Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Devils Beat Rangers, Head To Stanley Cup Finals

Sources exclusively tell NBC Action News the Royals could announce as soon as Monday they have sold the naming rights to Kauffman Stadium.

Sources close to the Royals say the baseball team will announce Kauffman Stadium will include a corporate name.

.....

Sources say according to the lease, half of the money will go to the Royals, half will go back to the Jackson County taxpayers to pay for stadium maintenance.

Sources close to the Royals say the corporation is a bank but they would not confirm which one.

However, it is worth noting that the chairman of the board of Arkansas based Arvest Bank is the son of the late Sam Walton of the Walmart family.

Jair Jurrjens salary won't pay itself you know

It would be a bit redundant to have the Major League and AA stadiums with the same Bank. But welcome to Arvest Stadium in 2012!

7 months ago Kcroyalrumble_tiny BHWick 151 comments 1 recs  | 

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

I really hope it's not Bank of America

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!

by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 7, 2011 12:43 AM EST reply actions  

only 4 of the top 20 banks have MLB stadium ties

obviously this has to be corrected

Watch it be a left field pick, like Banco Popular. And our stadium is Popular Stadium for 20 years

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!

by BHWick on Nov 7, 2011 12:58 AM EST up reply actions  

Banco Popular is pretty much broke

They’ve been forced to merge with Banco Pastor in a union of two of Spain’s medium-size banks.

PLEASE BUY LOTS OF SPANISH BONDS NOW WHILE THE INTEREST IS HIGH!

I do see two positive angles on the Spanish situation, both 60% solutions. First, Spain’s national debt / yearly GDP is about 60%, which is better than France, Germany, and the US, and nowhere near Greece, which is like 150%.

Second, about 60% of Spanish government bonds are in the hands of Spanish institutions (banks, savings banks, insurance companies, pension funds, the government itself, and small investors), and it is not in their interest to wreck the Spanish economy. In contrast, in Ireland, Portugal, and Greece, only 10-20% of their debt was in domestic hands, and the rest belonged to foreign hedge funds and the like, and the international markets tossed those countries to the sharks.

"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."

by Juancho on Nov 7, 2011 6:15 AM EST up reply actions  

I would hate just Arvest stadium

Kauffman field at Arvest Stadium would be tolerable…barely.
Hate naming rights, always have, always will.

"We don’t have guys with a long history of being effective in the seventh and eighth innings."
~Trey Hillman, master of understatements.

by RoyalPug on Nov 7, 2011 12:53 AM EST reply actions  

i dont really like it...

but in this market we’re already behind the 8 ball financially, refusing to sell naming rights out of some sort of tradition isnt a smart way to run the team.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:04 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Agree

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!

by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 7, 2011 1:52 AM EST up reply actions  

Every time I drive by one

I always think the H is out on their sign.

2011 Royals Review NCAA Bracket Challenge Winner, by process of attrition

by sfeldkamp on Nov 7, 2011 9:25 AM EST up reply actions  

It would be pretty dumb to claim we need the money

When we have the lowest payroll in baseball, we just got gifted $11M by a former player, and we have a big ASB-driven attendance boost coming next year.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:05 AM EST reply actions  

it'd be dumb to not take free money which is essentially what naming rights are....

why should we as fans care what the stadium is called? i care that my team cant sign players b/c we cant afford them

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:07 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Why wouldn't I care what the stadium is called?

The stadium name and the team name are about the only two real recognizable identities the franchise has. It would also be free money if we changed our name from the Kansas City Royals to the Kansas City Ford Trucks, and I’d be pissed about that too.

It’s about taking something significant that’s meaningful and distinctive about the franchise and replacing it with something empty and generic. Of course I would care.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:11 AM EST up reply actions  

i just dont get why its meaningful....

it will in no way diminish the enjoyment of watching and following the royals…for me at least.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:13 AM EST up reply actions  

and thats why i follow the royals...for enjoyment....

i dont give a shit about pointless traditions like names of stadiums…and honestly, i wouldnt give a shit if we were the kansas city ford trucks presented by cerner….they’re still my team.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:14 AM EST up reply actions  

Is there nothing that the team could do that would upset you aside from losing?

Here in DC, last year, the Nats had the Phillies for opening day and they aggressively marketed group ticket sales in Philly. Group ticket sales were available before people could buy individual single game tickets. As a result, opening day was about 80% Phillies fans. The front office defended it saying that they make more money that way which allows them to put a better team on the field which is all that matters.

I, obviously, disagree, but I wonder if you agree. Would you support giving opposing teams fans ticket priority if it helped the Royals win games?

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:23 AM EST up reply actions  

The Nats really did that?

Doesnt surprise me. I have to admit I went to a Nats game as part of a Temple alumni group night thing. Thought it was a bit odd the Nats sold the Temple group a private party room to have a tailgate.

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 1:30 AM EST up reply actions  

Yes, they did

The Nats are owned and run by loathesome people who seem primarily interested in how owning the Nats can make them richer.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:39 AM EST up reply actions  

Yeah, I think he's the richest MLB owner

But they fleeced the city on the deal for the stadium and then basically played chicken to get even more concessions once the construction was under way. Part of the reason the stadium is so ugly is that they took city money that was supposed to go into the stadium and used it for their share (the city paid the rest) of the payment on two huge parking garages next to the stadium that the Nats keep all the revenue from. The stadium sits right on top of a metro stop, but there’s no way for the Nats owners to make money off of people arriving by Metro, so we get two huge parking garages.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:46 AM EST up reply actions  

i thought it was the parking garages, wasn't sure.

the stadium is a huge disappointment, but its still better than baseball at RFK, that just didn’t work.

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 1:49 AM EST up reply actions  

i knew that. i remember the shenanigans during the stadium building phase.

i’d have to look it up, but if i remember right it had something to do with parking garages around the stadium that ruffled some feathers.

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 1:42 AM EST up reply actions  

He was making a different point, but his conclusion supports this position

Gladwell was basically saying that they shouldn’t complain if they’re not making a profit because almost any other fan would be willing to pay for the privilege of running a team.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:55 AM EST up reply actions  

yeah...i read that and he made some good points...

but if that were the case, wouldnt more of these guys be willing to lose money to win? wouldnt the NBA lockout be a pointless exercise? Sure, there are some like jerry jones, cuban, the steinbrenners, etc…but the vast majority want to break even/make money

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:56 AM EST up reply actions  

the dude is 86

he’s trying to leave a few cents behind.. ya know

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!

by BHWick on Nov 7, 2011 1:46 AM EST up reply actions  

they're trying to imply it could be someone who'd need the ASG advertising

so it might be an obscure top 100 bank.

Or maybe it’s Fifth-Third, which has like 3 different baseball stadiums already.

Or our stadium will be Arkansas Federal Credit Union Ballpark

I’m guessing CommunityAmerica isn’t bailing on the T-Bones

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!

by BHWick on Nov 7, 2011 1:07 AM EST up reply actions  

Somebody's going to pay more for 21-year rights because of a ASG one year?

With decision-making like that, it sounds like we don’t need to worry about the company being around for 21 years.

If it’s a company that took bailout money, I’m going to be doubly pissed.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:13 AM EST up reply actions  

you're pissed about the whole government money thing...

so why isnt it a good thing that Jackson County taxpayers will be recouping some extra money that they invested in the stadium renovations?

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:15 AM EST up reply actions  

and we have an owner who if you judge him by his actions the past few years...

just wants to break even….1.5 to 3 million more dollars in revenue likely means close to that much more invested in the team

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:20 AM EST up reply actions  

I've been a big defender of Glass on here

But that’s going too far. Glass is making a healthy profit off of the team. He’s not wringing all the money he an out of it (like, say, Loria in Florida), but he’s making a profit almost every year, and he’s getting significant capital appreciation each year as well.

The Royals will book a huge profit on the 2011 season.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:25 AM EST up reply actions  

yeah...

maybe i took it to far…scott has posted something in the past…very few owners spend a higher percentage of revenue than glass…and yeah…he’s made a shit ton on the increased value of the team…but theres really no reason to believe that the majority of this money wont go back into the team

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:31 AM EST up reply actions  

I agree in general, and that's certainly right historically

I have to admit these claims that the payroll can’t go about $60M are making me confused/nervous. The payroll has been far higher than that in the past, we’ve just made a huge profit on this year, we just totally renovated the stadium on a sweetheart deal for the team, and we’ve got the ASG coming this year. If it’s a thing of wanting to let the young guys play and not crowd them out with high-priced free agents, that’s fine, but I wish they would say that instead of a payroll cap. I think that with a payroll of $60M, Glass is probably making a significant profit.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:43 AM EST up reply actions  

i think they're making the right play with the payroll right now

create a war chest for a few years to use on the players worth paying and to be able to bring in the expensive pieces needed when the time is right. with the profits from this past year and the ASG next year, they’ll already be at least 40M for the future.

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 1:46 AM EST up reply actions  

now the question is...do we really think that glass is putting that money into a warchest?

i mean…he spent a ton of it on the draft/IFA…and i’d be fine if he kept doing that rather than saving it all up.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:48 AM EST up reply actions  

Was our total amateur spending really much higher this year?

I know we spent a lot on Bubba and we were fairly big players in LA, but we didn’t have any of those big 2nd/3rd round contracts like previous years. Did we really spend that much more this year than in the last few?

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:52 AM EST up reply actions  

yes, this year they spent a lot more than in 2010 or 2009

colon and crow weren’t very expensive first round picks compared to starling and hosmer. 14M this year, about 6.5M in 2010 and 2009, 11M in 2008

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 1:54 AM EST up reply actions  

14 plus IFA or 14 total?

b/c i think we were somewhere in the 6-7 million range for IFA

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:57 AM EST up reply actions  

14M on the draft

int’l market was somewhere in the 6-7M range. 5M to hernandez and mondesi alone.

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 1:58 AM EST up reply actions  

Does the $14M include all of Starling's bonus or just the part paid this year?

I’m assuming it includes all of it, but my memory is that we deferred $5-$6M of it until future years because he’s a 2-sport athlete.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 2:16 AM EST up reply actions  

I'd feel much more confident that's what they were doing if they said that's what they were doing

What makes me nervous is when they say that they can’t afford more than a certain amount. That doesn’t make it sound like they’re saving it up for the future to me.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:50 AM EST up reply actions  

if that's how it plays out...then yeah...i'll get pissed...

but i have no reason to assume thats how it will happen and be pissed about it now

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:51 AM EST up reply actions  

right now, with attendance where it is, they really can't afford more than that if they want only to break even

you have to remember to add on about 20M or so to the payroll the last couple years because of the spending through the draft and international spending.

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 1:52 AM EST up reply actions  

I don't see how that works

Attendance is higher than it was two years ago. We have a new stadium that’s presumably generating ancillary revenues. We’re getting more from MLB. We ought to be able to have higher player spending (payroll plus draft) than we had a few years ago.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 2:00 AM EST up reply actions  

attendance this year was still lower, albeit by only 900 a game, then in 2009

i’d love to see a complete revenue report for the royals to get a full picture. my theory, until that spreadsheet arrives in my mailbox, is WAR CHEST!

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 2:04 AM EST up reply actions  

deadspin (i think) got a few teams financials from a couple years ago...

i really wish the royals wouldve been one of them…just to give credence to the glass bashers or shut them up once and for all

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 2:26 AM EST up reply actions  

i donate my fair share

although, for some reason i thought that aramark or whoever paid a certain fixed amount for the right to operate and made whatever money they could…i definitely could be mistaken about that though

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 2:29 AM EST up reply actions  

i think thats the way it works

but i have to imagine the royals and other teams are charging a pretty penny to the rights to sell beer for about a 1000% profit with little to no operating costs.

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 2:31 AM EST up reply actions  

There's got to be some escalator clause

Otherwise, the Royals wouldn’t capture any of the upside from attendance increases

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 2:32 AM EST up reply actions  

Speaking of Aramark, they're in all sorts of stuff

The hotel I stayed at outside Denali Natl Park was operated by Aramark. They have the concession contract with the National Park Service.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 2:33 AM EST up reply actions  

Aramark is a monster.

the real beast in food service is Compass Group though, now theyre everywhere. Schools, stadiums, prisons, airplanes, museums, etc.

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 2:36 AM EST up reply actions  

if they compared those to the Forbes estimates,

we’d at least know how good the Forbes estimates are. Those are the numbers that make it look like Glass is taking smaller profits than most owners.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 2:28 AM EST up reply actions  

yes, the closer and closer the royals get to the median level of revenue for MLB teams

the smaller and smaller the check they receive from the money taxed from the high revenue teams

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 2:09 AM EST up reply actions  

But the luxury tax collections keep getting bigger

So it’s not clear which effect would dominate.

Also, the revenue sharing from MLB.com will keep getting larger regardless of our revenue, right?

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 2:13 AM EST up reply actions  

but it'll get larger for the other teams as well...

so that wouldnt really be an advantage to the royals b/c other organizations will have an equally larger amount of money to spend…increasing salaries all around

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 2:15 AM EST up reply actions  

But we're talking here about Royals present vs. Royals history

If our revenue sources now are bigger than our revenue sources were then, we can spend more money now than we did then. You’re right that it might not help us competitively, but it’s still money available to be spent.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 2:18 AM EST up reply actions  

if thats the case

the only way the new revenue actually brings in more money than what they used to receive from revenue sharing, is if the royals new revenue from a given year is less than what than the new revenue from the top teams brought in that year. its an odd little game to play, and frankly, shouldn’t be the royals biggest concern.

by BeauJackson on Nov 7, 2011 2:22 AM EST up reply actions  

i just really dont believe those statement even happened...

i didnt hear them…i havent seen exact quotes about them…this is one case where i believe that someone was actually misquoted. no rational human being can say ‘we can only afford to spend 60-65 million with current attendance levels’ when attendance is up from when payroll was at 70 million, with more expensive seats, more expensive parking, etc. regardless of what we may think of glass/moore, they’re not that dumb and i dont believe that they think we’re that dumb.

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:47 AM EST up reply actions  

That's an interesting perspective

Where does the quote supposedly come from? I was under the impression it was in the Star.

by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 1:48 AM EST up reply actions  

i dunno...i thought it was relayed from bloggers day or whatever....

i could be wrong…but even if i do see it in print…i still wont believe he really said it/meant it

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:49 AM EST up reply actions  

im guessing this is where that idea is coming from...

and i dont read that as him saying thats all we can afford…i read it as him just throwing out a number to make a point…point being that glass isnt going to spend an exorbitant amount of money to win if it’ll make him lose a ton of money

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:54 AM EST up reply actions  

That is crap

Glass has made a profit EVERY year. Prior to DMGM getting him to open up the scouting and drafting budget it was a giant one. He ran the team into the ground for years before he owned it, and even then made a lowball offer that he made sure would be accepted, as Bud was in his pocket and the people voting on the team side were his relatives or employees. He lobbied against a downtown ball park so that he could get Kauffman renovated at taxpayer expense. I have absolutely no reason to believe that any naming rights money will go anywhere but into his pocket.

Our payroll this year was less than the Moneyball A’s of ten years ago. With the young players and the all star game coming, there is no reason he can’t approach $80 million this year, but I imagine he will raise it into the 50’s and expect to be patted on the back for doing so, and many of you will do just that.

It makes my ass tired.

"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance

by KHAZAD on Nov 7, 2011 7:26 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

Besides when we were above $70 million

It affected his revenue sharing money. And David Glass will not turn away from free money.

"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance

by KHAZAD on Nov 7, 2011 7:29 AM EST up reply actions  

$36 million last year

The lowest payroll in baseball. Lower than the average payroll in 1998, before the Yankees skewed the spending (they only spent $73 million that year-less than the Orioles)

They don’t release specific revenue sharing figures, but the leaked papers from the Pirates, Marlins and Rays a few years ago suggest that he will receive MORE money in revenue sharing than he paid in payroll.

Go have another glass of Kool aid.

"Trying is the first step to sucking" -Jimmy Chance

by KHAZAD on Nov 7, 2011 1:51 PM EST up reply actions  

$63-126M over 21 is probably nothing
When it is announced, it is expected to be a deal with the Royals that will last the next 21 years, until the end of the current lease.

….

The Royals deal is estimated to bring in anywhere from $3 to $6 million a year.

Sources say according to the lease, half of the money will go to the Royals, half will go back to the Jackson County taxpayers to pay for stadium maintenance.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!

by BHWick on Nov 7, 2011 1:15 AM EST up reply actions  

How many times over has the Meche money been spent?

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.

by Matt Klaassen on Nov 7, 2011 8:51 AM EST up reply actions  

Don't you think the organization needs the money long-term?

It’s not like this organization is resource rich. Expenses were down in 2011. They likely won’t be for long.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 7, 2011 10:08 AM EST up reply actions  

I still call it Royals Stadium.

I like that better.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 7, 2011 10:09 AM EST up reply actions  

I can't decide if you are a rebel

or a critical spirit

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Nov 7, 2011 1:16 PM EST up reply actions  

another underdog for nonsensical stadium name

would become if East West Bank got the rights.

Although i’d hope the people with the naming rights have a location in a state bordering Missouri.

Or it can be Goldman Sachs Stadium, and we can be assured that it will never be allowed to go bankrupt

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!

by BHWick on Nov 7, 2011 1:19 AM EST reply actions  

I hope it's not my bank

Since it has only two branches

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!

by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 7, 2011 1:55 AM EST reply actions  

Wait wait,

Aren’t we going to assume it’s something local?

Managing Editor at Beyond the Box Score and MLB Daily Dish. Follow me @justinbopp

by Justin Bopp on Nov 7, 2011 2:16 AM EST reply actions  

what local banks have the resources for that?

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!

by BHWick on Nov 7, 2011 2:38 AM EST up reply actions  

I've always wondered

Why is it UMB Bank? That’s like a menu I saw at a restaurant once calling one of their dips “Chili con Queso with Cheese”.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 7, 2011 10:25 AM EST up reply actions  

i think that happen when they expanded outside of missouri....

probably not good for business in kansas to have a bank called united missouri bank

Fire Everyone

by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 10:26 AM EST up reply actions  

Or typing in your PIN number at the ATM machine.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!

by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 7, 2011 10:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Maybe it's a spe....ahh, nevermind.

Many people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so.-Bertrand Russell

by Dr. van Strijcker on Nov 7, 2011 2:18 PM EST up reply actions  

$3-6 million sounds pretty good to me

You could get three mediocre relievers, half of Edwin Jackson’s salary, or six Latin signings out of that. It’s not like there’s no advertising all over the stadium anyway.

I would oppose changing the name of the team, of course, and I would oppose advertising on the jerseys, which all European soccer clubs do. Especially when my team, FC Barcelona, is wearing the logo of the Qatar Foundation (apparently at outrageous rates as payback for Barça using its influence to help get Qatar the World Cup; both Barça’s club president and its coach, Pep Guardiola, publicly backed the Qatar bid.) Couldn’t we just get some respectable corporation, even if they pay less?

"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."

by Juancho on Nov 7, 2011 6:27 AM EST reply actions  

How about

Google Field
Boulevard Field (beat those St. Louis people at their own game)
Block Field (for H&R Block)
AMC Field
Field Awesome
Angry Birds Field

Yeah I ran out there at the end.

by Yodazilla on Nov 7, 2011 6:32 AM EST reply actions  

Corporate naming rights are destroying Our National Innocence!

Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Before getting tweaked, read up on regression.

by Matt Klaassen on Nov 7, 2011 8:56 AM EST reply actions  

I am amazed it took so long.

Wal-Mart Financial Services Stadium here we come.

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Nov 7, 2011 9:00 AM EST reply actions  

A bit of a backgrounder on Walmart Financial Services. Interesting.

by 2X2L on Nov 7, 2011 9:47 AM EST up reply actions  

Thanks. There is a office for it in Derby, KS

right next to my favorite farm store (Atwoods).

- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …

by Jeff Zimmerman on Nov 7, 2011 10:33 AM EST up reply actions  

I like that thought

Some players make enough to buy stadium naming rights.

Maybe last year, Gil Meche, instead of getting nothing for his noble retirement, should have made a stadium naming deal with the Royals. Maybe he has a relative whose business could have used the exposure.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Nov 7, 2011 9:57 AM EST up reply actions  

Pujols Field at Busch Stadium

Cut a couple of million off each year of the contract.

by BlueEyes_Austin on Nov 7, 2011 10:18 AM EST up reply actions  

Dear Naming Rights Purchaser:

Something to consider, regarding naming rights of the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum

Despite the different name changes, locals generally refer to the stadium as “The Coliseum.” This fits the trend of older stadium renamings being rejected by the general public.

by 2X2L on Nov 7, 2011 10:24 AM EST reply actions  

I don't think any of these companies/banks

care what people call it when they call each other up about go out to see a game. They care what TV and radio guys are required to call it during broadcasts.

by Sweep_the_Leg on Nov 7, 2011 10:28 AM EST up reply actions  

What about what internet guys are required to call it?

If this site has to call it Wally World Lending Stadium, then I propose we start an Occupy Truman Sports Complex movement this afternoon.

by Loose Seal on Nov 7, 2011 10:32 AM EST up reply actions   1 recs

On Giants' broadcasts

Jon Miller sometimes calls the stadium AT&T Park and may in fact have an obligation to do so at least occasionally, but he also avoids that name in a variety of ways, often referring instead to its location, sometimes to its official address of “24 Willie Mays Plaza”, sometimes to “the ballpark at 3rd and King”, and sometimes simply as the ballpark “on the shores of San Francisco Bay”.

His broadcast partner, Dave Flemming, makes up for it.

by 2X2L on Nov 7, 2011 11:09 AM EST up reply actions  

Might depend if there's some kind of catchy hook

I remember hating when Comiskey Field (a venerated old stadium name) was changed to U.S. Cellular Field. But the fanbase picked up the name change immediately and delights in referring to the stadium as “The Cell.”

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 7, 2011 10:49 AM EST up reply actions  

When the Giants' new stadium

was still named Pacific Bell Park it was similarly sometimes called “The Phone Booth”, but that name never stuck with the fanbase. Perhaps it may have been used more often if the ballpark played more like other newer ballparks with short outfield dimensions, but — Kevin Elster notwithstanding — it doesn’t.

The current name of the Coliseum is now O.co Coliseum, which cleverly enough abbreviates the name of its current naming rights holder as well as its original name. But that name apparently delights no one.

by 2X2L on Nov 7, 2011 11:00 AM EST up reply actions  

If it's all about money and profit...

then how about Sinaloa Field, named after the famous Mexican drug cartel? I’m sure they’ve got way more cash than they know what to do with, and would want to get in on the action before their rivals tag it as Juarez/Tijuana Park.

If women only slept with nice guys...guys would only be nice. And they don't. And we're not.

by setupunchtag on Nov 7, 2011 10:56 AM EST reply actions   1 recs

Forget the bank

How about Thompson Industries Field @ Kaufmann Stadium?

It’s all about the hydraulic adapters!

If strikeouts are indeed fascist - then find me some starters that believe in fascism

by loyal2sdad on Nov 7, 2011 11:09 AM EST reply actions  

How about

Jenn at Shawnee Mission Kia Field @ Kaufmann Stadium?

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Nov 7, 2011 1:19 PM EST up reply actions  

Self-appointed ethics monitor

Jack Marshall at ethicsalarms.com is, as ever, disgusted.

by 2X2L on Nov 7, 2011 11:11 AM EST reply actions  

are you saying the terrorists have won?

"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell

by buddyball on Nov 7, 2011 1:20 PM EST up reply actions  

Did Ewing Kauffman cure cancer and nobody told me?

He’s not Martin Luther King. I don’t know that the stadium NEEDS to be named after a former owner who was a very good businessman and a pretty good philanthropist.

You may know me as NYRoyal.

by Scott McKinney on Nov 7, 2011 12:44 PM EST up reply actions  

It doesn't

But the same reaction would be happening if it were still Royals Stadium, or if it were George Brett Stadium or Buck O’Neill Stadium or Don Denkinger Stadium. The point is that a name that was connected to the baseball team or its history is being replaced by a name unconnected to the team, but a connection bought with money.

The above is not to be construed as opposition to the sale of naming rights, just as an explanation of why people dislike the name change (if it happens) despite Ewing Kauffman’s being a mere businessman.

Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!

by cmkeller on Nov 7, 2011 5:18 PM EST up reply actions  

Fundamentally, people don't really like change.

It’s comforting to be able to know that you can always go to the “K” and get a hot dog. On that level, I understand the reaction. I don’t have a problem with it because I know it’s the same stadium and the same team, but I get where people are coming from.

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!

by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 7, 2011 10:45 PM EST up reply actions  

Statement from #Royals on reports naming rights to Kauffman Stadium have been sold. "Amid a variety of reports that the Royals were nearing an announcement today, we felt it necessary to address the situation. Since the renovations were completed prior to the 2009 season, our organization has been open to listening to proposals with regards to a naming rights partner, but at this time no agreement has come to fruition. With that said, there is nothing else to comment on regarding naming rights."

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!

by BHWick on Nov 7, 2011 12:12 PM EST reply actions  

question

I could completely be wrong, but paying millions of dollars to have naming rights seems like a waste of money for a company. Does anyone know of any studies that show it helps business? Didn’t Citi Bank pay a ton to have its name on the Mets stadium? and does it make sense for a bank to pay for advertising as much as say Coke or McDonalds?

You can call me Aaron Burr by the way I'm dropping Hamiltons!

by AvilesRotY on Nov 7, 2011 12:33 PM EST reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Welcome to the SB Nation blog about Kansas City Royals.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Royalsretro_small
Would Royals Review Make Better Decisions Than Dayton Moore?
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
Mitch On the Bench
Royalsretro_small
Happy Mother's Day From Royals Review

Recent FanPosts

Dignan_small
Friday Game 43 Open Thread
Funny-tattoos-hey-look-they-found-a-royals-fan_small
MORE Mitch on the Bench
Sexy-beast-original_small
OT Friday: The generic boilerplate template desert island gambit
Tumblr_lwfiy4qkgv1r204zxo1_500_small
RR Poetry Contest
Small
Extrapolating the First 43 Games over the Full Season
Small
Is Dave Eiland doing ... anything?
Small
Alcides Escobar's Bat
Download_small
Was Dayton Moore Right on Bruce Chen?
Chalmers2_small
2012 Royals vs 2012 Ex-Royals

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

Yahoo_full_count

Managers

Cimg0036_small Freneau

Editors

Dayton_small Jeff Zimmerman

Authors

Royalsretro_small RoyalsRetro

Headshot_small Old Man Duggan