on spending lots of time and energy with the steroids thing, I'd rather see them spend those resources on making Wrigley Field itself a historic landmark. Hell, half the damn statutes that are passed during a session of Congress are those that are making national landmarks or dedications out of stupid things such as an acre of land in New Mexico where an arrowhead was found, or whatever.

 

If they want to get their smug faces on camera and wax nostalgic about how baseball is "America's Game" and all that other nonsense, then why not propose a bill that would make Wrigley Field a national landmark?

[TruffleShuffle]

i will say this, if zell is going to do this under the guise of "trying to win a championship," he'd better go the whole nine yards. chop down the ivy and line the bricks with ads. put ads on all the seats in the park. put ads all over the uniforms, a la nascar. that'd generate a hell of a lot of revenue.

[erik316wttn]

i will say this, if zell is going to do this under the guise of "trying to win a championship," he'd better go the whole nine yards. chop down the ivy and line the bricks with ads. put ads on all the seats in the park. put ads all over the uniforms, a la nascar. that'd generate a hell of a lot of revenue.

 

You bite your tounge.

[erik316wttn]

I guess ultimately what I'm worried about is the snowball effect if the naming rights are sold.

 

Wrigley is a landmark. There is no disputing that. Half of the fun of going to a Cubs game is the Wrigley experience. Sure, it's just a name. However, if you sell the naming rights, how long before the ivy comes down? How long before the whole place comes down? How long before the street vendors have their licenses revoked? How long before Wrigley becomes "just another ballpark" because "it's good business?"

 

Look, I love the Cubs, and I would go to see them wherever they played. But if you put them in a "modern" ballpark with jumbotrons, luxury boxes, a hotel, or god forbid a dome, would it really be the same?

[Soul]

I heard there's a chance the landmark status might be rescinded in order to lower costs for a major rennovation.

 

Wrigley has already become a sort of hybrid of what it used to be. At some point here, it's going to cease to be anything we recognize. It's just going to happen and you can't stop it, any more than you can stop time itself.

[mcgoobs]

I could this initiative getting stopped based off fans' reactions. It would be similar to Bank One relenting when they wanted to have the Bears introduced as "Chicago Bears football presented by Bank One."

[Derwood]

whatever "positive PR" a company could receive by buying the rights but keeping the name would be far exceeded by slapping their company's name on the park. let's say Old Style (for sake of argument) buys the rights. Initially, everyone will think it's an amazing move for them to keep the Wrigley Field name. But 2 or 3 years into the naming rights deal, people will forget, or not care, at which point Old Style is paying for a whole lot of nothing. No company would ever do what you guys are suggesting

[RedIvyCub]

Just my two cents...for so many years, people complained about the Tribune and how they just wanted to line their pockets. Funny, Tribune is now run by Zell but everyone flat out blames Zell, not Tribune. Just another example of the grass not always being greener on the other side of the fence.

 

BTW, marquee, scoreboard and ivy are all landmarked. It's why they did not rebuild the outfield wall in the bleacher expansion project. They tore everything else out and propped the wall up.

[kycubsfan]

i like zell, but mlb should not allow this franchise to be gutted at his whim. they should use his sox connection as an excuse to step in

[The Voice of Reason]

If they rename Wrigley Field to some corporate name like Google Field, will the surrounding neighborhood be renamed Googleville?

[CuseCubFan69]

Isn't the name Wrigley an ad for the gum/owner?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Like many of us alluded to, I found this in an article this morning.

 

Landmark status means that the signature Wrigley Field sign on the ballpark's exterior will stay even if a new company obtains naming rights, the alderman said.

 

 

Link

 

From the same article...

 

Team officials now "want to get out of the landmark [designation], period," and they want to increase the density of the proposed commercial project, Tunney said.