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
BHWick
151 comments
1 recs |
Email
PrintComments
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!
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."
Pope-oo-LAR
"All the boys think she's a guy
She's got crazy Frenchy eyes."
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
isnt he already worth like $4 billion or some shit?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:42 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.
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.
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.
to be fair...dont you think that most professional sports owners buy the team to make themselves even more rich?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:44 AM EST up reply actions
Yes, I think it's a mixture of greed and wanting to win with almost all of them
But the Lerners are at the greed extreme.
Malcolm Gladwell wrote something arguing otherwise recently I think
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 7, 2011 1:53 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.
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!
a tailgate in a room?
that sounds awful and unamerican
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:43 AM EST up reply actions
absolutely not...b/c that adversely affects my enjoyment of the team
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:32 AM EST up reply actions
especially b/c i assume that philly fans are about on the level of red sox and cards fans on my
‘they make me want to commit mass murder’ list
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 1:35 AM EST up reply actions
philly fans are pretty hardcore, but i dont mind them. i always am a little biased.
unlike yankees and sox fans, they don’t reek of an “our shit doesn’t stink” mentality.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
2.5 each of the next 3 years if i remember correctly
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 2:18 AM EST up reply actions
OK, so does the 14M include the $7.5 or just $2.5 of it
It must be the $7.5M. I’m having a hard time coming up with $6.5M in other draft spending. I certainly can’t figure out where $11.5M would come from.
there were a bunch of guys in the 500k-million range
im assuming his $14 million number includes all $7.5
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 2:21 AM EST up reply actions
yeah, everywhere i've seen for this year is 14M
but you’re right, the amount actually handed out this year to starling isn’t 7.5M.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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'd just really like to see how much teams make on food and alcohol sales
i have to imagine the numbers are huge there
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.
There's got to be some escalator clause
Otherwise, the Royals wouldn’t capture any of the upside from attendance increases
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.
Aramark is a monster.
the real beast in food service is Compass Group though, now theyre everywhere. Schools, stadiums, prisons, airplanes, museums, etc.
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.
doesnt increased actual revenue decrease our revenue sharing money?
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 2:05 AM EST up reply actions
I thought revenue sharing was based on market size or some other fixed measure
But I don’t know for sure
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
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?
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.
true...i kinda veered off there
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 2:20 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.
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.
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
OK, I feel better about it then
Thanks for doing the research
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
yes...b/c he was a bad owner awhile ago, that makes him a bad owner now
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 8:32 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
$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!
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'm pretty skeptical that a down economy is the best time to sign a 21-year rights deal
And we don’t need the money now.
So I can’t see any reason to do this now.
by KSinDC on Nov 7, 2011 12:42 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs
thats a legitimate concern
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 12:46 PM EST up reply actions
Hopefully it's ____ Field at Kauffman Stadium
But I doubt it. In any case, I’m just going to continue calling it Kauffman. Whatever.
I'm not Tom Brady. I'm not who Gerald McCoy and the Bucs needed to see.
by Calabaloo on Nov 7, 2011 1:15 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
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
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!
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!
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
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!
Commerce? They're in St. Louis but have a large KC presence
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 7, 2011 2:40 AM EST up reply actions
an STL company having the naming rights would definitely be what it took to piss me off
Fire Everyone
by billybeingbilly on Nov 7, 2011 2:42 AM EST up reply actions
Okay, you're right.
I was confusing Commerce with another bank.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 7, 2011 3:30 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 blood bank.
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here. This is the war room!
by KeepItCopacetic on Nov 7, 2011 3:55 AM EST up reply actions 4 recs
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
Kauffman Stadium holds no magic for me
I still call it Royals Stadium
by trauty on Nov 7, 2011 5:45 AM EST reply actions 2 recs
$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."
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.
Hallmark Stadium presents the 2012 All-Star Game
When you care enough to send the very best players out to the field.
Chaim Mattis Keller New York City's # 1 Royals fan!
by cmkeller on Nov 7, 2011 7:45 AM EST reply actions 6 recs
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.
I am amazed it took so long.
Wal-Mart Financial Services Stadium here we come.
- .-. ..- … – / – …. . / .—. .-. - .. . … …
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!
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.
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.
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.
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
Did you know that Scott Boras tries to get his clients the most money possible?
UNETHICAL
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 11:15 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
If professional sports franchises owned by heartless corporate goons can't teach us a lesson about what can't be bought
Our National Innocence is doomed.
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 11:20 AM EST up reply actions 2 recs
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!
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!
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!
Prrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrice Chopper field at Kaufmann Stadium
"Things could always be worse." - Buddy Bell
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
