charger77 Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 Does a team owe the city or state money for naming rights?For example, to the Toronto Maple Leafs owe the City money for using Toronto in its logo and merchandise? The could just as easily be The Mapel Leafs?This isnt a Toronto specific question. It applies to all sports teams.Just CuriousThanks,Dan PotD May 11th, 2011looooooogodud: June 7th 2010 - July 5th 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CC97 Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 The only place i can think of that trademarked their name is Kentucky. --- Chris Creamer Founder/Editor, SportsLogos.Net "The Mothership" • News • Facebook • X/Twitter • Instagram Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iowahoo Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I seem to remember when the Bears were talking about moving to da burbs a few years back that Mayor Dailey threatened to take legal action preventing the team from using the name Chicago unless they played within the city limits.That is the only type of leverage thing that I can think of, and despite some of his corrupt actions I side with Da Mayor on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBPerry Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Does a team owe the city or state money for naming rights?For example, to the Toronto Maple Leafs owe the City money for using Toronto in its logo and merchandise? The could just as easily be The Mapel Leafs?This isnt a Toronto specific question. It applies to all sports teams.Just CuriousThanks,Dan You would think the City of Dallas would have something like that, especially since the 'Boys play in Irving (which however is in Dallas County) and they're about to move to Arlington (which is in Tarrant County, not Dallas) <embed src="http://www.clocklink.com/clocks/5005-Blue.swf?TimeZone=CST&TimeFormat=hhmmssTT" width="180" height="60" wmode="transparent" type="application/x-shockwave-flash">joshuabperry@sbcglobal.netMy Webpage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offthepost Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 as a side note... what about the whole rhubarb about the anaheim angels.. and now how they have incorporated los angeles and anaheim into their name.. not sure about all the legalize...but i recall some stuff around that name change..maybe someone can fill it in.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclopsis Joe Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 Yeah, offthepost, there was some legal wrangling. The Angels wanted to be called "Los Angeles" because it sounds cooler, but the city of Anaheim didn't like it, since they play in Anaheim (and I believe it says in their contract that they have to be Anaheim) so they just did both.Therefore, the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim. I don't speak for democrats, democrats don't speak for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mac the Knife Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 In general terms, the answer is an unequivocal "No."Think about it - does Boston Market have to shell out to the city of New York because they have locations there? Of course not. Pro sports teams are no different...UNLESS...they have a contractual agreement that stipulates the team will have a specific name, such as the Angels deal with the City of Anaheim to use their stadium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hecticbro Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 The city of Anaheim helped pay for the ballpark down there (I believe) and as part of the agreement on the lease, the team was required to use "Anaheim" in its team name for 15 years or something. The ownership wanted to move in more on the greater Los Angeles market, though, and tried to weasel out of the deal. It resulted in the ridiculous Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim moniker, which satisfied the courts somehow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RickV Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 I seem to remember when the Bears were talking about moving to da burbs a few years back that Mayor Dailey threatened to take legal action preventing the team from using the name Chicago unless they played within the city limits.That is the only type of leverage thing that I can think of, and despite some of his corrupt actions I side with Da Mayor on this one. That strategy worked out well for Anaheim, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powersurge Posted September 22, 2006 Share Posted September 22, 2006 In general terms, the answer is an unequivocal "No."Think about it - does Boston Market have to shell out to the city of New York because they have locations there? Of course not. Pro sports teams are no different... Uhhhh....Wha? please elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.