View Single Post
  #19  
Old Posted Mar 8, 2008, 7:29 PM
nomarandlee's Avatar
nomarandlee nomarandlee is offline
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,969
Quote:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports...,5084542.story
Cubs may share 'Cell' with White Sox
Wrigley rehab would force team into temporary home


.........Kenney said the Wrigley marquee could be changed, despite the landmark provisions.

"We believe the First Amendment protects what letters we write on the marquee," he said. "[But] if we said, 'Let's take the marquee off and do something different,' if we were that foolish, we couldn't do that. The structure of the marquee is landmarked. But throughout the ballpark, we've always maintained that with the city, with our advertising, nobody can tell us what our advertising can say or won't say.

"Thankfully, we have the First Amendment that protects us. ... We're just changing the letters. If we wanted to call it [a different name], the marquee would look the same. It would just say [a corporate name rather than Wrigley Field over 'Home of Chicago Cubs]. We've modified the lettering."
Part of what most gets me is the childish arrogance that Kenney and Zell in particular have addressed these issues. The "we can do what we want and we don't care" is not really a good PR job. Just tell the reasons why it is necessarily at least somewhat truthfully (the Tribune and/or Zell what the money in their revenue streams) and shut up. There really trying to run an end around against the landmark provisions.

The article also mentions HOK as the stadium architects, I know that is there specialty but this gives me the idea that we are going to see something completely lame and unoriginal. I mean if you are going to desecrate the place why not doing something very innovative with it? Instead I feel we will get some cheap historical imitation ball park.
Reply With Quote