"Progressive Field" With Logo

[iowahoo]

New nickname-

The Prog?

They can play Genesis and Van Der Graaf Generator between innings.

isn't wrigley a corporate sponsor name too? Wrigleys gum come to mind? maybe I'm wrong in this but I think this was one of the 1st corporate sponsored ball parks.

It's named for the Wrigley family, not the chewing gum. No naming rights are paid, and no Wrigley's-related graphics are used, so it's not a "corporate sponsor name."

You're right in the fact it isn't a corporate naming rights deal that we know today, but that is probably only because those things hadn't been invented yet. Wrigley Field wasn't named after Mr. Wrigley by a civic commission or a proclamation from the mayor's office, Wrigley named the field after himself and the company as a marketing tool to sell more gum.

[The_Admiral]

I'll always wonder why AT&T actually chose to keep its name on the park rather than pull out of the naming rights deal and save money. As if AT&T needs to increase its brand visibility.

On the other hand, there's SLC's EnergySolutions Arena. You're in the nuclear waste-dumping industry. To whom are you even advertising?

[averyj]

Why not "Progressive Park"?

[iowahoo]

Why not "Progressive Park"?

According to a report I read it was because of this:

http://www.progressivepark.com/

[JustForFun]

The Wrigley family that owns the team is the same Wrigley family that owns a chewing gum empire. They're in talks to sell the Cubs and all related assets to the same guy who owns the Chicago Tribune, and the possibility of renaming Wrigley Field has been much-speculated upon.

I believe the Tribune is in talks to sell the Cubs, the Wrigley family has no connection

This is correct. The Wrigley family hasn't owned the Cubs since 1981!

[Gothamite]

I'll always wonder why AT&T actually chose to keep its name on the park rather than pull out of the naming rights deal and save money. As if AT&T needs to increase its brand visibility.

I don't think that was possible. When SBC and AT&T merged, all the contracts of Pac Bell (or SBC, or whatever the entity was called at the time of the takeover) were still in force. It's wasn't like a bankruptcy, where they could void the contract. AT&T could buy out the contract, but that wouldn't exactly save a lot of money.

On the other hand, there's SLC's EnergySolutions Arena. You're in the nuclear waste-dumping industry. To whom are you even advertising?

Damn. Got me there.

[Gothamite]

The Wrigley family that owns the team is the same Wrigley family that owns a chewing gum empire. They're in talks to sell the Cubs and all related assets to the same guy who owns the Chicago Tribune, and the possibility of renaming Wrigley Field has been much-speculated upon.

I believe the Tribune is in talks to sell the Cubs, the Wrigley family has no connection

This is correct. The Wrigley family hasn't owned the Cubs since 1981!

I think SCL gets his news from the archives. at the main branch of the Chicago Public Library.

The Trib has been looking at selling, though, and naming rights are always in play. I would suspect, however, that "Wrigley Field" as a brand has great monetary value to the club, value that could be compromised or lost outright if they change the name. So even if and when new owners come in, I wouldn't consider naming rights to be a slam-dunk.

[JustForFun]

The Trib has been looking at selling, though, and naming rights are always in play. I would suspect, however, that "Wrigley Field" as a brand has great monetary value to the club, value that could be compromised or lost outright if they change the name. So even if and when new owners come in, I wouldn't consider naming rights to be a slam-dunk.

That's why I want Mark Cuban to buy the team - I believe he'd understand the value of keeping the Wrigley name.

Never happen though - the MLB owners aren't going to let a gadfly into the fraternity at this point.

[vikmurphy]

Jacobs Field @ Progressive Park in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S.A. of North America of the Western Hemisphere of the planet earth. Or something to that extent

[ClutchIsEverything]

Logo Added: Would't Wahoo be nicer than the "Indians Script"?? Too much empty space around "FIELD".

I would guess that Progressive doesn't want their logo next to an image many see as racist. Of course just putting your name on the stadium of the team that uses that logo does that too, but when the logos are side by side it may stress the connection.

[no97]

The Trib has been looking at selling, though, and naming rights are always in play. I would suspect, however, that "Wrigley Field" as a brand has great monetary value to the club, value that could be compromised or lost outright if they change the name. So even if and when new owners come in, I wouldn't consider naming rights to be a slam-dunk.

That's why I want Mark Cuban to buy the team - I believe he'd understand the value of keeping the Wrigley name.

Never happen though - the MLB owners aren't going to let a gadfly into the fraternity at this point.

Here's the thing though... At the moment, Sam Zell owns the Tribune Co. (just bought it, and is planning to use $ from the sale of the Cubs to partially finance the deal), and he has stated that he might sell the naming rights (possibly as a lump sum and then pocket the profits) before selling the team and ballpark.

He's also said he might sell the team and ballpark seperatly just so he can get the most money for his "investment." (i.e. owning the team for a couple months)

As you might expect, Zell hasn't made many friends out of the fans as the current "owner" of the Tribune/Cubs.

Moose

[rams80]

The Trib has been looking at selling, though, and naming rights are always in play. I would suspect, however, that "Wrigley Field" as a brand has great monetary value to the club, value that could be compromised or lost outright if they change the name. So even if and when new owners come in, I wouldn't consider naming rights to be a slam-dunk.

That's why I want Mark Cuban to buy the team - I believe he'd understand the value of keeping the Wrigley name.

Never happen though - the MLB owners aren't going to let a gadfly into the fraternity at this point.

Here's the thing though... At the moment, Sam Zell owns the Tribune Co. (just bought it, and is planning to use $ from the sale of the Cubs to partially finance the deal), and he has stated that he might sell the naming rights (possibly as a lump sum and then pocket the profits) before selling the team and ballpark.

He's also said he might sell the team and ballpark seperatly just so he can get the most money for his "investment." (i.e. owning the team for a couple months)

As you might expect, Zell hasn't made many friends out of the fans as the current "owner" of the Tribune/Cubs.

Moose

So what's the price sheet on renaming it "Go Cardinals Stadium"?

[Sabrejeff]

I would guess that Progressive doesn't want their logo next to an image many see as racist. Of course just putting your name on the stadium of the team that uses that logo does that too, but when the logos are side by side it may stress the connection.

Yeeeeahhhh... I bet that's it. I'm sure the Progressive Field logo will never be seen with the Indians logo nor will the actual words appear with it.