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
They should name it “Screw the Taxpayer Field” regardless if Citi pays for the naming rights since all these stadiums screw the taxpayers with this disgusting corporate welfare. In the old days the teams bought the land and built the stadium without any government money. Now these teams engage in daylight robbery while schools and other city services suffer.
@Plates: That never made sense to me…
I hate how the owners leverage their team to get free(or next to free) stadiums.
@Plates: Naw, let the screwed taxpayers name the field. The name sign will be one of those digital billboards and interested taxpayers can log on and get 8 hours of billboard time for whatever message they like.
@KyleOrton: How about Busch Stadium in St. Louis? A gorgeous ballpark built almost exclusively from private funds. They’re not all taxpayer money pits…just most of them!
@plyhard13: …and then there’s national’s stadium in DC…Paid for mostly by the tax payers of DC, most of which could care less about the baseball team. Most of the “fans” are in the suburbs.
What’s more? The team sued the city for millions when they got there and their offices weren’t completed. I didn’t hear the end of it but it’s one of those feel good stories you love to hear about.
@plyhard13: Well, pffff, I guess if you’re going to be all reasonable-like.
@plyhard13: Wrigley Field. Want to name the ballpark? Buy the team.
Citigroup said in a statement yesterday that no bailout funds were being used to name the stadium
Because all the bailout funds were marked, sequential bills, right?
Seems like there might be at least one other potential sponsor who would buy them out (for the rights to name the stadium). I think it’s frivolous–everyone knows who they are, so this publicity is unnecessary.
@Ash78: Exactly. Money isn’t fungible anymore? Sounds like the keen economic insight that got them into trouble in the first place.
@Ash78: You just don’t get it. It’s NOT bailout money. Bailout money is going to pay for normal operating costs of keeping the business afloat. THIS money is ordinary money that could be spent on normal operating costs OR huge marketing boondoggles. I mean, just imagine that there are two giant sacks of cash, one for regular “spendin’ money” and one for “bailout money”: since the bailout money is purportedly going to rescue the business, the “spendin’ money” is now freed up to spend on other things. What’s so hard to understand about that?
@Beerad: I’d say about 90% of Congress would have been swayed by that. Well done!
@Beerad: Okay, having read the remainder of the comments it’s become apparent that it might not be clear that I was joking and that any implied sarcasm may not have been clear. I do not think this is a reasonable expense by Citibank and yes, money is money. Please don’t kill me.
@Beerad: If they have 400 Million to name a stadium they don’t need bailout money.
Imagine that I came to your house with a briefcase full of money and then asked you if I could borrow money from you. Most people would look at the briefcase full of money and say “umm… no”. Obviously you would give me your money, but I would hope that you wouldn’t.
@Beerad:
your argument is flawed. It doesn’t matter what label you put the money under. It matters what its SPENT ON. They said they’re a failing business and got tax payers to give them lots of money. Now they want to spend it on something frivolous that in NO way helps them pay for the normal costs of keeping a business afloat. They need to pay that money back to the tax payers with the profit we deserve for giving it to them, THEN they can name a stadium. Not while our bail out funds are still floating around and they’re in debt to the government. You are a HUGE ass.
@Patrick Henry: Sarcasm…you should read up on it before calling someone profanities.
@Patrick Henry: Back to Facebook, please.
@InfiniTrent: Patrick Henry has joined the group “Sarcasm Goes Right Over My Head”.
@Beerad: Hello sir,
We are interested in your services. Your financial acumen and commitment to our cause is evident. Please name your salary, and you’re hired (seriously, whatever you want…we have like 4 zillion unused dollars from this government bailout, so have a field day).
Sincerely,
Citibank
@Beerad:
Wow you sure did make that simple. Well I’m all for the bailout now. Hell I’m all for execs getting their multi-million dollar bonuses! No…wait….that doesn’t make any sense. You are correct there are two huge sacks of money sitting on that $80,000 rug but that doesn’t mean they just get to throw one in the tub then drain it away. Yes the bailout money should be spent on everyday operations but that doesn’t mean they just get to blow their “spendin” money on frivolous crap. They should be directing all of their assets into everyday business and clearing up their problems, not trying to make sure people know who they are. I believe we should hold these people accountable for every dime spent, now more than ever because it’s our money they’re taking to the race track. I don’t care how Wal-Mart spends their money because they didn’t get a huge chunk of my tax money, but I do care how these banks are blowing their cash because they convinced congress they needed it.
@Beerad: Ha! That’s obviously how they are justifying it.
@Ash78:
I think you are missing the point. If you don’t like how the private sector is running banks, then don’t give them “bailout money” – nationalize them. If you think that the private sector knows best, then let them decide how to spend their advertising budget. Putting strings on how they can spend their ad budget is just a recipe for disaster IMHO.
@Ash78: Was it not the banks that told congress they could not identify how the bailout money was spent because it looked like all their other money?
@YeaYuh: …seriously?
Wow, no wonder our economy blows goats
@YeaYuh: Oh lord please tell me there’s a transcript of that hearing.
@Ash78: To be slightly serious for a moment, there may very well be excellent business reasons to spend money on X even while receiving bailout Y, or why pot A and pot B of money are actually NOT interchangeable. Like a local utility was absolutely SCREWING us with rate hikes while still donating generously to local charities, which made people absolutely furious. But those donations were offsetting corporate taxes and stopping them wouldn’t have made any difference to our rates. Not that it still wasn’t bad publicity, and they did a terrifically bad job explaining it.
And I frankly can’t think of a situation in which “money spent on marketing” isn’t fungible with “money spent on operations.” If they want to go ahead, they need to give the taxpayers a REALLY EXCELLENT rationale.
@Patrick Henry: Sarcasm fail.
@Ash78:
In the current economic climate, Citi probably can’t get nearly as much for the rights as it has contracted with the Mets for.
@Ash78: all the bills marked sequentially LOL -but I agree !
If Citi or anyone else DIDN’T get these bailout funds those dollars amounts for spas,vacations,bonuses or marketing promotions would have been looked at in a whole different light .
Basically the funds allow ‘ business as usual ‘ in many respects but it was that ‘ business as usual ‘ that got us in this mess in the first place .
Absolutely not. To a lesser extent, Bobby Lowder (benefactor of Auburn University and founder of Colonial Bank) paid off Tommy Tuberville’s coaching contract ($6 million or so) two days after Colonial Bank received bailout funds.
“No bailout funds.”
Bullshit. Anything not absolutely required to meet day-to-day solvency needs is only possible because of the huge steaming bowl of “Please sir, can I have some more?” you received in the FIRST PLACE.
Pay back your bailout then buy whatever the hell you want.
Except for sub-prime backed “Insecurities”, please.
@InThrees: I don’t agree with this particular incident but some degree of advertising is needed to maintain solvency.
@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: I would like to see a few different studies that prove that advertising is worth the money. I know that “premium” brands can certainly get away without it, or with very little. In addition, it seems that “generic” brands manage to survive reasonably well, so is the money spent on advertising “name” brands really worth it?
@nataku83: Personally, advertising certainly makes an impact on what I buy (probably not what bank I go with, though). On countless occasions, I’ve seen a billboard, heard a radio spot, etc. and thought that the product being pitched would make a great gift (Edible Arrangements most recently), or would be a great service for me to purchase.
@supercereal: I find that most television advertisements are insulting and insipid, and if anything, turn me off to buying whatever it is that they’re trying to sell me. Print is a little easier to stomach, but even then I don’t find myself compelled to buy things because an advertisement made them look appealing. I find that word of mouth is far more effective a means of advertising.
@Cyberxion101: The main benefit of advertising is letting you know something exists. If you’re then interested, the ad may provide more information, but most advertising now is about:
#1 – letting you know the product exists
#1A – Establishing a brand image for the users of the product
It’s more powerful than most think.
@nataku83: What premium brands can get away without it? They’ve spent the ad dollars in the past to build their image as a premium brand. They spend ad dollars now to maintain their brand. Building a brand aint cheap, once you have it it must be maintained.
That said, I think stadium sponsorship is a weak and unoriginal use of limited advertising budgets.
@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Coach used to before they went all shitty and downmarket and positioned themselves as an aspirational luxury brand with advertising and badly-made tacky products.
Can we call No-Ad sunblock a premium brand? I love that stuff.
@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Snap-on for one. Since the only thing I’m ever willing to spend a lot of money on is tools, I’m going to have to leave it there. I’m pretty sure they’re not the only company in the universe that has a great reputation without an expensive advertising / retail infrastructure, though.
@nataku83: I think a lot of time advertising works. Not all the time but a lot. TV ads, print ads, maybe billboards. However, I don’t think that if a giant bank that most people have probably already heard of pays to get a stadium named after them, they are going to reach more customers than they would have otherwise. I think it would be more effective to buy a TV ad that tells customers about a service they might not have known was available. Maybe they have research that says differently – I would be interested to know.
@InThrees: Exactly, I wouldn’t have known that “Invesco” or “M&T Bank” existed if it weren’t for the naming rights (not that it makes me want to invest…). Others like Verizon Center and Fed Ex Field just seem like names.
Then when Candlestick park got renamed Monster Park I know everyone thought that it was the job search site. That’s fitting though that Monster Cable spends millions on naming rights only to in inadvertently advertise for the company they sued for trademark infringements
How can they possibly claim that they’re not using taxpayer money for this. I’m sure there are all sorts of complicated accounting structures that may technically isolate the division of Citi that’s paying for the field from the division of Citi that’s receiving TARP funds, but total corporate income is still total corporate income.
@nataku83: I didn’t pay too close attention to which banks caused the biggest fuss over getting the bailout money, but I know some of them didn’t *need* it, but they were allowed to take it and they did in order to stay competitive.
I could see this being the case here. It doesn’t excuse it in any way shape or form because a lot of tax payer money is involved.
So now everyone is an expert in advertising and promotion and knows that paying to have a stadium named after your company is bad? Wow. Let’s get this info to the other 70 companies doing this.
@philmin:
I don’t think anyone is claiming to be an expert on advertising, just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy involved in taking bailout money and spending $400m on singage at a stadium. As has been pointed out: cook the books any way you want the $400M is coming from their total reserve of funds. It might not be in the exact same account, or what have you, it’s still part of the whole. None of this type of highjinks should be allowed institutions taking bailout money.
@philmin: When your company is failing, then yes, it’s bad. See: Enron Field, Houston.
@BuddyGuyMontag: Or PSI Net, Baltimore.
@philmin: I think that’s what’s frustrating. Businesses have to do all kinds of unorthodox things that might seem like a waste of money, but will actually help them out in the end. So sure, maybe paying those executinves loads of money will help them win in the long run, and maybe this stadium naming will help them win in the long run. But the fact that they have that kind of cash means that, had they been paying attention, they could have skillfuly scaled things back over time and avoided the current crisis.
So yes, given the circumstances, this purchase is probably a mistake for Citibank. The government money should be used towards restructuring their business to be more robust and resilient. Using their loans to simply carry on as if nothing happened is not likely to work well in the long term.
It would be like someone in trouble taking out a home equity loan, but then just carrying on as usual. What put them in the red before the loan will still put them in the red when the equity loan is gone.
@philmin: I don’t know about stadium naming rights but there are studies (S Pruitt) that have shown positive returns for firms sponsering NASCAR teams.
@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: Even if that study shows that all companies sponsoring NASCAR teams make money (which it probably doesn’t, given the different levels of sponsorship that are available), that’s a completely different game, pardon the expression.
Nobody bats an eye if you’re talking about the Tide car or the Bud car, and avid fans will tell you everyone who’s driven that car since they began sponsoring a team, or conversely, every car that driver’s had. There’s no such identification with brand names and teams in baseball: sure, devoted and/or local fans can tell you what the park is, but no one talks about the Citizens Bank Phillies or San Francisco PacBell. In fact, there can be considerable resistance to naming a stadium, although that tends to be true more for existing parks than for new ones.
Plus, there are a number of parks where the naming rights outlasted the company. Of course, that doesn’t mean it’s a bad deal for any company that does it, but it certainly suggests that it’s not always a good idea.
And really, does Citi need to name a stadium to improve their visibility? What exactly are they hoping to get from this?
@zlionsfan: Exactly. They are already visible, and competition is already less than it was due to all the consolidation and failures. If they don’t use the federal money to leverage cheaper loans to grow the economy, they won’t unwind their situation. I’m not sure what the hell they are thinking. The old game of “use the customer’s house as leverage for whatever interest rate we feel like” won’t work anymore: the housing market is falling! Competitively priced loans with lots of risk research is the only way out. Advertising gains them nothing in their current situation.
@zlionsfan: “There’s no such identification with brand names and teams in baseball: sure, devoted and/or local fans can tell you what the park is, but no one talks about the Citizens Bank Phillies or San Francisco PacBell. In fact, there can be considerable resistance to naming a stadium, although that tends to be true more for existing parks than for new ones.”
This. I HATE the White Sox with the fire of a thousand suns (way to go on being the third most popular baseball team in a state that only has two!), and I STILL refuse to call it “US Cellular Field.” It’s New Comiskey, it’s not as cool as Old Comiskey, and I will never call it “US Cellular Field.”
(Why can’t they just call it “Comiskey Park by US Cellular” or something? Seriously?)
I understand the irony here in that Wrigley Field is named for chewing gum, but it was ALWAYS named that and the team was owned by Wrigley. That’s different.
@HIV 2 Elway Resurrected: It seems that nearly every NASCAR car has thousands of little corporate decals on them!
Anyway, advertising is a vital part of every company that deals directly with the general public. Is $400M a bit much for a company in their position? Perhaps. But to say that this is a complete waste of money seems very shortsighted.
@philmin: just because they are not profitable right now, does not mean that they should cut out all advertising.
@philmin:
I get you, if Citibank is going to survive as a company and we all want Citibank to survive b/c of our huge tax dollar investment, they have got to operate their business the best way they know how.
But is the best way to operate their business the same old business as usual (stadium naming, corporate jets huge salaries) or might this be the time to engage in some serious thought that they should get back to making money by lending money to folks who can pay it back.
@SadSam:
If all of a sudden we are easily lumping “stadium naming” with “corporate jets” then it would be pretty easy to criticize tons of expenses from Citi. The fact of the matter is, regardless of a bailout, Citi will spend billions and billions of dollars on so many different things any given year, that presenting many of them to the public in a negative light will cause outrage.
Think about it… “City backs out of Stadium deal, elminating 5,000 American jobs… AFTER the goverment gave them bailout money.” Everyone would be getting all pissed off about this. At the end of the day, I’m sick of ever middle class American playing expert when it comes to running a major business.
@philmin: I don’t think the Mets are going anywhere, even if they do suck.
@philmin: actually Stadium deals have been the hallmark of a company overspending or misusing marketing money. This wiki page is full of stadium names whose company is now defunct or bankrupt.
[en.wikipedia.org]
@philmin: That’s just one of the problems of all of this bailout bullshit: now every taxpayer things he’s entitled to determine how the beneficiary businesses should be run. As if Johnnie Taxpayer is suddenly knowledgeable about the reasoning behind broker bonus packages and marquis marketing strategies.
@AtomicPlayboy:
“That’s just one of the problems of all of this bailout bullshit: now every taxpayer things he’s entitled to determine how the beneficiary businesses should be run. As if Johnnie Taxpayer is suddenly knowledgeable about the reasoning behind broker bonus packages and marquis marketing strategies.”
You’ve got to be joking. If they had any better ideas than the rest of us, they wouldn’t have their company collapsing around them, and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. LMAO.
@philmin: Here, let me try to explain it: I just spend my entire paycheck on candy. Now I can’t pay my rent. Can you give me some money to cover it?
Citigroup said in a statement yesterday that no bailout funds were being used to name the stadium
Well gee whiz guys. If you have the money lying around to pay for naming rights, why in the hell did you need bailout money then?
This is the corporate equivalent of using greenstamps to buy Mad Dog and Schlitz.
@Quake ‘n’ Shake: I meant foodstamps, not greenstamps.
Fuck it. No Bailout Funds, yea right? Every take econ 101? @Quake ‘n’ Shake: True. Production Possibilities Frontier, FTL! for taxpayers.
IF they do use bailout money on the field, then I want a cut of the ticket, hot dog, and beer sales.
I expect a tax credit next year.
@IT-Chick: They should name it “Snowburnt” field
Short answer:
HELL NO.
And don’t give me the bullshit about its really “two seperate piles”– your company is failing due to mismanagement, you asked the taxpayers for money to prevent your company from failing, and then you want to name a stadium so all your corporate execs get a nice fat suite 8 Sundays a year? No thanks.
And don’t give me the bullshit about how if Wall Street stops handing out perks then it won’t attract the “best and brightest”. Seems to me the “best and brightest” pretty much fucked things up pretty good.
Here’s an idea: hire people who are in the financial business to SERVE THEIR CUSTOMERS instead of greedy managers and CEOs who feel entitled to multi-million dollar bonuses and stadium suites. Guess what? Millions of teachers go to work every day to teach your kids, and don’t get a solitary dime of bonus. Likewise, your nurse, your maid and your milkman.
Maybe your child’s teacher should threaten to only teach esperonto unless you pay her a “language bonus”. Maybe your nurse should provide full assistance if you offer her a financial incentive? Maybe your milkman should deliver sour milk unless you make it worth his personal while.
Fuck the greedheads. The only people who need to be bribed with public money to do their job are pro athletes, mobsters and Wall Streeters. Good company you keep there.
1. I don’t have a clue as to how they can say “no bailout funds used”. That’s just asinine.
2. I don’t really care about naming the stadium any more than any other advertising they may do – I don’t see how there is any difference.
Banks are in the shitter now, yes, but they CANT back out of every deal they have that causes them expenses…
although a baseball stadium is probably not the wisest investment of that money, so this one I think they should cut.
Money is fungible, so it’s hard to say that no funds are being used so that’s a bit disingenuous.
…But, part of any company’s expenses, including those that are receiving bailout money, involves advertising. Citi, now more than ever, needs to advertise its services in order to attract new customers and sell its products. Of course, whether a stadium name is an effective or cost-efficient use of advertising budgets is a separate issue, but it’s hard to say that it’s completely worthless or pointless.
the thing is, didn’t obama just tell them “oh hell naw” to the buying of the corporate jet? he should just tell them that again. apparently, they’ll listen to him.
makes you wonder if bush had just put his foot down, if aig would have not partied…
@katieoh: Im sure Bush got his cut…
Any kind of advertising for a failing bank is toxic anyway.
That being said…
“When it starts to rain in Queens, it’ll give new meaning to “rolling out the TARP”.”
/stolen from FARK
Maybe they need the stadium for a meeting room. “Mass exit interviews” or something.
C’mon. Its not like its a lot of money. I mean that would barely buy them 8 jets.
What did we expect?
We gave them money, they’re using it.
The only problem I see is that we gave them money.
Well the only problem that I see is that if Citi doesn’t pay for it, New York City is going to have to pick up the tab unless the city can find a new sponsor. Either way tax payers will get screwed.
Maybe they should call it New York City Field.
@etu001: It’s already 95% complete. I don’t believe that a whole hell of a lot of the Citi funds would have gone towards final construction and other doodads. Probably just extra money in the bank for the Mets. Well… they did already make a ginormous CitiField sign… already plastered to the stadium. So, that was probably going to have come out of the cash from Citi. At most that might have been a 1 – 2 million loss. As a NYC taxpayer, I’m used to having my cash thrown at f*cked up, b*llshit projects like this instead of say, something useful like schools or subway improvements. Yankee Stadium is another prime example, NYC taxpayers paid for most of that too. *Angries grrrrrrrrr*
@Mistrez_Mish:
Maybe they should hold a bake sale to make up the funds instead of subsidizing it to tax payers. that sounds like a joke, but they should do it.
@etu001:
This is the best option I’ve seen, but I would just call it “City Field.” That way there is the nod to Citibank (giving them the marketing exposure, which, TARP funds or not, is necessary to building their business back to respectability) while still saving the money. Win-win, except for us poor taxpaying slobs who are still bailing out the fat cats.
@etu001: Or how about the business using the field actually paying for it?
It’s like me spending all my family food money on drugs – then going to get food stamps and state that it is OK since no food stamp money is used in the purchase of the drugs.
FAIL
@coan_net: I like your analogy better than mine! Good one!
Perhaps no bailout funds were directly used for this, however, BUT FOR the bailout funds, could Citi even afford this? Likely not. Meaning that the bailout funds did at least directly make the stadium deal possible.
Better analogy is telling your mom that you “lost” your lunch money. When she gives you more, you get to spend your “lost” money on comics. But for replacement of the lunch money you lied about, you wouldn’t be able to afford comics AND lunch. No comics for Citi!
Attention TARP recipients:
Austerity budgets, NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I hope the public doesn’t get too tired of stories like these to pay attention. With no real regulation in the bill, public scrutiny and embarrassment is the only recourse we have for squandering billions in taxpayer dollars.
If they don’t like the media sigmoidoscope (sp?), they should pay the money back.
@tc4b: Citibank should take this very seriously – I suggest Citibank executives forego their morning latte. That’ll save $4 per latte!
@varro:
I think we should grab every Wiccan, Shaman, Fortune Teller, Religious Leader, etc, etc to visit this stadium en masse and place a multitude of curses on it.
Or, like, burn it down, a precursor to the cleansing fire that will be the real meltdown. *cough*
@YourTechSupport: Having the Mets play there is curse enough.
As long as they are taking ANY bailout money, then they are using the taxpayer’s funds.
The Jet was a hell of a lot cheaper than this stupid naming garbage.
Although i guess a deal with the Mets is fitting – they both looked they were doing fine, then choked.
>no bailout funds were being used to name the stadium
Right, because they transferred money from one of their profitable business unit’s operating expenses to a specific ‘Sports-Related Advertising Expenses’ account then redistributed the TARP funds to cover the missing funds from the aforementioned BU.
I’m not an idiot, Citi, you don’t need to be terribly smart to figure something like this out.
Citibank needs an intervention from Larry Winget. He’d burst in on Citibank while they’re about to spend a ton of money on a sign, then play them a video of all the people who are sad at their wasteful spending, then they’d all cry and vow to be better. Larry would draw them a budget on an Excel spreadsheet and they’d be fine in no time.
OK folks, first of all this is an advertising opportunity; companies wouldn’t put their names on stadiums if they didn’t feel the increased revenue from the advertising outweighed the initial cost. In other words, they expect to make this money back, and then some.
Also, what about the Mets? They are building a new stadium, and if it isn’t privately funded it’s publicly funded. They won’t just stop construction if Citi drops out (or is forced out). There was an agreement in place before this bailout, and Citi has an obligation to their business partners to honor that agreement.
Well the problem is that if Citibank takes away the $400 million from the Mets, then the Mets will just request a bailout and we’ll start giving taxpayer money to the Mets so they can continue to pay overpriced baseball players who aren’t even American citizens.
I’ve never understood buying naming rights for stadiums. I grew up in Indianapolis and went to almost every home colts game at the Hoosier Dome. They changed the name one year to the “RCA Dome” guess what people still called it the Hosier Dome. I’d really like to know if the millions of $$$ that RCA spent ever translated to sales for them. I’ve never purchased anything from RCA in my life unless they made a component in another companies item, and then again, what was the point?
@full.tang.halo:
Exactly! People in NYC are just calling it “The New Shea” anyway.
And if it’s named “Citi Field”, they’ll still call it “Citi Taxpayer’s Field”.
@full.tang.halo: Pine Knob Ampitheatre (or Pine Knob Whatever It Reall Was) got renamed to “DTE Energy Music Theatre”. Whenever I’d say, “oh, are they at Pine Knob this weekend,” some friend would say, “NOOOO it’s DTE now!” Noooo, it’s Pine Knob and DTE are money grubbing goofballs.
Same with the State Theater in downtown Detroit becoming “The Fillmore East”. The Fillmore East? That’s like “The Statue of Liberty West”.
@full.tang.halo: Stadium naming didn’t save Enron or Adelphia from themselves…
@full.tang.halo: They tried that with Mile High Stadium too. Screw em. It’s always going to be Mile High Stadium. I don’t care who paid to put their name on the building, and it certainly doesn’t persuade me to do business with them. Just the opposite, actually.
People complain about “welfare queens buying Cadillacs”, yet don’t make a fuss over welfare emperors naming stadiums, buying out college football coaches’ contracts, and giving executives bonuses?
WTF is wrong with this picture? Give Treasury equity and the power to appoint members of the Board of Directors. No more executive board circle jerking.
In light of everything that is wrong with the economy, should it really surprise anyone that Citi was foolish enough to consider moving forward with this ‘purchase’? I think it is in poor taste that all of those involved haven’t already met to discuss issuing a short memo indicating their intent to withdraw from securing the naming rights of the new stadium.
Let another company, one that has that sort of cash to toss around, step in and purchasing the naming rights. Lets not forget that they, too, will be subjected to all sorts of criticism when they begin to falter in this economy as well. $400 million for naming rights? Does this sort of deal really pay off in the end?
What about the people on the other end of this deal? When they signed the papers with Citi years ago, they started construction expecting $400mm from Citi to defray the costs. Now the Government wants them to break a legally binding contract because they disagree with a business decision that was made a few years ago. It’s not like Citi struck this deal last week. Companies need to advertise to stay in business, that’s what Citi is doing here. The fact they took bailout money shouldn’t mean they are no longer allowed to pursue marketing opportunities, and it surely should force them to break contracts. The Senators are way out of line insisting that Citi back out of a deal that’s already been made.
But, if Citi doesn’t sponsor the Mets, we’ll just have to bail them out with TARP money, too, so what’s the difference?
I’ve made this comment before, but I’ve been against naming rights for years. My friends tell me so what if the Rose Bowl is being presented by Citi. Or if Tostitos paid for the name of their bowl game? Yeah, right, it doesn’t matter. I don’t buy any products that waste their money on naming rights. That means no heinz products. No eating at outback.
I know it’s tough to avoid them, but I do the best I can.
I have never understood the concept of naming rights. Does Citi think I’d switch to them just because they named the field or presented the Rose Bowl? How stupid / gullible do they think we are (dear readers: please don’t answer that, I already know the answer).
Does ING think I’ll bank with them because they got into bed with the NY Road Runners club to name the NYC Marathon?
To me, I think naming rights ought to be legal only in Nevada where prostitution is legal. Let’s face it, the selling and buying of naming rights is the same thing.
@nybiker:
If it didn’t help, I’m sure people wouldn’t do it. If it doesn’t bother you, then why do you care? Let the people make their money (the clubs are making money from the advertiser and the advertiser makes money from new business). Is it really that big of a deal?
@xthexlanternx: Actually, it does bother me. Why do college football players have to wear the john’s name on their uniform in a bowl game, but they can’t get any money for playing? (I’m not talking millions, but, for lack of a better word, stipends). That’s just one argument for the ‘no naming rights’ rule.
Sorry, but it’s a $20 milllion per year deal. You have to spend money to make money, I don’t think they should break this deal.
They don’t just arbitrarily name stadiums after a bank, the entire point is marketing the Citigroup brand and gathering up more business. The idea is that they will get a return of MORE than $20 million a year through doing this.
I like how the purpose of business and marketing investments are totally lost on the masses, including our lawmakers.
@sublicon: Marketing returns are hardest to track of all dollars spent. This is especially tough when you’re talking about a century-old brand that 99% of people already know. It’s sort of like marketing “Beef” or “Coke”–it’s nice to stay in top-of-mind awareness, but I don’t think they’re going to get much return from it. Especially when stories like this come out.
But your point is still well taken.
@sublicon: I agree. Citi (and all other companies who name stadiums) are doing this because they think it will make money. Are we starting a trend now where the government can tell companies how they should be making money?
There is a difference between frivolous perks and business expenses, folks.
My gut answer is no, but my more reasoned answer would be it depends on the ROI of the deal. There must be some marketing benefits to buying the naming rights to a stadium, or else corporations wouldn’t agree, right? Right? There has to be more than just the egos of the executives that go into these kind of deals, but I’m sure that’s part of it. I think Citi should renegotiate, and offer the Mets $100-200 mil for the naming rights. That is, if the publicity is worth it. Of course, with the negative pub Citi’s getting out of the deal, it’s most likely not worth it anymore.
@B: Your point sticks a pin in the back of those suggesting that they need this as a normal form of marketing. The calculation on return changed wildly once they accepted TARP funds, and it changed most in the minds of the masses.
Anyway, stadium naming is viewed internally as a status item and source of perks more than usual mass marketing.
I love this whole “the tax-payer pile of money is different than the private jet, and bonus money”.
They only have one bottom line. If the company doesn’t spend this money then there is 400 million that they can deduct from the money they need from the government. So yes it is all the same money.
Where’s my “Yes, Citi signed a contract and pulling out would be incredibly costly to the Mets and the City of New York” option?
This is what ticked me off about the bail out. They were in such a rush to get it done nobody wanted to put any rules on it. Instead we were told that would be done later by an oversight board that Bush never appointed anyone to.
@bohemian:
I’m thinking now that it was just one last big money grab by the corporatist wing of the Republican party before Bush left office. There was so little forethought or oversight that it’s more likely that it was done by crook rather than hook.
The reactions here over this deal are somewhat ludicrous.
Look, Citi entered into this deal THREE YEARS AGO, it’s not like they did it just now.
The other thing to look at is that Citi is a local company to the Mets, their headquarters are in Queens.
And finally, $20 million a year for 20 years is a drop in the bucket compared to the rest of the expenses, not to mention that by year 5 of this deal they will probably be profitable again and getting out from under the bailout money so the taxpayer part is significantly less than the $400 mil.
So who gives a fuck? Just cut an exec’s bonus by that much and it’s paid for.
Not to mention that they are in a binding contract and to back out of it will cost them a significant percentage of the $400 million up front and immediately.
Quite frankly I’m growing tired of gross overreactions to these kinds of things.
@warmsox:
Oh, full disclosure, I’m a diehard Mets fan, but my points remain.
And here we are, 37 comments in and no one has tied this to the Mets performance the last two years?
These two are a match made in baseball heaven.
The Answer is simple
CitiBank=Fail
Mets=Super Fail
“Super Citi Mega Fail Stadium”
I feel like unless another company buys the naming rights, then we will still pick up the bill in other forms – higher ticket prices, concessions etc…
P.S. – when I say we, I mean longtime and oft-disappointed Met fans *sigh*
Not that I can really afford tickets to a baseball game anytime soon
@PerpetualBoredom: Until the strike of 1994, I was one of those longtime and oft-disappointed fans. At that point, I said the hell with you all and stopped caring (my agita went away shortly thereafter).
Now, if everyone stopped going to games, (and buying souvenirs and uniform replicas and other such items), maybe the management will learn (I know – it’s a lot to expect from them all).
One could just read about it online afterwards and catch the clips on various sports sites. Just think, no more traffic headaches to and from the stadium. No more having to wait for the #7 train to go home. And with all the road traffic gone, the environment will be better off as well. Of course, these suggestions just don’t apply to the Mets and Shitty Field, no, they are easily applicable to just about all the sports. But I know that people still want the experience of attending a game with the friends. So these changes won’t happen so soon.
It’s not the same funds…I mean if I have a basket of 10 apples and I take 3 out, there’s still 10 apples in there. Right? RIGHT???
It’s called advertising and it costs money. Corporations need to advertise to get business. How they spend their money is their business. Maybe you should be upset at the Congressmen and Senators who gave them a blank check instead of the people who are working hard to get their bank back on the right track. Most of you people are blindly mad, and I don’t really get it (but then again, I don’t have any major loans outstanding and my job is 100% secure so I’m not really in a pissy mood).
@xthexlanternx: “How they spend their money is their business.”
Right, and how they spend MY money is MY business.
“Maybe you should be upset at the Congressmen and Senators who gave them a blank check…”
I am.
“…the people who are working hard to get their bank back on the right track.”
By paying 400m to name a stadium the Mets play in? Get off the pipe.
If I was Citi I would keep as much distance as possible between myself and the NY Mets. Everyone knows the Mets bail out of the playoff race every September. Who needs the reminder of a bail out every year?
It’s an advertising expense. The size of New York and the financial importance of the city alone are reason enough to be advertising in the city. There’s also the nation-wide attention their company will get. In tough times, I believe you need to keep on marketing and encouraging sales…not hide in the turtle shell.
The only problem I foresee is people not even naming it Citifield and just sticking to Shea Stadium. In Toronto, people still call it SkyDome.
@FunkmasterC: One other item that’s named after William Shea ([en.wikipedia.org]) besides the stadium is the subway stop. It’s called Willets Point-Shea Stadium. If the MTA just drops the Shea Stadium part of the name, that’s ok (in context of what’s there). But what if they then put up the citi name? That means we now have a corporate-named subway stop. If they do it, how much will citi pay for the name? Signs at the station directing one to the stadium is one thing; making the conductors say “Willets Point – Citi Field” is another. And of course our printed maps would have to get done to reflect the new stop’s name. Yes, they would also have to be changed if the Shea name is removed, but there would be less urgency to do it (you could do it when other changes take effect – like if the state doesn’t come through with funding and service is cut through the bone).
@nybiker: Sounds like an even better advertising deal for Citi if they get subway advertising as well
.
Citi needs to be put in the direct oversight of the government. Replace the current CEO with a tightfisted federal beancounter.
I hope the naming rights deal gets dissolved. I never liked Citi’s name on the new stadium anyway. The old stadium, Shea was named after someone significant, so why couldn’t the new stadioum be named is similar fashion?
This reminds me of when my old roomate borrowed rent money from my other roomate. 2 weeks later he bought a new computer and said he needed it for work stuff. The debt wasn’t repaid for 3 months.
They made a (stupid) deal and if they don’t pay for it, somebody else will have to. That being said, it does deliver the wrong message, and they’ve already gotten nothing but bad press out of it (Citi makes another bad investment!). The smart thing would have been to announce that in light of their current situation, Citi is seeking another company to take over this deal–and then go find somebody who is still solvent enough to pay $400 mil. But if they’d been smart, they wouldn’t be in this situation.