Ads on the Ivy, Rakes in the Money
Posted on February 22nd, 2007 by Joe
I hear alot of Cubs fans complaining about the ads on the outfield walls, lately. My question to them is this: Why? When Under Armour signed a deal with the Cubs organization to put ads on the wall, I was happy. Cubs fans should be happy. Under Armour is paying alot of money to the Cubs organization … and more money means helping out the payroll. So, go ahead and be mad that the Cubs have “sold out” in a way, or you can just think that this is helping the chances of signing Carlos Zambrano to a long term deal. Hey, it could be worse … *thinks back when that ugly, yellow thing was hanging in the left field bleachers, preventing those in apartments from watching the game*
Filed under: Cubs Articles
dont get me wrong, anything that boosts the payroll is not a horrible thing in my book. but i still feel pain to know that the long reign we held at wrigley of being the only park without ads on the field is over. wrigley isnt just a field to me, its the holy land and whenever it changes it deserves a bit of mourning… but i wont say we sold out or bitch and moan too long, i promise!
there’s no reason to have the ads on the wall. most cub fans disagree with it. here’s why…
the EXACT SAME REVENUE can be generated by putting ads elsewhere in the staduim. putting the ads on the wall isn’t a necessity, it’s a choice…and a bad one.
Yea, unless Under Armour paid more money for ads on the wall … which is probably what happened… sorry, that you comment did not show up right away, but I like to approve posts so we can keep spammers away.
well, i’m sure that the wall ads generate more money than regular ads…at least they should. my point is that the money can be made by putting ads elsewhere. they can put up multiple ads in other spots in order to generate comparable revenue.
i’d rather see ads low on the back fence, behind the crowd…that ad placement should be able to bring in a lot of revenue as well, while still being seen on sportscenter…which is the whole point.
True, the ads do generate more revenue but that is not the point. Sure, the Cubs will tell you that the ads are neccesary for the Cubs to remain competitive with other teams in the league, but if you believe that ads like those hideous Under Armour signs in the outfield help the Cubs win more games - then I have a large amount of swamp land in Florida I would like to sell you real cheap. The fact is that just like the rest of baseball the Cubs are looking to get even richer no matter how bad it looks. They spend enough money to make themselves competitive but there is just as much focus on getting fatter. Get rich first then worry about proper baseball management. When the Cubs sell Wrigley Field’s naming rights, I hope people stop going to games.
IF ADDING MORE SIGNS TRANSLATES INTO WINNING MORE GAMES, THEN TELL ME WHY TEAMS LIKE THE DIMONDBACKS AND ROCKIES HAVE BEEN BEATING THE CUBS WITH ONLY A FRACTION OF THE PAYROLL AND TEAM REVENUE?
FACT: CHICAGO CUBS OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT = G R E E D Y B A S T A R D S. . . .. .