CHICAGO | Wrigley Field Redevelopment News
 

^ Let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Zell wants Landmark protection ordinance revoked, and a name change to go along with it. I'm thinking otherwise.


Greg Couch had a great article in the sun times today.... spelled out what Zell Sells.....

http://www.suntimes.com/sports/couch...greg29.article

Cubs fans will not allow it.

he owns the building. Cubs fans can't do anything about it other than not go to the building anymore. And Daley is a Sox fan.

Zell's got a point with the naming rights. I seriously doubt the name will change, but I also doubt Wrigley is going to get away with not paying for the free advertising they've been getting for so long

^ Even Daley recognizes the iconic importance of Wrigley Field to Chicago, Sox fan or not

WAIT just a second, are they planning on tearing it down? If so I hope people chain themselves to it! Why would they?

Fans can only do so much. For comparison, look at the outrage expressed over Americans (Malcom Glazer and family) getting sole interest in Manchester United. they were burned in effigy but you haven't heard of ManU being outright ignored by the fans or the media because of thsi sacrilegious act.

Yes, Americans aren't soccer nuts, but the fact that both ManU and the Chicago Cubs are legendary professional sports franchises and endeared to their fanbases is the point I am trying to make... The fans can only do so much. it's still a business.

I certainly am not advocating for Zell -- but it's a cold hard fact that even legendary venues and teams need to be profitable. It's part of the reason they planned to replace Fenway park (since scuttled), it's why they are replacing Yankee Stadium, it's why naming rights were sold for Comisky Park, why Boston Garden got replaced, etc

Can't they somehow fix the outside of the building? It is horrific!!! 23 layers of enamel will not cover all the issues.

SOMEONE STOP them from using those cheap ass paver stones as sidewalk!!!!!!

Who ever did the Sheffield and Waveland corner....they have the right idea.....let them fix it up.

Keep the seating area like is and do what you want with it.

NEVER TOUCH THE SCORE BOARD!!!!

I am confused. They make a killing off of it now. So why do they need all the city breaks? If they improve it they will make even more money off of it. Chicago does NOT need to give the rich like Zell welfare money or anyone else who wants to own the place. And shouldn't the city be paid for all the inconveniences the extra crowds will bring...more public toliets...staff the police, CTA, with way more money...then give them something.

Cubs fans don't own the park.

Too bad he didn't have the balls to say anything when they changed Comiskey to U.S Cellular... But I guess I should be used to the southside being dumped on.

what was he gonna do? pass a law to protect the name? Its all about money and US Cellular paid a lot of it.

Wrigley Field is a nice icon, but again, money rules here. If Zell sells it, the Cubs will just have to look for a new place to lose for another 100 years.

^ ok, first of all, the cubs will NEVER leave wrigley field. Wrigley is a huge part of what makes the cubs the cubs.

second, the name isn't going to change. People will always call it wrigley. I still call the sox place comiskey (even though "the cell" is somewhat catchy)

its true zell owns the stadium (and the cubs) and lots of other things. He can do what he wants. but you'd kind of wish he wasn't an asshole, i guess...

what does this mean? The Cubs are a baseball team. It shouldnt matter where they play. They should be more concerned about winning a title, then what field they play on. I guess this mentality explains why every game at Wrigley is half filled with tourists and trixies who could care less whats actually happening on the field.

I'd like to see Wrigley stay and my guess is it will, but the name means nothing and people should get over it. I still call the Cell, Comiskey and I would still call it Wrigley too.

I think anyone attempting to put there name on this stadium wont want to mask what the name means. It is actually more flattering to a corporate brand to place it along with the stadium name, the brand will draw more from that aspect. It could be something simple like *company name* at Wrigley Field or *company name*'s Wrigley Field. It may sound horrible but we would get used to it and the stadium is still aloud to keep its history. People are concerned but it doesnt mean we have a loss, we just have to prevent the wrong things from happening. Even with this method the score boards would easily stay.

You know, the Wrigley company could buy the naming rights to the stadium and nothing would have to change. I don't think that's an outlandish idea. I know a lot of us don't even think of the chewing gum company when we think of the field, but the Wrigley company still exists and they are getting a free ride at the expense of the Tribune Company. So instead of griping about Zell (who's just trying to get the Trib company out of a budget whole, unlike the state and the county, and the nation for that matter) how about you Cub fans petition Wrigley Co. to buy their namesake stadium, hmm?

But then again, I'm a south-sider, a Sox fan, and my wife works for the Tribune company so I'd rather see a name change than see a lot of people lose their jobs.

It is an outlandish idea, because the Wrigley Company has expressed zero interest in obtaining any sort of naming rights.

As you said, no one thinks of the chewing gum company when the parks name is mentioned. So why would they pay tens of millions of dollars for an "official" naming right that will have zero effect on increasing their bottom line?

I never knew it was named after the chewing gum company. I always thought it was just named for some long dead Chicago big wig.

If the Yankee's can plan in a house other than what Ruth built, don't think that it couldn't happen here.

Besides, it's not like the name of the stadium hasn't been changed once before.

A long dead Chicago big wig who founded that chewing gum company.

Part of what most gets me is the childish arrogance that Kenney and Zell in particular have addressed these issues. The "we can do what we want and we don't care" is not really a good PR job. Just tell the reasons why it is necessarily at least somewhat truthfully (the Tribune and/or Zell what the money in their revenue streams) and shut up. There really trying to run an end around against the landmark provisions. :rolleyes:

The article also mentions HOK as the stadium architects, I know that is there specialty but this gives me the idea that we are going to see something completely lame and unoriginal. I mean if you are going to desecrate the place why not doing something very innovative with it? Instead I feel we will get some cheap historical imitation ball park. :hell:

^Reading bullshit like that does nothing but raise my blood pressure far beyond healthy levels. It sucks that wanting to preserve the name is the completely irrational thing to do (economically speaking). If only there was some sort of statistical regression they could run on the economics of corporate re-branding to discover that the historical name of the institution was the variable with the greatest contributing factor to ticket sales and therefore not something to be fucked with.