General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsDo you like stadiums/arenas being named after corporations and businesses? Why/why not?
Personally I'm not crazy about the idea of stadiums and arenas being named after them. What happened to the time when more stadiums were named after teams or areas such as Candlestick Park, Tiger Stadium, Cleveland Stadium, Ebbets Field, and Chicago Stadium? Today we have mostly names like O.co Coliseum, Citi Field, Wells Fargo Arena, HP Pavillion, Busch Stadium, Staples Center, Target Field, and Safeco Field.
13 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes | |
0 (0%) |
|
No | |
12 (92%) |
|
No opinion | |
1 (8%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
bemildred
(90,061 posts)RKP5637
(67,089 posts)a #1 priority.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)Need I say more?
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)They don't. So no...
In fact publicly funded stadiums should go the way of the dodo.
(And no choice in poll to explain this)
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)TheCowsCameHome
(40,167 posts)I find it repulsive.
Travis_0004
(5,417 posts)Building a stadium is expensive. Anything that makes that more affordable, I'm fine with. I realize a lot of times the team gets the money from naming rights and not the city, but if a contract was well written, then they could ask the team to pay more for the stadium and get the naming rights (so the team makes a bit of money, and the stadium makes a bit of money.
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)I prefer War Memorial Stadium or Veteran's Stadium over some corporate bullshit but things are what they are.
brewens
(13,547 posts)the franchises. These team owners threaten to move the cities team if they don't get their stadium built. I'd like to see two things done to prevent that and get more teams run like The Green Bay Packers.
Any owner that proposes to move a team must first offer to sell it to the city or county at fair market price. They are not allowed to keep the team name in any case.
The truth is that many of these owners could afford to build their own stadiums if they had to.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)tiny fraction to buy the sign.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)what's wrong with it? A brief mention of the whole name is made during the broadcast, if that's all that the corporation gets for its money, what's the harm?
Advertising only works on weak minds.
longship
(40,416 posts)And some time before that, it was Navin Field. People have been paying to get their name on stadiums for some time.
I attended more than one game at Briggs. Yes, it was the same park that was called Navin, and the same one called Tiger Stadium. BTW, it was a wonderful venue to watch baseball. I saw first baseman Norm Cash blast a homer over the roof in right field once. As soon as the ball left his bat everybody knew it was gone. The stadium rocked as we all stood to watch the ball sail literally out of the park. Cash did that feat four times, IIRC.
Many memories at the corner of Michigan and Trumbull. Now, all in the past.
beveeheart
(1,369 posts)And some of us still refer to new stadium by the old name.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)Our local Ottawa NHL stadium has had THREE different names since it was built in 1996. The Palladium, The Corel Centre and now Scotiabank Place.
Once these facilities decide to sell out naming rights, there's a time-limited contract for each new name.
As a result, people don't even know what to call their local stadiums. Why does EVERYTHING need to have a price?
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)These teams are owned by billionaires and generate more billions, yet the taxpayers are expected to pick up the check and than pay exorbitant ticket prices.