Citi Field name change?

[G-Fafif]

Misleading headline aside, Star-Ledger story says the Mets are determined to get their money, whatever name it comes by.

]Citi Field name change a possibility, New York Mets say November 24, 2008 15:14 PM Citigroup is the latest financial institution in line for a federal buyout, but the Mets say their new stadium will still be named Citi Field, at least for the time being. According to an article on the Mets' web site: ]The naming-rights agreement between the Mets and Citi, said to be worth $400 million over 20 years, is not in jeopardy, the Mets say. But they understand a takeover is possible and that a name change probably would follow. As much as the club favors the current name -- it considers it far less corporate-sounding than most of the new names for stadiums and sports arenas, it is much more conscious of the revenue connected to it. And the deal is not an issue.

[G-Fafif]

The Mets may have poor timing on the final days of seasons, but they hit their marks (and dollars) perfectly in November 2006, according to Darren Rovell of CNBC.

]The New York Mets theme song for the 2009 season is "We built this Citi." The question is whether the Citi will stand. Questions about whether the humungous 20-year, $400 million naming rights deal that the bank agreed to two years ago for the new Mets stadium would stand up, began when the global financial crisis started. Then the 53,000 jobs cut at Citi, the second largest single job cuts in terms of volume in history. And last night, the government injecting $20 billion into Citigroup. Sure, the $20 million a year is a drop in the bucket, but the important point to make here is that the folks at Citi are at least behaving as if the Mets made this contract so locked up, that they couldn't get out of it no matter what the financial situation was. "You know, those (naming rights) decisions were made in a different time and a different place and we have a legal and binding agreement around that and so I never heard it discussed," Citi's CFO Gary Crittenden told Erin Burnett on our "Squawk on the Street" this morning. "I don't think it's an issue." As far as the Mets are concerned, good for them. No other company, in this environment, would give them $20 million a year. I don't even think they could get $12 million at this point, to be frank. As far as Citi is concerned, it's definitely going to be uncomfortable. Whether it's rational or not, they're going to hear people asking how many employees they could have had back for that $20 million annual investment. The right question to ask, and I don't know the answer to this is, what's a better investment for the company, the people you could have working for those dollars or the naming rights to the stadium? Things of course get doubly uncomfortable now that it's taxpayer dollars on the line. No one expects that AIG sponsorship of Manchester United to stick now that the government is involved. Sure, the AIG bailout is much bigger, but that doesn't take away from the fact that a high profile sports sponsorship doesn't seem as necessary as it once did.

Doesn't sound like the Mets and Citi will be walking hand-in-hand as partners, does it? More like, "just try and get our hands out of your pockets."

Blogger Phil Wahba at Reuters seconds Rovell's "drop in the bucket" line -- $400 mil over 20 years in the face of a bailout worth $326 billion ($20 bil in capital injection, $306 bil in losses assumed) -- and attempts to "follow the money":

]The government gives funds to Citigroup, who is now better able to make an annual payment to the Mets. Sounds a bit like a new taxpayer subsidy for the Mets, who are already receiving government subsidies for building their stadium.

Probably an oversimplification, no matter what it sounds a bit like. But yeah, kind of.

[G-Fafif]

One more for your evening reading, from Newsweek, on the need to strike a balance between effective cost-cutting and symbolic cost-cutting.

]Citi Field is also a tough one. In 2006, Citi signed a $400 million, 20-year deal to name the Mets' new stadium after the company. It's hard to walk away from signed contracts. And if Citi manages to stick around for the next 20 years, this could turn out to be a very good deal. The company's name will be mentioned millions of times in a range of media - online, television, radio, newspapers - over the next two decades.

[Guest Edgy DC]

GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move.

[G-Fafif]

Grandstanding Rep. Elijah Cummings is on top of the Met Zeitgeist more than he could possibly understand.

]One would think that the Mets would be open to finding a new sponsor, as well. Why would any team want its new stadium, the symbol of a new era of victories, to be named after and symbolized by a company claiming to be on the brink of collapse?

A proposal on Huffington Post from Chris Weigant in response:

]And finally, there will be a brand-new federal tax on stadium naming rights. It will be at the rate of 100%. So if you pay $400 million to name the Mets' stadium after yourselves, then you now owe a further $400 million to the federal government. We'll even be reasonable about it, OK? The first four hundred million dollars you can write off as "advertising," just like in the past. But the $400 billion "naming tax" will come out of your profits, and is not deductible -- and is over and above what taxes you will pay on that profit. It's a separate tax, in other words. If this causes naming rights to become too expensive, then you know what? I bet nobody would mind if we went back to naming stadiums after soldiers, dead heroes, or veterans. They, it seems to me, have already "paid" for their naming rights.

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Rep. Elijah Cummings":28a0e0uw]Why would any team want its new stadium, the symbol of a new era of victories, to be named after and symbolized by a company claiming to be on the brink of collapse?[/quote:28a0e0uw] Maybe if I think I can come up with a reason. Or two. Or 400 million. ="Chris Weigant":28a0e0uw]And finally, there will be a brand-new federal tax on stadium naming rights. It will be at the rate of 100%.[/quote:28a0e0uw] Snarking is like the new American past time. Willets Point Nov 25 2008 11:47 AM ="Edgy DC":2n3vvg1n]Snarking is like the new American past time.[/quote:2n3vvg1n] New? Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 12:10 PM Stark off, Mr. Snarky! Willets Point Nov 25 2008 02:21 PM ="Edgy DC":10l4j6wf]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:10l4j6wf] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 02:28 PM i know people showed otherwise with those diagrams but it still looks like the foul line runs into the stands Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 02:31 PM ="Willets Point":337e67ef] ="Edgy DC":337e67ef]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:337e67ef] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times.[/quote:337e67ef] Would you say Abigail is being snarky? Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 06:47 PM ="Associated Press":2cb2g6t7]NEW YORK - Two New York City Council members say that Citigroup should show its thanks for a federal bailout by sharing the naming rights to the new Mets ballpark in Queens. The struggling bank is slated to pay $400 million over the next 20 years to name the stadium Citi Field. The bank made the commitment years ago, when it was flush with cash. Now that Citigroup is getting billions of dollars in federal aid, Staten Island Republicans Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo say the ballpark�s name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. Citigroup and Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon have been saying that they have no plan to alter the naming-rights deal for the ballpark, which hosts its regular-season opener April 13. Wilpon and Citigroup spokesman Steve Silverman said they had no comment on the proposal.[/quote:2cb2g6t7] Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 07:55 PM I think Ignizio and Otto should change their names to former City Councilmembers. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 07:59 PM I like the Taxpayer Field idea, not because of this Citi-bailout thing but because of all the money the City is contributing to these stadiums in the first place. Frayed Knot Nov 25 2008 09:51 PM ="Edgy DC":1zzwm5k9]GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move.[/quote:1zzwm5k9] A bit more than symbolic since GM (through their Buick division) not only had this arrangment with Tiger that they're not renewing when it runs out but they also atttach their name to several tournaments each year -- not coincidently those were tourneys that Tiger usually played. Be interesting to see if they also pull out of backing those tourneys seeing as how they're already less valuable if Tiger decides not to show. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:57 AM I was wondering when Wally would write his piece. ] Welcome to Bailout Ballpark Wallace Matthews November 26, 2008 So what will that new stadium in Flushing be called next year, anyway? How about John Q. Taxpayer Field? Or Joe Sixpack Park, in honor of all the people paying for it who have no chance of ever sitting in one of its 40,000 high-priced seats? Bailout Ballpark, anyone? The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field. As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week, while the rest of their toxic-mortgage laden house of cards comes tumbling down around them, executives of the disgraced Citigroup are sticking with their plan of paying the Mets $400 million over the next 20 years for the ego pop of seeing their name up in lights above the new ballpark. But the truth is, they're not paying for it at all. You are. That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse - is coming out of your paycheck and mine, funneled through the federal government to the failed executives of Citigroup, and ultimately winds up in Fred Wilpon's pocket. This amounts to not only the worst kind of corporate welfare, with no punishments meted out and no strings attached, it also adds up to 20 years of free advertising for a bank with nothing to brag about but a vault full of fail. The Mets should be embarrassed to emblazon their new park with the name of an outfit whose players performed even worse than the team did last year. They should be ashamed of using your money to advertise their (worthless) services. If they had any ethics, they would cancel the deal now and start looking for a sponsor that can actually pay its own bills. But they don't, and they won't. This is just the latest chapter in two sorry histories, the first being that of the U.S. banking industry and the second being that of the New York Mets. For all the hand-wringing about the way the Yankees go about their business, it is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. The Mets told those people, many of whom had been coming faithfully since Shea Stadium opened in 1964, that there would be no partial-plans at Citi Field, that only full season-ticket holders would be welcome in the new park. They compounded the insult by offering "season-ticket plans," along with the much-coveted priority status to buy tickets for 2009 at the new park, when there were fewer than 10 games to go in the season. Translation: If you had a 15 game partial plan, you were out, but if you bought a "full-season plan" for the last 10 games, you were in. Then, economic reality slapped them in the face. The Mets missed the playoffs again. The recession apparently put a dent in their grand all-season-ticket plan for Citi Field. Suddenly, last month, the Mets told their partial-plan holders that there would be room at the inn for them after all, although they have yet to specify how many games, in which seats, at what prices. What it has done, however, is allow them to hold on to all the money sent for playoff tickets that were never used, a sum that could be as much as $50 million. That's a $50-million, interest-free loan, courtesy of the National Bank of You. So why should an organization like that have any qualms about playing footsie with an outfit like Citigroup, which thinks the multimillion-dollar, interest-free, no strings attached loan from the working stiffs they, like the Mets, would rather not have in their building is a fine idea indeed. These two deserve one another, but they don't deserve to divvy up your money in order to publicly flaunt their unholy marriage. The Mets are getting their new stadium, all right, and it will have big light-up signs on three sides proclaiming its name for all to see. How about Field of Schemes? Next up Wally writes a piece about how Cablevision( now owns Newsday) has been getting a real sweet tax exemption to the tune of over $10 million a year on MSG. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 07:10 AM ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field.[/quote:cph97irz] Under ANY circumstances? Wow. ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse...[/quote:cph97irz] How stupid is this comment? The free agent season only opened about a week ago. All that being said, the drumbeat against the Citi name is getting louder and louder. I'm still not at all certain that it will reach that tipping point that will result in a name change, but I think it is getting more likely. I just think that if the name does end up changing, it will be one that we (except for Val) will like less than Citi Field. It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.) seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 07:13 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM ="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[Willets Point]

="Edgy DC":2n3vvg1n]Snarking is like the new American past time.[/quote:2n3vvg1n] New?

Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 12:10 PM

Stark off, Mr. Snarky!

Willets Point Nov 25 2008 02:21 PM

="Edgy DC":10l4j6wf]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:10l4j6wf] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 02:28 PM i know people showed otherwise with those diagrams but it still looks like the foul line runs into the stands Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 02:31 PM ="Willets Point":337e67ef] ="Edgy DC":337e67ef]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:337e67ef] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times.[/quote:337e67ef] Would you say Abigail is being snarky? Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 06:47 PM ="Associated Press":2cb2g6t7]NEW YORK - Two New York City Council members say that Citigroup should show its thanks for a federal bailout by sharing the naming rights to the new Mets ballpark in Queens. The struggling bank is slated to pay $400 million over the next 20 years to name the stadium Citi Field. The bank made the commitment years ago, when it was flush with cash. Now that Citigroup is getting billions of dollars in federal aid, Staten Island Republicans Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo say the ballpark�s name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. Citigroup and Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon have been saying that they have no plan to alter the naming-rights deal for the ballpark, which hosts its regular-season opener April 13. Wilpon and Citigroup spokesman Steve Silverman said they had no comment on the proposal.[/quote:2cb2g6t7] Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 07:55 PM I think Ignizio and Otto should change their names to former City Councilmembers. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 07:59 PM I like the Taxpayer Field idea, not because of this Citi-bailout thing but because of all the money the City is contributing to these stadiums in the first place. Frayed Knot Nov 25 2008 09:51 PM ="Edgy DC":1zzwm5k9]GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move.[/quote:1zzwm5k9] A bit more than symbolic since GM (through their Buick division) not only had this arrangment with Tiger that they're not renewing when it runs out but they also atttach their name to several tournaments each year -- not coincidently those were tourneys that Tiger usually played. Be interesting to see if they also pull out of backing those tourneys seeing as how they're already less valuable if Tiger decides not to show. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:57 AM I was wondering when Wally would write his piece. ] Welcome to Bailout Ballpark Wallace Matthews November 26, 2008 So what will that new stadium in Flushing be called next year, anyway? How about John Q. Taxpayer Field? Or Joe Sixpack Park, in honor of all the people paying for it who have no chance of ever sitting in one of its 40,000 high-priced seats? Bailout Ballpark, anyone? The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field. As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week, while the rest of their toxic-mortgage laden house of cards comes tumbling down around them, executives of the disgraced Citigroup are sticking with their plan of paying the Mets $400 million over the next 20 years for the ego pop of seeing their name up in lights above the new ballpark. But the truth is, they're not paying for it at all. You are. That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse - is coming out of your paycheck and mine, funneled through the federal government to the failed executives of Citigroup, and ultimately winds up in Fred Wilpon's pocket. This amounts to not only the worst kind of corporate welfare, with no punishments meted out and no strings attached, it also adds up to 20 years of free advertising for a bank with nothing to brag about but a vault full of fail. The Mets should be embarrassed to emblazon their new park with the name of an outfit whose players performed even worse than the team did last year. They should be ashamed of using your money to advertise their (worthless) services. If they had any ethics, they would cancel the deal now and start looking for a sponsor that can actually pay its own bills. But they don't, and they won't. This is just the latest chapter in two sorry histories, the first being that of the U.S. banking industry and the second being that of the New York Mets. For all the hand-wringing about the way the Yankees go about their business, it is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. The Mets told those people, many of whom had been coming faithfully since Shea Stadium opened in 1964, that there would be no partial-plans at Citi Field, that only full season-ticket holders would be welcome in the new park. They compounded the insult by offering "season-ticket plans," along with the much-coveted priority status to buy tickets for 2009 at the new park, when there were fewer than 10 games to go in the season. Translation: If you had a 15 game partial plan, you were out, but if you bought a "full-season plan" for the last 10 games, you were in. Then, economic reality slapped them in the face. The Mets missed the playoffs again. The recession apparently put a dent in their grand all-season-ticket plan for Citi Field. Suddenly, last month, the Mets told their partial-plan holders that there would be room at the inn for them after all, although they have yet to specify how many games, in which seats, at what prices. What it has done, however, is allow them to hold on to all the money sent for playoff tickets that were never used, a sum that could be as much as $50 million. That's a $50-million, interest-free loan, courtesy of the National Bank of You. So why should an organization like that have any qualms about playing footsie with an outfit like Citigroup, which thinks the multimillion-dollar, interest-free, no strings attached loan from the working stiffs they, like the Mets, would rather not have in their building is a fine idea indeed. These two deserve one another, but they don't deserve to divvy up your money in order to publicly flaunt their unholy marriage. The Mets are getting their new stadium, all right, and it will have big light-up signs on three sides proclaiming its name for all to see. How about Field of Schemes? Next up Wally writes a piece about how Cablevision( now owns Newsday) has been getting a real sweet tax exemption to the tune of over $10 million a year on MSG. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 07:10 AM ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field.[/quote:cph97irz] Under ANY circumstances? Wow. ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse...[/quote:cph97irz] How stupid is this comment? The free agent season only opened about a week ago. All that being said, the drumbeat against the Citi name is getting louder and louder. I'm still not at all certain that it will reach that tipping point that will result in a name change, but I think it is getting more likely. I just think that if the name does end up changing, it will be one that we (except for Val) will like less than Citi Field. It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.) seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 07:13 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM ="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[Guest Edgy DC]

Stark off, Mr. Snarky!

[Willets Point]

="Edgy DC":10l4j6wf]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:10l4j6wf] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times.

Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 02:28 PM

i know people showed otherwise with those diagrams but it still looks like the foul line runs into the stands

Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 02:31 PM

="Willets Point":337e67ef] ="Edgy DC":337e67ef]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:337e67ef] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times.[/quote:337e67ef] Would you say Abigail is being snarky? Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 06:47 PM ="Associated Press":2cb2g6t7]NEW YORK - Two New York City Council members say that Citigroup should show its thanks for a federal bailout by sharing the naming rights to the new Mets ballpark in Queens. The struggling bank is slated to pay $400 million over the next 20 years to name the stadium Citi Field. The bank made the commitment years ago, when it was flush with cash. Now that Citigroup is getting billions of dollars in federal aid, Staten Island Republicans Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo say the ballpark�s name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. Citigroup and Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon have been saying that they have no plan to alter the naming-rights deal for the ballpark, which hosts its regular-season opener April 13. Wilpon and Citigroup spokesman Steve Silverman said they had no comment on the proposal.[/quote:2cb2g6t7] Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 07:55 PM I think Ignizio and Otto should change their names to former City Councilmembers. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 07:59 PM I like the Taxpayer Field idea, not because of this Citi-bailout thing but because of all the money the City is contributing to these stadiums in the first place. Frayed Knot Nov 25 2008 09:51 PM ="Edgy DC":1zzwm5k9]GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move.[/quote:1zzwm5k9] A bit more than symbolic since GM (through their Buick division) not only had this arrangment with Tiger that they're not renewing when it runs out but they also atttach their name to several tournaments each year -- not coincidently those were tourneys that Tiger usually played. Be interesting to see if they also pull out of backing those tourneys seeing as how they're already less valuable if Tiger decides not to show. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:57 AM I was wondering when Wally would write his piece. ] Welcome to Bailout Ballpark Wallace Matthews November 26, 2008 So what will that new stadium in Flushing be called next year, anyway? How about John Q. Taxpayer Field? Or Joe Sixpack Park, in honor of all the people paying for it who have no chance of ever sitting in one of its 40,000 high-priced seats? Bailout Ballpark, anyone? The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field. As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week, while the rest of their toxic-mortgage laden house of cards comes tumbling down around them, executives of the disgraced Citigroup are sticking with their plan of paying the Mets $400 million over the next 20 years for the ego pop of seeing their name up in lights above the new ballpark. But the truth is, they're not paying for it at all. You are. That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse - is coming out of your paycheck and mine, funneled through the federal government to the failed executives of Citigroup, and ultimately winds up in Fred Wilpon's pocket. This amounts to not only the worst kind of corporate welfare, with no punishments meted out and no strings attached, it also adds up to 20 years of free advertising for a bank with nothing to brag about but a vault full of fail. The Mets should be embarrassed to emblazon their new park with the name of an outfit whose players performed even worse than the team did last year. They should be ashamed of using your money to advertise their (worthless) services. If they had any ethics, they would cancel the deal now and start looking for a sponsor that can actually pay its own bills. But they don't, and they won't. This is just the latest chapter in two sorry histories, the first being that of the U.S. banking industry and the second being that of the New York Mets. For all the hand-wringing about the way the Yankees go about their business, it is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. The Mets told those people, many of whom had been coming faithfully since Shea Stadium opened in 1964, that there would be no partial-plans at Citi Field, that only full season-ticket holders would be welcome in the new park. They compounded the insult by offering "season-ticket plans," along with the much-coveted priority status to buy tickets for 2009 at the new park, when there were fewer than 10 games to go in the season. Translation: If you had a 15 game partial plan, you were out, but if you bought a "full-season plan" for the last 10 games, you were in. Then, economic reality slapped them in the face. The Mets missed the playoffs again. The recession apparently put a dent in their grand all-season-ticket plan for Citi Field. Suddenly, last month, the Mets told their partial-plan holders that there would be room at the inn for them after all, although they have yet to specify how many games, in which seats, at what prices. What it has done, however, is allow them to hold on to all the money sent for playoff tickets that were never used, a sum that could be as much as $50 million. That's a $50-million, interest-free loan, courtesy of the National Bank of You. So why should an organization like that have any qualms about playing footsie with an outfit like Citigroup, which thinks the multimillion-dollar, interest-free, no strings attached loan from the working stiffs they, like the Mets, would rather not have in their building is a fine idea indeed. These two deserve one another, but they don't deserve to divvy up your money in order to publicly flaunt their unholy marriage. The Mets are getting their new stadium, all right, and it will have big light-up signs on three sides proclaiming its name for all to see. How about Field of Schemes? Next up Wally writes a piece about how Cablevision( now owns Newsday) has been getting a real sweet tax exemption to the tune of over $10 million a year on MSG. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 07:10 AM ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field.[/quote:cph97irz] Under ANY circumstances? Wow. ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse...[/quote:cph97irz] How stupid is this comment? The free agent season only opened about a week ago. All that being said, the drumbeat against the Citi name is getting louder and louder. I'm still not at all certain that it will reach that tipping point that will result in a name change, but I think it is getting more likely. I just think that if the name does end up changing, it will be one that we (except for Val) will like less than Citi Field. It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.) seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 07:13 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM ="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[nymr83]

i know people showed otherwise with those diagrams but it still looks like the foul line runs into the stands

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Willets Point":337e67ef] ="Edgy DC":337e67ef]Stark off, Mr. Snarky![/quote:337e67ef] Didn't intend to be snarky. Just meant that I've seen evidence of great American snark dating back to colonial times.[/quote:337e67ef] Would you say Abigail is being snarky? Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 06:47 PM ="Associated Press":2cb2g6t7]NEW YORK - Two New York City Council members say that Citigroup should show its thanks for a federal bailout by sharing the naming rights to the new Mets ballpark in Queens. The struggling bank is slated to pay $400 million over the next 20 years to name the stadium Citi Field. The bank made the commitment years ago, when it was flush with cash. Now that Citigroup is getting billions of dollars in federal aid, Staten Island Republicans Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo say the ballpark�s name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. Citigroup and Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon have been saying that they have no plan to alter the naming-rights deal for the ballpark, which hosts its regular-season opener April 13. Wilpon and Citigroup spokesman Steve Silverman said they had no comment on the proposal.[/quote:2cb2g6t7] Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 07:55 PM I think Ignizio and Otto should change their names to former City Councilmembers. Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 07:59 PM I like the Taxpayer Field idea, not because of this Citi-bailout thing but because of all the money the City is contributing to these stadiums in the first place. Frayed Knot Nov 25 2008 09:51 PM ="Edgy DC":1zzwm5k9]GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move.[/quote:1zzwm5k9] A bit more than symbolic since GM (through their Buick division) not only had this arrangment with Tiger that they're not renewing when it runs out but they also atttach their name to several tournaments each year -- not coincidently those were tourneys that Tiger usually played. Be interesting to see if they also pull out of backing those tourneys seeing as how they're already less valuable if Tiger decides not to show. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:57 AM I was wondering when Wally would write his piece. ] Welcome to Bailout Ballpark Wallace Matthews November 26, 2008 So what will that new stadium in Flushing be called next year, anyway? How about John Q. Taxpayer Field? Or Joe Sixpack Park, in honor of all the people paying for it who have no chance of ever sitting in one of its 40,000 high-priced seats? Bailout Ballpark, anyone? The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field. As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week, while the rest of their toxic-mortgage laden house of cards comes tumbling down around them, executives of the disgraced Citigroup are sticking with their plan of paying the Mets $400 million over the next 20 years for the ego pop of seeing their name up in lights above the new ballpark. But the truth is, they're not paying for it at all. You are. That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse - is coming out of your paycheck and mine, funneled through the federal government to the failed executives of Citigroup, and ultimately winds up in Fred Wilpon's pocket. This amounts to not only the worst kind of corporate welfare, with no punishments meted out and no strings attached, it also adds up to 20 years of free advertising for a bank with nothing to brag about but a vault full of fail. The Mets should be embarrassed to emblazon their new park with the name of an outfit whose players performed even worse than the team did last year. They should be ashamed of using your money to advertise their (worthless) services. If they had any ethics, they would cancel the deal now and start looking for a sponsor that can actually pay its own bills. But they don't, and they won't. This is just the latest chapter in two sorry histories, the first being that of the U.S. banking industry and the second being that of the New York Mets. For all the hand-wringing about the way the Yankees go about their business, it is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. The Mets told those people, many of whom had been coming faithfully since Shea Stadium opened in 1964, that there would be no partial-plans at Citi Field, that only full season-ticket holders would be welcome in the new park. They compounded the insult by offering "season-ticket plans," along with the much-coveted priority status to buy tickets for 2009 at the new park, when there were fewer than 10 games to go in the season. Translation: If you had a 15 game partial plan, you were out, but if you bought a "full-season plan" for the last 10 games, you were in. Then, economic reality slapped them in the face. The Mets missed the playoffs again. The recession apparently put a dent in their grand all-season-ticket plan for Citi Field. Suddenly, last month, the Mets told their partial-plan holders that there would be room at the inn for them after all, although they have yet to specify how many games, in which seats, at what prices. What it has done, however, is allow them to hold on to all the money sent for playoff tickets that were never used, a sum that could be as much as $50 million. That's a $50-million, interest-free loan, courtesy of the National Bank of You. So why should an organization like that have any qualms about playing footsie with an outfit like Citigroup, which thinks the multimillion-dollar, interest-free, no strings attached loan from the working stiffs they, like the Mets, would rather not have in their building is a fine idea indeed. These two deserve one another, but they don't deserve to divvy up your money in order to publicly flaunt their unholy marriage. The Mets are getting their new stadium, all right, and it will have big light-up signs on three sides proclaiming its name for all to see. How about Field of Schemes? Next up Wally writes a piece about how Cablevision( now owns Newsday) has been getting a real sweet tax exemption to the tune of over $10 million a year on MSG. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 07:10 AM ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field.[/quote:cph97irz] Under ANY circumstances? Wow. ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse...[/quote:cph97irz] How stupid is this comment? The free agent season only opened about a week ago. All that being said, the drumbeat against the Citi name is getting louder and louder. I'm still not at all certain that it will reach that tipping point that will result in a name change, but I think it is getting more likely. I just think that if the name does end up changing, it will be one that we (except for Val) will like less than Citi Field. It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.) seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 07:13 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM ="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[Benjamin Grimm]

="Associated Press":2cb2g6t7]NEW YORK - Two New York City Council members say that Citigroup should show its thanks for a federal bailout by sharing the naming rights to the new Mets ballpark in Queens. The struggling bank is slated to pay $400 million over the next 20 years to name the stadium Citi Field. The bank made the commitment years ago, when it was flush with cash. Now that Citigroup is getting billions of dollars in federal aid, Staten Island Republicans Vincent Ignizio and James Oddo say the ballpark�s name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. Citigroup and Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon have been saying that they have no plan to alter the naming-rights deal for the ballpark, which hosts its regular-season opener April 13. Wilpon and Citigroup spokesman Steve Silverman said they had no comment on the proposal.[/quote:2cb2g6t7]

Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 07:55 PM

I think Ignizio and Otto should change their names to former City Councilmembers.

Nymr83 Nov 25 2008 07:59 PM

I like the Taxpayer Field idea, not because of this Citi-bailout thing but because of all the money the City is contributing to these stadiums in the first place.

Frayed Knot Nov 25 2008 09:51 PM

="Edgy DC":1zzwm5k9]GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move.[/quote:1zzwm5k9] A bit more than symbolic since GM (through their Buick division) not only had this arrangment with Tiger that they're not renewing when it runs out but they also atttach their name to several tournaments each year -- not coincidently those were tourneys that Tiger usually played. Be interesting to see if they also pull out of backing those tourneys seeing as how they're already less valuable if Tiger decides not to show. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:57 AM I was wondering when Wally would write his piece. ] Welcome to Bailout Ballpark Wallace Matthews November 26, 2008 So what will that new stadium in Flushing be called next year, anyway? How about John Q. Taxpayer Field? Or Joe Sixpack Park, in honor of all the people paying for it who have no chance of ever sitting in one of its 40,000 high-priced seats? Bailout Ballpark, anyone? The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field. As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week, while the rest of their toxic-mortgage laden house of cards comes tumbling down around them, executives of the disgraced Citigroup are sticking with their plan of paying the Mets $400 million over the next 20 years for the ego pop of seeing their name up in lights above the new ballpark. But the truth is, they're not paying for it at all. You are. That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse - is coming out of your paycheck and mine, funneled through the federal government to the failed executives of Citigroup, and ultimately winds up in Fred Wilpon's pocket. This amounts to not only the worst kind of corporate welfare, with no punishments meted out and no strings attached, it also adds up to 20 years of free advertising for a bank with nothing to brag about but a vault full of fail. The Mets should be embarrassed to emblazon their new park with the name of an outfit whose players performed even worse than the team did last year. They should be ashamed of using your money to advertise their (worthless) services. If they had any ethics, they would cancel the deal now and start looking for a sponsor that can actually pay its own bills. But they don't, and they won't. This is just the latest chapter in two sorry histories, the first being that of the U.S. banking industry and the second being that of the New York Mets. For all the hand-wringing about the way the Yankees go about their business, it is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. The Mets told those people, many of whom had been coming faithfully since Shea Stadium opened in 1964, that there would be no partial-plans at Citi Field, that only full season-ticket holders would be welcome in the new park. They compounded the insult by offering "season-ticket plans," along with the much-coveted priority status to buy tickets for 2009 at the new park, when there were fewer than 10 games to go in the season. Translation: If you had a 15 game partial plan, you were out, but if you bought a "full-season plan" for the last 10 games, you were in. Then, economic reality slapped them in the face. The Mets missed the playoffs again. The recession apparently put a dent in their grand all-season-ticket plan for Citi Field. Suddenly, last month, the Mets told their partial-plan holders that there would be room at the inn for them after all, although they have yet to specify how many games, in which seats, at what prices. What it has done, however, is allow them to hold on to all the money sent for playoff tickets that were never used, a sum that could be as much as $50 million. That's a $50-million, interest-free loan, courtesy of the National Bank of You. So why should an organization like that have any qualms about playing footsie with an outfit like Citigroup, which thinks the multimillion-dollar, interest-free, no strings attached loan from the working stiffs they, like the Mets, would rather not have in their building is a fine idea indeed. These two deserve one another, but they don't deserve to divvy up your money in order to publicly flaunt their unholy marriage. The Mets are getting their new stadium, all right, and it will have big light-up signs on three sides proclaiming its name for all to see. How about Field of Schemes? Next up Wally writes a piece about how Cablevision( now owns Newsday) has been getting a real sweet tax exemption to the tune of over $10 million a year on MSG. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 07:10 AM ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field.[/quote:cph97irz] Under ANY circumstances? Wow. ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse...[/quote:cph97irz] How stupid is this comment? The free agent season only opened about a week ago. All that being said, the drumbeat against the Citi name is getting louder and louder. I'm still not at all certain that it will reach that tipping point that will result in a name change, but I think it is getting more likely. I just think that if the name does end up changing, it will be one that we (except for Val) will like less than Citi Field. It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.) seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 07:13 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM ="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think Ignizio and Otto should change their names to former City Councilmembers.

[nymr83]

I like the Taxpayer Field idea, not because of this Citi-bailout thing but because of all the money the City is contributing to these stadiums in the first place.

[Frayed Knot]

="Edgy DC":1zzwm5k9]GM has cut ties to Tiger Woods, which strikes me as more symbolic than effective. On the other hand, with him re-habbing instead of winning tournaments, it may be a shrewd move.[/quote:1zzwm5k9] A bit more than symbolic since GM (through their Buick division) not only had this arrangment with Tiger that they're not renewing when it runs out but they also atttach their name to several tournaments each year -- not coincidently those were tourneys that Tiger usually played. Be interesting to see if they also pull out of backing those tourneys seeing as how they're already less valuable if Tiger decides not to show.

metirish Nov 26 2008 06:57 AM

I was wondering when Wally would write his piece. ] Welcome to Bailout Ballpark Wallace Matthews November 26, 2008 So what will that new stadium in Flushing be called next year, anyway? How about John Q. Taxpayer Field? Or Joe Sixpack Park, in honor of all the people paying for it who have no chance of ever sitting in one of its 40,000 high-priced seats? Bailout Ballpark, anyone? The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field. As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week, while the rest of their toxic-mortgage laden house of cards comes tumbling down around them, executives of the disgraced Citigroup are sticking with their plan of paying the Mets $400 million over the next 20 years for the ego pop of seeing their name up in lights above the new ballpark. But the truth is, they're not paying for it at all. You are. That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse - is coming out of your paycheck and mine, funneled through the federal government to the failed executives of Citigroup, and ultimately winds up in Fred Wilpon's pocket. This amounts to not only the worst kind of corporate welfare, with no punishments meted out and no strings attached, it also adds up to 20 years of free advertising for a bank with nothing to brag about but a vault full of fail. The Mets should be embarrassed to emblazon their new park with the name of an outfit whose players performed even worse than the team did last year. They should be ashamed of using your money to advertise their (worthless) services. If they had any ethics, they would cancel the deal now and start looking for a sponsor that can actually pay its own bills. But they don't, and they won't. This is just the latest chapter in two sorry histories, the first being that of the U.S. banking industry and the second being that of the New York Mets. For all the hand-wringing about the way the Yankees go about their business, it is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. The Mets told those people, many of whom had been coming faithfully since Shea Stadium opened in 1964, that there would be no partial-plans at Citi Field, that only full season-ticket holders would be welcome in the new park. They compounded the insult by offering "season-ticket plans," along with the much-coveted priority status to buy tickets for 2009 at the new park, when there were fewer than 10 games to go in the season. Translation: If you had a 15 game partial plan, you were out, but if you bought a "full-season plan" for the last 10 games, you were in. Then, economic reality slapped them in the face. The Mets missed the playoffs again. The recession apparently put a dent in their grand all-season-ticket plan for Citi Field. Suddenly, last month, the Mets told their partial-plan holders that there would be room at the inn for them after all, although they have yet to specify how many games, in which seats, at what prices. What it has done, however, is allow them to hold on to all the money sent for playoff tickets that were never used, a sum that could be as much as $50 million. That's a $50-million, interest-free loan, courtesy of the National Bank of You. So why should an organization like that have any qualms about playing footsie with an outfit like Citigroup, which thinks the multimillion-dollar, interest-free, no strings attached loan from the working stiffs they, like the Mets, would rather not have in their building is a fine idea indeed. These two deserve one another, but they don't deserve to divvy up your money in order to publicly flaunt their unholy marriage. The Mets are getting their new stadium, all right, and it will have big light-up signs on three sides proclaiming its name for all to see. How about Field of Schemes? Next up Wally writes a piece about how Cablevision( now owns Newsday) has been getting a real sweet tax exemption to the tune of over $10 million a year on MSG.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 07:10 AM

="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field.[/quote:cph97irz] Under ANY circumstances? Wow. ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse...[/quote:cph97irz] How stupid is this comment? The free agent season only opened about a week ago. All that being said, the drumbeat against the Citi name is getting louder and louder. I'm still not at all certain that it will reach that tipping point that will result in a name change, but I think it is getting more likely. I just think that if the name does end up changing, it will be one that we (except for Val) will like less than Citi Field. It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.) seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 07:13 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM ="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[metirish]

I was wondering when Wally would write his piece.

] Welcome to Bailout Ballpark Wallace Matthews November 26, 2008 So what will that new stadium in Flushing be called next year, anyway? How about John Q. Taxpayer Field? Or Joe Sixpack Park, in honor of all the people paying for it who have no chance of ever sitting in one of its 40,000 high-priced seats? Bailout Ballpark, anyone? The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field. As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week, while the rest of their toxic-mortgage laden house of cards comes tumbling down around them, executives of the disgraced Citigroup are sticking with their plan of paying the Mets $400 million over the next 20 years for the ego pop of seeing their name up in lights above the new ballpark. But the truth is, they're not paying for it at all. You are. That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse - is coming out of your paycheck and mine, funneled through the federal government to the failed executives of Citigroup, and ultimately winds up in Fred Wilpon's pocket. This amounts to not only the worst kind of corporate welfare, with no punishments meted out and no strings attached, it also adds up to 20 years of free advertising for a bank with nothing to brag about but a vault full of fail. The Mets should be embarrassed to emblazon their new park with the name of an outfit whose players performed even worse than the team did last year. They should be ashamed of using your money to advertise their (worthless) services. If they had any ethics, they would cancel the deal now and start looking for a sponsor that can actually pay its own bills. But they don't, and they won't. This is just the latest chapter in two sorry histories, the first being that of the U.S. banking industry and the second being that of the New York Mets. For all the hand-wringing about the way the Yankees go about their business, it is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. The Mets told those people, many of whom had been coming faithfully since Shea Stadium opened in 1964, that there would be no partial-plans at Citi Field, that only full season-ticket holders would be welcome in the new park. They compounded the insult by offering "season-ticket plans," along with the much-coveted priority status to buy tickets for 2009 at the new park, when there were fewer than 10 games to go in the season. Translation: If you had a 15 game partial plan, you were out, but if you bought a "full-season plan" for the last 10 games, you were in. Then, economic reality slapped them in the face. The Mets missed the playoffs again. The recession apparently put a dent in their grand all-season-ticket plan for Citi Field. Suddenly, last month, the Mets told their partial-plan holders that there would be room at the inn for them after all, although they have yet to specify how many games, in which seats, at what prices. What it has done, however, is allow them to hold on to all the money sent for playoff tickets that were never used, a sum that could be as much as $50 million. That's a $50-million, interest-free loan, courtesy of the National Bank of You. So why should an organization like that have any qualms about playing footsie with an outfit like Citigroup, which thinks the multimillion-dollar, interest-free, no strings attached loan from the working stiffs they, like the Mets, would rather not have in their building is a fine idea indeed. These two deserve one another, but they don't deserve to divvy up your money in order to publicly flaunt their unholy marriage. The Mets are getting their new stadium, all right, and it will have big light-up signs on three sides proclaiming its name for all to see. How about Field of Schemes?

Next up Wally writes a piece about how Cablevision( now owns Newsday) has been getting a real sweet tax exemption to the tune of over $10 million a year on MSG.

[Benjamin Grimm]

="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]The one thing it should not be called, under any circumstances, is Citi Field.[/quote:cph97irz] Under ANY circumstances? Wow. ="Wallace Matthews":cph97irz]That $20 million per year - which, by the way, the Mets don't seem all that eager to invest in the free-agent market despite another dismal late-season collapse...[/quote:cph97irz] How stupid is this comment? The free agent season only opened about a week ago. All that being said, the drumbeat against the Citi name is getting louder and louder. I'm still not at all certain that it will reach that tipping point that will result in a name change, but I think it is getting more likely. I just think that if the name does end up changing, it will be one that we (except for Val) will like less than Citi Field. It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.) seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 07:13 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM ="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[seawolf17]

="Benjamin Grimm":276m8e6t]It's NOT gonna be Bob Murphy Field. (Anyway, as much as we all loved Bob Murphy, I think naming a stadium for him is a bit over the top.)[/quote:276m8e6t] Booooooooooo.

Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 07:16 AM

="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy. Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors). G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM ]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM ="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together. Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[Guest Edgy DC]

="Wally":4po31fbp]As my colleague Anthony Rieber so ably pointed out earlier this week...[/quote:4po31fbp] This was the surprising part, that he read someone else's work. Then I realized he read it so he could just re-arrange it. Stick a sock in this guy.

Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 07:28 AM

I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors).

G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:35 AM

]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend. I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 08:38 AM

When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it. It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games.

Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 08:44 AM

Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells.

G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:45 AM

Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea. And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports. And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports.

G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 08:52 AM

="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life? Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army. Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together.

Gwreck Nov 26 2008 09:37 AM

="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced. Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM What he said. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier. G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM ="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[Frayed Knot]

I think the best chance for name change would come if/when CitiGroup undergoes a name change - at which point the renamed/acquiring (and possibly more clumsily-named) company would inherit the deal (see Bell, Pac and all its successors).

[G-Fafif]

]t is really the Mets, the "little brothers" in town, who are the most fan-hostile organization in New York sports. All last season, they used scare tactics on their partial-plan holders - people who weren't part of some corrupt and tax-sheltered corporation, people who couldn't afford to shell out for 81 games but could scrape together enough to come 15 times a year, or 20, or every weekend.

I'm not in the frame of mind to go beat by beat with Wally Matthews, but why is it necessary to demagogue this issue when there are sound points to be made against the way the Mets do business as well as the generally distasteful modern naming of stadiums (and the way it backfires)? Matthews sits in the press box when he deigns to go to a game. He has no idea who buys the seats down below, season-ticketed or otherwise (it's either the evil corporation or the blue collar wretch, in Matthews' black and white world). It never occurs to him that some season tickets are scraped together by small businesses who are not riding the TARP train. Again, as with Rieber the other day, instead of maybe asking somebody or citing some study, he just indicts everybody with the same brush.

[Benjamin Grimm]

When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.

It may have been hard for me to afford a full plan (I'm not sure because I never even looked into it) but the main reason I didn't do it was because it wasn't practical. Living on Long Island, working five days per week, there was no way I would have been able to attend most of the weekday games.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do.

Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life?

Sound points? Sound doesn't sell. Sexy sells.

[G-Fafif]

Referring to full plans only here. They're not all owned by Citi types, at least they weren't at Shea.

And not every entity known as a company in this world is Wally Matthews' prototypical Evil Inc. I'm not a corporate apologist by nature (far, far from it), but it doesn't help the discussion at large to brainlessly lump everybody who has a payroll to meet under one nefarious umbrella. It is amazing how out of their depth most sportswriters get when they wander into the parts of the world that are tangentially related to sports.

And in Matthews' case, he's not so hot with sports.

[G-Fafif]

="Edgy DC"]Tabloids demagogue. It's what they do. Is there any reason at all to buy a tabloid any more except that when you pass by the newstand on the way to the train, they are screaming out that evil/greedy/crazy people are undemining your life?

Some do it better than others. I think Lupica does it brilliantly. I think Mushnick, though he listens a little too intently to the voices in his head at times, does it very well. I think Matthews is worse than a hack (which is most of what Newsday employs). He's a loose-cannon grudgemeister. It's not that the writing is lame. It's that the thought process is shoddy. All he has left is to spit out some outrageous assertions and feel good about himself. He is detestable, but in a different way from the hack army.

Rieber, Baumbach, Powell...Newsday is hack central. It and Long Island, to borrow from Tom Kean, are perfect together.

[Gwreck]

="Benjamin Grimm":1yacqado]When I was a partial season ticket holder back in the 80's, I didn't have to "scrape" to be able to afford it.[/quote:1yacqado] Speaking as someone who *does* have to "scrape" (so to speak -- it's not like I'm foregoing food to go the game) I wind up agreeing with much of what Matthews says. The 6 paragraphs starting with "All last season..." are 100% accurate, dead-on-the-money.

Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 09:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 26 2008 10:38 AM

But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it? My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets.

G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:19 AM

The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like. This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet. Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody. The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano. And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced.

Edgy DC Nov 26 2008 10:41 AM

What he said.

seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 10:47 AM

While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.

G-Fafif Nov 26 2008 10:50 AM

="seawolf17":1jq5wyqz]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:1jq5wyqz] You'd figure in all this there'd be some Mets Fan Interest Forgiveness Clause, wouldn't you? Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 10:57 AM ="seawolf17":2jtn576x]While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.[/quote:2jtn576x] I'll change my name to "Citi" if they'll negate my student loans. HahnSolo Nov 26 2008 11:32 AM Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later. Benjamin Grimm Nov 26 2008 11:33 AM That settles it then. soupcan Nov 26 2008 11:35 AM I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care. metirish Nov 26 2008 11:52 AM Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. seawolf17 Nov 26 2008 12:33 PM ="metirish"]Found this in the comments section responding to Wally. ] Ron Darling Hey Moron, the mets likely have a contract with Citi for the naming rights. If Citi doesn't want to back out, there's probably little the mets can do. Aside from that, the company looks at citifield as an extension of their advertising, which is required to attract attention and bring in new business. So, as they try to avoid going under, it's really not stupid to keep the naming rights if they estimate that the Return On Investment will be higher with this advertising than with other ads they may cut. Nice job rewriting your colleague's article just to get a few jabs in at the mets. you're a worthless piece of trash, you no talent hack. That's why I like Ronnie... he pulls no punches. MadDog Nov 26 2008 12:34 PM ="HahnSolo":7y9z3mzz]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:7y9z3mzz] AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE! Willets Point Nov 26 2008 01:14 PM ="soupcan":1wa54pzc]I'm going to go out on a limb and say that by this time next year nobody's going to care.[/quote:1wa54pzc] I already don't care. metsmarathon Nov 26 2008 01:34 PM honestly, with all the buckets of taxpayer money, both given to or not collected from the mets (and nearly every other major pro sports team), why is this spectre of $20 million/year so terribly abhorrent? i mean, its not like the bailout is going, specifically, to fund these dollars which were fairly agreed to prior to federal involvement. the mets are right to expect their money. i mean, i'd really like to see them not sell the naming rights to their building, personally, but given their choice to use it as a revenue stream, and citigroup's choice to use it as an advertisement, i see no problems. will the federal government look into all of citi's contractual obligations and force them to break those fairly negotiated contracts that have arguable ROI? ... if i were the mets, i think i would have to consider offering a buyout, though. enough to cover the expected $20 million this year, plus the cost of replacing the voluminous signage, plus a few million on top, for the trouble. but the wally mathews and mike francessas out there will only complain, unless hte mets give up the name for no cost whatsoever to citi, and then those same voices will criticize the mets for getting nothing in return. holychicken Nov 26 2008 01:51 PM ="MadDog":2lvkg2so]AH, COME ON, MIKE! YOU CAN'T JUST BE GIVING BACK THAT MONEY! THAT'S JEFF WILPON'S MONEY, MIKE! THAT WAS NEGOTIATED! FAIR AND SQUARE![/quote:2lvkg2so] You always crack me up. I love you maddog! But seriously, the show was much less terrible with Maddog. I used to listen to it on my commute home and now I just can't. Vince Coleman Firecracker Nov 26 2008 02:02 PM The last time I tuned into Francessa (I'd put the (sp?) here, but I don't really care to learn to spell his name correctly) was a few months back, after the story came out that the Yankees had been getting favorable assesments on their property so they could pay less taxes. Francesca dismissed a caller who brought this up, saying that no one cares about the relationship between the government, the taxpayers and the team. Now, (big surprise) he's up in arms because of the Mets' relationship to a third party's relationship to the government and taxpayers. Can't he catch that disease the guy from the Spin Doctors was rumored to have? The one where you can't speak for several years? Frayed Knot Nov 26 2008 06:21 PM ="HahnSolo":1fcl1b69]Mike Francesa has spoken. The Mets "must" return Citibank's money. He will elaborate later.[/quote:1fcl1b69] Only caught a minute or two of his reasoning, but the logic was along the lines of CitiGroup is now a forever tainted brand and therfore the Mets need to disassociate themselves from it. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this isn't exactly an Enron situation where the bulprit was blatantly criminal activities by the heads of the company leading to complete destruction of the business. This was bad mgmt which may or may not be fixable but, otherwise, I don't get the parallel here. Chrysler, after all, was on the receiving end of gov't assistance several decades ago (late '70s?) and yet managed to rebound and go on to sponsor sports tourneys and other stuff without leaving a scarlet letter on everything they were attached to. metirish Nov 26 2008 06:24 PM Francesa just hung up on you. SteveJRogers Nov 26 2008 06:29 PM ="metirish":1lbnh8b8]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1lbnh8b8] Irish, come on, The Great Francesa would never hang up on a caller! NO! He might give a big wave of his hand to let his board op know to cut the call off, but hang up? NEVAH! In fact, this thread deserves a giant handwave! Ashie62 Nov 26 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish":27odyq9t]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:27odyq9t] I wish I had that luck Irish...nice Ireland addition to the Avatar! soupcan Nov 26 2008 09:52 PM ="metirish":1hzpv5si]Francesa just hung up on you.[/quote:1hzpv5si] Made me laugh irish. metirish Nov 30 2008 07:00 PM Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . SteveJRogers Nov 30 2008 07:19 PM ="metirish":1xy3j2m8]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" .[/quote:1xy3j2m8] Better that the lights go out now then during the season! Ashie62 Dec 01 2008 10:09 PM They say root for the hat..but I think at this point I would be embarrased to sit in a structure named after Citigroup.. Then again my sorry ass can't afford to go anyway.. Omar..now go sign somebody!! metirish Dec 02 2008 01:42 PM Jeff speaks. ] THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 3:25 PM EST, December 2, 2008 The New York Mets say the name Citi Field will remain on their new ballpark and believe the struggling bank will survive its current economic crisis following a government bailout. Citigroup is paying the Mets $400 million over 20 years for naming rights to the stadium, scheduled to open next year. Two New York City councilmen said last week that the ballpark's name should be changed to Citi/Taxpayer Field. "We think we can bring the right people to help them market their product so that they can be a going concern," Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. They're a lot of other banks in the same situation." metsguyinmichigan Dec 02 2008 03:06 PM I can see the point about the taxpayers. It seems stange to me when utilities who have monopolies spend money on naming rights. Why does DTE Energry here in Michigan and Keyspan need to advertise like that when eveyone gets their bill each month? We know who they are. (Naturally the Citi isn't a utility and didn't have the public money until this fall) Kong76 Dec 02 2008 03:31 PM AP: Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said Tuesday. "It's not really Citi's fault that they're in this problem. <=== Oh jeez. Valadius Dec 02 2008 04:29 PM Well Jeff Wilpon is a moron. That's not news. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM Repeat after me idiot Wilpon: "it's not our fault that they are in this mess, we signed a contract and we'd be expected to perform our end of it even if it became a bad deal for us." Kong76 Dec 02 2008 05:04 PM I wasn't reporting anything, I quoted from a previous post, and oh jeezin' instead of commenting that the guy is a walking mic magnet for oh jeezable quotes and should avoid speaking at all. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:20 PM You know --- in the names of Bobby Bonilla, Vince Coleman, Mel Rojas, Jeromy Burnitz, and Mo Vaughn --- it's kind of nice to see the Mets finally the one who collect on a long-term, big-dollar contract signed before the market shifted. SteveJRogers Dec 02 2008 06:51 PM ="metirish"]Driving back from JFK tonight I saw the sign on that side of the stadium reading as " I FI LD" . Not sure if this is from today, but here is a neat image of what Irish saw: metirish Dec 02 2008 07:01 PM That's exactly it , good find Steve. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:10 PM Irish drives a dirigible. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 09:39 AM Photo gallery from the snooze: [url:1ahhortv]http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/galleries/citi_field__inside__out/citi_field__inside__out.html[/url:1ahhortv] I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. metirish Dec 03 2008 09:52 AM Me too , can't wait really , started saving recently for a game I hope to go to in the summer. More pictures here http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-citifield-pg,0,3740511.photogallery Gwreck Dec 03 2008 10:41 AM ]I gotta say, as long as I can get to a few games, I'm excited over a new park. As a function of schedule or a function of price? We had some long and hard discussions about what to do with this new stadium. Once you get past the fact that it's a minimum of $100/seat to be anywhere on the infield (aside from the upper level)... Still, in the end, I found myself a lot more excited than I thought I would to be buying tickets today. My impression is that after being accustomed to Shea for so long it will take a very long time for the novelty of the new park to wear off. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 03 2008 10:47 AM I'd only go to a small handful of games in either park. I was worried that demand for tixx would be too great to assure even that but I think I got a hookup for the small slate of games I will attend. Willets Point Dec 03 2008 10:52 AM When are they going to sell single-game tickets? Gwreck Dec 03 2008 11:19 AM Probably not until late February/early March. They'll first do the "lottery" for the opening night and games vs. MFYs, then the public sale a week or two later. I think ticket demand is not going to be too bad (economy; 2nd straight year of barely missing playoffs, etc). Benjamin Grimm Dec 06 2008 05:44 AM A clever suggestion from the New York Times: ] Citi Field by Any Other Name, Part II By Andrew Das With a column and a blog post, George Vecsey started a lively debate this week by proposing new names for the Mets� new ballpark, which will for now keep the name of its faltering financial sugar daddy, Citigroup. Some of George�s suggestions � Jackie Robinson Stadium, Gil Hodges Stadium � included homages to the city�s baseball past. Readers tossed out other ideas: Bailout Ballpark, Strawberry Field. WNYC�s Brian Lehrer weighed in when he took reader questions on our City Room blog this week. The name Citi Field is fast becoming a joke. Shall we rename it Taxpayer Field? Federal Reserve Park? Cover the infield with the Henry Paulson TARP? But Lehrer wasn�t done. He continued the discussion when he went on the air at WNYC (Chez Stadium has a nice expense-account flair to it), and that back and forth produced a name that I think appeals to everything from baseball history to the city�s history to fans� shared Citi anger. For now at least, the leader in the clubhouse has to be �. Debits Field. Benjamin Grimm Jan 29 2009 05:23 PM ="Cleveland Plain Dealer":3i00ad19]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe on Thursday to demand that the Treasury Department force Citigroup to give up its $400 million stadium naming deal with the New York Mets baseball team. The congressmen wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner that observed the bank's finanical situation has worsened dramatically since it signed the Mets deal in 2006. Citigroup recently accepted billions of dollars in taxpayer bailout money and announced it's eliminating 50,000 jobs. "The Treasury Department, which forced Citigroup corporate executives to give up their private jet, should also demand that Citigroup cancel its $400 million advertisement at the Mets field and instead being to repay their debt to the taxpayers," Kucinich said in a press statement.[/quote:3i00ad19] John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 29 2009 05:47 PM thwack. metsmarathon Jan 29 2009 05:49 PM where else will they be forced to retract advertising? Nymr83 Jan 29 2009 06:41 PM ="metsmarathon":48x4xa6v]where else will they be forced to retract advertising?[/quote:48x4xa6v] nowhere, they'd rather just use a pro sports team as a scapegoat and ignore that it is advertising like any other. Kong76 Jan 29 2009 07:02 PM Not in response to anything said here, and I'm not big on the whole tortured Mets fan ideology that some fans carry around and like to wound lick about, but jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." We get a brand spankin' new park and watch Shea get torn down and the whole country is going to the crapper and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day) by one of the biggest iconic reasons that things are so bad and now it will be fodder for every news outlet until it's named something else and it will be a trivia ques- tion twenty-five years from now and this has become a run-on so I'll stop. batmagadanleadoff Jan 29 2009 07:28 PM ="Kong76":1gdgi6hg] and the new stadium was going to be named (I'm certain it won't be Citi Field come opening day)....[/quote:1gdgi6hg] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium. For years, I bet. To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants. MFS62 Jan 29 2009 07:49 PM ="batmagadanleadoff":zgx7tsoo] To me, the 49ers play in Candlestick. And so do the baseball Giants.[/quote:zgx7tsoo] Gee, I remember the football team playing in Kezar Stadium (with sea gulls flying in front of the tv cameras) and the baseball team playing in Seals Stadium. Later Frayed Knot Jan 29 2009 08:18 PM ] ... jeez on some level I can't help but grin to myself and think, "this could only happen to the freakin' Mets." Astros fans forced to deal with 'Enron Field' might disagree there. Kong76 Jan 30 2009 04:47 AM Uey, they can't even get that right. Edgy DC Jan 30 2009 07:25 AM ]Cleveland Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich teamed up with Texas GOP Rep. Ted Poe This isn't exaclty Chris Van Hollen and John Boehner. It wouldn't be the first time I've been caught with my head in the sand, but I'm not sure this is anything more than a symbolic statment. I mean, that's what Kucinich's presidential run was. Under any circumstances, I'm highly distrustful of scapegoating maneuvers. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 30 2009 07:26 AM President Kucinich would move the Mets to Havana, prolly. Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:06 AM This mornings Wall Street Journal has an article the Citi is reconsidering the 400 million dollar naming rights deal. I don't have the online link but its in the Journal. Citi is being "directed" by the Treasury not to spend taxpayer dollars on this. It may not be fair but the Mets have no say on the contract and at best will receive some money as a walk away fee. Good thing the Patch is bare...Probably best to take the TARP stink off our new stadium...Lotta remodeling to do if Citi is knocked out. Royal Crown Cola field anyone? Ashie62 Feb 03 2009 07:07 AM Ooh! George Thomas Seaver! Do I get a bottle o Wine for this? I don't mean Wild Irish Rose Peach. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:10 AM Get a New Patch While You're At It The wheels are reportedly in motion to deCitify Citi Field. From WSJ: ]Citi Explores Breaking Mets Deal Bank That Got Bailout Cash Revisits $400 Million Pact to Put Name on Stadium By DAVID ENRICH, MATTHEW FUTTERMAN and DAMIAN PALETTA Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds. Reps. Dennis Kucinich (D., Ohio) and Ted Poe (R., Texas) wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner on Wednesday, 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." A re-examination of the Mets deal comes just days after President Barack Obama called it "shameful" that Wall Street firms doled out billions of dollars in bonuses even as Washington was spending taxpayer dollars to help bail them out. The Treasury Department hasn't been pushing the bank to break the contract, according to people with knowledge of the government's stance. Anger also is rising over signs that the massive capital infusion to U.S. banks hasn't resulted in a surge in lending. In a survey of banks released Monday, the Federal Reserve said about two-thirds of banks' loan officers reported that they tightened terms for business loans over the past three months. Under terms of the Mets deal, Citigroup has the right to plaster its name and logo around the arena, dubbed Citi Field, which is largely built and set to open in April in the New York City borough of Queens. Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. "The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," said Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz. A Citigroup spokesman said the bank "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." Within Citigroup, some officials believe the company should try to void the Mets pact in order to distance itself from unnecessary controversy. But other executives argue that trying to wiggle out of the contract will set a bad precedent. "If we cave for political reasons, it will have enormous implications for our ability to contract with third parties," said an executive who has been briefed on the discussions. When Citigroup and the Mets unveiled their pact in 2006, it was the richest naming-rights deal in baseball. Top executives including then-Chief Executive Charles Prince and Lewis Kaden, the Citigroup vice chairman who negotiated the deal, attended a groundbreaking ceremony with Mets players and officials. Citigroup has a number of other sports-marketing arrangements. Last month, it was the main sponsor of college football's Rose Bowl game. The company is sponsoring the 2010 national championship game. Citibank Park, which opened in 2000 in Central Islip, N.Y., is home to the Long Island Ducks minor-league baseball team. While some Citigroup executives are urging the company to scale back its advertising expenses to avoid public controversy, the company recently has been buying full-page ads in some major newspapers, touting its stability and lending. Last week, Citigroup stirred more controversy when the New York Post reported that the bank was planning to buy an expensive new luxury jet. The implication was that Citigroup was using a portion of its TARP funds to pay for the new jet. In response, Citigroup initially defended its plans, arguing that it placed the jet order in 2005 and that canceling the purchase would result in millions of dollars of penalties. The new jet also was supposed to replace two aging planes that Citigroup had put up for sale. Citigroup ultimately nixed the order under pressure from Treasury officials. By then, though, the bank had been publicly lashed by President Obama. "We shouldn't have to do that," he said, referring to the administration's suggestion that Citigroup not go through with the corporate-jet order, "because they should know better." If Citigroup parts ways with the Mets, other financial institutions may find themselves under pressure to reconsider sports-marketing deals. Bank of America Corp., which got $45 billion in government capital, signed a deal in 2004 for naming rights for the Carolina Panthers football stadium in Charlotte, N.C. Bank of America's 20-year deal calls for the bank to pay the Panthers $7.5 million a year, making it one of the National Football League's most expensive naming-rights deals. The Houston Texans receive $10 million a year from Reliant Energy Inc. Bank of America has been in talks with the New York Yankees about a major sponsorship deal for the new Yankee Stadium, though the company's name wouldn't be on the building. That deal appeared near complete in the fall, but neither side has discussed the matter since then. Larry DiRita, a Bank of America spokesman, declined to comment on the company's specific marketing arrangements. "These are normal banking relationships," he said, noting that they are profitable for the bank. Frayed Knot Feb 03 2009 07:11 AM Citigroup Inc. is considering the possibility of backing out of its $400 million naming-rights deal for the New York Mets' new stadium, according to a report in the Wall Street Journal. The report cited "people familiar with the matter." Ahh yes, the always popular "people familiar" source. What it sounds like is that Citi is feeling outside pressure and is at least looking into what it might take to break thinking that maybe this would stem the tide of criticism. Never mind that they still sponsor a host of other sports stuff, this deal seems to be the center of the bullseye right now. The team has every intention of continuing with the deal (of course, because they'd never get another nearly as large) and I'm thinking they'd probably put up a legal fight to keep it. oe: cross-post G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:18 AM If my thread on the WSJ story gets folded in or deleted, the essentials: ]Citigroup Inc., eager to quell the controversy over how lenders are using government bailout money, is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets, say people familiar with the matter. Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, say these people. In a statement Monday, Citigroup said that "no TARP capital will be used" for the stadium -- referring to government funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program. But as it revisits the pact, Citigroup is essentially acknowledging that the volatile political climate could make it untenable for the bank to proceed with the deal. Citigroup, which has had total net losses of $28.5 billion since 2007, received $45 billion in bailout aid from the federal TARP program last fall. The government also agreed to shoulder most losses on a $301 billion pool of Citigroup's loans and other assets. Next week, Citigroup Chief Executive Vikram Pandit and other bank CEOs are scheduled to appear before a House committee, where they are likely to be pressed for answers about their use of taxpayer-funded capital through TARP. ]Citigroup's contract with the Mets calls for the bank to pay the team roughly $20 million a year over two decades. The arrangement helped cover the costs of building Citi Field because it served as an asset the Mets could tout as they tried to lure private capital. While the Mets didn't receive direct taxpayer financing for the ballpark, the team did benefit from free land, infrastructure investments and tax-free bonds from the city government. Citigroup underwrote more than $600 million in bonds for the stadium. The bank's name and logo already adorn the stadium's walls. Citi Field is adjacent to Shea Stadium, the former home of the Mets, now being torn down. If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely wouldn't happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a breakup penalty to the Mets, people familiar with the situation said. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:24 AM I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Edgy DC Feb 03 2009 07:31 AM This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:36 AM ="Edgy DC":3tltbewg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:3tltbewg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:37 AM ="Edgy DC":i7xp23vg]I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:i7xp23vg] The Mets could use some more crunch in their lineup. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 07:40 AM ="metirish"]I bet by the end of the day Wally will have a "Jackie Robinson Field" article up. Wally, if they actually did that: ]Branch Rickey famously told Jackie Robinson not to fight back when harassed. The Mets similarly don't fight back when their opponents tar them not with epithets but runs. The Mets have unwittingly chosen the wrong role model. But when do the Mets ever use their wits? soupcan Feb 03 2009 07:41 AM ="Edgy DC":6bqs5c70]It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:6bqs5c70] Most definitely. Its not like Enron Field is now Astro Stadium. I would like it if there does happen to be another sponsor that its a one-name company so I can pretend it's sort of un-sponsored. You know like Miller Park or Busch Stadium. If not, then I'd like Met Life please. Centerfield Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Considering they have a signed contract, I don't see why the Mets would let Citi out of the deal until they had a more lucrative (or equally lucrative) deal in place. metirish Feb 03 2009 07:43 AM Jeff IIRC is quite fond of WISE potato chips. WISE FIELD metsmarathon Feb 03 2009 08:35 AM if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM Per Metsblog Update, 8:56 am: Michael Espo, a long-time and trusted reader of MetsBlog.com, just sent in the following e-mail: �Moments ago on CNBC, Doug Kass, a noted investor and short seller, who is a member of the country club where Bernie Madoff solicited many of his investors, said, �scuttlebutt around town says that Fred Wilpon and Mets ownership may be forced to sell a minority interest in the team due to their exposure to the Madoff fraud.�� Consider the source. EDIT: Hmmmm Now that is gone from that website. I wonder what happened. Later batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:46 AM ="Edgy DC":dwhmitdm]This just seems so counterproductive for everybody. It's nice to think that the Mets may end up with an un-sponsored field, but I think it more likely that they lose their $20 million a year from Citi and get $4 million a year from Frito-Lay.[/quote:dwhmitdm] It's apropos. Wilpon's a cheeseball. Get ready for Cheesy Stadium. batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 08:52 AM ="metsmarathon":2jggnqoz]if citi backs out of that contract, i would think that the mets should sue them to recoup not only some of the short term income, but also the cost to replace all of the signage and merchandise. no fucking way citi should get off the hook just because the politicians whined[/quote:2jggnqoz] If Citi doesn't have a contractual out, why wouldn't the Mets Sioux City to recoup every single penny of the deal? G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 08:56 AM Darren Rovell's story from CNBC: ]Despite all the noise, including a front page story in the Wall Street Journal today, the Mets just sent us this statement. "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." MFS62 Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 03 2009 09:01 AM I'm thinking of taking up a collection to buy the naming rights. I'll name it "Cranepool Forum Field". If you're interested in contributing ($1 million minimum. No pikers, pease.) PM me, and I'll give you the number of my off shore account to which you can wire the money. Later metirish Feb 03 2009 08:59 AM ] "In conversations this morning, Citi reinforced that they will honor our legally binding agreement." Sounds like the Mets reinforced the legally binding thing. G-Fafif Feb 03 2009 09:04 AM The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable). batmagadanleadoff Feb 03 2009 09:54 AM ="G-Fafif":1gap197h]The Mets, I would guess, don't give a damn what it's called (within reason). They do give a damn they get paid (which is reasonable).[/quote:1gap197h] That's my Wilpon! metirish Feb 04 2009 10:26 AM Daniel Gross argues that the name should stay. http://www.slate.com/id/2210442/ ] Three Strikes and You're Bailed Out Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. By Daniel Gross Posted Tuesday, Feb. 3, 2009, at 6:00 PM ET Almost every taxpayer who isn't a New York Mets fan is outraged by Citi's $400 million, 20-year deal for naming rights to the new Mets stadium, known as Citi Field. It's true that shelling out that kind of money at a time when taxpayers are bankrolling the company and backstopping hundreds of billions of dollars worth of its assets may seem tone-deaf and stupid, even for a bank. And, historically, naming rights have been a classic vanity move. Corporations tend to make grandiose civic/corporate statements right when they are about to implode. If you had shorted Citi's stock when it announced the sponsorship deal in November 2006, you would have made a lot of money. But there's a reasonable case to be made for preserving the deal, especially if Citi could get the Mets to extend the deal to 30 or 40 years. In order for Citi to weather the storm, recover, and pay back taxpayers (and insulate them from further losses), the company must invest for both the short- and long-term. For companies in highly competitive consumer markets, marketing and advertising are essential, entirely justifiable expenses. Companies�even companies getting bailed out by the feds�need to attract customers and to build their brand image. It's difficult to measure the value of any specific campaign or ad. But there's reason to think that for this company, at this stadium, in this location, a naming-rights deal might not be such a bad long term move. The cost is high�$400 million over 20 years. But the present-day cost isn't quite as high as you think, especially if, as Darren Rovell of CNBC suggests, it is paid out in annual installments. In 2029, $20 million will be worth a lot less than $20 million is today. And any type of advertising that reaches a lot of people is expensive. In this economy, NBC was able to charge $3 million for a 30-second spot during the Super Bowl. Though the audience size for Mets games won't approach that of the Super Bowl, the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. And stadium naming deals generate a huge amount of free advertising. On the broadcasts of the team's 81 home games (and, sponsors hope, post-season games), announcers will repeatedly refer to the company's name in a nonadvertising context: "Welcome back to Citi Field." Likewise, newspaper, Internet, and television coverage will produce hundreds of millions of impressions of the company's name per year. Naming-rights deals are most justifiable when the product or company doing the naming has an intuitive connection to the people who visit the stadium. The Montreal Canadiens used to play in the Molson Center, which made sense since hockey fans drink a lot of beer. Ditto for the Colorado Rockies, who play in Coors Field. (When Internet company PSInet planted its name on the Baltimore Ravens' stadium, it didn't make quite as much sense.) Citi would seem to be something of a natural for the New York Mets. It's a New York-based bank. The Mets are based in New York City. Baseball stadiums tend to attract a prosperous, heavily male clientele, including professionals, small-business owners, and corporate executives. Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. In short, a lot of the sorts of people who are likely to utilize Citi's services will be attending games at Citi Field. Of course, people who read about games at Citi Field on ESPN.com won't be learning much about Citi's mortgage rates. But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. Since 1926, baseball fans on the north side of Chicago have spoken about going to games at Wrigley Field. Does that make fans more likely to buy Wrigley's gum products? It can't hurt. "Meet me at Citi," doesn't quite have the same ring as "Meet me at Shea." But after 20 or 30 years, it might. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:29 AM Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so? Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 10:34 AM ="Edgy DC":37gbfrv1]Seriously, as a taxpayer, do you think Citi is going to recover faster by taking away their ability to market themselves professionally or humiliating them for attempting to do so?[/quote:37gbfrv1] Nope. I also think there isn't a worse thing they can do right now than take their name off a stadium where it already is, thats not a great way to inspire confidence that your business is (now) sound and here to stay. Edgy DC Feb 04 2009 10:58 AM So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion? I understand being against these rescue plans, but imposing terms on the corporations after the fact is crap. Lookit me, I'm castrating Citibank and everybody hates them. Eh, shaddup. (off soapbox) Nymr83 Feb 04 2009 11:25 AM ="Edgy DC":c8pm0iyy]So, do you think that Dennis Kucinich, who bills himself as "America's Congressman" is maybe using this as a means of self-promotion?[/quote:c8pm0iyy] No, really? Frayed Knot Feb 04 2009 11:31 AM Kucinich was doing the same thing with the land valuation question of the area around YSIII -- basically acting as a self-appointed over-seer for what is essentially a local issue far from his particular locality. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 12:22 PM ]...the location of the stadium guarantees that the Citi logo will be visible to hundreds of millions of people each year. Citi Field is a giant billboard that will be visible not just to the 4 million-plus people who attend Mets games each year but to the tens of millions of people who drive past it on the Grand Central Parkway, the Van Wyck Expressway, and other roadways and the 25 million or so passengers who fly into and out of LaGuardia Airport each year. I wouldn't mind Gross coming on for Delgado in the ninth for defense. He can really stretch. Citigroup could also buy a few actual billboards and accomplish much the same goal as the author describes. While I agree that this company, if it is to survive, has to (and is entitled to) market itself, reading Gross' article tells me that he has no idea why having the company's name on a ballpark accomplishes that. "Well, people will see it...people who might use their product." If anything, spelling out the reasons as he does, with the "I want a Coke" example and such, makes the whole thing sound more like a vanity-driven sham than I thought before. ]Many companies use Mets games to entertain and schmooze prospective clients. If they used the games from the last two late Septembers, those companies must have been recruiters from Guantanamo Bay. metsguyinmichigan Feb 04 2009 02:16 PM I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 02:26 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":1nrfin6h]I don't mind the banks buying these things as much as the utilities. Why does a monopoly need to advertise? Especially since they just pass their costs on to the consumer, who has no choice but to use their electricity or natural gas?[/quote:1nrfin6h] To take up lots of space[/url:1nrfin6h], of course. metsmarathon Feb 04 2009 02:48 PM ]Citi Field, of course, will always be known as Citi Field. of course. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 03:11 PM Should Citi Field never actually be Citi Field, it would be accessible via a number of appropriate thoroughfares, listed here[/url:qvhcvi31]. Benjamin Grimm Feb 04 2009 04:25 PM They should call it by Shea's original name: Flushing Meadows Stadium. Or since "stadium" is out of vogue, they can replace it with Park or Field. G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:00 PM More and more, Citi Field, its plainly visible structure notwithstanding, is beginning to remind me of this outstanding historical marker[/url:2p1f2s91] to which TMF introduced Mrs. Fafif and me recently. Citi Field...did it really land? G-Fafif Feb 04 2009 05:01 PM Whoops, impatient double post. themetfairy Feb 04 2009 05:22 PM LOL OlerudOwned Feb 04 2009 05:32 PM In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense." Kong76 Feb 04 2009 08:25 PM I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down? dgwphotography Feb 05 2009 04:36 AM ="Kong76":2tla5kgq]I'm kinda fickle on this subject now that it's become fodder for some folks. What's 20 million a year for twenty years when ya really boil it all down?[/quote:2tla5kgq] Right now, it wouldn't even pay for Manny. 20 years from now, it wouldn't even pay for a utility infielder.. Edgy DC Feb 05 2009 05:50 AM ="OlerudOwned":1hwowprl]In a span of of two paragraphs, he called the naming rights "a classic vanity move" and an "essential, entirely justifiable expense."[/quote:1hwowprl] Well, he was distinguishing some deals from others. Vic Sage Feb 05 2009 10:34 AM ]But naming rights, especially if they endure, can perform another vital function for brands. It can help make them part of the vernacular. The greatest desire of any marketer is for her product's name to work its way into conversations. When I was growing up, it was common to say, "I want a Coke" when you were referring to any kind of soda. People ask for a Kleenex when they mean a tissue, say they're going to Xerox a document even if they're using a Ricoh copier, and speak of Googling when they refer to an Internet search. Stadium naming rights can help products and brands gain that sort of status. um... while those that control corporate brands want their brands to be ubiquitous, they do NOT want their trademarks to become generic. That's called "genericide", a sort of "public domain" status for trademarks, and thus costs the owner exclusive control over their mark. Of course, the naming of a stadium isn't likely to cause this phenomenon (oh look at that new Citi they're building in Montreal! I bet that'll bring baseball back!), so the point is not only incorrect, it's irrelevant. Now that's journalism! batmagadanleadoff Apr 16 2009 09:56 AM ="batmagadanleadoff":2ibvgs3w] I'll probably refer to the new park as Shea Stadium.[/quote:2ibvgs3w] Making money off my idea. Drats. Edgy DC Apr 16 2009 10:15 AM A good re-read. Here's Soupy with the Turning Point of the Thread: ="soupcan"] ="Ashie62"] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants!

[Guest Edgy DC]

But those are bleeding with demagoguery as well. Is the world really just fat cats and working stiffs? Are the Mets really so perverse as to be doing anything like "playing footsie" or are they doing business the way virtually everybody else did it?

My cousin was VP of personnel with a securities firm. They made her fire a ton of people and then they fired her. I know what's going on. There's a good chance I'm going to be posing in my pajamas soon. I don't blame the Mets.

[G-Fafif]

The Mets sucked at dealing with their fans on tickets for the long term, but the equivalency -- they suck therefore they and Citi are essentially the same -- is what weighs Wally down. Ticket policy mishandling and naming rights hijinks are not the same issue and they're not necessarily symptomatic of a mindset, which is Matthews' implication. "The Mets waited two hours to call the game -- and they traded Scott Kazmir for Victor Zambrano: what a bunch of losers." That's what Matthews' column feels like.

This is the wrong week to be promoting a stadium named Citi Field, that's for sure. The Mets will have to decide (if market forces don't do it for them) whether it will always be the wrong week for promoting a stadium with that name. The City Bank of New York was founded in 1812. Over the years, it became known as the First National City Bank of New York, First National City Bank and, eventually, Citibank, en route to becoming part of something called Citigroup. Might all remnants of that name be eradicated after 196 years? Could be. Might all the goodwill, whatever goodwill there was, associated with that name be gone in the wake of recent developments? Could be. Do we know the forever answer to either question? Not just yet.

Citi looks very bad right now. This ballpark deal feels uncomfortable right now, to say the least. The Mets, by being in this naming venture with Citi, don't look good right now. Is "right now" what's always going to be? Hard to tell. I can't blame the Mets for trying to figure out how to maintain a deal that looked pretty lucrative and airtight (in the context of these things) two years ago. If the uproar continues as the season approaches, I imagine they won't want the name on their building. But even if, as a couple of business writers put it, $20 million a year for twenty years is a "drop in the bucket" to Citi (making this a worthwhile long-term investment in their view, assuming they stick around as Citi), it's pretty significant to a baseball team. Remember what Darren Rovell wrote on CNBC's site: they'd be lucky to get $12 million a year now from anybody.

The Mets want the money. They'll always want the money. What entity in their spot wouldn't be looking for a way to get the money they signed for? If/when it becomes untenable (if the PR aspects of this do not blow over), the Mets will suddenly realize they don't want to play in Citi Field. Even if they do suck at ticket plans. Even if they wait too long to call rainouts. Even if they traded Kazmir for Zambrano.

And this is coming from someone who has loathed almost everything about Citi Field, name included, from the day it was announced.

[Guest Edgy DC]

What he said.

[seawolf17]

While they're at it, can Citi cancel my credit card debt? That'd make my life a lot easier.