Maple Leaf Gardens' New Name

leafsIt seems appropriate that on a day when my path crossed with Wendel Clark's (more on that later), I'd be thinking about Maple Leaf Gardens.

MLSE sold Maple Leaf Gardens to Loblaw in 2004, and Loblaw struck a deal with Ryerson that allowed them to share the space. Ryerson will reopen Maple Leaf Gardens as an arena for their hockey team next year, only it will have a different name.

Faced with a lawsuit by Maple Leaf Sports and Entertainment, the school said it will find a different name for the site.

“We never had the intention to brand ourselves as ‘Maple Leaf,’ ” Ryerson president Sheldon Levy said. “We have a plan to use a different name.”

The building will keep its old title for the city’s records, along with a canopy emblazoned with the name over the front doors, but the rink and athletic centre Ryerson is building inside will be named for a sponsor. Mr. Levy said the word “Gardens” will be part of the new epithet.

This is a true shame. A hockey arena in old Maple Leaf Gardens shouldn't have to take on a different name. Nobody is going to confuse Ryerson University hockey with the NHL, or the AHL for that matter.

I'm disappointed. MLSE has enough money and doesn't need to be dicking with this city's history. This is ten times more offensive than what Ted Rogers did to us in 2005.

Maple Leaf Gardens

Share this post

Comments (10)

Karina

I don't find this offensive at all. Whatever the name is, people will still call the building Maple Leaf Gardens. And, like it or not, the Maple Leaf name is trademarked for MLSE and is a huge money generator. I'd expect them to protect their property at all costs.

October 20, 2011 / 16:24

Doug

I think the sponsor should be Maple Leaf Foods.....

October 20, 2011 / 16:35

CQ

On this matter, I am with MLSE. They shouldn't have a future owner (Ryerson) using their exact name. Ryerson Gardens would be a nice blend of old and new.

October 20, 2011 / 17:06

Rick C in Oakville

Maybe the City of Toronto's Heritage designation could cement the name for the future?

I just think MLSE are being a bunch of Douches on this, it's a part of TO history, and would play for great PR. If they coveted the name so much why not pay the price and name the ACC Maple Leaf Gardens.

October 20, 2011 / 20:31

Mississauga Phil

They need to protect their brnad name, I doubt they care that ryerson calls the building Maple Leaf GArdens, but it's a slippery slope. If they allow one person to infringe on their copywright, a smart lawyer (damn them) will try to weasel their way into using the title in other formats.

I don't see anyone in TO calling that building anything but Maple Leaf Gardens, they can "officially" change the name, but we'll keep on calling it what it is....

October 21, 2011 / 08:24

David

I think Ryerson has a fine product without needing to use the Maple Leaf name.

Phil (above) is correct. We'll always call it by its historical name anyway, and the slippery slope is unfortunately true.

October 21, 2011 / 10:01

Chris

I can't think of one reason why it should have the word "Maple Leafs" in the name. That would make no sense when the Leafs play at the ACC and haven't played there in a decade.

October 21, 2011 / 14:04

CC

@Chris

Here's one reason. That's the name of the damn building!

October 21, 2011 / 16:25

Mississauga Phil

Damn Right CC!!!!!

October 21, 2011 / 19:54

Chris

That used to be the name of the building, and it used to be where the Maple Leafs played. Seeing that things have changed, it makes sense to call the building something else.

October 22, 2011 / 19:50

Leave a comment


« Behind the Scenes at Humble and Fred Radio (dot com) The Seven Weirdest Things About Moammar Gadhafi »