Lionbackers.com

Big Time wrote:This is an incredibly sensible position from the BC Govt. First of all, 2 million a year for twenty years seems extremely low considering the advertising will be both inside and outside BC Place 24 hours per day. The length of the contract for 20 years is also ridiculous as 2 million 20 years from now will likely be peanuts.

Second, the biggest stumbling block was that Telus wanted all references to BC Place removed. That is absurd. BC Place has hosted numerous events that are part of Vancouver's history. The Olympics, Grey Cups, major concerts, Expo, etc. Removing that history for the small price of 2 million per year is insane.

Finally, let's not discount the fact that this deal had a lot to do with Darren Entwhistle's ego. This guy is known as one of the most arrogant, condescending pricks to ever be a CEO. He could care less about the history of BC Place or what it means to the people as long as he's able to champion the fact that he got to put his corporate brand all over a taxpayer funded building. This was about ego for him.

Fact of the matter is the provincial government will likely make a far greater sum in advertising than 2 million per year by parceling it out to various corporations than they would by selling their souls to Telus. If Telus is serious about wanting the naming rights, the price should start at least 10 times above what they were offering and the term should be subject to escalator clauses throughout the duration of the contract to adjust for market rates. Even then, I don't believe it's worth it.

B.C.FAN wrote:I was listening tonight to Team radio promote the opening game of the Whitecaps season Saturday fom Bell Pitch. How can you expect anyone to respect a stadium name when one tenant's corporate sponsor makes up its own name without paying for it? Maybe the Lions should promote their home stadium as the Braley Bowl or the Orlick Oval.

To be clear about this, neither the Whitecaps nor Bell have any rights to utilize the name Bell Pitch or to name any components of the building or the building itself,” he said.

“PavCo has not given any [of those] rights to any of them. Their rights are limited to advertising within the inner bowl of the stadium and it is very, very clear in the agreement. And we will take the steps necessary to stop them using the term Bell Pitch.”

B.C.FAN wrote:According the Vancouver Sun, Pavco is now threatening legal action against the Whitecaps and Bell if they continue using the Bell Pitch name. Apparently Pavco has been issuing cease-and-desist orders for the past year, to no avail. It's no wonder the Telus deal fell through.

Here's a quote from Pavco chairman David Podmore:

To be clear about this, neither the Whitecaps nor Bell have any rights to utilize the name Bell Pitch or to name any components of the building or the building itself,” he said.

“PavCo has not given any [of those] rights to any of them. Their rights are limited to advertising within the inner bowl of the stadium and it is very, very clear in the agreement. And we will take the steps necessary to stop them using the term Bell Pitch.”

Whitecaps, Bell red-carded by B.C. Pavilion Corp