The New York Mets are getting a new stadium. It’ll be called Citi Field and that honor cost Citibank (and by extension, one could argue, taxpayers) $400 million.
Citigroup said in a statement yesterday that no bailout funds were being used to name the stadium, but that it hasn’t made a final decision about whether or not to go through with the deal.
A week ago, two congressmen, Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to new Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, asking him to “push Citigroup to dissolve the Mets deal.”
“Citigroup is now dependent on the support of the federal government for its survival as an institution,” the letter said. “As such, we do not believe Citigroup ought to spend $400 million to name a stadium at the same time that they accept over $350 billion in taxpayer support and guarantees.”
So, what should we do?
Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal [WSJ via Gothamist]
(Photo:wallyg)
More From Consumerist
-
Toyota To Pay Out $1.1 Billion To Settle Unintended Acceleration Lawsuit
-
PokerStars Settles Online Gambling Lawsuit For $731 Million & Buys Its Rival To Boot
-
Transocean Pleads Guilty, Agrees To Pay $1.4 Billion To Settle Charges Related To Gulf Oil Spill
-
Average Income Among America’s 400 Richest Dropped 25% In One Year
-
Patent Trolls Demanding $1,000/Employee From Businesses That Dare To Use A Scanner
This would be like if I have a 20 dollar bill in my wallet, and I ask a friend to borrow 20 bucks so I can eat lunch. Then I take the 20 that was in my wallet and buy alcohol with it, and I tell my friend that he can’t be pissed at me because I didn’t use HIS 20 for alcohol.
I don’t know where to stand on this. I’ live in New York, I’m a Mets fan, and also a Citibank Costumer.
I’m not happy if Citibank uses the bailout money for paying for Citi field and not happy that they fired 50,000 of their employees.
If Citi drops the Mets, then the Mets have to figure out on getting the money and a sponsor. So the money will come from the city or they will raise ticket prices and come on they don’t deserve higher ticket prices when A) they sucked for the last two season and B) the economy is crappy. So either way the consumer and tax payer will still get hit for public funds.
I also wonder how much it will cost the Mets to change all the signs and stickers for “Citi”.
Also the Citi deal is for 20 years, I hope Citibank didn’t pay the 400 million up front, so 20 million dollars at the moment is really chump change I think.
Again I don’t know, it’s hard to say what they should do.
DAMMIT!
This is exactly why I was against The Bailout to begin with. These guys aren’t changing their ways and are now wasting taxpayer’s money, not just their own.
We’re hearing some new outrageous story like this weekly now. Don’t legislators get it? Oh right, we’re also paying for the banks’ lobbyists too…
I love how everyone’s reaction is to villianize Citibank for continuing to operate their business under normal parameters (which includes advertising), rather than get mad at the federal government. You know, the ones who actually GAVE them our money without our consent in the first place. Apparently they were paying enough attention to go the populist route and impose limits on executive bonuses, but unless there’s anything in the bailout deal that says “not to be used for advertising” then Citi is doing nothing wrong.
Well, other than being incompetent and needing the bailout money in the first place, but that ship has long since sailed.
$400 million is a lot to spend. I am not so sure of Citi’s credit line stats, but that money could be spent to absorb some of the negative debt of its customers, or lower interest rates, allowing them to keep their houses, food on the table, and clothes on their back. This spending for advertising, which really would affect a limited group (baseball fans, Mets fans, and a few more residual) is obnoxious and unwarranted. They advertise TV and some other venues, why is that not ok?
Hey, cool, now instead of just New Yorkers paying taxes to get a new ballpark we all do!
Money is fungible.
It’s a dumb evasion to assert that no taxpayer money is being used for this purchase. If you get more money in one area, it frees up money in another area.
So yes, if Citibank has received taxpayer money, it is most definitely being used to name the stadium, even if the money has cascaded through several accounts to get there.
@dwarf74: You are correct. That’s why we all wonder why education funding didn’t go up after the lottery kicked in. “The lottery is going to fund education” was the reason for it. So, normal people say, great, we get MORE money for education. No, say the politicians. It just means that lottery revenue goes into the general fund and education still gets what’s coming to it and not a penny more. So much for any “lockbox” concept. We know how secure those things are.
i want Shea back, it was a nice stadium and the first place i saw a professional game
now it’s another corporate stadium
Ir it could be known as “TARP Field”
Met Life should buy the naming rights from Citibank.
I honestly think they are trying to see what it takes to start a riot.
Not a good sign for the future of Citigroup. The Astros used to play at Enron Field. The Titans played at Adelphia Stadium. There have been a few others, too. But, I don’t expect Citigroup to survive as currently structured anyway. The stadium name seals that deal. Like I said months ago, giving taxpayer funded welfare bailout money to any company is a major error. Nothing good will come from it. Just more roaches come with their tin cups looking for taxpayer welfare money.
I wish just half of the outrage towards all the planes and stadiums that these companies are spending on would be directed at the government that gave them the money in the first place.
@EBounding: What makes you think it isn’t? People are pissed at the no-strings-attached nature of TARP. This article just happens to be about naming a stadium.
Guys, the poll was skewed. Yes, as 95% of respondents point out, it’s unfair for the rest of us to subsidize Citi’s ego. OTOH, if what we are subsidizing is their continued operation as a viable entity, then let’s be honest: It’s a marketing decision: $20 Million per year for a lot of exposure.
Is that high? I don’t know, but neither do you. I don’t see anyone arguing with the idea that they need to continue running commercials or taking out ads; this is just more of that. The deal should stay in place.
Jeff Yablon
Virtual VIP
What would have happened to the deal if Citibank went bankrupt? That’s right, there would be no deal.
Taxpayers own the stadium name now and I don’t think they are eager to be spending any money that is absolutely not necessary.
Look, people. Your elected representatives voted to give a ton of money to companies that need it BECAUSE they make irresponsible financial decisions. Did you expect the banks to be more responsible with free taxpayer bailout money than they were with their own money? Don’t be ridiculous. If you didn’t want the banks to waste your money, you should have given your money to someone who could spend it responsibly.
In reality this is about $20 million a year for 20 years. Taxpayers aren’t paying $400 million for this. It’s really a small fraction of Citi’s expenses for the year.
In reality this is only $20 million a year which is a small fraction of Citi’s expenses.
It could be called Unemployment Field and be the pride of the non-working now that CitiBank’s Citi Prepaid is now in charge of the debit cards being used by several state unemployment agencies to pay benefits to claimants.
Imagine the $ saved by the states for not having to pay for stamps, the trees that will be preserved and the email addresses and home addresses of potential credit card applicants who will all qualify for super high interest rates!
How about using some of that money to forgive my student loans?
FAIL
Along with giving the money, surely the Citi execs and their families would get VIP access (suites, etc.) at the new stadium.
No, and No.
Last I checked, taxpayer money = taxpayer money. The stadium is still partly financed by taxpayer money. Granted, it shouldn’t bear the name ‘Citi Field,’ but whatever Citi doesn’t pay for the stadium, I’m sure it’ll come out of taxpayer coffers, like it always does.
This sucks, at least in the USSR, they knew it was Communism…
If I have $100 in my pocket, but need $200 to pay the rent, and I borrow $200 from you and use that to pay the rent, and the money in my pocket goes for $100 of crack then I didn’t use the money you loaned me to buy any crack now did I? And it means I could afford to buy $100 of crack with out borrowing anything from you.
Citi Bank is using this same logic.
I notice they had no problem charging me $36 because my payment was received late due to a mail holiday. What a punch of vampires.
@3drage: No problem doubling my interest rate either
I’m opposed to corporate naming of any venues. I shouldn’t have to give free advertising to a corporation to tell people where I am going to a concert or game.
I still call the WAMU theater at MSG the Felt Forum. The Felt Forum changed its name to the Paramount theater, and then to the ‘Theater at Madison Square Garden” now it is the WaMu theater.
Jones Beach ampitheater changed its name to “Tommy Hilfiger at Jones Beach”. Now it is “Nikon at Jones Beach Theater” That doesn’t even make sense. “The Nikon Theater at Jones Beach” would make sense in English. If I see a sign that says Nikon at Jones Beach Theater, I should see a big camera sitting there.
When a family member lost his job, I loaned him money for his house and car payment. Later that month, he and his wife took their 4 kids on a trip from the Midwest to Baltimore for a family wedding. Their explanation to me: Someone else in the family loaned them money to make the trip.
My conclusion: This family member could have been CEO of Citibank.
Why is it that some of these credit and banking associated stories are being reported with an undue salacious spin? Folks, do yourself a service and double-check your reading on Consumerist, as it relates to these subjects, with the real news articles from which they are sourced.
Citi explores breaking Mets deal
The $400 million stadium interest is older news-the current news is that they’re ‘exploring options to break out of the deal’. Probably not out of a genuine love for us tax payers, of course, but it is good to know the real story.
As a Mets fan, I wish they’d name it something a little better, like Stengal Stadium or Seaver Field.
The contract for the naming rights was signed well before the economy tanked and the subsequent bailout. I fail to see how this is an issue.
@Andrew: Too bad they didn’t sign a contract for 400 trillion, so they create Citbankland.
Not only tax payers are being nailed by Citigroup but also their long time customers that have faithfully paid on time. I recently opened by credit card bill and noticed they increased the rate by 7 percentage points. The bill is not late, it is way under the limit, in fact I don’t even use it anymore, just have been paying it off. I called them and their excuse was that because they have experienced so much credit card default lately they were having to increase interest rates. So I guess they expect the customers that pay their bills to cover their bad business decisions in offering credit to those that end up defaulting, and to cover the CEO bonuses and now the $400MM stadium name….NICE CITIGROUP….REAL NICE
That survey is so skewed, it’s pathetic. Nice way to phrase it.
How can any bank prove the bailout money did or did not go for something it shouldn’t? They can claim anything.
I don’t mind. It gives Citi an indentity that build on after this whole economy when down the crapper.
Interesting, I just wrote about how important it is to have crystal clear contracts so you don’t open yourself up to disputes later: Kitchen Confidential: Contract Inspirations Courtesy of Anthony Bourdain and Daniel Boulud (http://www.whichdraft.com/wp/?p=23). This would be the reverse situation, where you have buyer’s remorse and wish you had a poorly written contract leaving a loophole or interpretation that would allow you to terminate early without penalty.
Did I say no? Sorry, I meant HELL NO! I am now totally convinced that American executive leadership is totally and completely out of touch with not only their own customers, but most Americans in general. What kind of an idiot would spend money on this when your are running a failing company to begin with. American executives have no loyalty to America or their employees or customers, only to enhancing their own bottom line the quickest way possible. If that means ruining good companies and peoples lives, then so be it. Damn the torpedoes, golden parachute ahead. Bastards.
As much as I’m against this we aren’t getting the full story from Consumerist.
The problem is the contract is signed and is a legal and binding contract. Citi most likely can’t cancel it, and even if they did they would owe the Mets 20 million dollars a year over the next 20 years. Also the new stadium was built with this 400 million dollars, so if Citi pulls out who now pays for the stadium? Tax payers?
Here’s a thought. Cut the athletes pay and call the damn stadium the Mets Stadium and be done.
Everyone else is getting laid off and having to take pay cuts and benefit cuts, work extra jobs.
Are they really going to feel the pain if they get a couple million less a year?
This bailout biz is crap anyway.
Field…sorry!