National Guard to sponsor stadium (W. Post) - DCU Implications

[BigKris]

A front-page article in this morning's Washington Post says the city is near a deal with the National Guard to sponsor the stadium. They'll preserve the RFK name -- something like "National Guard field at RFK Stadium" or something like this.

Here's the interesting part: no mention of United. Nothing like "the stadium hosts both the Nationals and DC United". Not even a mention of the words "Soccer" or "Conversion". Then there's these quotes:

The National Guard is close to an agreement with the city to become the sponsor of [RFK] for Washington Nationals games

...the Guard would pay $6 million for a three-year deal that would start April 14th, the date of the Nationals' first home game

So how do we interpret this? Did we just get majorly dissed by the Post as not even worth mentioning? Or were they intentionally being careful to carve out that the sponsorships are specifically for baseball games? Could you have two stadium sponsors? Would this be part of the signage that gets replaced each time the stadium is converted?

[Lanky134]

A front-page article in this morning's Washington Post says the city is near a deal with the National Guard to sponsor the stadium. They'll preserve the RFK name -- something like "National Guard field at RFK Stadium" or something like this.

Here's the interesting part: no mention of United. Nothing like "the stadium hosts both the Nationals and DC United". Not even a mention of the words "Soccer" or "Conversion". Then there's these quotes:





So how do we interpret this? Did we just get majorly dissed by the Post as not even worth mentioning? Or were they intentionally being careful to carve out that the sponsorships are specifically for baseball games? Could you have two stadium sponsors? Would this be part of the signage that gets replaced each time the stadium is converted?
We didn't get dissed. It was mentioned in the article a few weeks ago that the sponsorship is specifically for Nationals games. It does not affect United at all, and I would take that to mean that there would be no National Guard signage during United games.

[beltwayrob]

Not sure how it would work, sounds kinda goofy in my book. But hey, what about this whole process hasn't been goofy!

[BBBulldog]

United gets sponsored by Marines :)

Devil Dog field at RFK stadium :D

[Lanky134]

United gets sponsored by Marines :)

Devil Dog field at RFK stadium :D

Mmmm....Devil Dogs...

http://www.masslive.com/images/weblogs/blogbeat/devildogs.jpg

[Beaker]

What I don't get is how the National Guard, who can't afford to supply their soldiers with body armor in an active war, can spend $6,000,000 to put their frikkin' name on a frikkin' stadium!!!

[URwormfood]

What I don't get is how the National Guard, who can't afford to supply their soldiers with body armor in an active war, can spend $6,000,000 to put their frikkin' name on a frikkin' stadium!!!



Its not like the Military has logos on Nascars to topless bars!..

They do have a budget for marketing....its not like other world armed forces you know....drafted when 18...and must do some military time before anything....

Keep that in mind!

~~worm~~

(((Somehow this thread will be turned into a ""Bash a war"" thread in a few posts))) *********-wads!
:rolleyes:

[fatbastard]

It is a stupid business move on their part - They already sponsor the Armory don't they?, they should just put a big neon sign on it and everyine at a ex-Expos game would see it anyway.
I'm not a huge fan of the Armed Forces spending such $$ either. Some sponsorship is good for recruitment, but leave the big buck ones to the corporate bohemoths.

[CHICO13]

If it's not putting $$ in United's pocket, I could give a sh!t either way.