Naming rights
July 22nd, 2008 by 
Alica
The four soccer fields at McHardy Park will be named Alliance Communications Field, Taco John’s Field, Home Federal Bank Field and First Premier Bank Field. Each of the businesses donated $20,000 to the Brandon Area Soccer Association.
How do you feel about naming rights? Will donors get their money’s worth of advertising for their $20,000 gift? Are there any names you would pass on even if the gift were great? How big would the gift have to be to name a field “Acme XXX Video Field,” for example?
Posted in Uncategorized, BV sports | 
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:46 pm
I believe that naming rights should be to honor a person/place–the donor can be recognized on a sign or plaque. It seems to be on the conceited side to name the field for yourself just ‘cuz you donated the money. A family even, that has been important to the community & to soccer.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:40 pm
What is the definition of “important” and what are the requirements of who’s important to the community? The ones with the most money? The ones who donate time instead of money? Ones who keep in the sidelines that are behind the scenes? Everyone one is important to our community and your definition of “important” may be different than mine or theirs.
July 23rd, 2008 at 7:40 am
Buying naming rights is a form of advertising for businesses and fundraising for organizations. Who knows what individuals motivations are when they buy naming rights but as far as I’m concerned its their money and if they want to name a soccer field after themselves then more power to them. Don’t like it, get out your checkbook and change the name.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Agreed, “gimme a break”
I have a feeling this forum could take a turn to the T Denny drama
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
I think a lot of times an acknowledgment gets added to giving so that the businesses who contribute can make their contribution a deductible business expense (advertising) more so than the business looking for recognition. I’d be willing to bet the dollar value of the advertising would rarely pass cost-benefit muster.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
Alliance Communications is a member-owned cooperative. So when Alliance donates $20,000, it’s really members’ money that is being donated.
Members elect a board of directors, who voted to give the $20,000. I wonder, though, how big of a donation it would have to be before the members themselves would vote on it.
July 24th, 2008 at 8:20 am
Alicia,
Board’s are elected to make decisions for the good of the company and being good citizens in the towns they operate in is a pretty good decision as far as this stockholder is concerned. Being a good citizen and getting a tax deduction in the process is just a bonus. Besides, without big donations, the soccer fields never would have happened.
July 28th, 2008 at 11:30 am
#2 — sorry, but I should’ve said “influential”…or maybe “role-model”…or maybe another adjective that is less explosive. Sounds like you have a shoulder chip
July 28th, 2008 at 12:21 pm
No chip, just frustration on why
“things” are named what they are. On one hand, naming rights tied to money in my opinion are wrong, because only those who are rich leave a legacy. Those who are true roll models, volunteers, and don’t expect something in return…. but don’t have a ton of money aren’t recognized with a “thing” named after them.
On the other hand, those who have the money to donate have the right to ask for naming rights so I don’t have a answer.
I just know that there are a lot of families who are important to this community that don’t have a lot of money. In our society it seems that the words influential and having money go hand in hand.
July 28th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
#9 — I TOTALLY agree, 100%.
Influential positive role models for our children — the volunteers: coaches, referees, teachers, etc. These should be the “naming rights”. Otherwise, go back to the old-fashioned way — Diamond A, Diamond B…so on. Do your advertising in the programs, scoreboards, fence signs…what have you.