The petition goes as follows:
While we wholeheartedly support the sponsorship and financial commitment SBC/AT&T has provided to the San Francisco Giants, we believe the time has come to honor one of the most beloved ball players of all time whose name has been synonymous with the San Francisco Giants franchise for nearly half a century.
We propose re-branding SBC Park as “Willie Mays Field at AT&T Park” effective immediately.
This new name will continually remind the rest of the world of our rich baseball heritage and honor possibly the greatest player in baseball history. At the same time, the new name provides stability and class for one of the most beautiful ball parks in the nation and allows SBC/AT&T to continue their sponsorship while increasing their visibility. For this reason we believe this is a win-win situation for the San Francisco Giants, Major League Baseball, its fans, and the new combined SBC/AT&T Company.
I couldn't have said it better myself, which is why I didn't say it myself, opting instead to let the much more eloquent (and much less lazy) Mays Field peoples take care of things for me. They're so nice that way...
So, why are you still reading this? Go. Sign. Makes so much sense that even George W. could grasp the concept (ba dump! crash!).
5 comments:
Larry Baer was on KNBR the other day. He spoke about the park name issue, and specifically this "Willie Mays Field at AT&T Park". Not happening.
The only reason I see it not happening is if the Giants were short-sighted enough to allow language into their contract with SBC/AT&T that doesn't allow any modification to the name of the park, and that the AT&T moniker must be prominent.
Otherwise, to disregard it without some thought is a bit callous, to me.
But thanks, Ed.
My first post was obviously kind of vague or misleading, sorry about that. It is not that the Giants are against the name, they have apparently run it by "phone company", they are not in favor, therefore "not happening."
I obviously don't know the exact language of the contract with "phone comany", but let's just say we can be sure that they are paying a lot of money and for that they have the right to name the park. Surely you can understand they want their name prominent in the park's name. I'm sure the contract allows for modification of the name (after all, we're on the third one already), you just have to get "phone company" to agree.
I'd be first in line to vote to simply call it "Willie Mays Field", but I can understand "phone company's" position here. I wouldn't consider the Giants short-sighted in this matter either. It is just the realities of business intruding on the good taste of us baseball fans.
Also, consider that the city of Anaheim is sueing the Angels for placing them as a token mention at the end of a name - Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim.
"...of Anaheim" and "...at AT&T Park" just have a distasteful afterthought quality to them, and the subject afterthoughts aren't buying into it.
I certainly could understand the "phone company's" wanting to have their name prominent in the actual stadium name, but I would have thought the Giants would be interested in some continuity -- they have to know that after such a nice beginning with the park name, it is now much closer to being a joke.
If the "phone company" is worried about not having their name prominent (thereby possibly hurting the advertising), they should be more worried about the fans' indifference to any name after two name changes in six years. I think it amounts to the same thing, and Willie Mays' name in front wouldn't hurt a thing.
I mean, who actually goes to the park, saying "Can't wait to see the Giants game at AT&T park tonight! Hm, that reminds me, I'm very interested in changing my phone and Internet service over to AT&T, because although I believed they sucked before, now that my favorite park is named after them, they're suddenly cool."
Does they really believe things happen that way?
Post a Comment