News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Stadium and team naming

Started by Laura, August 28, 2014, 09:21:31 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

english si

Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 16, 2014, 06:09:57 PMDC United is silly
At least they didn't name themselves after the Milanese club, and (like Barcelona and many English clubs) state that they are a Football Club.

AC DC FC would truly be silly!

---

There's been a couple of niggling arguments in the English Leagues about team names - mostly about making the team names more what we would call 'American-sounding' in that the proposals are of the form <city><animal>.

A Malaysian guy bought Cardiff City FC, whose home kit was blue and nickname the "The Bluebirds" and wanting to appeal to an East Asian audience he switched home and away kits, so they played in 'lucky' red. He emphasised the Welshness, putting a dragon on the new club badge (after an argument, the bluebird was kept on it) and making a dragon the mascot.
He wasn't successful in changing the name from Cardiff City FC to Cardiff Dragons FC.

The Owner of Hull City AFC (Association FC. Hull City FC is the Rugby league club) was more successful and got its name changed to Hull Tigers FC (everyone calls it 'Hull' and fans still call it 'Hull City' and pundits make subtle comments about their dislike of the name change), though the nickname was already 'The Tigers', they've played in orange and black for a century and a tiger is their mascot.

---

In Wales, Llansantffraid Town Football Club took on a brand name (for just £250k), becoming "Total Network Solutions Llansantffraid FC" in 1996. Around then they won the Welsh Cup and thus were playing in Europe. The next year they were just "Total Network Solutions" or "TNS". In 2003 they merged with Oswestry Town (an England-based club playing in the Welsh leagues) and in 2006 Total Network Solutions were bought out. Wanting to keep the 'TNS' initials they became "The New Saints of Oswestry Town & Llansantffraid Football Club" (Llansantffraid FC were known as the Saints, and Oswestry, the town not the club, has links with St Oswald), but just known as TNS (for obvious reasons).


oscar

The old World League of American Football (WLAF, generally pronounced "we laugh"), later NFL Europe, had some European teams with American-style names, like the Barcelona Dragons, the Cologne Centurions, and the Scottish Claymores.  There were also some more abstract and less dangerous-sounding names, like the Frankfurt Galaxy and the London Monarchs, something also seen on this side of the pond (especially for newer leagues like the WNBA) as teams started running out of potential animal-based names.

The Baltimore Orioles are named for the best state bird.  Too bad the second-best, the scissor-tailed flycatcher, doesn't work quite as well as a name for Oklahoma teams.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

jbnv

Quote from: oscar on October 17, 2014, 08:23:48 AM
Too bad the second-best, the scissor-tailed flycatcher, doesn't work quite as well as a name for Oklahoma teams.

I can see "Oklahoma Flycatchers" as a name for a baseball team.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

mgk920

Quote from: amroad17 on October 17, 2014, 04:23:05 AM
Now that was a team--the New York Cosmos.  There was an ESPN 30 for 30 movie about them.

Wasn't the Carrier Dome in Syracuse one of the first stadiums to be named after a corporation that purchased naming rights?

As mentioned upthread, we still have Wrigley Field in Chicago, named by a corporate sponsor.

Mike

Brandon

Quote from: mgk920 on October 17, 2014, 03:14:03 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 17, 2014, 04:23:05 AM
Now that was a team--the New York Cosmos.  There was an ESPN 30 for 30 movie about them.

Wasn't the Carrier Dome in Syracuse one of the first stadiums to be named after a corporation that purchased naming rights?

As mentioned upthread, we still have Wrigley Field in Chicago, named by a corporate sponsor.

Mike

Somewhat.  Considering the team was owned by William Wrigley, Jr., one can also argue that the park was named for the owner.  Another example was Briggs Stadium (owner Walter Briggs) in Detroit for the Tigers, also called Navin Field (owner Frank Navin).
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg

Billy F 1988

Washington-Grizzly Stadium in Missoula is named after the company having a part-time stake in the ownership of the University of Montana's outdoor football field: Washington Corporation (yes, the company that owns Montana Rail Link among others and run by Dennis "Denny Derail" Washington)

My alma mater, Frenchtown, has a field and underpass named after Henry Lavoie. I can't tell you of his significance in Frenchtown, but he obviously played some role in the growth and development of the town.
Finally upgraded to Expressway after, what, seven or so years on this forum? Took a dadgum while, but, I made it!

bandit957

All the major sports leagues need to implement a rule saying corporations can't buy naming "rights" for stadiums. I'd like to see the FCC get involved too.
Might as well face it, pooing is cool

Pete from Boston


Quote from: bandit957 on October 17, 2014, 11:32:25 PM
All the major sports leagues need to implement a rule saying corporations can't buy naming "rights" for stadiums. I'd like to see the FCC get involved too.

Why should major corporations (sponsors) be barred from doing business with major corporations (sports teams)? 

A big mistake people need to move past is the idea that teams are civic spiritual property.  The teams have never looked at it that way. 

Once you look at them as big corporations, their behavior makes much more sense, and our forgiveness of it makes much less sense.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: Brandon on October 17, 2014, 04:45:13 PM
Quote from: mgk920 on October 17, 2014, 03:14:03 PM
Quote from: amroad17 on October 17, 2014, 04:23:05 AM
Now that was a team--the New York Cosmos.  There was an ESPN 30 for 30 movie about them.

Wasn't the Carrier Dome in Syracuse one of the first stadiums to be named after a corporation that purchased naming rights?

As mentioned upthread, we still have Wrigley Field in Chicago, named by a corporate sponsor.

Mike

Somewhat.  Considering the team was owned by William Wrigley, Jr., one can also argue that the park was named for the owner.  Another example was Briggs Stadium (owner Walter Briggs) in Detroit for the Tigers, also called Navin Field (owner Frank Navin).

This keeps coming up as a "naming rights" example, and keeps being debunked.  See Shibe Park, Crosley Field, Ebbets Field, etc., for further examples of the same. 


1995hoo

One I find amusing is Great American Ballpark in Cincinnati. A lot of people think, "Oh, what a patriotic name." It's named for the insurance company that bought ghe naming rights.
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"
—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

cpzilliacus

Quote from: mrsman on September 05, 2014, 11:34:58 AM
And given that teams do get moved, I also believe that the team name should stay with the old city.  Colts are associated with the horse racing that Baltimore's Preakness is famous for.  Not such a good name for a team in the home of the Indy 500.

For that reason, I prefer to call the Indianapolis team as the "Indianapolis Irsays," in honor of the late Bob Irsay, who arranged the "midnight ride" of the Baltimore Colts from their home.
Opinions expressed here on AAROADS are strictly personal and mine alone, and do not reflect policies or positions of MWCOG, NCRTPB or their member federal, state, county and municipal governments or any other agency.

Laura


Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:25:51 AM

Quote from: bandit957 on October 17, 2014, 11:32:25 PM
All the major sports leagues need to implement a rule saying corporations can't buy naming "rights" for stadiums. I'd like to see the FCC get involved too.

Why should major corporations (sponsors) be barred from doing business with major corporations (sports teams)? 

A big mistake people need to move past is the idea that teams are civic spiritual property.  The teams have never looked at it that way. 

Once you look at them as big corporations, their behavior makes much more sense, and our forgiveness of it makes much less sense.

If they aren't civic spiritual property, then why do cities put taxpayers on the hook for paying for their stadiums?

Honestly, the practice of luring teams with new stadiums needs to be stopped.


iPhone

Pete from Boston


Quote from: Laura on October 19, 2014, 08:33:25 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:25:51 AM

Quote from: bandit957 on October 17, 2014, 11:32:25 PM
All the major sports leagues need to implement a rule saying corporations can't buy naming "rights" for stadiums. I'd like to see the FCC get involved too.

Why should major corporations (sponsors) be barred from doing business with major corporations (sports teams)? 

A big mistake people need to move past is the idea that teams are civic spiritual property.  The teams have never looked at it that way. 

Once you look at them as big corporations, their behavior makes much more sense, and our forgiveness of it makes much less sense.

If they aren't civic spiritual property, then why do cities put taxpayers on the hook for paying for their stadiums?

Because the teams skillfully use public emotion to extract ransom, and people go for it.

QuoteHonestly, the practice of luring teams with new stadiums needs to be stopped.

Next time the Ravens want a new stadium (should be 10-15 years from now) be sure to respond that Baltimore needs its tax dollars more than it needs a football team.  That's how you stop this game. 

Laura


Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 19, 2014, 11:45:30 AM

Quote from: Laura on October 19, 2014, 08:33:25 AM

Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 18, 2014, 12:25:51 AM

Quote from: bandit957 on October 17, 2014, 11:32:25 PM
All the major sports leagues need to implement a rule saying corporations can't buy naming "rights" for stadiums. I'd like to see the FCC get involved too.

Why should major corporations (sponsors) be barred from doing business with major corporations (sports teams)? 

A big mistake people need to move past is the idea that teams are civic spiritual property.  The teams have never looked at it that way. 

Once you look at them as big corporations, their behavior makes much more sense, and our forgiveness of it makes much less sense.

If they aren't civic spiritual property, then why do cities put taxpayers on the hook for paying for their stadiums?

Because the teams skillfully use public emotion to extract ransom, and people go for it.

QuoteHonestly, the practice of luring teams with new stadiums needs to be stopped.

Next time the Ravens want a new stadium (should be 10-15 years from now) be sure to respond that Baltimore needs its tax dollars more than it needs a football team.  That's how you stop this game.

That worked really well for us thirty years ago when we told the Colts no, we weren't going to build them a new stadium.

Then Indianapolis swooped in and lured them away. Then, they got screwed over building the Colts another new stadium a few years ago. They still owed money on the other stadium to the tune of 69 million dollars when it was demolished.

Baltimore historically does not build a lot of stadiums. It took the right circumstances to even get M&T bank stadium built.


iPhone

roadman65

Unless other teams are quick to abandoned their newly built stadium, Baltimore will go on the bandwagon and build another new one soon.

I say this because it only took Orlando 23 years to decide that the new Amway (former Orlando Arena when built) needed to be replaced with the latest Amway Centre.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Pete from Boston

#65
The point that I thought went without saying is that this only ends when people in all cities wise up when it comes to stadium demands.  Sports teams are like spoiled kids with dozens of parents–as soon as one says no, there is always another to turn to.

triplemultiplex

Milwaukee is early in the process of being goaded into building a new arena for the Bucks.  The existing facility is only 25 years old and interestingly, did not have a corporate name until recently.  The Bradley Center was named for the rich family that pretty much paid for the arena in hopes of attracting an NHL team in the late 80's.  But that never happened so it's been the Bucks as the major tenant.  (In addition to Marquette basketball & a minor league hockey team.)

Anyway, it seems the NBA is on board with the blackmailing of Milwaukee taxpayers into a new arena.  They are demanding that the Bucks be in a new facility or have one under construction by 2017.
The new Bucks owners and former owner Herb Kohl have pledged some money for it, but not nearly enough these days.  Personally, I think they could just renovate the existing building with that money rather than spend taxpayer money on an elaborate new one.

Frankly, the team has sucked for years and now that the Bucks are owned by some hedge fund douches from New York, they are prime candidates for getting shuttled off to some other city that is willing to piss away hundreds of millions of dollars on a new arena.  Seems likely; maybe preferable to more taxpayer subsidies.

I think if sports teams want public financing for stadiums, they should be publicly owned.  You get public money, but the public gets a piece of the team relative to the amount of the cost of the new facility payed for by taxpayers.  Then we have assurance that the community won't be shafted once again in 20 years when they want another arena where the luxury boxes have hot tubs and helicopter parking.
Last time I checked, there were still banks with lots of money in the United States.  If owners want new arenas, go get a goddamn loan.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Thing 342

Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2014, 03:25:45 PM
Milwaukee is early in the process of being goaded into building a new arena for the Bucks.  The existing facility is only 25 years old and interestingly, did not have a corporate name until recently.  The Bradley Center was named for the rich family that pretty much paid for the arena in hopes of attracting an NHL team in the late 80's.  But that never happened so it's been the Bucks as the major tenant.  (In addition to Marquette basketball & a minor league hockey team.)

Anyway, it seems the NBA is on board with the blackmailing of Milwaukee taxpayers into a new arena.  They are demanding that the Bucks be in a new facility or have one under construction by 2017.
The new Bucks owners and former owner Herb Kohl have pledged some money for it, but not nearly enough these days.  Personally, I think they could just renovate the existing building with that money rather than spend taxpayer money on an elaborate new one.

Frankly, the team has sucked for years and now that the Bucks are owned by some hedge fund douches from New York, they are prime candidates for getting shuttled off to some other city that is willing to piss away hundreds of millions of dollars on a new arena.  Seems likely; maybe preferable to more taxpayer subsidies.

I think if sports teams want public financing for stadiums, they should be publicly owned.  You get public money, but the public gets a piece of the team relative to the amount of the cost of the new facility payed for by taxpayers.  Then we have assurance that the community won't be shafted once again in 20 years when they want another arena where the luxury boxes have hot tubs and helicopter parking.
Last time I checked, there were still banks with lots of money in the United States.  If owners want new arenas, go get a goddamn loan.
Atlanta got snookered into paying to replace the Georgia Dome and Turner Field, both relatively new facilities (both only about 20 years old). The reason teams can do this is because having a team leave is generally political poison for elected officials. In Atlanta's case, the mayor had already been burned by the loss of the Thrashers (even though it was because of other problems), so he played ball with the Falcons and Braves in order to take cover.

Pete from Boston


Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2014, 03:25:45 PMLast time I checked, there were still banks with lots of money in the United States.  If owners want new arenas, go get a goddamn loan.

Banks have standards.  Banks need to know a stadium's going to make its money back, which is not a safe bet.  Fortunately for sports companies ("teams"), the politicians are not as picky. 

english si

Quote from: Pete from Boston on October 21, 2014, 11:09:13 PMBanks have standards.  Banks need to know a stadium's going to make its money back, which is not a safe bet.
Really?

I can understand it in the UK, especially with soccer teams where there's no wage cap and relegations that have a sharp drop in finances, but banks give sports teams loans to build stadiums and only rarely (due to total mismanagement by a later owner, coupled with relegations) fail to have the loan repayed. Compare American sports teams with a limited number of franchises, attempts to make bad teams better, no relegation, etc, etc. It ought to be a pretty safe bet, even if its a long-term investment for the bank.

I'm struggling to think of a time in the UK where a city has built a stadium for a sports team. There's obviously Man City in the City of Manchester Stadium, and West Ham will use the Olympic Stadium in Stratford. But they were built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games, and the 2012 London Olympics respectively. West Ham had to bid to use the Olympic Stadium, not the other way around and it was a bit of a fight - not just from F1 and NFL, but from a smaller football club thinking a 2-mile move would overly impinge on their territory (said smaller team applied for sole use of the stadium, then sought a ground share with West Ham).

Pete from Boston

My point is that stadiums and the associated concessions received by these companies from local governments have been shown to be a dubious investment, with the local governments not recouping what they put in.  A bank would presumably expect better for its money, since unlike government they're not in the business of giving money away.

jeffandnicole

It's a bit different:

When taking a loan with a bank, the bank wants to see the business plan and how the money will be repaid.  The owners of the stadium will be able to state that based on their expected ticket revenue, advertising revenue, parking revenue, concession revenue, seat licenses, player salaries, administrative salaries, etc, etc, etc.  Based on that, the bank will grant or deny the loan.  It's not uncommon for a large project to have several loans across several investment firms and/or banks.

When a city provides the money, they are generally giving a grant to the stadium.  In some cases it's a loan.  The money will be bonded, and will be paid off via taxes from the stadium, stadium sales, or taxpayers.  It can also come from other arrangements, such as surcharges on car rentals at airports.

The city will usually justify its investment, stating the economic return the stadium will provide.  Those numbers can be greatly exaggerated, because many of the attendees already live in the city, or would have visited the city for other reasons anyway, so the money will would've come in.  These numbers can be so over-exaggerated that almost any event or conference will boast about the economic impact to the city when they arrive, and there's no real means to audit those figures

Henry

Quote from: cpzilliacus on October 18, 2014, 11:13:18 PM
Quote from: mrsman on September 05, 2014, 11:34:58 AM
And given that teams do get moved, I also believe that the team name should stay with the old city.  Colts are associated with the horse racing that Baltimore's Preakness is famous for.  Not such a good name for a team in the home of the Indy 500.

For that reason, I prefer to call the Indianapolis team as the "Indianapolis Irsays," in honor of the late Bob Irsay, who arranged the "midnight ride" of the Baltimore Colts from their home.
Wait, isn't a colt a kind of horse? And the Indy 500 is associated with lots of horsepower, if you catch my drift.
Quote from: Thing 342 on October 21, 2014, 10:12:37 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 21, 2014, 03:25:45 PM
Milwaukee is early in the process of being goaded into building a new arena for the Bucks.  The existing facility is only 25 years old and interestingly, did not have a corporate name until recently.  The Bradley Center was named for the rich family that pretty much paid for the arena in hopes of attracting an NHL team in the late 80's.  But that never happened so it's been the Bucks as the major tenant.  (In addition to Marquette basketball & a minor league hockey team.)

Anyway, it seems the NBA is on board with the blackmailing of Milwaukee taxpayers into a new arena.  They are demanding that the Bucks be in a new facility or have one under construction by 2017.
The new Bucks owners and former owner Herb Kohl have pledged some money for it, but not nearly enough these days.  Personally, I think they could just renovate the existing building with that money rather than spend taxpayer money on an elaborate new one.

Frankly, the team has sucked for years and now that the Bucks are owned by some hedge fund douches from New York, they are prime candidates for getting shuttled off to some other city that is willing to piss away hundreds of millions of dollars on a new arena.  Seems likely; maybe preferable to more taxpayer subsidies.

I think if sports teams want public financing for stadiums, they should be publicly owned.  You get public money, but the public gets a piece of the team relative to the amount of the cost of the new facility payed for by taxpayers.  Then we have assurance that the community won't be shafted once again in 20 years when they want another arena where the luxury boxes have hot tubs and helicopter parking.
Last time I checked, there were still banks with lots of money in the United States.  If owners want new arenas, go get a goddamn loan.
Atlanta got snookered into paying to replace the Georgia Dome and Turner Field, both relatively new facilities (both only about 20 years old). The reason teams can do this is because having a team leave is generally political poison for elected officials. In Atlanta's case, the mayor had already been burned by the loss of the Thrashers (even though it was because of other problems), so he played ball with the Falcons and Braves in order to take cover.
It's not only Milwaukee that's stuck with an outdated arena, but Detroit and Minneapolis too. And what's even worse, the Pistons still play in a suburban arena that's 20-some miles from downtown, while the other three teams (Tigers, Lions, Red Wings) play in said downtown. Also, the Red Wings are building a new arena, but unless the Pistons get an invitation to share it, I don't see the NBA surviving in Detroit any longer. The WNBA's Shock left for the very same reason, and this should serve as a warning sign for the Pistons. As for Minneapolis, the Timberwolves and Lynx should work out a deal with the Wild to play some games in their St. Paul arena, but I don't think either of the Twin Cities would go for it, so the next best thing would be to renovate the existing Target Center or build a new arena altogether. It's a shame that Atlanta is replacing two stadiums at the same time, and neither one will reach the 30-year milestone. Worse yet, the Braves will become baseball's version of the Pistons by playing in the suburbs.

Quote from: roadman65 on October 20, 2014, 10:50:15 AM
I say this because it only took Orlando 23 years to decide that the new Amway (former Orlando Arena when built) needed to be replaced with the latest Amway Centre.
Miami (13 years) and Charlotte (17 years) went through the exact same thing, even though the latter city had to lose its original team (old Hornets, now the New Orleans Pelicans) and get a new one (formerly Bobcats, now new Hornets) two years later. That's why Minneapolis is the only remaining city from the late 80s NBA expansion period that still has its original arena.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Laura


Quote from: roadman65 on October 20, 2014, 10:50:15 AM
Unless other teams are quick to abandoned their newly built stadium, Baltimore will go on the bandwagon and build another new one soon.

I say this because it only took Orlando 23 years to decide that the new Amway (former Orlando Arena when built) needed to be replaced with the latest Amway Centre.

I don't honestly think this will happen. Hopefully I won't be eating my words in a few years,  but I feel like part of the reason the Colts even considered leaving was because Irsay put them through the shitter for the ten years prior to the move. Morale overall for the team was low. I can't think of a single instance where Ravens games were not sold out here - I know there's the weirdness with season tickets and licensing that helps make that possible - but whenever I see someone selling tickets, they are NOT cheap. When morale is high, unless the stadium is having serious structure problems, a new stadium isn't considered.

Fortunately, the success of Oriole Park at Camden Yards means that it probably won't get demolished - it's basically a modern historical classic. Although Yankee Stadium was rebuilt, and I never in a million years thought that would happen.

Then again, there's the mess with rebuilding the 50 year old Baltimore Arena, but lack of money and real direction (do we want to attract another major league team or not?) has kept that from going anywhere.

So, who knows? I'd like to think that M&T Bank stadium will be around for a long time. Building stadiums here is not easy - there was a lot of (rightful!) argument overbuilding the Raven stadium due to the fact that money could be used better elsewhere in the city, and that is the reason nothing had happened with the arena.


iPhone

amroad17

Nothing was more suburban than the Cleveland Cavaliers playing in the Richfield Coliseum in Richfield, OH--25 miles from downtown Cleveland.  Needless to say, the Richfield Coliseum is no longer there.  It was demolished in 1999 after sitting vacant for five years.  Now it is a meadow. 

When it was in use, the Cavs did draw well, considering its location (Exit 12 off I-271 on OH 303, a two lane rural road).  The last two seasons they were there, they averaged over 18,000 fans per game (capacity 20,273).  Wikipedia has an aerial photo of the Richfield Coliseum next to a neighboring farm.  Judging by the photo, the farm was southwest of the Coliseum across OH 303 (which goes east-west).  It looks odd--an arena in the middle of nowhere next to a farm.  It would be the equivalent of having an arena for a Cincinnati team east of Batavia, OH.

I don't need a GPS.  I AM the GPS! (for family and friends)



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.