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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

@Quake 'n' Shake: I meant foodstamps, not greenstamps.

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...

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

@Ash78: Exactly. Money isn't fungible anymore? Sounds like the keen economic insight that got them into trouble in the first place.

@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.

Maybe they need the stadium for a meeting room. "Mass exit interviews" or something.

@philmin: When your company is failing, then yes, it's bad. See: Enron Field, Houston.

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.

@Plates: That never made sense to me...

I hate how the owners leverage their team to get free(or next to free) stadiums.

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

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!

@InThrees: I don't agree with this particular incident but some degree of advertising is needed to maintain solvency.

@katieoh: Im sure Bush got his cut...

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.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

@coan_net: I like your analogy better than mine! Good one!

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?

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.

@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?

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?

@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.

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.

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.

@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?

@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".

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.