Arenas, Stadiums, etc

[Dallas Smokestacks]

Stadium curse still haunts firms (http://money.cnn.com/2003/01/03/commentary/column_sportsbiz/sponsor_stock_index/index.htm)

A link to a most curious piece. Don't know quite what to make of it.

I remember what I refer to as the blackmail cities faced unless they help finance a new football field. And/or baseball stadium. And/or basketball arena. Ah, the smell of new economy money.

By the way, anyone else disturbed by all the bankruptcies?

[Dallas Smokestacks]

"NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - Conseco Inc.'s bankruptcy filing should not have been a surprise -- not only were the company's financial problems well documented and its stock delisted by the New York Stock Exchange, but its sponsorship of a major sports arena should have been a clear warning sign to investors."
Conseco latest stadium curse victim (http://money.cnn.com/2002/12/18/news/companies/stadium_curse/index.htm)

So this CNN SportsBiz writer..he's apparently keeping a tally. The above is a link found with the previous link above.

Naming rights as a desperate gesture? Is there really any sort of this buzz going on in the financial realm? As in "DON'T BUY ANYTHING THAT HAS ITS NAME ON A STADIUM!"

I recall laughing when someone told me Enron Stadium was now Minute Maid stadium. I thought they were making a funny.

[tamtagon]

In the past 20 years, American business has experienced two bouts of disease: the Savings & Loan crisis of the 80's and the accounting cover ups of today.

I'm curious to see meaningless statistics like:
-Invester dollars lost per conviction
-Dollars lost per day of incarceration

We're averaging one rattling economic scandle every ten or so years. Did something happen in the 70's that I'm forgetting about? Is there any question that regulatory legislation is missing the mark, whether it's lack of enforcement, or misguided rules? As long as the corporate lobby affects regulatory legislation, politically motivated laws will leave the door open to criminal behavior behind closed boardroom doors which rob the general public of billion of dollars.

[MustangMonkey]

Regan was very active in eliminating goverment oversite of business operations after being elected in '80. Not sure on all the ins and outs.

[houstoncart]

The best of the all........
http://www.hchsa.org/reliant/renderings/23.jpg
http://www.hchsa.org/images/arena_main.jpg http://www.hchsa.org/enron/renderings/p2no2.jpg

[downtownbum]

please allow me to demonstrate what goes on in the mind of the american consumer. "i need to fly to chicago next week." "i am a fan of the mavericks." "the mavericks play at american airlines center." "i will pay more to fly on american than on another airline because they named a basketball arena after their airline."
am i the only person who thinks that this NEVER happens? what benefit is AA getting for their $200 million over 20 years? almost nothing.
hey houston, that first pic is one butt ugly arena. (is that reliant? i will cut it some slack because football stadiums are always ugly, and ours is falling down.) i think it is hilarious that people bitch about the AA center's architecture: too retro! because anything made out of brick is retro. modern architecture is dead. all modern architects know how to do know anymore is make buildings out of concrete blocks in various sizes. in dallas i have the perfect example: the new eiseman center for performing arts in richardson's galatyn park. beautiful on the inside, outside it looks like a randomly shaped 100 foot tall cinder block, which it is.

[freewaytincan]

Okay now, come on, give it more credit than that. Besides, the Eisemann Center had a much more limited budget than, say, the Mort. And the sad thing is, even with a huge budget, a lot of buildings just plain suck, and the SBC building downtown is a prime example, not just of what I said, but of what you said. It is one big peice of trash. Especially when compared to what stood there before!

When you consider the fact that Richardson now has one of the best performing arts centers in suburban America, you have to admit that it's "lack of style" is certainly forgiveable. And it looks better than Garland's...eef.

[gc]

Urban...get over it....Richardson ain't all that like the rest of the suburbs my friend. That is, however, a good comparison between the SBC building in DT and the Eisemann Center. They are both rather plain. One thing though is the time in which they were built. At least that style was somewhat fashionable when One Bell Plaza was built in 1984.

[freewaytincan]

Well, I wasn't comparing the two. I know that the Eisemann Center could be better, but a lot of that does have to do with funding. Oh yeah, and what they focus on. Keep in mind that the way a building looks is not impossible to change, including on the outside. At least an attempt was made, you have to give us that. I think that Galatyn Park will be fabulous. And let's be honest, there are a lot of well done buildings that don't look so fantastic! Plenty, and a ton in our metro alone! Sure, I would have made places like the Eisemann Center look a lot different, but hey, it's better than what a lot of places have. Incidentally, a friend of mine got to play there recently, in the Hill Hall. She said it was fantastic, and although "not quite the Meyerson", certainly something that we can be proud of. There's a feel good.

Now then, you should see some of my designs that I had over the years, especially the ones from last year! Someday, I'll find them all and put them online. Yeah.

[downtownbum]

urban i am not attacking your suburb or your fave development. i love richardson and think galatyn is cool. i also love dt but i know there are some butt ugly buildings down here. my point is that if you are going to make a building like that, just brick the outside and be done with it. the painted concrete, faux stucco etc i just dont like.

[freewaytincan]

I'll give you that. I think the brick motif is muy bueno, but it does offer for a break in near-monotony. Better painted concrete than exposed, eh? ;) It's all good, man. Don't worry about it. I just get tired of explaining the importance to people, specifically those of my age group.

Ciao,
Chris | Musician and Artist General of the United States.

[tamtagon]

i think it is hilarious that people bitch about the AA center's architecture: too retro! because anything made out of brick is retro. modern architecture is dead. all modern architects know how to do know anymore is make buildings out of concrete blocks in various sizes.

An old thread... but is the architecture of Victory-Phase II (The W and stuff) ?modern? I like the way AACenter looks, and like the old plans for bricked structures framing the promanede. Now it's all glass and LED ad screens. Different, not the same, but, what are y'all calling modern architecture? How about post-modern? What the label?

[rantanamo]

please allow me to demonstrate what goes on in the mind of the american consumer. "i need to fly to chicago next week." "i am a fan of the mavericks." "the mavericks play at american airlines center." "i will pay more to fly on american than on another airline because they named a basketball arena after their airline."
am i the only person who thinks that this NEVER happens? what benefit is AA getting for their $200 million over 20 years? almost nothing.

This is what NASCAR is based on, and it works. AA has gotten its name mentioned on ESPN 10 gazillion times as well as its symbol seen. Its almost subliminal now. Rspecially with their easy to say, easy to remember, genious name.

Modern Arch to me is brick and glass or glass and white concrete. Mondrian, Lincoln Financial Field, Reliant Stadium or Dallas W Hotel & Residences. They don't seem to be trying to replicate anything older to me. I would have considered some of the brick/glass combinations in the old Victory modern, but not the old plaza design or most of the low to mid-rise stuff. That was just faux. early 20th century warehouse lookin' stuff.

[jsoto3]

Wikipedia has a decent, very brief description of "Postmodern"architecture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_architecture

"Postmodern" architecture, of course, has its roots in the "Postmodernity" movement:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernity

If you care to know a lot more, I can point you to some very good books which discuss "Modern" architecture vs. "Postmodern" architecture.

Hre is a link to an outline/notes from Charles Jencks, one of the most reknowned architectural theorists/historians:
http://www.eng.fju.edu.tw/Literary_Criticism/postmodernism/jencks.htm

A discussion:
http://www.designcommunity.com/discussion/10351.html

[drumguy8800]

^ the picture they use on the postmodern article always has bothered me.. a tad too quirky to really grasp the entire 'post modern' thing.

[msutton]

Urban, you should do more research into suburban performing arts centers before you make such a claim... There are dozens that are far superior throughout the country.

[freewaytincan]

Urban, you should do more research into suburban performing arts centers before you make such a claim... There are dozens that are far superior throughout the country.

That was over three years ago! I was a stupid high school punk. I hate looking back at these comments. I was a moron.

[The Great Hizzy!]

Heh. At least you have the juevos to admit it. Not many people look back on their younger days and admit to their utter stupidity (not calling you stupid, but some of us certainly were when we were whippersnappers).

[VectorWega]

This is what NASCAR is based on, and it works.

Nascar is built on the same thing that MTV is built on...a dumb fan base.


AA has gotten its name mentioned on ESPN 10 gazillion times as well as its symbol seen.

I personally think that Southwest Airlines has used their money much more effectively by becoming the official airline of the NBA and NFL, with their commercials being seen by millions, even when the Mavericks play.



Its almost subliminal now. Rspecially with their easy to say, easy to remember, genious name

Yes, it is genious: AAC. That's what I call it and what many other people call it. It doesn't remind me of American Airlines at all.

There is a clear correlation between bad companies and large stadium naming rights. Sure, some good companies have named stadiums (ie Fed Ex, Pepsi Co), but by and large the hype has driven the prices up and the good companies out of the stadium naming market.

[RobertB]

It's all about pervasiveness. The idea is pretty simple: if our brand name is ubiquitous, we'll win against any "unknown quanitity". John Q Public (or Jane, for that matter) is more likely to run into the store and grab a pack of Bounty (TM) paper towels, even if some other brand is just as good, priced the same, but isn't immediately recognizable.

McDonald's (TM) advertises like crazy. Find a place on a DFW freeway where you *can't* see either the Golden Arches (TM) or a billboard featuring them. Do they t advertise because nobody knows who they are? No, advertise so that nobody will know who anyone else is.

Now, I do think the formula breaks down when you get to things like airlines and stadium naming rights. Anyone with a couple of bucks and a mess to clean up is a target for Bounty (TM). One would think that airplane travellers would already be self-selected for a higher level of intelligence. But then again, maybe not (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/309291.stm).

[rantanamo]

Nascar is built on the same thing that MTV is built on...a dumb fan base.

I'm not dumb. Neither are the people that run NASCAR.




I personally think that Southwest Airlines has used their money much more effectively by becoming the official airline of the NBA and NFL, with their commercials being seen by millions, even when the Mavericks play.

You think. You can't prove that. Do you know how much they have spent or that it has been more affective.





Yes, it is genious: AAC. That's what I call it and what many other people call it. It doesn't remind me of American Airlines at all.

The fact that you know the name proves my point. When you say AAC, you know what you mean.


There is a clear correlation between bad companies and large stadium naming rights. Sure, some good companies have named stadiums (ie Fed Ex, Pepsi Co), but by and large the hype has driven the prices up and the good companies out of the stadium naming market.

No.

[FoUTASportscaster]

AAC. That's what I call it and what many other people call it. It doesn't remind me of American Airlines at all.




The fact that you know the name proves my point. When you say AAC, you know what you mean.

The AAC sent a memo out to the press about a year ago asking that AAC be refered to as American Airlines Center because of the thing VectorWega stated. You don't think of American Airlines when the AAC is mentioned. Since it had been so long, it couldn't be enforced that way. Ameriquest's naming rights addressed that issue. There will be no "AFA" or "The Quest" or anything like that with that naming rights issue.

[rantanamo]

people know what the AAC stands for. Even my cousins from Iowa wanted to see the American Airlines Center.

[VectorWega]

people know what the AAC stands for. Even my cousins from Iowa wanted to see the American Airlines Center.

Actually, I had to tell my friend what it stood for yesterday and he's been in Dallas for 3 yrs. Regardless, when a person uses the term AAC, whether you know what it stands for or not, it does not give exposure to the brand that American Airlines wanted it to.

BTW, can you imagine how many Super Bowl commercials and NBA Finals commercials one could buy for 200 million?!? A ton. Commercials help give your brand an identity..putting a name on a stadium merely reminds people that you exist.

[rantanamo]

Their symbol and name are on the arena. Airplanes everywhere. Anytime you watch the Mavericks, they are mentioned repeatedly. This in addition to commercials.

The actual naming rights deal is $5 million per year. Chump change for advertising. Like 2 Superbowl spots. Over the course of a year, I'd imagine they reach more people.

Naming rights are similar to racing type ad deals in that a visual and association are most important. Interesting that they are similar in price.

[FoUTASportscaster]

The only thing I know is that they were concerned enough that a memo was sent out to call it by it's name and not the abreviation in the media. The only reason is that American Airlines was getting lost in their somewhere. Plus there is a study out there that shows that when something is mentioned over and over, it gets tuned out, similar to desenitization. Which is why they sent out that memo. Believe it or not, naming rights aren't worth it. To advertise today, you have to able to grab the attention of the public, and naming rights aren't amazing.

[rantanamo]

local media.

If naming rights don't work, they wouldn't exist and racing as a sport wouldn't work. Besides, you guys are acting as if this is the only advertising that goes along with such deals or for these companies period. If $5 million/year is a very significant amount of AA's advertising budget, than they need to fire whomever is running that department.

[FoUTASportscaster]

Have you ever flown AA because they are on a sports building? Have you ever drank a Pepsi because they are the official soft drink of the NFL? Have you mortgaged your house because they are on the Ranger Stadium? There are a lot of studies that show little correlation to sports ads and money spent. That said, a lot of companies aren't in it for direct sales, but brand image, which is even harder to determine if the investment is worth it.

[rantanamo]

Have I ever used a product because of an association? Yes. Do Americans do this on a daily basis? Yes. Do people around the world do this on a Daily basis? Yes.

Thank you for answering your own question and admitting that investments are hard to determine. Obviously companies believe associations do something, or they wouldn't even try.

[FoUTASportscaster]

I buy on price, as do the majority of people who spend, not because they are on the building of their sports team.

[rantanamo]

If the majority of people spent on price only, name brands wouldn't exist. The truth is, a lot goes into buying decisions. Reputation, quality, perception, association.

[AndyIvey]

^Personally, I am a very loyal shopper and tend to stick with the brands I trust. I think that is very common in the southern states and may slightly fade as we urbanize.

[VectorWega]

If the majority of people spent on price only, name brands wouldn't exist. The truth is, a lot goes into buying decisions. Reputation, quality, perception, association.

This is true. Why would anyone buy Clorox Bleach when you can get generic bleach for cheaper? Some people buy it because they trust what they have experienced and others buy it because they want the best (and perceive Clorox to be that). Hell, why would Proctor and Gamble produce close to a dozen different detergents if all consumers care about was price?

I just feel that it was a bad move for AA to make such a long term commitment. Since September 11th, all of the Airlines have been looking at ways to cut their costs and improve their efficiency. IMO, they will not get the biggest bang for their 200 million bucks by putting their name on a sports arena.

[rantanamo]

I'd agree if the deal were $200 million for 5-10 years. The deal is $150 million over 30 years. A set rate of $5 million per year is a huge discount for all the perks those naming rights. When other airlines are paying for print ads or hoping to be mentioned in a news story, American Airlines is being printed in every Mavericks and Stars story. In DART publications they are gonna print the American Airlines Center as a destination. American doesn't have to pay for that. When a game is on ESPN and they are showing shots of the AA symbol. The point is, people know what American Airlines is and is about. They are beyond telling people who they are. How many times have we types AAC or American Airlines in this thread? That's what they get from the association: constantly in our minds.

A funny thing about the wright amendment squabble is that both Southwest and American are getting a huge amount of pub on where exactly they fly. Lots of free advertising for both. To American, the perks they get with that $5million probably feels the same way.

[FoUTASportscaster]

This is true. Why would anyone buy Clorox Bleach when you can get generic bleach for cheaper? Some people buy it because they trust what they have experienced and others buy it because they want the best (and perceive Clorox to be that). Hell, why would Proctor and Gamble produce close to a dozen different detergents if all consumers care about was price?

True, but if Clorox price doubled, sales would fall as the next product would come along. Point is, when given a choice, a lot of things come in to play, like loyalty and what each one does and there are a lot more. But price is the number one factor. If it gets unreasonable, it will go out the window. That's why SWA got where it was, when brand loyalty was to the legacy carriers.

[ksig121]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/072109dnbusperotcubansuit.22a0097.html


Lawsuit accuses Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban of diverting profits from arena 2:37 PM CT

03:35 PM CDT on Monday, July 20, 2009

Associated Press

A lawsuit accuses Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban of wrongfully diverting millions of dollars from the NBA franchise's home arena to make up for shortfalls incurred by the team...


WTF?! Say it ain't so, Mark...

[Mballar]

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/072109dnbusperotcubansuit.22a0097.html




WTF?! Say it ain't so, Mark...
It ain't so!
__________________________________________________ ____________
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban wants SEC to pay his legal fees

11:10 AM CDT on Wednesday, September 2, 2009

By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News
etorbenson@dallasnews

Mark Cuban already beat the Securities and Exchange Commission in the courtroom – now he’d like the SEC to pay for his legal fees.

Cuban’s attorneys have filed a motion in the insider trading case the SEC brought against the Dallas billionaire and owner of the Dallas Mavericks to make the government pay for Cuban’s legal bills, arguing that the case – thrown out by a federal judge this summer – was so weak that it shouldn’t have been even brought against Cuban.

"The SEC apparently gambled that Mr. Cuban would be pressured into an early settlement," wrote Cuban’s attorneys Dewey & LeBoeuf in the case. Cuban had also countersued the SEC, arguing that the government abused Freedom of Information laws as it tried to build its case against him.

[NThomas]

It ain't so!
__________________________________________________ ____________
Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban wants SEC to pay his legal fees

11:10 AM CDT on Wednesday, September 2, 2009

By ERIC TORBENSON / The Dallas Morning News
etorbenson@dallasnews

Mark Cuban already beat the Securities and Exchange Commission in the courtroom – now he’d like the SEC to pay for his legal fees.

Cuban’s attorneys have filed a motion in the insider trading case the SEC brought against the Dallas billionaire and owner of the Dallas Mavericks to make the government pay for Cuban’s legal bills, arguing that the case – thrown out by a federal judge this summer – was so weak that it shouldn’t have been even brought against Cuban.

"The SEC apparently gambled that Mr. Cuban would be pressured into an early settlement," wrote Cuban’s attorneys Dewey & LeBoeuf in the case. Cuban had also countersued the SEC, arguing that the government abused Freedom of Information laws as it tried to build its case against him.
That's pretty standard when you win a lawsuit (even though it was thrown out).