Wrigley to be renamed... Sam Zell the Devil?

[DMBZeppelin]

TRIB CEO | Fires back at critics of plan to peddle ballpark to state agency

February 27, 2008

BY FRAN SPIELMAN City Hall Reporter/fspielman@suntimes.com

Tribune Co. CEO Sam Zell said Tuesday he won't hesitate to sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field -- even if baseball purists don't like the idea.

"Wrigley is an obvious world-wide icon and Wrigley Field is world-wide known. But, in the world of economics, when I bought the Tribune, I didn't get a discount because I wasn't going to use the naming rights that field represents," Zell said in an interview on the CNBC program "Squawk Box."

"Perhaps the Wrigley Co. will decide that, after getting it for free for so long, that it's time to pay for it."

Zell said he plans to sell the Cubs and Wrigley separately and "on our own time frame." He also disclosed that Major League Baseball had already approved "four or six" potential ownership groups and that "any one of those groups, as far as I know, would be fine."
The sale of the team has been delayed by Zell's plan to sell the team and the stadium separately -- and to have a state agency acquire and renovate Wrigley.

That complex arrangement has prompted behind-the-scenes grumbling from some potential ownership groups. But Zell said he couldn't care less.

"Excuse me for being sarcastic, but the idea of a debate occurring over what I should do with my asset leaves me somewhat questioning the integrity of the debate. . . . There's a lot of people who would like to buy the Cubs and would like to buy the Cubs under their terms and conditions and, unfortunately, have to deal with me," Zell told a CNBC interviewer.

Words can NOT express the hatred I have for Sam Zell. Baseball really needs to step in and do something about this. Zell is an interm owner, and shouldn't be allowed to do what he's doing. As baseball is a private operation, they have every right to protect their product.

Not only did Zell buy the Tribune illegally. By buying the Trib, he bought the Cubs. He did this while still having a small stake in the White Sox. Which he recently sold, but baseball allowed that for MONTHS! Now this guy is going to sell the name, and POCKET all the profit. He's going to make a killing, and not one $ goes back into making this team better.

But either way, I'd be pretty happy if he were to drop dead.

[browntown653]

I'll always call it Wrigley Field no matter what.

[DMBZeppelin]

Cubs fans will have to form pyramid to stop anyone from replacing this sign:

[rockin500]

he can drop dead anytime now! He's such a schmuck and an idiot.

too bad for zell that he cant change the big stuff on the outside, so at most its going to be symbolic. Unless he thinks he can somehow get around the laws regarding hallmark status.

[DMBZeppelin]

he can drop dead anytime now! He's such a schmuck and an idiot.

too bad for zell that he cant change the big stuff on the outside, so at most its going to be symbolic. Unless he thinks he can somehow get around the laws regarding hallmark status.

This guy has deep pockets, so it wouldn't surprise me. Looking at comments on ESPN.com even the Cardinals fans don't like this:

As a St. Louis Cardinals fan, I really don't care what they call it........as a baseball fan, I think this is blasphymous!!! Changing the name of Wrigley Field would be no different than changing the name of the Brooklyn Bridge. These are landmarks that are recognized worldwide. It's not as if Wrigley is a new ball park, built with corporate money. Wrigley is Wrigley...... and always will be to baseball purists!!!

CARDINALS FANS! But ya baseball is a game built on history, stats, and records. Wrigley is a large part of baseball history. Regardless if you like the Cubs or not, it will be a sad day for basbeball if Wrigley is renamed.

[DMBZeppelin]

Tell it to Zell: Don't sell Wrigley Field's name :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Cubs

Tell it to Zell: Don't sell Wrigley Field's name

February 27, 2008

FROM SUN-TIMES STAFF REPORTS

Sun-Times readers, now is your chance to tell Tribune Co. boss Sam Zell not to sell out Wrigley Field. Zell said Tuesday he won't hesitate to sell the naming rights to Wrigley Field -- even if baseball purists don't like the idea. How would you like the sound of Depends Field? Or Preparation H Ballpark? Tell Zell what Wrigley Field means to you. To your family. To your friends. To Chicago.

Here's what Zell told the CNBC program "Squawk Box" on Tuesday: "Excuse me for being sarcastic, but the idea of a debate occurring over what I should do with my asset leaves me somewhat questioning the integrity of the debate. . . . There's a lot of people who would like to buy the Cubs and would like to buy the Cubs under their terms and conditions and, unfortunately, have to deal with me."

Maybe Zell needs a reminder about what Wrigley Field -- the second-oldest ballpark in the major leagues -- means to Chicago.

Perhaps this Windy City native forgot about the love affair between Cubs fans and their park, which has been filled through the years even when the Cubs have struggled on the field. Why would he want to interfere with that connection?

E-mail us at zell@suntimes.com and let us know what you think.

According to mlb.com, the Major League Baseball Web site, Wrigley Field has been the site of many historic moments, including:

"Babe Ruth's "called shot," when Ruth allegedly pointed to a bleacher location during Game 3 of the 1932 World Series ... Ruth then hit Charlie Root's next pitch for a homer.

"Gabby Hartnett's famous "Homer in the Gloamin' " September 28, 1938, vs. Pittsburgh's Mace Brown.

"Ernie Banks' 500th career home run May 12, 1970, vs. Atlanta's Pat Jarvis.

"Pete Rose's 4,191st career hit, which tied him with Ty Cobb for the most hits in baseball history ... Rose singled off Reggie Patterson on September 8, 1985.

"Kerry Wood's 20-strikeout game against Houston in 1998."

I doubt it helps much, but I'm glad the Suntimes is at least going to notify Zell that if he does this he should move out of Chicago. Where could he go in public?

[rockin500]

This guy has deep pockets, so it wouldn't surprise me. Looking at comments on ESPN.com even the Cardinals fans don't like this:



CARDINALS FANS! But ya baseball is a game built on history, stats, and records. Wrigley is a large part of baseball history. Regardless if you like the Cubs or not, it will be a sad day for basbeball if Wrigley is renamed.

dont bet the house on it, as landmark status is very tough to work around.

[Saber]

It's Marshall Field's All Over Again!
by Phil Bencomo

For all the fuss about the naming rights to Wrigley, fans will come to terms with a new name.

Just like they did with the bleacher reconstruction. And the new seats behind home plate. And the rotating ads. And the lights.

Be sure to note that those were all physical changes to the park. You can call Wrigley whatever you want, no matter the official name, but there's nothing you can do to ignore modifications to Wrigley itself. But you don't hear too many people still complaining about those changes. Animosity toward a new name will quickly fade, I think, especially if it still incorporates "Wrigley" somehow, e.g. Pepsi Park at Wrigley Field.

And all that extra money in the bank won't hurt, either.

[Saber]

Also, many owners have held stakes in more than one team. MLB has no issue with it as long as it's a minor stake and the owner is in the process of selling.

[ljshorty89]

This is terrible...I personally view wrigley as the original corporate name, but the excuse being that the the corporation was eponymous to the owner. I just cannot imagine it being anything else. I won't be able to go on my future baseball road trip, because when I ask someone how to get to Wrigley, there wont be an answer. DON'T CHANGE IT!

[DMBZeppelin]

Just like they did with the bleacher reconstruction. And the new seats behind home plate. And the rotating ads. And the lights.

Be sure to note that those were all physical changes to the park. You can call Wrigley whatever you want, no matter the official name, but there's nothing you can do to ignore modifications to Wrigley itself. But you don't hear too many people still complaining about those changes. Animosity toward a new name will quickly fade, I think, especially if it still incorporates "Wrigley" somehow, e.g. Pepsi Park at Wrigley Field.

And all that extra money in the bank won't hurt, either.

This guy is CRAZY! No one will adapt quickly to this. All the changes done to Wrigley are done to make sure it can remain open. They can't let the place fall apart. No one minds when they improve Wrigley, as long as it doesn't mess with the vibe of the place.

But he goes on to mention money in the bank? HA! Sam Zell isn't selling the naming rights to put money into the Cubs. This guy is selling the naming rights, and pocketing the cash. After that he's selling the team, and the new real owners are stuck with his decision. Zell wants to squeeze every penny he can from the Cubs before selling it. Not a dime will help improve the current or future Cubs team.

This is terrible...I personally view wrigley as the original corporate name, but the excuse being that the the corporation was eponymous to the owner.

Ya, but the intent behind naming Wrigley was never to advertise the product. Otherwise it be called Wrigley Co. Park or something. It was named to honor Wrigley William Jr. The guy just also happened to be in the gum business. But you don't see any Wrigley Gum ads at Wrigley Field.

[DMBZeppelin]

A landmark in deception :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Greg Couch
A landmark in deception

Cubs aren't plotting tiny changes if they want Wrigley's protection lifted

February 29, 2008
BY GREG COUCH Sun-Times Columnist

Selling the name of Wrigley Field is one thing, but dropping the landmark protection for a few minutes so Sam Zell can slap a coat of paint on the place, maybe add a few supporting beams for the old grandstand while keeping the grand ambience and romance in place?

Well, I'm going to call b.s. on the Cubs here.

They're trying to sneak something past you. We already know what Zell, the new Cubs owner looking to pay down Tribune Co.'s serious debt, thinks of that ambience: If he can sell it, sell the name of Wrigley, he'll do it. He made that clear the other day.

I'm not in favor of that, but the magic of Wrigley isn't in the name.

One thing I know for sure: If McDonald's buys the name, or United or anyone else, then that big, red sign out front is still going to be there, still going to say this: ''Wrigley Field. Home of Chicago Cubs.''

That sign is under landmark protection. So are the home-run wall, the old scoreboard, the general layout of the park's interior, and even the outside itself.

Yet the Cubs want the city to drop that landmark protection. Why?

''If you're going to restore and maintain the facility, you're going to have to take parts of it down and rebuild it, just like we rebuilt the bleachers two years ago,'' said Crane Kenney, who runs the Cubs for Tribune Co. ''Landmarking authorization doesn't let you do that.''

Look down, Crane. I think your pants are on fire.

Zell controls a lot more of Wrigley Field than just its name. And while he's trying to sell the team, consider the power any new owner might have on the place.

But despite landmarking authorization, as Kenney put it, the Cubs have expanded the bleachers, added a see-through wall on the street, fixed up the outside façade, added seats inside, put ads on the home-run wall. Any time the Cubs want to do anything, as long as it hasn't ruined the feel, the Chicago City Council has approved.

Upkeep is allowed already

It's clear the Commission on Chicago Landmarks, which makes recommendations to the council, has no problem allowing the Cubs to do what's necessary for upkeep, or even to increase revenues, as long as the magic isn't destroyed.

So now we're supposed to believe tearing down dilapidated grandstands for the purpose of rebuilding them is a problem? No way.

Landmark status is given to protect things that are important to us. So be careful when you hear the Cubs cry out that they want to keep the place all nice for the fans, but that gosh-darn landmark protection won't allow it.

Just drop your guard for a few minutes, turn your back, and the Cubs won't cause any damage.

Pants. Fire.

This is how awful this has become: The landmark status is now protecting Wrigley Field from the Cubs.

Sam Zell does not care about you, Cubs fans. It's nothing personal. It's business. And if he can get $400 million over 20 years to sell Wrigley's name, then what would you expect him to do?

Zell didn't invent this stuff. A few years ago, the Cubs tried to sneak in a little ticket-scalping scam on their own fans. They're not trying to hurt you. They're not thinking about you at all.

The only reason to drop the landmark designation is for major change.

Pete Scales of the city's department of planning said the landmark status doesn't prevent anyone from making improvements, fixing things up. And it hasn't been an issue in Boston, where the Red Sox have made major, approved changes while staying within the landmark designation of Fenway Park.

What if the Cubs decided to put up a massive, modern scoreboard by the left-field bleachers without touching the old scoreboard?

''An idea like that would certainly be under review by the landmarks division,'' Scales said.

Wow, I can't even imagine what kind of changes they want to make to Wrigley. But if they get rid of the landmark status, we all know that big red sign is going bye bye.

[DMBZeppelin]

dont bet the house on it, as landmark status is very tough to work around.

You were saying?

[Dry1313]

Don't let it happen.

The new Yankee Stadium is going to be sick, but the fans banded together and said if they didn't keept the Old Stadium that most of the season ticket holders and the long time box holders would pull out.

They didn't need us, but even so, it would have been such a PR mess they agreed to keep the Stadium, but I think they're knocking down the top deck.

Where I ****ing sit.

[DMBZeppelin]

Don't let it happen.

The new Yankee Stadium is going to be sick, but the fans banded together and said if they didn't keept the Old Stadium that most of the season ticket holders and the long time box holders would pull out.

They didn't need us, but even so, it would have been such a PR mess they agreed to keep the Stadium, but I think they're knocking down the top deck.

Where I ****ing sit.

That's the thing though, Zell doesn't care about the PR mess. He's going to make his money and run. He's just the interm owner.