SRBear said:
Didn't we get more from Kabaam?
Quote:
Representatives for the Rose Bowl are wary about treading too deeply into the naming rights world and prefer to refer to field's name as a donor recognition. There will be no mention of Spieker painted onto the field or outside the stadium -- only in select places inside, including on the hedges adjacent to both sides of the field.
Because Kabam was acquired and exercised a clause in the deal to pay us to end the deal.B.A. Bearacus said:
Speaking of Kabam, I'm happy to not see any Kabam branding on the field this year. I know they're helping pay the bills, but it just looks nicer without. Not sure why it's not there.
It could have been changed to Netmarble Stadium. Pleased with getting all that money for a short period of providing naming rights, with the former owners having also used a chunk of the buy out proceeds to donate to the school.B.A. Bearacus said:
Speaking of Kabam, I'm happy to not see any Kabam branding on the field this year. I know they're helping pay the bills, but it just looks nicer without. Not sure why it's not there.
I think at least 3 (maybe 4) of Ned's kids went to Cal so there could be some nice donations down the road.ColoradoBear said:
It's an interesting deal since UCLA doesn't even own the Rose Bowl.
I believe Tod Spieker is the brother of Cal major donor/alum Ned Spieker. Maybe Ned can one up his brother and build us another something cool (I know he donated million towards building Haas Pavilion and also to build the Spieker Aquatics center). Or help retain or football coach when needed...