stevejrogers

]Face it, Angels fans always will remember Tim Salmon's final season more dearly than they will all of Vladimir Guerrero's seasons here combined. They embraced David Eckstein but only tolerated his replacement, the statistically equivalent Orlando Cabrera. They applauded the grittiness that allowed Darin Erstad to appear in 157 games in 2000 but wondered if it was cruise control that permitted Garret Anderson to play 161 the next season. Of course Tim Salmon won a championship with the Angels, and is a life-long Angel. Guerrero can be seen as a hired gun who has done well in only two of the five postseason series he has played as an Angel, and the Angels have won exactly 5 postseason games since he arrived. Ditto David Eckstein who does embodies that Backman/Bogar/McEwing/Wigginton type of player, but no doubt Angel fans would have tolerated him and embraced Cabrera if the situations were reversed. Cabrera being the Champion and Eckstein being his replacement. Fans always treat those who win championships for their teams different than they do players who haven't.

John Maine is apparently on it as well, not very active though.

=Adam Rubin]A press conference is expected to be held next Wednesday in New York. With Citi Field not ready to host press conferences, the location of next week's event is unclear. Interesting. They can not host press conferences, but last September advertisements in the Mets program suggested that starting this winter, i.e. now, Citi Field would ready to be hosting "events" (corporate, weddings, whatever the heck they did at Shea) and were soliciting reservations.

I can see Glavine, I can't see all three at the same time though. Because there probably will be voters who just want to vote the two 300 game winners or some other BS.

="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:

="G-Fafif":3f4gjwnk] 2001-02 was also souped up (Appier for Vaughn; Lawton & Co. for Alomar; the nineteen-way deal that brought back Burnitz; re-signing Cedeno), but I'm not as big a fan, even though at the time I convinced myself I was. The aftermath has something to do with that.[/quote:3f4gjwnk] Lets not forget, even though we want to, 91-92. BONILLA! SABERHAGEN! MURRAY! RANDOLPH! TORBORG! PECOTA! It spawned Klap-Trap's hatred of the Mets pretty much!

="metsguyinmichigan":c8otj9s2] I'm a little more inclusive. Rickey (in an A's cap, please)[/quote:c8otj9s2] Yeah but man, you can't discount his time with the Dodgers, or the Angels, and oh man who can forget the 2000 Mariners! Why yes I'll be making the same joke with Mike Piazza's two week stay in Florida in 1998! G-Fafif Dec 01 2008 03:00 PM I'd like to see Rickey wear a batting helmet[/url:405dua2r] in honor of those three different guys he played with in Toronto, New York and Seattle who each wore one in the field. Rockin' Doc Dec 01 2008 03:01 PM It won't be funny then, either. G-Fafif Dec 01 2008 03:21 PM Two great Rickey stories, for real: Tom Verducci, here[/url:2jaxect0]; Ralph Wiley, here[/url:2jaxect0]. Nymr83 Dec 01 2008 04:16 PM Henderson is a lock. I'd vote for Blyleven, Trammell, and Raines as well. I'd strongly consider Rice. Valadius Dec 01 2008 06:05 PM Henderson Raines Rice Blyleven Dawson McGwire Murphy Trammell Morris Nymr83 Dec 01 2008 07:55 PM Dawson? really? why not Harold Baines then? seawolf17 Dec 01 2008 08:16 PM ="Nymr83":3fqtrowr]Dawson? really? why not Harold Baines then?[/quote:3fqtrowr] Baines was a nice player, but really never a dominant force, except maybe at the beginning of his career. Dawson kicked the hell out of the NL for a long time, with eight All-Star appearances and four top-10 MVP finishes, including a win and two second-place finishes -- and both times, he lost to HoFers in Mike Schmidt and Dale Murphy. (Well, Murph's not in the Hall, but he should be.) Plus, he won eight Gold Gloves; only five OFs have more. (Say what you will about the Gold Gloves, but they are what they are.) They're interesting comparisons, but I just don't think Baines comes even close. Nymr83 Dec 01 2008 08:28 PM ="seawolf17":1q76j0nu] Plus, he won eight Gold Gloves; only five OFs have more. (Say what you will about the Gold Gloves, but they are what they are.) [/quote:1q76j0nu] yeah they are what they are, which is "not very meaningful." Dawson: 10769 PA .279/.323/.482 119 OPS+ Baines: 11092 PA .289/.356/.465 120 OPS+ so much for your "not even close", I think Baines is the better hitter since OBP is more important than slugging and Baines was alot higher. Edgy DC Dec 01 2008 08:51 PM Dawson PositionYearBaines PositionCF1RF2 34GG CF5678DHGG RF910RF11GG RF1213RF14151617DH1819RF20LF21 22They're pretty comparable hitters. They even played (almost) the same number of seasons. I'm not supporting either guy, but defensively --- even taking into account how foolishly gold gloves are distributed --- we're talking two different animals. seawolf17 Dec 01 2008 09:29 PM Dawson stole more bases, played the field longer, hit more home runs, started more ASGs, got more MVP support -- that's why I say "not close". I'm not saying Baines was a bad player; I'm just saying when you go beyond the overall numbers -- in two hundred more games, Baines gave you less numbers in every key stat except one, walks, which explains the OBP difference. (And he had eighty more hits, but I don't know that matters much.) An extra 25 walks a season -- one a week over twenty-plus years -- doesn't offset the overall offensive numbers, which Dawson clearly dominates, both overall and on a season-by-season basis. Baines has more postseason experience -- six appearances -- but in four of those six, he was a late-season acquisition. I don't know what that says about him -- he didn't exactly light up the world with his new team in any of those four seasons, although his postseason stats were good. Dawson was awful in both of his postseason appearances. Edgy DC Dec 01 2008 10:08 PM Bill James, who'd support Nymr's OPS comparison and agree that on-base percentage is more important than slugging, ranked Dawson 19th among rightfielders, and Baines 42nd. And he says that while knocking Dawson's MVP, saying that he wasn't in the top 20 players in the league in 1987. seawolf17 Dec 01 2008 10:18 PM Part of the Hall of Fame discussion, I think, is whether a player was considered dominant at the time. You can't say that Andre Dawson wasn't considered among the dominant players in the NL during the bulk of his career. That's where the ASG starts and the MVP votes -- I think -- are so important, because it speaks to the time. Willets Point Dec 01 2008 10:34 PM Did Rickey ever retire, or he did just fade away? I'd like to see him play in MLB in 2009. Just for shits and giggles. Nymr83 Dec 01 2008 11:18 PM just look at the guys who have OPS and OPS+ numbers like Dawson's, most aren't hall of famers. There are plenty of guys who were much better hitters (Albert Belle comes to mind) who won't get in. seawolf, 25 walks a year is significant. you go ahead and raise stolen bases, but dawson only stole 314 (and was caught 109 times) thats 205 net steals that Baines didnt have, aboput 20 a yer... how can you consider 20 steals a year more significant than getting on base 25 more times? Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 06:27 AM I'm getting ignored here. Baines wasn't a neutral baserunner, but a counterproductive one. Dawson's vs. Baines' defense isn't an opportunity to indict the Gold Glove system, but a chance to recognize that these guys were on two different planets regarding defensive contributions. Lastly, Bill James. Fuckin' Bill James. duan Dec 02 2008 06:48 AM for me Rickey, Raines & Blyleven. I also think that Tommy John deserves consideration, what he endured has probably had more impact on the pitcher then any other thing, to me, that's Hall of Fame. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 07:36 AM ]Dawson's vs. Baines' defense isn't an opportunity to indict the Gold Glove system, but a chance to recognize that these guys were on two different planets regarding defensive contributions. The GG system itself sucks, i didn't mean that as a knock on Dawson's defense but as a knock on citing GGs as a reason to call him a great defender. I'm not ignoring you either, You just werent speaking to the point I was making, which is that Baines is a (slightly) better hitter than Dawson and therefore comments about them being "not even close" are wrong. And if you want Bill James to determine who gets into the hall and who doesn't I'm ok with that, I probably wouldn't agree with everything he'd say but he'd be a hell of a lot better at it than the guys who get to vote now. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 07:59 AM The point you're making was "If Dawson, why not Baines?" The answer is that, beyond hitting, they're incomparable. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 08:05 AM I'll color code my table to make my point. Dawson PositionYearBaines PositionCF1RF2 34GG CF5678DHGG RF910RF11GG RF1213RF14151617DH1819RF20LF21 22 He was aflame. duan Dec 02 2008 08:23 AM how's about i say this. neither of them are hall of famers. seawolf17 Dec 02 2008 08:26 AM ="Nymr83"]]Dawson's vs. Baines' defense isn't an opportunity to indict the Gold Glove system, but a chance to recognize that these guys were on two different planets regarding defensive contributions. The GG system itself sucks, i didn't mean that as a knock on Dawson's defense but as a knock on citing GGs as a reason to call him a great defender. I'm not ignoring you either, You just werent speaking to the point I was making, which is that Baines is a (slightly) better hitter than Dawson and therefore comments about them being "not even close" are wrong. And if you want Bill James to determine who gets into the hall and who doesn't I'm ok with that, I probably wouldn't agree with everything he'd say but he'd be a hell of a lot better at it than the guys who get to vote now. No, Baines was not (slightly) a better hitter than Dawson. He was a much better walker. In every other aspect, Dawson's better (home runs, doubles, triples, stolen bases) or equal (hits). Up and down the board, on any day of the week, in any season, I'd much rather have Dawson on my team than Baines. Dawson spots him two hundred games and STILL beats him overall. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 08:38 AM he wasn't just a "better walker", his batting average was 10 points higher, insignificant over 1 year but hardly so over a career. counting HR/2B/3B seperately is kinda of silly, because whether you hit a triple and a single or two doubles its all the same. compare their OBPs and their SLG%, thats really all you need to look at to understand all those numbers. Baines had an OBP 33 points higher, that is VERY significant, and its not a knock on him to say he did it via the walk. Take away walks and Rickey Henderson looks like he's not as good as Dawson either, while in fact Henderson was far superior, because walks really matter. seawolf17 Dec 02 2008 09:36 AM ="Nymr83":3i4wxh5d]he wasn't just a "better walker", his batting average was 10 points higher, insignificant over 1 year but hardly so over a career. counting HR/2B/3B seperately is kinda of silly, because whether you hit a triple and a single or two doubles its all the same. compare their OBPs and their SLG%, thats really all you need to look at to understand all those numbers. Baines had an OBP 33 points higher, that is VERY significant, and its not a knock on him to say he did it via the walk. Take away walks and Rickey Henderson looks like he's not as good as Dawson either, while in fact Henderson was far superior, because walks really matter.[/quote:3i4wxh5d] I'm not knocking him for walking -- he walked twice as much as Dawson did, and that's obviously significant. My point is that there's no other facet of Baines game -- NONE -- that makes him better than Dawson, and that the other things -- speed, power, defensive ability -- far outweigh the ability to draw more walks. He simply was not the player that Dawson was, overall. I don't even think Baines could ever have been considered the best player on his own team at any point; that would have gone to Carlton Fisk back in the early 80s, and after the early 80s, he was a role player. During his best seasons, he didn't carry his team. 1996 he supported Robin Ventura and Frank Thomas, in 1999 he played fourth fiddle to Albert Belle, BJ Surhoff, and an aging but still effective Cal Ripken, although he did do enough to make the All-Star team that year... for the first time since 1991. Dawson, meanwhile, had two dominant stretches. The first was 1977-1983, when he won a ROY, finished in the top 25 in MVP voting five times, and ripped the crap out of National League pitching. He fell apart at the end in Montreal, then was rejuvenated in Chicago in 1987, ripping off another six-season run until his body finally started giving out again. Benjamin Grimm Dec 02 2008 09:41 AM I thought Baines would end up being the first 3,000-hit guy to miss the Hall of Fame (other than Pete Rose, of course) but he fell short by just over 100 hits. metsmarathon Dec 02 2008 09:50 AM per my methodology of using WARP3 and comparing those on the ballot to those who've already been voted in by the bbwaa... i look at career and peak value over 5, 7, and 10 year spans. i also take a look at a player's best individual season, just for kicks. rickey henderson is an above average hall of famer in terms of his peak value for 5, 7, and 10 years, and is in the top quarter in terms of career value and single season. tim raines is an above average hall of vfamer by all of these measures save single season maximum, wherein he is below average. alan trammel is an above average hall of famer by all of these measures save career value, wherein he is below average. these are the hitters who would receive my vote, and in the above order (not that that matters) no other candidate hitter on the ballot ranks among the top half of the existing hall of famers by these measures. among the other hitters, mark mcgwire is below average for a hall of famer in each measure save 7-year peak value, wherein he is in the bottom quarter. don mattingly is below average in only 5 year peak and single season maximum value. by all other measures he is in the bottom quarter. andre dawson is a below average hofer in only career value. by all other measures he is in the bottom quarter. dale murphy and jay bell are below average hofer in only single season maximum value. by all other measures they are in the bottom quarter. jim rice, harold baines, mark grace, and matt williams are in the bottom quarter of hall of famers by all measures. dave parker is in the bottom quarter of hall of famers by all measures save 10-year peak vaule, wherein his value is lower than that of any hall of famer voted in by the bbwaa. mo vaughn's career value and 10-year peak value fall short of ony elected hall of famer. ron gant and greg vaughn fall short of any hall of famer by all emasures save single season maximum value, wherin they are in the bottom quarter. ... among pitchers, bert blyleven ranks in the top quarter of hofers in terms of career value, and is above average in terms of 5-yr peak, 7-yr peak and single season maximum value, but is below average in terms of 10-year peak value. he is the only pitcher who i would vote for. only tommy john ranks as above average in any category. he is above average in terms of career value. however, in terms of all three peak values and single season maximum value, he falls short of any elected hall of famer. by all measures, david cone ranks as a below average hall of famer. he is the strongest candidate whom i would not vote for. jack morris ranks in the bottom quarter of hall of famers in all categories save 10 year peak, in which he is below average. lee smith is in the bottom quarter of hall of famers in all categories save single season maximum value, wherein he falls short of any elected hofer. jesse orosco falls short of any elected hofer in all categories save career value. dan plesac falls short of any elected hofer by all measures. the only other comparison worth making would be lee smith versus elected relievers - a subset that includes, i think, only sutter, gossage, and eckersley. bruce sutter is among the weakest hall of famers elected. he has the lowest career value, and the lowest 7-year peak value. he has the second lowest 10-year peak and the third lowest 5-year peak. he also has the 5th lowest single season maximum value. goose gossage is in teh bottom quarter in terms of career value and 5-year peak, and ranks as below average in 7-year peak, 10-year peak, and single season maximum. dennis eckersley is in teh bottom quarter in all measures save career value, wherein he ranks as above average. lee smith has a higher career value than bruce sutter, but falls short of gossage. his 5-year max is just higher than sutters, but falls well short of gossage and eckersley. his 7-year peak is just higher than sutter, but well short of eckersley. his 10-year peak value is greater than sutter, and actually greater than eckersley, but well short of gossage. his single season maximum falls well short of sutter. he also did not, to my knowledge, usher in the use of any new, fancy pitch. relievers are very difficult to argue for relative to other pitchers, as eck, sutter, and gossage, based on their overall values, are all among the weaker elected hall of famers. the bar should be set fairly high for them. and lee smith does not clear that bar. oe: this might all be unreadble. maybe i'll make a table after lunch Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 09:53 AM I like Trammell's candidacy. I should add him in. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 02 2008 10:13 AM I think its unfortunate for Raines to have played at the same time as Henderson who is as inner-circle a HOFer as we might see in our lifetimes. Like Henderson Raines was an excellent walker and dynamite base-stealer. He hit for a high average and hardly ever struck out. I also think he's easy to overlook having come up with Montreal then systematically having been screwed by collusion which prolly diminished his brand image where a similar free agent can use their moment of free agency to enhance it. So, I'll throw a vote to Raines along with Rickey. I forget where I stand in relation to Blyleven. I'm pretty sure I suppoort him. I like Trammell too. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 10:21 AM Trammell=RainesRipkenHenderson seawolf17 Dec 02 2008 10:36 AM ="Edgy DC":2rt05iss]Trammell=RainesRipkenHenderson[/quote:2rt05iss] Yes, that's about right. Growing up, though, if you told me that guys like Jim Rice and Dale Murphy and Tim Raines would be "borderline" Hall of Famers, I'd have kicked you in the nuts and told you that you were from outer space. Those guys were lock HoFers back in the day. It's still stunning to me now that they don't get any support. Benjamin Grimm Dec 02 2008 10:49 AM I think Dale Murphy's career faded too soon, which is what hurts his candidacy. Frayed Knot Dec 02 2008 10:54 AM Murphy falls in with Mattingly in my mind -- a half-dozen or so HoF years followed by a longer stretch of mediocrity which killed their chances. Both are guys who you'd say were headed there during their careers but the problem with that kind of thinking is that it often assumes that same level of production (or gradual decline) for the next number of years. Raines wasn't as extreme as those two but the second half of his career wasn't as good as his first either. I thought he was better than Rickey early on (possbily a result of NL bias) but Rickey was eventually better and kept up his elite play much longer. With active players I like to resort to the 'Hit by a train' standard. That's the one where you decide it they'd be in if they never played again and it's a rare player who meets that standard before reaching their mid-30s. ARod is the youngest active player who meets that level and before him was probably Griffey. 2 or 3 more seasons from Pujols and he'll qualify. Vic Sage Dec 02 2008 11:13 AM i'm a definite [u:2et6bhtk]yes [/u:2et6bhtk]on Henderson and Blyleven, and i could go either way on Rice, Raines and Trammell. No others need apply. metsmarathon Dec 02 2008 11:30 AM and so, here's a bit more intelligible way of looking at what i had said previously... Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max henderson TOP 2nd 2nd 2nd TOP blyleven TOP 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd trammell 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd raines 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd bottom cone 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd mcgwire 3rd 3rd bottom 3rd 3rd mattingly bottom 3rd bottom bottom 3rd murphy bottom bottom bottom bottom 3rd dawson 3rd bottom bottom bottom bottom john 2nd out out out out morris bottom bottom bottom 3rd out rice bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom baines bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom grace bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bell bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom williams bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom parker bottom bottom bottom out bottom smith bottom bottom bottom bottom out vaughn out bottom bottom out bottom gant out out out out bottom vaughn out out out out bottom orosco bottom out out out out plesac out out out out out Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 03:09 PM ="Vic Sage":3va03oxw]i'm a definite [u:3va03oxw]yes [/u:3va03oxw]on Henderson and Blyleven, and i could go either way on Rice, Raines and Trammell. No others need apply.[/quote:3va03oxw] It was my (jewish) New Year's resolution to agree with Vic just once this year. Frayed Knot Dec 02 2008 03:15 PM Dave Parker is another not-good-enough from the Murphy/Mattingly category. First 5 full seasons were all great, HoF-quality years. At that point he was 28 y/o. After that he had one great season amid a bunch of good/OK ones in a career that lasted until he was 40. Parker also became the poster boy for every fan's fear of the player who got the (then new) big long-term contract and got fat (figuratively AND literally) and lazy soon afterward. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 02 2008 03:22 PM He was never the same after he got baseball and hockey all confused. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 02 2008 03:23 PM and football Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 04:53 PM Teach you to mess with Stoins. Frayed Knot Dec 03 2008 05:49 AM The HoF candidacy of Tim Raines gets some love[/url:2i8b3myn] in comparisons with not only sure-fire HoFer Rickey but also with possible one Rice & current member Brock in a piece from 'The Hardball Times' Vic Sage Dec 03 2008 08:12 AM ="Nymr83":1lrgong9]="Vic Sage":1lrgong9]i'm a definite [u:1lrgong9]yes [/u:1lrgong9]on Henderson and Blyleven, and i could go either way on Rice, Raines and Trammell. No others need apply.[/quote:1lrgong9] It was my (jewish) New Year's resolution to agree with Vic just once this year.[/quote:1lrgong9] even a broken clock is right twice a day. Nymr83 Dec 03 2008 01:44 PM They anounced the Veteran's Committee ballot today, i fear they will place the undeserving (like Ron Santo) in the hall while ignoring the best hitter not in the hall (Dick Allen.) metsmarathon Dec 03 2008 02:00 PM Player Career 5-yr peak 7-yr Peak 10-yr Plateau 1-yr Max santo 3rd TOP TOP 2nd TOP allen bottom 2nd 3rd 3rd 2nd using my methodology, ron santo is probably the best player not in the hall. Nymr83 Dec 03 2008 02:07 PM Allen has a 156 OPS+ over 15 years, that should be automatic inclusion. Valadius Dec 03 2008 04:29 PM Santo and Allen both deserve it. seawolf17 Dec 03 2008 07:34 PM ="Nymr83":1g5y35ta]Allen has a 156 OPS+ over 15 years, that should be automatic inclusion.[/quote:1g5y35ta] Hey! We agree! Edgy DC Dec 03 2008 08:12 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 06 2008 07:39 AM I don't think there's such a thing as an automatic anything. Bill James pretty much says he jerked his way out of the Hall of Fame and seems to agree, or at least acknowledge where the writers were coming from. You don't have to agree, but I think declaring anything to be a no-brainer is intellectually lazy. The time for thinkers has come. Frayed Knot Dec 06 2008 07:20 AM More Raines love A rather lengthy treatise on why Tim Raines belongs, comparing him as a leadoff hitter to other leadoffs already in or likely headed for the HoF and reaching concluions like; Take a big part of Rickey Henderson and Pete Rose, add a good size part of Lou Brock, Paul Molitor, and Craig Biggio, and stir in some Ichiro Suzuki, Wade Boggs, Joe Morgan, Derek Jeter, and Barry Bonds, and you get a composite that is a shade inferior to Tim Raines. ... and then doing the same with Raines as #3 hitter, and then again as an overall career. I'm convinced. Edgy DC Dec 06 2008 07:44 AM We tend to say we're offended by the use of magic number thresholds reached in compiling career totals, but isn't the failure to reach 3,000 hits the main case against Raines? And couldn't he have pulled it of pretty easily if he (1) walked a little less, or (2) spent his disease-diminished twilight hitting full-time at league average for a lesser team rather than hitting part-time above league average for contenders? Valadius Dec 06 2008 09:21 PM You can't blame a guy for wanting to win championships. Frayed Knot Jan 05 2009 09:16 AM Results revealed a week from today. Meanwhile, Newsday's Ken Davidoff[/url:fmb4ds8p] reveals not only his ballot but his reasoning behind each vote while showing a willingness to change his mind and adapt to changing thinking. Plus I think I agree with him on all his choices (and non-choices). Nymr83 Jan 05 2009 09:39 AM ="Frayed Knot":3l2ojh0o]Results revealed a week from today. Meanwhile, Newsday's Ken Davidoff[/url:3l2ojh0o] reveals not only his ballot but his reasoning behind each vote while showing a willingness to change his mind and adapt to changing thinking. Plus I think I agree with him on all his choices (and non-choices).[/quote:3l2ojh0o] "The statistics stand the test of time. Our memories are not as reliable." That should be rule #1 of HOF voting. metirish Jan 05 2009 09:45 AM That's some good stuff there form Davidoff . I like his honesty and that he can change from year to year.

="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":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!

From baseball-fever.com a view from behind home plate (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008)

="holychicken":26x42lii]Exactly. I didn't even post a picture of her most desirable body part, her posterior. Dear god, tell me my gf doesn't read this forum or she will surely whup me.[/quote:26x42lii] Geez, I was just following Bucket's lead. I mean I need some Met Chick love more than he does! soupcan Dec 04 2008 08:12 AM All from baseball-fever John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 04 2008 08:18 AM Mike Mulligan always said his Steam Shovel could take down one stadium as fast as 100 men could in a day, although he was never quite sure of that. Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2008 08:26 AM So now they're chewing away at the Loge level? Are they going to get to a point where there's just an unattached Upper Level (or Upper Tank as Keith Hernandez would call it) floating high in the air? soupcan Dec 04 2008 08:28 AM Yeah that's weird isn't it? You'd think they'd go top to bottom rather than the other way around. I'd like to think that they are professional demolishers and know what they are doing rather than they might just be stupid. Edgy DC Dec 04 2008 09:21 AM I don't know. These two guys aren't winning any smart awards with me right now. << dgwphotography Dec 04 2008 10:58 AM ="soupcan"] Zvon - is it me, or does this look tone-mapped? It looks like it has that HDR glow to it... HahnSolo Dec 04 2008 11:21 AM ="Edgy DC":2sv0q5gv] I don't know. These two guys aren't winning any smart awards with me right now. <<[/quote:2sv0q5gv] Those two guys are still waiting for their hot pretzel ordered at the last home game. G-Fafif Dec 04 2008 12:30 PM Talk about your stiff Breezes playing havoc with Shea's outfield. Valadius Dec 04 2008 02:00 PM Part of me is rooting to see the picture of them ripping down that Fox News sign. Edgy DC Dec 04 2008 02:14 PM You strike me as somewhat partisan. Am I right? soupcan Dec 04 2008 02:17 PM Who Vlad? Nah - he's as fair and balanced as they come. Kong76 Dec 04 2008 03:45 PM I sent those latest photos to a friend of mine. He wrote back that he thought they were building a new stadium and not just fixing up Shea and slappin' on a new coat of paint like in years gone by. Chucklehead. Zvon Dec 04 2008 04:57 PM ="Iubitul"]="soupcan"] Zvon - is it me, or does this look tone-mapped? It looks like it has that HDR glow to it... Yes. Especially in comparison with the others. It does bring the shaded areas out. Zvon Dec 04 2008 05:02 PM I wish they would get this over with. How are they gonna take down the highest heights sans demolition? themetfairy Dec 04 2008 05:12 PM It may take a while. I remember Old Comiskey Park was in a state of partial demolition when we visited New Comiskey in August of 1991. Kong76 Dec 04 2008 05:22 PM Z: How are they gonna take down the highest heights sans demolition? <=== Cranes and stuff, and how is what they've been doing not demolition? Kong76 Dec 04 2008 05:52 PM tmf: It may take a while. <=== They don't really have much time if they plan to level the joint and make it a parking lot. My guess is they'll finish well before opening day. I don't want to get into union contracts twice tonight, but they make it worth it to finish on time so there's no lolligaggin' nowadays. Zvon Dec 05 2008 03:10 PM ="KC":21ab889l]Cranes and stuff, and how is what they've been doing not demolition?[/quote:21ab889l] Sorry. I meant the usage of explosive charges. Kong76 Dec 05 2008 03:42 PM I figured, I was just goofin'. soupcan Dec 09 2008 08:13 AM Upper deck wrecking ball. BAM! Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2008 08:32 AM They should have painted the wrecking ball to look like a baseball. metirish Dec 09 2008 08:33 AM That would have been really taking the piss on those that see that as a sad event. Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2008 08:37 AM It would be a nod to tradition. It's what they did with the Ebbets Field wrecking ball. The same ball was used a few years later on the Polo Grounds: Benjamin Grimm Dec 09 2008 08:50 AM Cincinnati's Crosley Field too! soupcan Dec 13 2008 02:19 PM Wow - now I'm even starting to have a hard time looking... baseball-fever.com Benjamin Grimm Dec 13 2008 02:36 PM Yikes. Edgy DC Dec 13 2008 02:55 PM GYAH! Kong76 Dec 13 2008 07:10 PM They didn't sell the panels depicting the leap and Seaver's head? Edgy DC Dec 13 2008 07:23 PM It looks like the terrorist hit we were praying wouldn't happen actually did. Kong76 Dec 13 2008 07:44 PM Fuck terrorists, an accidental plane crash on a foggy evening in the wrong flight path was what I thought mighta happened one day. *62 Dec 14 2008 12:56 PM The pictures may be gruesome but the Stadium has overstayed its welcome. I may miss living in Brooklyn desperately, but 3,000 sq. ft. is way better than 920. Edgy DC Dec 14 2008 05:11 PM I don't get the reference. *62 Dec 14 2008 05:39 PM I love Shea for lots of reasons, and will miss it some ..... but it's a dump. Better? Edgy DC Dec 14 2008 05:53 PM I thought those numbers referred to something. Rockin' Doc Dec 14 2008 06:57 PM I think *62 lives in Florida if my memory is correct. He apparently once lived in Brooklyn and apparently hung out at Shea quite a bit in the past. I think he was stating that he missed living in Brooklyn, but preferred the 3000 sq. ft. of living space he can now afford over the 920 sq. ft. of living space he had in Brooklyn. Living in the south and comparing costs for homes with my friends and relatives relatives that live near the city, I understand what he is referring too. Then again, maybe I miss interpreted the meaning of his post. Either way, it's nice to have *62 posting here again. I hope he hangs around. soupcan Dec 16 2008 01:42 PM StadiumPage.com Benjamin Grimm Dec 16 2008 02:04 PM It's amazing that just ten weeks ago it was still full of color and people and noise. soupcan Dec 18 2008 07:45 PM soupcan Dec 29 2008 07:51 AM soupcan Jan 05 2009 12:40 PM G-Fafif Jan 05 2009 12:52 PM Impressive Photoshopping, Soup. Quite interesting to see what Shea Stadium would look like if somebody went mad and started to tear it down. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, please put Shea back together again. Thank you. batmagadanleadoff Jan 05 2009 01:18 PM ="soupcan"]http://i139.photobucket.com/albums/q308/soupcan11/shea5-1.jpg That neon batter just reminded me of Gary Carter' follow through, particularly the way Gary would take an inside pitch and line drive one-bounce it to the outfielder for a single. Are there any other Mets that the neon hitter resembles? Edgy DC Jan 05 2009 02:35 PM Looks kind of slender for Carter. It also looks like a guy going to right, while Carter more typically pulled. metirish Jan 13 2009 01:35 PM from 01/10/2009 metsguyinmichigan Jan 13 2009 02:35 PM They're not saving any of the neon players? I know they're huge. but heck, they could slice them up and sell them for $10 a foot to geeks like me! Zvon Jan 13 2009 02:58 PM ="metsguyinmichigan":8phckkps]They're not saving any of the neon players? I know they're huge. but heck, they could slice them up and sell them for $10 a foot to geeks like me![/quote:8phckkps] Why sell just their feet? John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 13 2009 04:19 PM wham G-Fafif Jan 13 2009 04:53 PM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":1virpusd]wham[/quote:1virpusd] "Wake Me Up Before You Go Go" vs. "Baby I'm Your Man" Whoops...wrong thread. metirish Jan 15 2009 08:00 AM Newsday today has a classic Shea pictures collection. Die-hard fans dance in the aisles at 1:50 a.m. during the 21st inning of a 25-inning marathon game between the Mets and the Cardinals at Shea Stadium. (AP Photo / September 12, 1974) A view of Shea Stadium during the national anthem before a New York Mets-Los Angeles Dodgers game in 1973. (AP Photo / June 9, 1973) Fans rush onto the field and players celebrate after the Mets defeated the Baltimore Orioles to win the 1969 World Series. (AP Photo / October 16, 1969 A view of Shea Stadium after after souvenir-hunting fans ripped up the sod following the Mets' victory in the 1969 World Series. (AP Photo / October 16, 1969) Pirates first baseman Willie Stargell waves to the crowd at Shea Stadium during Willie Stargell Night at Shea. The man at left wiping his eye is Nelson Doubleday, Mets chairman of the board. (Newsday / Paul J. Bereswill / September 27, 1982 The new owners of the Mets pose at Shea Stadium. From left: Stephen E. O'Neil, president of City Investing Company; Nelson Doubleday, president of Doubleday Co.; Fred Wilpon, Chairman of the Board of Sterling Equities and John O. Pickett, owner of the NHL New York Islanders, who was instrumental in setting up the sale of the team. Pickett was not listed as an owner of the club. (AP File Photo / January 25, 1980) Car fire involving several cars in the Shea Stadium parking lot during a game in 2002. (AP Photo / April 27, 2002) Workers Angelo DiMaria, left, and Dominico Bannezo clean off old paint and rust as they get Shea Stadium ready for Opening Day in 2001. (Newsdya / J. Conrad Williams Jr / March 28, 2001) > soupcan Jan 15 2009 08:09 AM Amazing how much Jeff looks like his dad used to. Even down to the bad hairdo. ="metirish"] Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 08:10 AM Car Fire Day: Best. Promotion. Ever. HahnSolo Jan 15 2009 08:36 AM I miss crazy old Uncle Nelson. soupcan Jan 15 2009 08:39 AM Pop Quiz - without looking it up, how much did Nelson & Jeff pay for the Mets in 1980. If I remember right, I think it was $20 million. Farmer Ted Jan 15 2009 08:45 AM I only recall $350 million or so to finally kick Doubleday to the curb in '02. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 09:02 AM Who pitched on Car Fire Day? metirish Jan 15 2009 09:07 AM ="Edgy DC":kdd41i0v]Who pitched on Car Fire Day?[/quote:kdd41i0v] I remember that game , I should say I remember it from watching it on TV and the announcers talking about the fire in the parking lot and showing it. I'll guess that Steve Trachsel pitched . John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 15 2009 09:14 AM ="soupcan":sgwypaic]Pop Quiz - without looking it up, how much did Nelson & Jeff pay for the Mets in 1980. If I remember right, I think it was $20 million.[/quote:sgwypaic] For some reason $21 million is the number I remember but geez. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 09:14 AM Pedro Pistacio took a no-hiiter into the seventh the day after a crisp one-hitter by Testes. It was game two of a three-game sweep over Milwaukee and, for a minute there, it looked like the 2002 Mets had scrapped together a winning rotation of Leiter-Estes-Astacio-D'Amico-Trachsel. That plan blew up in the parking lot like so many SUVs. Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 09:15 AM Is that logo stitched together? It acually looks like a giant shoulder patch. soupcan Jan 15 2009 09:16 AM D'Amico. I had high hopes for him. soupcan Jan 15 2009 09:17 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":esm8z809]For some reason $21 million is the number I remember but geez.[/quote:esm8z809] I think you're right. dgwphotography Jan 15 2009 11:19 AM ="batmagadanleadoff"]="soupcan"] That neon batter just reminded me of Gary Carter' follow through, particularly the way Gary would take an inside pitch and line drive one-bounce it to the outfielder for a single. Are there any other Mets that the neon hitter resembles? flip it around, and it's Mex. attgig Jan 15 2009 12:16 PM ="metirish"] Fans rush onto the field and players celebrate after the Mets defeated the Baltimore Orioles to win the 1969 World Series. (AP Photo / October 16, 1969 > i wonder if that will ever be allowed in pro sports. when did that stop? it's only on college that you see fans rushing the field. why is that? Edgy DC Jan 15 2009 12:19 PM Because student athletes don't need/demand protection from the masses the way millionnaire atheletes do. Why is the cop screening home plate doing the time warp? metirish Jan 15 2009 12:23 PM How about the guy down the RF line jumping from the stands? Benjamin Grimm Jan 15 2009 12:23 PM I think it stopped in 1986, at least in New York. The fans rushed the field after the division clincher, but the mounted cops prevented it in the World Series. I think, though, that the Phillies had the cops on horseback for the 1980 World Series. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 17 2009 12:20 PM I went out there this morning, photos on facebook. Here's a vid shot as the 7 train arrives in Willets Pt. metirish Jan 17 2009 01:59 PM Great pictures btw. soupcan Jan 18 2009 01:53 PM These are from baseballfever... Kong76 Jan 18 2009 02:08 PM Even dollar cost averaging down to ~ 7 1/2, that sums up my Citigroup stock feelings. I've been somewhat unaffected by most of the images, but this one is particularly eerie to me: Kong76 Jan 18 2009 02:10 PM I know the home opener is late this year, but are they really gonna have the ol' girl completely gone by then and a parking lot installed? I thought they'd be more far along. Benjamin Grimm Jan 18 2009 03:30 PM I'm not sure they have to. The existing parking lot served Shea for the last few years, and Shea held more fans than Citi will. Kong76 Jan 18 2009 03:37 PM I don't mean they have to, I just thought that was the plan. Since groundbreaking, parking there has been a pain in the neck and I took the train mostly to games. I like to tailgate, plan on doing it a lot this year, and it's easier to do with a car. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 18 2009 04:26 PM ="Kong76":3gm6qt5k]I know the home opener is late this year, but are they really gonna have the ol' girl completely gone by then and a parking lot installed? I thought they'd be more far along.[/quote:3gm6qt5k] Official plan is the last bits of Shea are to be disappeared by June 30. Those photos put mine to shame! metirish Jan 23 2009 02:23 PM Vince Coleman Firecracker Jan 23 2009 02:43 PM An auto body shop in a Quonset hut. Fantastic. Willets Point Jan 23 2009 02:44 PM I've got dibs on "City * Field * Collision" as my band's name. Frayed Knot Jan 24 2009 11:28 AM The ends of the horseshoe are starting to disappear http://www.wfan.com/pages/3706726.php?imageGalleryXRefId=907755#imgXR http://www.wfan.com/pages/3706726.php?imageGalleryXRefId=907756#imgXR G-Fafif Jan 24 2009 11:53 AM It's a stump, but it's our stump. dgwphotography Jan 24 2009 01:07 PM soupcan Jan 26 2009 12:33 PM More at stadiumpage.com Frayed Knot Jan 26 2009 12:56 PM btw, Harvey Araton tees off the Yanx in a piece in Sunday's NYTimes. Specifically it's the sweet time they're taking in getting rid of the old park even though the new one is nearly finished and that the whole deal was based on trading stadium space for park land, park land that now seems destined for 2011 at the earliest. Their answer as to when they'll get around to even starting deconstruction is essentially "when we fuckin' get around to it - now go away and stop bothering us", even as they had no problem making a public spectacle about marching their offices across to the new digs the street last week. "Mayor Bloomberg, tear down this stadium" metirish Jan 26 2009 01:16 PM The arrogance of all involved is sickening , how I despise all things Yankees. SteveJRogers Jan 26 2009 02:14 PM Supposedly they are going to use YSII for a movie production, plus the plan was that either the Mets or Yankees would use YSII to play games if either Citi Field or YSIII weren't ready come April. So despite the arrogance, there really are valid reasons why it is still up. Frayed Knot Jan 26 2009 02:36 PM Even if using YSII was the on-paper 'just-in-case' backup plan in the event that some wild mishap went on with the construction of either of the new stadiums the virtually ZERO chance such a plan would ever be put into place has now shrunk to roughly that of the Lions being put into next week's Super Bowl were a case of bubonic plague to sweep through either the Steeler or Cardinal camp. And, as the article mentions, they've yet to even select a company that would do the deconstruction or set a date as to when it might start. So the reason it's not only still up but will be so for at least another year has everything to do with the fact that they haven't finished milking the old girl for every cent she's worth and if that means that the city that just re-re-issued more tax-free bonds as the price climbed over a billion dollars and the local kids in the neighborhood they claim to care so much for (whenever they weren't threatening to leave that is) go without a public park for the next few years well then that's none of their damn business. metirish Jan 28 2009 08:10 PM New York Times ] In Dead of Winter, Shea Stadium Is Melting Away By KEN BELSON Published: January 28, 2009 With each passing day, Shea Stadium, the home of the Mets since 1964, fades further from Citi Field, the team�s new home. In the last few weeks, demolition crews have been ripping down entire sections of Shea from both ends of the outfield decks toward its middle. What was once a semi-enclosed bowl with 57,000 seats is now a skeleton of a grandstand. In the first weeks after the Mets finished their final season at Shea (with another desultory loss that knocked them out of playoff contention), crews removed the seats, signs and anything else that could be sold to collectors or reused in city parks. Then demolition crews started knocking out the field level and the concrete decks that made up the loge and the mezzanine. But the structure of the stadium, built for nearly $30 million, was largely intact. Not so anymore. Since the beginning of the year, crews have clawed away at Shea�s walls and beams, exposing escalators, elevator banks and air ducts. The stands above Gates A and E have vanished and parts of the neon players that adorned the outside of the stadium are gone, too. Twelve sections of the upper deck still have their concrete floors, but the other sections that remain are outlined only by their steel beams. Unlike stadiums in other cities that have been imploded, Shea had to be taken down piece by piece because of building codes. The rat-a-tat-tat of the construction machinery drowned out the noise of the jets taking off from LaGuardia Airport. Tarps on chain link fences say �Almost Home,� a reference to the soon-to-be-opened Citi Field, but also the six-month process of erasing Shea. In all, nearly 10,000 tons of steel and another 2,500 tons of concrete will be pulled out of Shea. Some of the concrete will be ground up and reused as the base material for the parking lot that will be installed in its place. The lot will include space for 2,000 cars and signs marking where home plate and the pitcher�s mound once were. Team representatives said that the demolition will be completed some time in the coming weeks, which is not hard to imagine. On Wednesday, lines of dump trucks made their way onto what was once the outfield, weaving around piles of crumpled metal and concrete covered in snow. Several Web sites have sprung up that have chronicled the destruction of the place where Seaver once threw, Piazza once squatted and the Stork, George Theodore, once roamed. In a way, the sites are a testament to the morbid curiosity of Mets fans, who have endured many morbid Mets teams. �It�s interesting how they are doing it piece by piece,� said Eric Okurowski, a 31-year master�s candidate and a life-long Met fan from Babylon, N.Y., who runs stadiumpage.com. �Most old stadia are blown up and it takes just a few seconds. It�s pretty interesting seeing it come apart in pieces over the course of four months.� Okurowski and several other die-hard fans are organizing a final farewell at Shea at noon Saturday to share stories and take photographs of what is left of the ballpark. As Shea diminishes, Citi Field emerges. While less imposing than Shea, the new stadium, at least from the outside, has an elegance that Shea lacked. Instead of the lattice of concrete ramps that constituted Shea�s exterior, Citi Field is covered in brick and punctuated with arches and an entrance rotunda. Flood lights highlight the outside while klieg lights illuminate what is left of Shea. More Articles in Sports �A version of this article appeared in print on January 29, 2009, on page B18 of the New York edition. apmorris Jan 29 2009 04:58 PM ="metirish"]New York Times ] Okurowski and several other die-hard fans are organizing a final farewell at Shea at noon Saturday to share stories and take photographs of what is left of the ballpark. Anyone going? (bring a camera) metirish Jan 29 2009 05:28 PM People are going http://www.faithandfearinflushing.com/ G-Fafif Jan 30 2009 03:38 PM Damn, dirty apes... apmorris Jan 30 2009 04:43 PM ="G-Fafif"]Damn, dirty apes... Awesomenessness Kong76 Jan 30 2009 07:24 PM Classic pic. dgwphotography Jan 31 2009 05:41 AM that's just brilliant. Benjamin Grimm Jan 31 2009 05:44 AM That really is brilliant. metirish Jan 31 2009 05:47 AM Yeah it's very clever. themetfairy Jan 31 2009 06:19 AM It's just a model.... batmagadanleadoff Jan 31 2009 04:06 PM I'm guessing that the picture has something to do with the Statue Liberty finale in Planet of.... But that picture never came up on my browser. Not today. Not yesterday. Benjamin Grimm Jan 31 2009 04:14 PM Me neither. I had to right click, select "Copy Location" and paste the following in my browser: http://faithandfear.blogharbor.com/_photos/heston.jpg Edgy DC Feb 02 2009 07:05 AM You MANIACS! soupcan Feb 05 2009 07:11 AM From stadiumpage.com Just a matter of time now.... Benjamin Grimm Feb 05 2009 08:06 AM It's starting to look more like the grandstand you'd see at a race track. Frayed Knot Feb 05 2009 08:11 AM Never can say goodbye No no no no, I Never can say goodbye Even though the pain and heartache Seems to follow me wherever I go Though I try and try to hide my feelings They always seem to show Then you try to say you're leaving me And I always have to say no... Tell me why Is it so That I ... Never can say goodbye No no no no, I Never can say goodbye Evertime I think I had enough I start heading for the door There's a very strange vibration That pierces me right to the core It says turn around you fool You know you love her more and more Tell me why Is it so Don't wanna let yo go I never can say goodbye soupcan Feb 06 2009 10:55 AM These are from wcbs880.com. And there are a few more there as well. G-Fafif Feb 08 2009 03:10 PM Shea among the ruins... Kong76 Feb 08 2009 03:47 PM I called KB over and asked if she wanted to see an eerie picture on my laptop and she saw this and started bawling. "That's all that's left? When was that picture taken?" "Uh, I guess last time it snowed." ... (I'm obnoxious in real life too) and I told her this is like a 25 page thread of the destruction of Shea and we started talking about our Moms and games and tailgates and she got me all throaty too and crying and screw you all but ok I admit that it's hard to see the old thing disappear and I've been suppressing the sadness. There, I said it. dgwphotography Feb 09 2009 07:41 AM the first time we go there this year will be a shock. Edgy DC Feb 09 2009 07:50 AM We should go and have a tribute concert in the parking lot. G-Fafif Feb 09 2009 10:37 AM ="Kong76":1akaid2f]I called KB over and asked if she wanted to see an eerie picture on my laptop and she saw this and started bawling.[/quote:1akaid2f] My wife, who worked downtown throughout the fall of 2001, invoked Ground Zero in terms of what it reminded her of looking at. soupcan Feb 13 2009 10:09 AM Another from baseballfever.com metirish Feb 13 2009 10:27 AM Great pictures over there...taken this morning from the #7 train Benjamin Grimm Feb 13 2009 10:48 AM They should leave that last chunk in place. smg58 Feb 13 2009 12:34 PM I drove past it the other day. It's really sad to see it. soupcan Feb 14 2009 07:21 AM I'm at LaGuardia waiting for a flight. Drove past Citi and Shea. Shea looks so sad and insignificant. I'm excited and wistful at the same time. cooby Feb 14 2009 08:22 AM Please, check for ice and geese. Not joking. soupcan Feb 14 2009 08:38 AM We're flying Continental - what could go wrong? dgwphotography Feb 14 2009 09:44 AM ="metirish"] It's fitting that that's the last piece left... Frayed Knot Feb 14 2009 09:49 AM Think of it as an image of Koosman throwing the final pitch of the '69 WS. It could be Orosco/'86 too but it looks more like Koosman. dgwphotography Feb 14 2009 09:51 AM hmmmm.... I always saw Matlack in that image... dgwphotography Feb 14 2009 09:57 AM ="Iubitul"]hmmmm.... I always saw Matlack in that image... Actually, no. Bob Ojeda. SteveJRogers Feb 14 2009 11:49 AM ="Iubitul"]="Iubitul"]hmmmm.... I always saw Matlack in that image... Actually, no. Bob Ojeda. What is that watermark on the other side of the card top? A Boy Named Seo Feb 14 2009 11:58 AM ="metirish"]Great pictures over there...taken this morning from the #7 train Nice pic, Irish. Poor, little Shea getting swallowed up by Citi on both sides. Kong76 Feb 15 2009 01:46 PM We took a ride out there today. We packed up a camera, a couple of Heineken keg cans (KB drove) and set out. I was kind of emotional getting ready but by the time we were in the car and on our way I was kinda excited. There were a bunch of people milling about doing the same thing we were and while I didn't talk to anyone we all smiled and nodded to each other like we got it. What we really should have done was cooked a few hot dogs one more time but the beer was enough I guess to count as a tailgate of sorts. The pictures posted all over the internet get redundant after awhile I suppose, but I got a few unique images. metirish Feb 15 2009 02:20 PM Great pictures , thanks. themetfairy Feb 15 2009 03:08 PM Nice shots Kase! LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 15 2009 05:20 PM Thanks, sir. Beautiful and gut-wrenching. (All in all, this offseason's been like a months-long wake... except one where the guests take parts of the deceased with them as souvenirs.) A Boy Named Seo Feb 15 2009 05:30 PM Great shots, man. Love the one of you raising your can of Heiny in salutation. holychicken Feb 15 2009 05:49 PM Whoa, crazy, KC. I was there today too and took some very similar pictures. I was the jackass with my little brown dog off the leash. He was very happy to be out running about like that. Edgy DC Feb 15 2009 06:01 PM Should have a concert out there. LeiterWagnerFasterStrongr Feb 15 2009 06:05 PM Or an Irish wake? -Loading up on Jameson fifths/Cueing up "Body of an American" on the iPods. Kong76 Feb 15 2009 06:13 PM holyc: I was the jackass with my little brown dog off the leash <<< I didn't see any little brown pups running about. It's funny, but I really thought I'd run into at least one Mets' fan I knew out there. Running into you woulda been cool and we coulda done a Heiny. holychicken Feb 15 2009 07:42 PM Yeah, I figured there would be no one there but the when I saw the number of people there I figured I would see someone I knew. I checked everyone saw there, but didn't recognize anyone as well. I figured my dog would have stuck out tho more than me DocTee Feb 15 2009 08:27 PM Cool pics, thanks for sharing them. Did you pour some of that Heiny on the ground, ghetto style, to remember Shea, your fallen friend? Kong76 Feb 16 2009 01:11 PM Tee: Did you pour some of that Heiny on the ground <<< I have to confess that I did deposit some used Heiny behind some construction materials. Edgy DC Feb 16 2009 01:13 PM I'm going to guess you haven't puked at Shea since October 12, 1982. Kong76 Feb 16 2009 06:24 PM I had to google the date but I didn't yak that night. John Cougar Lunchbucket Feb 17 2009 09:25 AM Nice shotz guys. ah, screw it. Zvon Feb 17 2009 12:28 PM ="SteveJRogers"]="Iubitul"]="Iubitul"]hmmmm.... I always saw Matlack in that image... Actually, no. Bob Ojeda. What is that watermark on the other side of the card top? That's the Desert Storm logo/thing they added to sets of cards for the troops overseas back in the day. themetfairy Feb 17 2009 02:00 PM Zvon! How have you been? attgig Feb 17 2009 03:53 PM http://twitpic.com/photos/bluenautica one last piece remaining. Frayed Knot Feb 18 2009 11:14 AM Last piece down (video available via Newsday's main sports page) It's all over but the sweeping. soupcan Feb 24 2009 08:02 AM These I guess are almost a week old. From http://www.stadiumpage.com Edgy DC Feb 24 2009 08:14 AM To heck with your copyright, Gary. soupcan Feb 24 2009 08:32 AM 'Zactly. Zvon Feb 24 2009 02:38 PM ="Edgy DC":33njl1ow]To heck with your copyright, Gary.[/quote:33njl1ow] I'll photoshop that out. Shhhh. holychicken Feb 24 2009 03:59 PM ="Zvon":13ygrx4a]="Edgy DC":13ygrx4a]To heck with your copyright, Gary.[/quote:13ygrx4a] I'll photoshop that out. Shhhh.[/quote:13ygrx4a] Simple crop job ought to do. Edgy DC Mar 16 2009 02:56 PM Mini-Shea ripped up from the ground. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/16/you-too-can-own-a-piece-of-the-mini-city/ Farmer Ted Mar 16 2009 03:14 PM They couldn't save those two satellite dishes? Coulda saved me a few bucks with DirecTV.

="John Cougar Lunchbucket"]="holychicken"]Might be a bit late for this coming in after all of the destruction pics . . . but this is one of my favorite pictures of shea. It is my gf's younger sister. Is she like, legal? Uh, 'Bucket, aren't you very much attached at the moment? Now Chicken, I ask you the same question!

Should they also cancel out the deal with the Ducks and CitiBank Park out on Long Island and other buildings that the name is on. Which also includes a retail center in mid-town.

To be fair, Robinson does have the whole argument of "Why are we honoring a man who was never even ASSOCIATED with the Met franchise" and while yes Hodges is a huge part of Met history to some it would reek of Wilpon loving the Dodgers and their history more than he loves the team he owns and its history. It would be that way, sorry Greg, if the Mets did something to honor Willie Mays or any New York Giant as well.

="Nymr83":209i7anv]how bout stop naming things and doing things for a team that skipped town 50 years ago, the Mets have their own history should they choose to honor someone/something[/quote:209i7anv]\ Wait, I got it, and it is a corporate one, "GTS Vineyards Stadium!" THAT would be cool actually! Edgy DC Nov 22 2008 01:21 PM I don't know why this keeps coming up, but naming something for Gil Hodges or Jackie Robinson isn't naming something "for a team that skipped town 50 years ago." SteveJRogers Nov 22 2008 01:46 PM To be fair, Robinson does have the whole argument of "Why are we honoring a man who was never even ASSOCIATED with the Met franchise" and while yes Hodges is a huge part of Met history to some it would reek of Wilpon loving the Dodgers and their history more than he loves the team he owns and its history. It would be that way, sorry Greg, if the Mets did something to honor Willie Mays or any New York Giant as well. Ashie62 Nov 22 2008 02:18 PM ="Edgy DC":3n3ku55k]I don't know why this keeps coming up, but naming something for Gil Hodges or Jackie Robinson isn't naming something "for a team that skipped town 50 years ago."[/quote:3n3ku55k] I would agree. We are the New York Mets with our own unique Heritage..I don't see that either Jackie Robinson, Gil Hodges, or Carl Furillo for example...have enough or place in NY Mets 1962-present Heritage to have a stadium named for them. Yes..Hodges played abit and managed but he is largly remebered as a Brooklyn Dodger. It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants. hey, I'd go for Ed Kranepool Stadium before any of the above names. Benjamin Grimm Nov 22 2008 02:20 PM I can only think of one stadium that was ever named, albeit briefly, for a broadcaster. None that were named for players. One that was named for a manager, but he was a manager/owner. Before corporate naming, ballparks were named for the teams that played in them, or for their owners, or for the city, or for the neighborhood in which the ballpark was built. Kong76 Nov 22 2008 02:31 PM Wow, Ashie's been posting here since 1969! Welcome to the pool. Nymr83 Nov 22 2008 02:32 PM ="KC":3b0t2n16]Wow, Ashie's been posting here since 1969! [/quote:3b0t2n16] According to Joe Biden, the internet existed then. RealityChuck Nov 22 2008 03:25 PM Stengel Stadium. Yes, he was known for the MFY, but also managed in Brooklyn. And he was instrumental in making the team a success in 1962 (it certainly wasn't the players on the field) by the way he charmed the press and the fans. Other options: Chan Ho Park Sell the naming rights to Field Enterprises and call it Field Field. Prince Fielder has a lot of money. Why not Fielder Field? Edgy DC Nov 22 2008 04:45 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 23 2008 10:27 AM The idea of naming something in honor of Hodges or Robinson --- neither of which is going to happen --- is not to advance the Mets brand or the Dodgers brand, but to honor somebody worthy of honor. Kong76 Nov 22 2008 05:36 PM The whole Brooklyn Fred thing got old like six years ago. Met Hunter Nov 22 2008 10:18 PM Banco Popular Stadium. Zvon Nov 23 2008 05:27 AM Metropolitan Park Edgy DC Nov 23 2008 06:28 AM ="Met Hunter":3jxqxslt]Banco Popular Stadium.[/quote:3jxqxslt] Estadio Popular. MFS62 Nov 23 2008 08:10 AM ="DocTee"]Are you crazy??? Flushing MF? I can hear it now...jokes about shitty play, crappy facilities..it will never stop. HEY! I resemble that remark! Later soupcan Nov 23 2008 11:12 AM ="Ashie62":268xwysm] It seems like Citifield is a Brooklyn Dodger sandwich being shoved down Met pants.[/quote:268xwysm] Oooh! A sandwich shoved into my pants! metirish Nov 23 2008 04:42 PM Just watched a report on NBC Evening News that Citi are right now in talks with the Government to"save the bank ", that's the term the financial expert used . Valadius Nov 23 2008 07:49 PM I would hope that one of their first moves is to terminate their naming rights agreement to save capital. Edgy DC Nov 23 2008 08:49 PM By all accounts, they don't intend to do that. Valadius Nov 23 2008 09:29 PM Well, if I were in Congress, and I were negotiating a bailout deal with Citigroup, that would be the first condition I would make them agree to. Ashie62 Nov 23 2008 10:16 PM It appears Citigroup will belong to the taxpayers before the open tomorrow. I don't think the Treasury would allow funding of naming rights. Those Citi signs kinda looked like Dominos logos anyway. Enron Park became Minute Maid park..Life will go on I only hope Wilpons Real Estate Empire isn't in the tank Only the Mets could be unlucky enough to have the U.S. Treasury cut payroll to pay back naming rights money..Thats a joke..I hope Nymr83 Nov 23 2008 10:37 PM you don't know that the government will force them to try and cancel any naming deals (can they even get out of the contract sahort of filing for bankruptcy? i dont know.) its entirely possible that the naming deal constitutes a bargain as far as advertising goes. Edgy DC Nov 23 2008 10:48 PM ="Valadius":2zpn40f1]Well, if I were in Congress, and I were negotiating a bailout deal with Citigroup, that would be the first condition I would make them agree to.[/quote:2zpn40f1] Should they zero out their marketing budget entirely? Nymr83 Nov 24 2008 12:21 AM thats pretty much the point i was trying to make, naming a stadium after your company isn't the same as the Executive Yacht, its advertising just like any other. Whether or not it is sound advertising strategy I'm no expert. seawolf17 Nov 24 2008 07:22 AM I'd bet that at least some chunk of that money is already spent, so I don't know that it matters. Either way, I'd guess the name stays. SteveJRogers Nov 24 2008 09:29 AM Should they also cancel out the deal with the Ducks and CitiBank Park out on Long Island and other buildings that the name is on. Which also includes a retail center in mid-town. Benjamin Grimm Nov 24 2008 09:41 AM I suspect that the Citi name will remain, and that's okay. It's better than a lot of other corporate names would have been. (We can just pretend that it's "City Field" which has a nice 19th Century sound to it.) But I also wouldn't mind if the place somehow ended up with a non-corporate name for just the 2009 season until a new sponsor was found. That would give us a real name for the park, one that we could continue to use for years to come. I don't want the name of the place to change every few years as one bank takes over another and then we don't know what to call it. Maybe we should just think of it as "Ebbets Field II" Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 09:45 AM It would take a bank the size of --- well, the US government --- to take over Citi. Benjamin Grimm Nov 24 2008 09:50 AM Treasury Department Field. metirish Nov 24 2008 09:57 AM This article is in Newsday today. ] Citigroup sheds workers, keeps Mets deal Anthony Rieber 10:32 AM EST, November 24, 2008 You might have missed the news because it came on Friday, but Citigroup announced it was not planning to back out of the naming rights deal for the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. That's the 20-year, $400-million naming rights deal. From a company that: -- Earlier in the week announced it was going to let go of 52,000 workers by early next year. Anthony Rieber Anthony Rieber Bio | E-mail | Recent columns Related links * Citi Field construction Citi Field construction Photos * Free agency forecast What do you expect from the Mets when free agency begins? A huge splash and a big name closer (K-Rod?) They'll make a trade and maybe one or two bullpen signings They'll make some additions to the bullpen, but not much else They'll try to go with cheap options and hope for the best -- Saw its shares on the stock market lose more than half their value. -- May have to sell parts of the company or merge with another company. -- May require a massive government bailout to stay in business. But that $20 million per year check to the Mets to keep the Citi Field sign up (yes, it's already up)? That check is in the mail, don't worry. And the Mets can count on $20 million more just like it each of the next 19 years. Uh-huh. We've heard that one before. Heck, some of us have probably said it. Sure, we can afford that new sofa. The big flat-screen. The i-Phone. Don't worry ... we're a little cash-poor now, but we're good for it. Let's hope the Mets aren't banking their winter free-agent plans on getting that $20 million from Citigroup, or whatever the company will be called by April 13, when the new ballpark opens. Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes or whoever else the Mets have on their shopping list expect to be paid in cash, not IOUs. I'd say the Mets should be sweating the arrival of that money, but the Mets have to be smart enough to know the naming rights deal is never going to survive the full 20 years, or maybe the next 20 minutes. Here's what the Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: "We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It's an important marketing priority for us." Well, by all means, don't scrimp on that marketing budget. I mean, 52,000 people are going to get pink-slipped between now and Opening Day -- want to bet that spokesman has updated his own resume in the last week or so? -- but Citigroup remains committed to giving the Mets nearly a half a billion dollars to see its name in lights on a baseball stadium. Seriously, with decisions like that, it's not hard to see why Citigroup is in such trouble. You have to wonder if the whole naming-rights thing is just an ego trip for the company executives. Are you more likely to put your money in a Citibank account because your Mets' tickets say "Citi Field" on them? (Actually, that's a trick question. In the current economy, you don't have any money to put in the bank, and you can't afford tickets to Citi Field.) Or maybe naming rights deals really are good business. Maybe Citi Field will become a shining beacon of sports/business synergy, just like Enron Field and Bank One Ballpark and Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park and Ameriquest Field and Edison International Field and Network Associates Coliseum and McAfee Coliseum. All of those are past names of current baseball stadiums. Some have been renamed more than once. The naming rights deals either changed hands when the parent companies were sold or merged, or the deals were not renewed for one reason or another, or the deal went belly-up when the company when kaput and took all of its employees with it. That one was Enron Field in Houston, now Minute Maid Park. Good thing people still drink orange juice. We're not saying Citigroup is going to go the way of Enron, but wouldn't that $400 million help even a little? Maybe the Citigroup spokesman and some of the 52,000 can keep their jobs? And do the Mets really need that $20 million? Maybe they'd make better decisions if they had less money to spend. They spent $19.9 million in 2008 on this: Moises Alou ($7.5 million), Luis Castillo ($6.2 million), Scott Schoenweis ($3.6 million), Aaron Heilman ($1.2 million), Marlon Anderson ($1 million) and Ambiorix Burgos ($400,000). The Yankees, who have turned their new stadium into an ATM even more than the Mets have, did not sell naming rights. It will be called Yankee Stadium. Good for them. Which got us to thinking ... sure, the Mets can probably get another company to pony up the dough if Citigroup backs out. Maybe by Opening Day they'll be playing in Taco Bell Field or Staples Stadium or Enzo's Pizza Park. We've got the perfect name for the new ballpark, though. One that won't cost a dime and won't have to be changed with every hiccup in the corporate world. Shea Stadium. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 10:06 AM ="metirish"]This article is in Newsday today. ] Citigroup sheds workers, keeps Mets deal Anthony Rieber 10:32 AM EST, November 24, 2008 You might have missed the news because it came on Friday, but Citigroup announced it was not planning to back out of the naming rights deal for the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. That's the 20-year, $400-million naming rights deal. From a company that: -- Earlier in the week announced it was going to let go of 52,000 workers by early next year. Anthony Rieber Anthony Rieber Bio | E-mail | Recent columns Related links * Citi Field construction Citi Field construction Photos * Free agency forecast What do you expect from the Mets when free agency begins? A huge splash and a big name closer (K-Rod?) They'll make a trade and maybe one or two bullpen signings They'll make some additions to the bullpen, but not much else They'll try to go with cheap options and hope for the best -- Saw its shares on the stock market lose more than half their value. -- May have to sell parts of the company or merge with another company. -- May require a massive government bailout to stay in business. But that $20 million per year check to the Mets to keep the Citi Field sign up (yes, it's already up)? That check is in the mail, don't worry. And the Mets can count on $20 million more just like it each of the next 19 years. Uh-huh. We've heard that one before. Heck, some of us have probably said it. Sure, we can afford that new sofa. The big flat-screen. The i-Phone. Don't worry ... we're a little cash-poor now, but we're good for it. Let's hope the Mets aren't banking their winter free-agent plans on getting that $20 million from Citigroup, or whatever the company will be called by April 13, when the new ballpark opens. Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes or whoever else the Mets have on their shopping list expect to be paid in cash, not IOUs. I'd say the Mets should be sweating the arrival of that money, but the Mets have to be smart enough to know the naming rights deal is never going to survive the full 20 years, or maybe the next 20 minutes. Here's what the Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: "We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It's an important marketing priority for us." Well, by all means, don't scrimp on that marketing budget. I mean, 52,000 people are going to get pink-slipped between now and Opening Day -- want to bet that spokesman has updated his own resume in the last week or so? -- but Citigroup remains committed to giving the Mets nearly a half a billion dollars to see its name in lights on a baseball stadium. Seriously, with decisions like that, it's not hard to see why Citigroup is in such trouble. You have to wonder if the whole naming-rights thing is just an ego trip for the company executives. Are you more likely to put your money in a Citibank account because your Mets' tickets say "Citi Field" on them? (Actually, that's a trick question. In the current economy, you don't have any money to put in the bank, and you can't afford tickets to Citi Field.) Or maybe naming rights deals really are good business. Maybe Citi Field will become a shining beacon of sports/business synergy, just like Enron Field and Bank One Ballpark and Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park and Ameriquest Field and Edison International Field and Network Associates Coliseum and McAfee Coliseum. All of those are past names of current baseball stadiums. Some have been renamed more than once. The naming rights deals either changed hands when the parent companies were sold or merged, or the deals were not renewed for one reason or another, or the deal went belly-up when the company when kaput and took all of its employees with it. That one was Enron Field in Houston, now Minute Maid Park. Good thing people still drink orange juice. We're not saying Citigroup is going to go the way of Enron, but wouldn't that $400 million help even a little? Maybe the Citigroup spokesman and some of the 52,000 can keep their jobs? And do the Mets really need that $20 million? Maybe they'd make better decisions if they had less money to spend. They spent $19.9 million in 2008 on this: Moises Alou ($7.5 million), Luis Castillo ($6.2 million), Scott Schoenweis ($3.6 million), Aaron Heilman ($1.2 million), Marlon Anderson ($1 million) and Ambiorix Burgos ($400,000). The Yankees, who have turned their new stadium into an ATM even more than the Mets have, did not sell naming rights. It will be called Yankee Stadium. Good for them. Which got us to thinking ... sure, the Mets can probably get another company to pony up the dough if Citigroup backs out. Maybe by Opening Day they'll be playing in Taco Bell Field or Staples Stadium or Enzo's Pizza Park. We've got the perfect name for the new ballpark, though. One that won't cost a dime and won't have to be changed with every hiccup in the corporate world. Shea Stadium. Sports columnist equivalent of a weak-hitting utilityman snarks it up way out of his pay grade. Maybe they should rename the park after Anthony Rieber and the entire pathetic Newsday sports department. Call it The Tool Shed. Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 10:37 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 24 2008 11:52 AM That's not an article. It's an editorial. And, as you see, way out of his league. G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 11:49 AM You can make a reasoned, insightful, informative case for avoiding naming rights entanglements or at least entering them with great care. You can analyze such situations in light of recent events and strive for a fresh take on a well-worn topic. At best, you can introduce some ideas that might morph into solutions for all involved. Or you can be Anthony Rieber of Newsday and write your column while brushing your teeth. ]You might have missed the news because it came on Friday, but Citigroup announced it was not planning to back out of the naming rights deal for the Mets' new stadium, Citi Field. Watch out, reader. Anthony Rieber is about to inform you. ]That's the 20-year, $400-million naming rights deal. Lot of numbers. Must be more than the columnist can comprehend. ]From a company that: -- Earlier in the week announced it was going to let go of 52,000 workers by early next year. -- Saw its shares on the stock market lose more than half their value. -- May have to sell parts of the company or merge with another company. -- May require a massive government bailout to stay in business. Anybody wanna bet Anthony Rieber never read a financial story before whichever one he cribbed from so he could take a whack at the principals in this one? ]But that $20 million per year check to the Mets to keep the Citi Field sign up (yes, it's already up)? That check is in the mail, don't worry. And the Mets can count on $20 million more just like it each of the next 19 years. Ha! "It's already up." What a card. It's been up since August, as hundreds of thousands if not millions have seen for themselves. And there is a contract. It might very well have provisions for this sort of calamity. Or it might not. You could ask around. Or you could go for an easy laugh (and fail). ]Uh-huh. We've heard that one before. Heck, some of us have probably said it. Sure, we can afford that new sofa. The big flat-screen. The i-Phone. Don't worry ... we're a little cash-poor now, but we're good for it. This recession is hilarious. Companies are just like us. Equivalency is a graspable concept. ]Let's hope the Mets aren't banking their winter free-agent plans on getting that $20 million from Citigroup, or whatever the company will be called by April 13, when the new ballpark opens. They probably aren't. If I recall correctly, the $20 million per annum was framed as helping to pay down the debt on the ballpark. Again, a reporter might dig into the archives or ask somebody familiar with these sorts of deals if, in fact, neither the Mets nor Citigroup (which has higher priorities today, I'm guessin) is talking. ]Francisco Rodriguez or Brian Fuentes or whoever else the Mets have on their shopping list expect to be paid in cash, not IOUs. I'd say the Mets should be sweating the arrival of that money, but the Mets have to be smart enough to know the naming rights deal is never going to survive the full 20 years, or maybe the next 20 minutes. Lord knows the Mets have no source of income with which to meet payroll except for that naming rights fee. Was Johan Santana paid throughout 2008 with "IOUs"? And Mets: listen to Rieber. He's been giving this thought since his editor sent him an e-mail last night telling him to whip something up ASAP. ]Here's what the Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: "We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It's an important marketing priority for us." A bland, cautious statement in uncertain times hewing to a signed contract. Rieber probably presents this as a fair counterbalance to his sarcasm. ]Well, by all means, don't scrimp on that marketing budget. I mean, 52,000 people are going to get pink-slipped between now and Opening Day -- want to bet that spokesman has updated his own resume in the last week or so? -- but Citigroup remains committed to giving the Mets nearly a half a billion dollars to see its name in lights on a baseball stadium. Whoa, don't know how I misread the writer's intention. Maybe that spokesman should have issued a release alluding to the risky nature of the deal he was commenting on and come out against it, whatever his employer's instructions. As for "nearly half a billion dollars," that's a lot of money. Therefore, it must be outlandish and outrageous that Citi, two years ago, planned a long-term marketing budget. What do you want from these Johnny-come-lately high-tech startups anyway? Obviously the same person who came up with sponsoring Citi Field is the same person who screwed everything else up. ]Seriously, with decisions like that, it's not hard to see why Citigroup is in such trouble. You have to wonder if the whole naming-rights thing is just an ego trip for the company executives. Are you more likely to put your money in a Citibank account because your Mets' tickets say "Citi Field" on them? Attention reader: Anthony Rieber is being serious. And philosophical, since "you have to wonder" about the ego trip angle. Yes, that was probably it. There aren't enough places in the New York area where the Citi logo was plastered. By the way, was I more likely to read Newsday because they hired Gary Carter as their pitchman in the mid-'80s? Has Anthony Rieber ever done any actual investigation into how marketing plans are hatched, what's their upside, why so many companies go for naming rights? Since Citi didn't invent the concept last week, it might have served him well to have, again, asked somebody who had. ](Actually, that's a trick question. In the current economy, you don't have any money to put in the bank, and you can't afford tickets to Citi Field.) He's irrepressible! "You" are screwed. Anthony Rieber is on Your side. ]Or maybe naming rights deals really are good business. Maybe Citi Field will become a shining beacon of sports/business synergy, just like Enron Field and Bank One Ballpark and Pacific Bell Park and SBC Park and Ameriquest Field and Edison International Field and Network Associates Coliseum and McAfee Coliseum. Hey, did you guys know that sometimes these things DON'T work out? That companies change names and therefore the stadiums do, too? Rieber's got an exclusive. Doesn't mention that PNC Park, Citizens Bank Park, Great American Ball Park, Raymond James Stadium have remained intact for five or more years, nor bothered to find out if those sponsors are getting their money's worth, if the teams feel they are well served, if it's really made a difference, if it's likely that eventually they too will change their names. But I didn't know that about Enron. AR: Looking out for YOU. ]All of those are past names of current baseball stadiums. Some have been renamed more than once. Thanks for clearing that up, big guy. ]The naming rights deals either changed hands when the parent companies were sold or merged, or the deals were not renewed for one reason or another, or the deal went belly-up when the company when kaput and took all of its employees with it. And certainly every one of those companies experienced the same circumstances and Citi, in 2006, loomed as exactly that sort of textbook case study. ]That one was Enron Field in Houston, now Minute Maid Park. Good thing people still drink orange juice. Ho-ho! If Minute Maid has a product recall tomorrow, Anthony Rieber will have OJ on his face! And did you hear that the Enron alliance backfired on the Astros? ]We're not saying Citigroup is going to go the way of Enron, but wouldn't that $400 million help even a little? Maybe the Citigroup spokesman and some of the 52,000 can keep their jobs? What you mean "we," sports man? No doubt 52,000 jobs could be saved a lot of ways. Nobody wouldn't prefer every one of those people stay employed over the Mets' ballpark having the name Citi Field. Please explain how money committed against a baseball stadium in 2017 would automatically be dedicated to those jobs. Better yet, have somebody attempt to explain it. ]And do the Mets really need that $20 million? Maybe they'd make better decisions if they had less money to spend. They spent $19.9 million in 2008 on this: Moises Alou ($7.5 million), Luis Castillo ($6.2 million), Scott Schoenweis ($3.6 million), Aaron Heilman ($1.2 million), Marlon Anderson ($1 million) and Ambiorix Burgos ($400,000). Ha! The Mets are dolts! They pay bad and unproductive players lots of money! They are the only team in the majors to do that, FYI. Rieber prefers teams pay money to good players only. Somebody pass it on to Omar Minaya. ]The Yankees, who have turned their new stadium into an ATM even more than the Mets have, did not sell naming rights. It will be called Yankee Stadium. Good for them. New Yankee Stadium opens in 2009. Citi Field (or whatever it's called) opens in 2009. Yankee Stadium is more successful. Their fans will afford those pricey tickets. "You," as previously explained by Prof. Rieber, won't be able to deposit money in the bank or buy Mets tickets. Good for the Yankees! They do everything right, the Mets do everything wrong. ]Which got us to thinking ... sure, the Mets can probably get another company to pony up the dough if Citigroup backs out. Maybe by Opening Day they'll be playing in Taco Bell Field or Staples Stadium or Enzo's Pizza Park. After all this, something got Rieber & Co. ("us") to thinking? Watch out, reader! His thought is the Mets could be playing in a ballpark not named for Citi Field...that they'll be playing in one with preposterous names (though he might have ramped up from Staples to Taco Bell to Enzo's Pizza for maximum effect). Bet you didn't know Rieber had that trick up his sleeve. ]We've got the perfect name for the new ballpark, though. One that won't cost a dime and won't have to be changed with every hiccup in the corporate world. The Mets can't be trusted with $20 million anyhows, so we'll want something that "won't cost a dime," whoever's dime that might be. Rieber has a fresh solution, I can feel it. Wait, let me guess... ]Shea Stadium. Did NOT see that coming! Rieber you genius, it's steak and Lowenbrau for you. metirish Nov 24 2008 11:53 AM That's some funny stuff right there G-Fafif Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 12:00 PM Hit send NOW!!!! G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 03:40 PM ABC News story finds financial institutions with their names on stadiums see no conflict between their sports marketing investments and whatever they're getting from me and you and an uncle named Sam. ]Citi, AIG Won't Drop Big Sports Sponsorships Critics Slam Bailed-Out Firms' Pricey Deals for Naming Rights, Logo Placement By JUSTIN ROOD November 24, 2008� AIG, Citibank and a number of other federally bailed-out financial institutions have no plans to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in sports team sponsorships, even as they take billions in taxpayer support, ABC News has found. In boom times, the sponsorships were seen as a way to advertise the firms' "brands" and appeal to potential customers. Even today, at least one bank told ABC News that a naming deal was increasing its revenue. But critics, including a member of Congress, say the decision to continue them now is hard to defend. Struggling Citibank just sealed a multi-billion-dollar emergency "backstop" deal with the U.S. government. The financial behemoth, suffering with billions in bad mortgage-related assets on its books, recently shed 53,000 workers and saw its stock price lose over half its value. Yet it's in a 20-year contract to pay the New York Mets $400 million to name the team's new stadium "Citi Field." "This type of spending is indefensible and unacceptable to Citigroup's new partner and largest investor: the American taxpayer," said Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., in a statement Monday. Citi isn't alone: Imploding insurance giant AIG is paying the British soccer team Manchester United $125 million for the privilege of having its logo appear on Man U's uniforms. That, despite the fact the firm is standing largely thanks to a $150 billion lifeline from the U.S. Treasury. "A friend of mine joked they should put 'US Treasury' on the front of their uniforms," said Steve Ellis of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a Washington, D.C.-based nonpartisan watchdog group which is outraged by the expenditures. In boom times it was fine for AIG, Citi and others to spend millions on naming rights and other promotional arrangements with professional sports teams, critics say even if they're a waste of money, as some marketing experts believe. But when the economy teeters on the brink of collapse and firms are using American taxpayers' money to keep lending or just keep their doors open those critics are making a stink about the expensive deals. "Up until now they were businesses who could invest or waste their money as they see fit," said Taxpayers for Common Sense's Ellis. "But now we're the shareholders. And frittering their money away with naming rights and ties to sports teams isn't a really good investment of taxpayers' money -- particularly when credit markets are collapsed." AIG Responds to Manchester United Deal A spokesman for AIG confirmed that its sponsorship deal with Manchester United remains in place, but that the company is "reviewing all sponsorships to identify any relationship that might be essential, to maintain the value of the business and service customers, so we can repay the [government] loan." Citicorp is not reviewing its deal with the Mets, chief financial officer Gary Crittenden said in an interview Monday. Crittenden told CNBC the contract was "legal and binding" and "not an issue." Last week, a bank spokesman defended the arrangement, saying that "there is absolutely no relationship between our sports marketing expenses, including Citi Field," and the government funds it had already received. That's not enough for Rep. Cummings. "I strongly urge Citigroup to find a way out of this contract and instead spend that $400 million on retaining its employees and restoring confidence in its operations," he said. AIG and Citibank are just two examples TCS cites of institutions who are taking federal money with one hand, and paying hefty sums to sports sponsorships and naming deals with the other. Many are banks which are not perceived as financially faltering, who have taken money from the Treasury's Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) to boost their anemic lending. Bank of America (TARP take: $25 billion) is reportedly poised to ink a $20 million-a-year sponsorship with the New York Yankees a team that is hardly hurting for cash. They are already in a reported 20-year, $140 million deal with the Carolina Panthers football team to call the team's arena "Bank of America Stadium." Bank of America spokesman Joseph Goode said his bank's deal with the Panthers is making the bank money. "Any investments we make in sponsorship marketing are directly linked to driving revenue growth for the bank," he said, noting the deal also allowed Bank of America to market debit cards with the Panthers logo. He would not comment on the reported pending deal with the Yankees. Even before the crisis, some marketers believed the naming and sponsor deals were idiotic. "It's pretty clear that it's a complete and utter waste of money, ego-driven," said Seth Godin, a marketing guru and bestselling author. Other Firms Take Public Support, Keep Sponsorship Deals It's time for banks to re-evaluate these deals, says Ellis. U.S. taxpayers ponied up billions to these to lend because they wouldn't do it with their own money, said Ellis. But now, "Just as Americans all over the country are having to decide, 'what am I going to do without?' companies are going to have to make those decisions," he said. "At the end of the day, they've got to look at the taxpayers and say, 'Yeah, we'll take your money and spend some of our assets on [naming] a stadium, or a college bowl,'" said Ellis. "That's a hard sell to the public, obviously." Who else is taking public support while holding pricey naming deals? It's not a short list. Among the biggest: PNC Bank ($7.7 billion in TARP funds pledged) is locked in a 20-year, $30 million deal to keep the home of the Pittsburgh Pirates named "PNC Park." A spokesman there said the bank did not use TARP funds to make payments on the deal. J.P. Morgan Chase ($25 billion from TARP) has a 30-year, $66 million contract for the Arizona Diamondbacks to call their stadium "Chase Field." "That was an agreement that was signed 11 years ago," by a bank that was bought by Chase, said bank spokesman Tom Kelley. "Tell me what 2008 has to do with 1997? That's a contractual obligation." Comerica ($2.3 billion in TARP funds pledged) has an identical deal with the Detroit Tigers to refer to their home field as "Comerica Park." Both expire in 2028. "From our perspective, they're not connected," said Comerica's Wayne Mielke of the stadium deal and the bank's anticipated receipt of bailout funds. "Why should it be reviewed?" The cost of the naming rights, said Mielke, "does not inhibit our ability to lend." Capital One famous for their tagline, "What's in your wallet?" and a recipient of $2.3 billion in TARP money are the proud and paying sponsor of the Capital One Bowl, formerly known as the Florida Citrus Bowl. The bank did not respond to requests for comment. Naming deals are "a big gamble," said Steve Hall, a marketing industry veteran who writes a popular advertising blog, AdRants.com. "My whole issue with the naming rights is, in a lot of cases it just sounds stupid. 'Staples Center'. . . It's sort of taken away the good old glory days of sports." That said, Hall noted that buying a stadium gets a company's name repeated an awful lot. "When a stadium gets named after a company, it gets mentioned millions of times," he said. Spend Money on Customer Service Not Naming Rights, Says Critic Instead of spending millions on naming rights, marketing guru Godin says, why not invest in something that will really improve the credibility and public opinion of banks: customer service. "Instead of spending $400 million to put your name on the side of a stadium, how about hiring enough people so that every time someone calls you on the phone it would be answered by someone who knew your name and was delighted to hear from you?" Despite the criticism from watchdogs like Taxpayers for Common Sense, given the current crisis Godin said banks would be right to follow through with these costly sponsorships. The economic collapse is being fueled by a lack of confidence in what tomorrow will bring, he said, and banks' changing their behavior would signal that fear is justified. "When banks walk around. . . wasting money on sports sponsorships," said Godin, "it sends a message of profligate spending and confidence." G-Fafif Nov 24 2008 03:45 PM 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 Nov 24 2008 04:00 PM 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 Nov 24 2008 04:34 PM 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. Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 09:12 AM 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 Nov 25 2008 10:11 AM 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. Edgy DC Nov 25 2008 10:43 AM ="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!

Luke Appling hit a homer in one during the 1980s at quite an advanced age: From baseball-almanac.com ] In 1982, at the age of 75, he electrified the crowd at a Cracker Jack Old Timer's game, in Washington

It is now a neat juxtaposition looking at Shea and Citi Field in overhead photos now and a year ago. One stadium with field and seats waiting for the new season to begin, the other the field looks like a battlefield, and the seats are not installed.

In every known version of an Old Timers Game, they do play hard ball. Only when celebs are involved is it softball.

Okay fine, I'll ammend the argument to suggest that he WILL be attaining the heights of the Rose/Ripken/Jeter level of hate because his image is everywhere. And don't for a second think it won't.

="Willets Point":37j7vkjm]="Benjamin Grimm":37j7vkjm]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it?[/quote:37j7vkjm] I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking.[/quote:37j7vkjm] Who is on covers of MLB games? Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? seawolf17 Nov 17 2008 11:34 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Willets Point"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it? I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking. Who is on covers of MLB games? Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? Willets Point Nov 17 2008 11:38 AM ="SteveJRogers"]Who is on covers of MLB games? A Phillie. ="SteveJRogers"] Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? That would make him the face of the Mets not MLB. Here in Boston, I'd wager most baseball fans wouldn't know who David Wright is whereas they'd be familiar with Albert Pujols or Ryan Howard or even other Mets like Delgado & Beltran. Wright is a great player but hasn't gained national attention by winning an MVP or some type of batting title or appearing in a lot of postseason games. I doubt people around the nation are gnashing their teeth about how much overexposure that Wright guy gets SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 12:03 PM Okay fine, I'll ammend the argument to suggest that he WILL be attaining the heights of the Rose/Ripken/Jeter level of hate because his image is everywhere. And don't for a second think it won't. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:07 PM And then people will hate justifiably. Got it. The silly thing is, Steve, irish's position and yours seem to be similar. If you weren't so fast to choose his as a leaping off point to push your agenda against the rest of us, you'd see that. metirish Nov 17 2008 12:29 PM How is my position similar to Steve's?, Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:31 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 18 2008 07:27 PM Well, you seem to imply that there's an unfortuate amount of hatred flying around. Where Steve breaks from you with his his apparent belief that everybody's exercising it but him. metirish Nov 17 2008 12:33 PM Jeez thanks , lump me in with Rogers. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:42 PM Not at all. It would be an unattractive lump. Centerfield Nov 17 2008 01:46 PM I called Mariano Rivera a murderer. You may direct all correspondence on that subject to me. Thanks. metsmarathon Nov 17 2008 06:25 PM wait... who hates cal ripken? i mean, fine, the holiday inn commercials are insufferable and all, but that aside, does anybody really hate him? Willets Point Nov 17 2008 06:27 PM ="metsmarathon"]wait... who hates cal ripken? i mean, fine, the holiday inn commercials are insufferable and all, but that aside, does anybody really hate him? Millions of people hate Cal Ripken. Rogers has lists of all their names! cooby Nov 17 2008 07:37 PM Hey. What does blovating mean? Fman99 Nov 17 2008 07:42 PM ="cooby":1yvq0p7i]Hey. What does blovating mean?[/quote:1yvq0p7i] I don't know. But there is a 100% chance I work it into my CPF song parody challenge play-in game. cooby Nov 17 2008 07:47 PM Fman, if you do, I promise to vote for you HahnSolo Nov 17 2008 08:04 PM ="Edgy DC":3dmxgmap]Steve tries to get support for his viewpoint at a Yankee forum --- while endorsing "hate" as long as it remains baseless --- and annoys them into closing the thread: http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-97459.html[/quote:3dmxgmap] He's an equal opportunity annoyer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 17 2008 08:40 PM Jeezziz. Valadius Nov 17 2008 08:56 PM Steve, I don't like the fact that you bad-mouthed me on another board. Nymr83 Nov 17 2008 09:12 PM wow board-drama. and steve can't even keep it on the board. hey steve, if this place is so bad that you have to complain about it elsewhere, why are you still here? metsguyinmichigan Nov 17 2008 09:29 PM Damn, stuck in a school board meeting all day and I missed this. 1) I hate Derek Jeter. He's Mr. Yankee 2) I like David Wright. A lot. He's Mr. Met, at least the non-costumed one. 3) Mariano Rivera is a soul-less cyborg with a dangerous pool. 4) Steve needs to keeps his beefs about the 'Pool family within the 'Pool family. All caught up. metsmarathon Nov 18 2008 07:37 AM i so wish i had seen this thread earlier yesterday... i still haven't gotten an answer on what evidence there is showing cal ripken's hatedness. and i still don't know how david wright parallels derek jeter. i also would think that the whole point of this thread, initially, was to point out what i would call special hate, not just the generic 'waah i hate XXX 'cos they're our rival and they suck and blah blah blah, and i hate YYY cos he's their best player and he sucks too!' the instances stevie seems to be pulling out about fans of other teams whining over wrights accomplishments and cheering his misaccomplishments seems more like hating on, than hating. "david wright doesn't deserve to win the mvp because YYY was a muuch better player and he didnt come through when they needed him anyways" isn't hating, its hating on, or deliberately (and perhaps intellectually dishonestly) minimizing his accomplishments and value. and of course, using sound logic and reasoning in a fact-based argument against the gross overrating of a player, well, that's not hating. that's called analyzing derek jeter. and he does a terrifically poor job of relaying the conversations of this board to other boards. i mean, jeez! Benjamin Grimm Nov 18 2008 07:51 AM ="metsmarathon":3by8ybm2]and he does a terrifically poor job of relaying the conversations of this board to other boards. i mean, jeez![/quote:3by8ybm2] Is that at all surprising? It's amazing how tenaciously he's held on to this issue, even going to other boards to try to get validation for his point of view. It's appropriate that his link back to us contained the phrase "getalifealready" Centerfield Nov 18 2008 07:56 AM For the record, I have no problem with him talking badly about us on other boards. In fact, I wish he would post on those other boards more often. Like all the time. Steve, don't go away mad... themetfairy Nov 18 2008 08:47 AM There was also the great leap of logic (if you can call it that) that Steve made. He asked, "How can you not like Mario Rivera?" I answered that I found the electrified pool to be a reason not to like him. He then extrapolated that I was blinded by irrational hatred, and posted about my obsessiveness all over the Internet. Yeah, I was the obsessed one here.... G-Fafif Nov 18 2008 09:10 AM I have to confess I barely remember the Mariano Rivera pool story and don't remember, at all, the conversation here about it. That said, fuck Mariano Rivera and fuck the Yankees. I mean, geez... soupcan Nov 18 2008 09:19 AM I didn't get much of a chance to get here yesterday and read most of this thread on my BlackBerry on the train home. "It's gold Jerry, pure gold!" Seriously, I was cracking up all the way home. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 10:03 AM I keep Metro North moving. Kong76 Nov 18 2008 07:21 PM SJR: I'm clarifing it for you by holding up a fucking mirror <=== EDC: Don't fucking mirror me. <===

That people have irrational hate for teams and players based on a natural disposition to hate said team and players.

="Edgy DC":1wmnx6qa]He'd be in deeper water in the United States. Of that, I think even you are certain. [/quote:1wmnx6qa] Security concerns are quite different here than Panama, of that I think even you are certain. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:05 AM Good. What's your point, Crane Pool insulting guy? SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 11:07 AM That people have irrational hate for teams and players based on a natural disposition to hate said team and players. metirish Nov 17 2008 11:09 AM ="Edgy DC":3rnp96ob]Steve Rogers talks shit about the Crane Pool on another forum: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84643[/quote:3rnp96ob] omg Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:10 AM Goodness, Steve. I challenged you to find one such statement from me. Stop with the sweeping generalizations. You're making 'em here. You're making 'em at sites that couldn't care less about us. seawolf17 Nov 17 2008 11:16 AM /throws some popcorn in the microwave /sits back and watches train wreck Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:17 AM Glad I could help your day along. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:25 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 17 2008 11:26 AM Steve tries to get support for his viewpoint at a Yankee forum --- while endorsing "hate" as long as it remains baseless --- and annoys them into closing the thread: http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-97459.html Willets Point Nov 17 2008 11:25 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":10a3hs2z]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it?[/quote:10a3hs2z] I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking. SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 11:32 AM ="Willets Point":37j7vkjm]="Benjamin Grimm":37j7vkjm]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it?[/quote:37j7vkjm] I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking.[/quote:37j7vkjm] Who is on covers of MLB games? Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? seawolf17 Nov 17 2008 11:34 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Willets Point"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it? I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking. Who is on covers of MLB games? Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? Willets Point Nov 17 2008 11:38 AM ="SteveJRogers"]Who is on covers of MLB games? A Phillie. ="SteveJRogers"] Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? That would make him the face of the Mets not MLB. Here in Boston, I'd wager most baseball fans wouldn't know who David Wright is whereas they'd be familiar with Albert Pujols or Ryan Howard or even other Mets like Delgado & Beltran. Wright is a great player but hasn't gained national attention by winning an MVP or some type of batting title or appearing in a lot of postseason games. I doubt people around the nation are gnashing their teeth about how much overexposure that Wright guy gets SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 12:03 PM Okay fine, I'll ammend the argument to suggest that he WILL be attaining the heights of the Rose/Ripken/Jeter level of hate because his image is everywhere. And don't for a second think it won't. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:07 PM And then people will hate justifiably. Got it. The silly thing is, Steve, irish's position and yours seem to be similar. If you weren't so fast to choose his as a leaping off point to push your agenda against the rest of us, you'd see that. metirish Nov 17 2008 12:29 PM How is my position similar to Steve's?, Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:31 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 18 2008 07:27 PM Well, you seem to imply that there's an unfortuate amount of hatred flying around. Where Steve breaks from you with his his apparent belief that everybody's exercising it but him. metirish Nov 17 2008 12:33 PM Jeez thanks , lump me in with Rogers. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:42 PM Not at all. It would be an unattractive lump. Centerfield Nov 17 2008 01:46 PM I called Mariano Rivera a murderer. You may direct all correspondence on that subject to me. Thanks. metsmarathon Nov 17 2008 06:25 PM wait... who hates cal ripken? i mean, fine, the holiday inn commercials are insufferable and all, but that aside, does anybody really hate him? Willets Point Nov 17 2008 06:27 PM ="metsmarathon"]wait... who hates cal ripken? i mean, fine, the holiday inn commercials are insufferable and all, but that aside, does anybody really hate him? Millions of people hate Cal Ripken. Rogers has lists of all their names! cooby Nov 17 2008 07:37 PM Hey. What does blovating mean? Fman99 Nov 17 2008 07:42 PM ="cooby":1yvq0p7i]Hey. What does blovating mean?[/quote:1yvq0p7i] I don't know. But there is a 100% chance I work it into my CPF song parody challenge play-in game. cooby Nov 17 2008 07:47 PM Fman, if you do, I promise to vote for you HahnSolo Nov 17 2008 08:04 PM ="Edgy DC":3dmxgmap]Steve tries to get support for his viewpoint at a Yankee forum --- while endorsing "hate" as long as it remains baseless --- and annoys them into closing the thread: http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-97459.html[/quote:3dmxgmap] He's an equal opportunity annoyer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 17 2008 08:40 PM Jeezziz. Valadius Nov 17 2008 08:56 PM Steve, I don't like the fact that you bad-mouthed me on another board. Nymr83 Nov 17 2008 09:12 PM wow board-drama. and steve can't even keep it on the board. hey steve, if this place is so bad that you have to complain about it elsewhere, why are you still here? metsguyinmichigan Nov 17 2008 09:29 PM Damn, stuck in a school board meeting all day and I missed this. 1) I hate Derek Jeter. He's Mr. Yankee 2) I like David Wright. A lot. He's Mr. Met, at least the non-costumed one. 3) Mariano Rivera is a soul-less cyborg with a dangerous pool. 4) Steve needs to keeps his beefs about the 'Pool family within the 'Pool family. All caught up. metsmarathon Nov 18 2008 07:37 AM i so wish i had seen this thread earlier yesterday... i still haven't gotten an answer on what evidence there is showing cal ripken's hatedness. and i still don't know how david wright parallels derek jeter. i also would think that the whole point of this thread, initially, was to point out what i would call special hate, not just the generic 'waah i hate XXX 'cos they're our rival and they suck and blah blah blah, and i hate YYY cos he's their best player and he sucks too!' the instances stevie seems to be pulling out about fans of other teams whining over wrights accomplishments and cheering his misaccomplishments seems more like hating on, than hating. "david wright doesn't deserve to win the mvp because YYY was a muuch better player and he didnt come through when they needed him anyways" isn't hating, its hating on, or deliberately (and perhaps intellectually dishonestly) minimizing his accomplishments and value. and of course, using sound logic and reasoning in a fact-based argument against the gross overrating of a player, well, that's not hating. that's called analyzing derek jeter. and he does a terrifically poor job of relaying the conversations of this board to other boards. i mean, jeez! Benjamin Grimm Nov 18 2008 07:51 AM ="metsmarathon":3by8ybm2]and he does a terrifically poor job of relaying the conversations of this board to other boards. i mean, jeez![/quote:3by8ybm2] Is that at all surprising? It's amazing how tenaciously he's held on to this issue, even going to other boards to try to get validation for his point of view. It's appropriate that his link back to us contained the phrase "getalifealready" Centerfield Nov 18 2008 07:56 AM For the record, I have no problem with him talking badly about us on other boards. In fact, I wish he would post on those other boards more often. Like all the time. Steve, don't go away mad... themetfairy Nov 18 2008 08:47 AM There was also the great leap of logic (if you can call it that) that Steve made. He asked, "How can you not like Mario Rivera?" I answered that I found the electrified pool to be a reason not to like him. He then extrapolated that I was blinded by irrational hatred, and posted about my obsessiveness all over the Internet. Yeah, I was the obsessed one here.... G-Fafif Nov 18 2008 09:10 AM I have to confess I barely remember the Mariano Rivera pool story and don't remember, at all, the conversation here about it. That said, fuck Mariano Rivera and fuck the Yankees. I mean, geez... soupcan Nov 18 2008 09:19 AM I didn't get much of a chance to get here yesterday and read most of this thread on my BlackBerry on the train home. "It's gold Jerry, pure gold!" Seriously, I was cracking up all the way home. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 10:03 AM I keep Metro North moving. Kong76 Nov 18 2008 07:21 PM SJR: I'm clarifing it for you by holding up a fucking mirror <=== EDC: Don't fucking mirror me. <===

="Benjamin Grimm":2a4403r2]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it?[/quote:2a4403r2] Me against all of you based on the fact that this group seems to be the only people who irrationally hate Mariano Rivera as a person, which I'm using as a point of people's irrational hate on sports teams and players? Yeah it does seem like it. Hell, I can't even find one person that agrees with CF's/SK's and other's theory on the former home of this forum, so what does that tell you? themetfairy Nov 17 2008 11:02 AM ="SteveJRogers":23qztokh] Hell, I can't even find one person that agrees with CF's/SK's and other's theory on the former home of this forum, so what does that tell you?[/quote:23qztokh] That nobody else around here is so obsessed that they want to go dig up ancient threads. The issue, btw, goes back to the person who was electrocuted in Rivera's pool a few years back. CF and I were pretty appalled by the incident. Steve, apparently, finds it excusable. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:03 AM Steve Rogers talks shit about the Crane Pool on another forum: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84643 SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 11:04 AM ="Edgy DC":1wmnx6qa]He'd be in deeper water in the United States. Of that, I think even you are certain. [/quote:1wmnx6qa] Security concerns are quite different here than Panama, of that I think even you are certain. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:05 AM Good. What's your point, Crane Pool insulting guy? SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 11:07 AM That people have irrational hate for teams and players based on a natural disposition to hate said team and players. metirish Nov 17 2008 11:09 AM ="Edgy DC":3rnp96ob]Steve Rogers talks shit about the Crane Pool on another forum: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84643[/quote:3rnp96ob] omg Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:10 AM Goodness, Steve. I challenged you to find one such statement from me. Stop with the sweeping generalizations. You're making 'em here. You're making 'em at sites that couldn't care less about us. seawolf17 Nov 17 2008 11:16 AM /throws some popcorn in the microwave /sits back and watches train wreck Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:17 AM Glad I could help your day along. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:25 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 17 2008 11:26 AM Steve tries to get support for his viewpoint at a Yankee forum --- while endorsing "hate" as long as it remains baseless --- and annoys them into closing the thread: http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-97459.html Willets Point Nov 17 2008 11:25 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":10a3hs2z]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it?[/quote:10a3hs2z] I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking. SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 11:32 AM ="Willets Point":37j7vkjm]="Benjamin Grimm":37j7vkjm]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it?[/quote:37j7vkjm] I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking.[/quote:37j7vkjm] Who is on covers of MLB games? Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? seawolf17 Nov 17 2008 11:34 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Willets Point"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it? I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking. Who is on covers of MLB games? Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? Willets Point Nov 17 2008 11:38 AM ="SteveJRogers"]Who is on covers of MLB games? A Phillie. ="SteveJRogers"] Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? That would make him the face of the Mets not MLB. Here in Boston, I'd wager most baseball fans wouldn't know who David Wright is whereas they'd be familiar with Albert Pujols or Ryan Howard or even other Mets like Delgado & Beltran. Wright is a great player but hasn't gained national attention by winning an MVP or some type of batting title or appearing in a lot of postseason games. I doubt people around the nation are gnashing their teeth about how much overexposure that Wright guy gets SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 12:03 PM Okay fine, I'll ammend the argument to suggest that he WILL be attaining the heights of the Rose/Ripken/Jeter level of hate because his image is everywhere. And don't for a second think it won't. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:07 PM And then people will hate justifiably. Got it. The silly thing is, Steve, irish's position and yours seem to be similar. If you weren't so fast to choose his as a leaping off point to push your agenda against the rest of us, you'd see that. metirish Nov 17 2008 12:29 PM How is my position similar to Steve's?, Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:31 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 18 2008 07:27 PM Well, you seem to imply that there's an unfortuate amount of hatred flying around. Where Steve breaks from you with his his apparent belief that everybody's exercising it but him. metirish Nov 17 2008 12:33 PM Jeez thanks , lump me in with Rogers. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:42 PM Not at all. It would be an unattractive lump. Centerfield Nov 17 2008 01:46 PM I called Mariano Rivera a murderer. You may direct all correspondence on that subject to me. Thanks. metsmarathon Nov 17 2008 06:25 PM wait... who hates cal ripken? i mean, fine, the holiday inn commercials are insufferable and all, but that aside, does anybody really hate him? Willets Point Nov 17 2008 06:27 PM ="metsmarathon"]wait... who hates cal ripken? i mean, fine, the holiday inn commercials are insufferable and all, but that aside, does anybody really hate him? Millions of people hate Cal Ripken. Rogers has lists of all their names! cooby Nov 17 2008 07:37 PM Hey. What does blovating mean? Fman99 Nov 17 2008 07:42 PM ="cooby":1yvq0p7i]Hey. What does blovating mean?[/quote:1yvq0p7i] I don't know. But there is a 100% chance I work it into my CPF song parody challenge play-in game. cooby Nov 17 2008 07:47 PM Fman, if you do, I promise to vote for you HahnSolo Nov 17 2008 08:04 PM ="Edgy DC":3dmxgmap]Steve tries to get support for his viewpoint at a Yankee forum --- while endorsing "hate" as long as it remains baseless --- and annoys them into closing the thread: http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-97459.html[/quote:3dmxgmap] He's an equal opportunity annoyer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 17 2008 08:40 PM Jeezziz. Valadius Nov 17 2008 08:56 PM Steve, I don't like the fact that you bad-mouthed me on another board. Nymr83 Nov 17 2008 09:12 PM wow board-drama. and steve can't even keep it on the board. hey steve, if this place is so bad that you have to complain about it elsewhere, why are you still here? metsguyinmichigan Nov 17 2008 09:29 PM Damn, stuck in a school board meeting all day and I missed this. 1) I hate Derek Jeter. He's Mr. Yankee 2) I like David Wright. A lot. He's Mr. Met, at least the non-costumed one. 3) Mariano Rivera is a soul-less cyborg with a dangerous pool. 4) Steve needs to keeps his beefs about the 'Pool family within the 'Pool family. All caught up. metsmarathon Nov 18 2008 07:37 AM i so wish i had seen this thread earlier yesterday... i still haven't gotten an answer on what evidence there is showing cal ripken's hatedness. and i still don't know how david wright parallels derek jeter. i also would think that the whole point of this thread, initially, was to point out what i would call special hate, not just the generic 'waah i hate XXX 'cos they're our rival and they suck and blah blah blah, and i hate YYY cos he's their best player and he sucks too!' the instances stevie seems to be pulling out about fans of other teams whining over wrights accomplishments and cheering his misaccomplishments seems more like hating on, than hating. "david wright doesn't deserve to win the mvp because YYY was a muuch better player and he didnt come through when they needed him anyways" isn't hating, its hating on, or deliberately (and perhaps intellectually dishonestly) minimizing his accomplishments and value. and of course, using sound logic and reasoning in a fact-based argument against the gross overrating of a player, well, that's not hating. that's called analyzing derek jeter. and he does a terrifically poor job of relaying the conversations of this board to other boards. i mean, jeez! Benjamin Grimm Nov 18 2008 07:51 AM ="metsmarathon":3by8ybm2]and he does a terrifically poor job of relaying the conversations of this board to other boards. i mean, jeez![/quote:3by8ybm2] Is that at all surprising? It's amazing how tenaciously he's held on to this issue, even going to other boards to try to get validation for his point of view. It's appropriate that his link back to us contained the phrase "getalifealready" Centerfield Nov 18 2008 07:56 AM For the record, I have no problem with him talking badly about us on other boards. In fact, I wish he would post on those other boards more often. Like all the time. Steve, don't go away mad... themetfairy Nov 18 2008 08:47 AM There was also the great leap of logic (if you can call it that) that Steve made. He asked, "How can you not like Mario Rivera?" I answered that I found the electrified pool to be a reason not to like him. He then extrapolated that I was blinded by irrational hatred, and posted about my obsessiveness all over the Internet. Yeah, I was the obsessed one here.... G-Fafif Nov 18 2008 09:10 AM I have to confess I barely remember the Mariano Rivera pool story and don't remember, at all, the conversation here about it. That said, fuck Mariano Rivera and fuck the Yankees. I mean, geez... soupcan Nov 18 2008 09:19 AM I didn't get much of a chance to get here yesterday and read most of this thread on my BlackBerry on the train home. "It's gold Jerry, pure gold!" Seriously, I was cracking up all the way home. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 10:03 AM I keep Metro North moving. Kong76 Nov 18 2008 07:21 PM SJR: I'm clarifing it for you by holding up a fucking mirror <=== EDC: Don't fucking mirror me. <===

="Fman99":3b129hmh] I can hate Rivera - he wears a Yankee uniform.[/quote:3b129hmh] I wasn't referring to "sports hate," I'm talking about hating on the human being that goes beyond the uniform. Benjamin Grimm Nov 17 2008 10:51 AM This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it? Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 10:55 AM ="SteveJRogers":1lqkd4ig]Fine, but most of this board feels the same way as CF does. As evidence to the infamous thread between me and SK a few years back in the RLF.[/quote:1lqkd4ig] Nonsense. Is there something between saint and murderer? You don't know how "most of this board" feels. ="SteveJRogers":1lqkd4ig]No, because that is the extent of his involvement in the incident. There really isn't a smoking gun.[/quote:1lqkd4ig] He'd be in deeper water in the United States. Of that, I think even you are certain. ="SteveJRogers":1lqkd4ig]Other than blovating Yankee hating forum members?[/quote:1lqkd4ig] Please don't tempt me with any more name-calling. You're wrong. SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 10:59 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":2a4403r2]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it?[/quote:2a4403r2] Me against all of you based on the fact that this group seems to be the only people who irrationally hate Mariano Rivera as a person, which I'm using as a point of people's irrational hate on sports teams and players? Yeah it does seem like it. Hell, I can't even find one person that agrees with CF's/SK's and other's theory on the former home of this forum, so what does that tell you? themetfairy Nov 17 2008 11:02 AM ="SteveJRogers":23qztokh] Hell, I can't even find one person that agrees with CF's/SK's and other's theory on the former home of this forum, so what does that tell you?[/quote:23qztokh] That nobody else around here is so obsessed that they want to go dig up ancient threads. The issue, btw, goes back to the person who was electrocuted in Rivera's pool a few years back. CF and I were pretty appalled by the incident. Steve, apparently, finds it excusable. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:03 AM Steve Rogers talks shit about the Crane Pool on another forum: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84643 SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 11:04 AM ="Edgy DC":1wmnx6qa]He'd be in deeper water in the United States. Of that, I think even you are certain. [/quote:1wmnx6qa] Security concerns are quite different here than Panama, of that I think even you are certain. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:05 AM Good. What's your point, Crane Pool insulting guy? SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 11:07 AM That people have irrational hate for teams and players based on a natural disposition to hate said team and players. metirish Nov 17 2008 11:09 AM ="Edgy DC":3rnp96ob]Steve Rogers talks shit about the Crane Pool on another forum: http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=84643[/quote:3rnp96ob] omg Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:10 AM Goodness, Steve. I challenged you to find one such statement from me. Stop with the sweeping generalizations. You're making 'em here. You're making 'em at sites that couldn't care less about us. seawolf17 Nov 17 2008 11:16 AM /throws some popcorn in the microwave /sits back and watches train wreck Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:17 AM Glad I could help your day along. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 11:25 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 17 2008 11:26 AM Steve tries to get support for his viewpoint at a Yankee forum --- while endorsing "hate" as long as it remains baseless --- and annoys them into closing the thread: http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-97459.html Willets Point Nov 17 2008 11:25 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":10a3hs2z]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it?[/quote:10a3hs2z] I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking. SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 11:32 AM ="Willets Point":37j7vkjm]="Benjamin Grimm":37j7vkjm]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it?[/quote:37j7vkjm] I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking.[/quote:37j7vkjm] Who is on covers of MLB games? Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? seawolf17 Nov 17 2008 11:34 AM ="SteveJRogers"]="Willets Point"]="Benjamin Grimm"]This is becoming one of those threads, isn't it? I guess I provoked this by asking where MLB is promoting David Wright as the "Face of Baseball". Three pages later, evidence of that contention is still lacking. Who is on covers of MLB games? Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? Willets Point Nov 17 2008 11:38 AM ="SteveJRogers"]Who is on covers of MLB games? A Phillie. ="SteveJRogers"] Who is the Met usually featured on TV ads and marketing tools of MLB? That would make him the face of the Mets not MLB. Here in Boston, I'd wager most baseball fans wouldn't know who David Wright is whereas they'd be familiar with Albert Pujols or Ryan Howard or even other Mets like Delgado & Beltran. Wright is a great player but hasn't gained national attention by winning an MVP or some type of batting title or appearing in a lot of postseason games. I doubt people around the nation are gnashing their teeth about how much overexposure that Wright guy gets SteveJRogers Nov 17 2008 12:03 PM Okay fine, I'll ammend the argument to suggest that he WILL be attaining the heights of the Rose/Ripken/Jeter level of hate because his image is everywhere. And don't for a second think it won't. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:07 PM And then people will hate justifiably. Got it. The silly thing is, Steve, irish's position and yours seem to be similar. If you weren't so fast to choose his as a leaping off point to push your agenda against the rest of us, you'd see that. metirish Nov 17 2008 12:29 PM How is my position similar to Steve's?, Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:31 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 18 2008 07:27 PM Well, you seem to imply that there's an unfortuate amount of hatred flying around. Where Steve breaks from you with his his apparent belief that everybody's exercising it but him. metirish Nov 17 2008 12:33 PM Jeez thanks , lump me in with Rogers. Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 12:42 PM Not at all. It would be an unattractive lump. Centerfield Nov 17 2008 01:46 PM I called Mariano Rivera a murderer. You may direct all correspondence on that subject to me. Thanks. metsmarathon Nov 17 2008 06:25 PM wait... who hates cal ripken? i mean, fine, the holiday inn commercials are insufferable and all, but that aside, does anybody really hate him? Willets Point Nov 17 2008 06:27 PM ="metsmarathon"]wait... who hates cal ripken? i mean, fine, the holiday inn commercials are insufferable and all, but that aside, does anybody really hate him? Millions of people hate Cal Ripken. Rogers has lists of all their names! cooby Nov 17 2008 07:37 PM Hey. What does blovating mean? Fman99 Nov 17 2008 07:42 PM ="cooby":1yvq0p7i]Hey. What does blovating mean?[/quote:1yvq0p7i] I don't know. But there is a 100% chance I work it into my CPF song parody challenge play-in game. cooby Nov 17 2008 07:47 PM Fman, if you do, I promise to vote for you HahnSolo Nov 17 2008 08:04 PM ="Edgy DC":3dmxgmap]Steve tries to get support for his viewpoint at a Yankee forum --- while endorsing "hate" as long as it remains baseless --- and annoys them into closing the thread: http://forums.nyyfans.com/archive/index.php/t-97459.html[/quote:3dmxgmap] He's an equal opportunity annoyer. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 17 2008 08:40 PM Jeezziz. Valadius Nov 17 2008 08:56 PM Steve, I don't like the fact that you bad-mouthed me on another board. Nymr83 Nov 17 2008 09:12 PM wow board-drama. and steve can't even keep it on the board. hey steve, if this place is so bad that you have to complain about it elsewhere, why are you still here? metsguyinmichigan Nov 17 2008 09:29 PM Damn, stuck in a school board meeting all day and I missed this. 1) I hate Derek Jeter. He's Mr. Yankee 2) I like David Wright. A lot. He's Mr. Met, at least the non-costumed one. 3) Mariano Rivera is a soul-less cyborg with a dangerous pool. 4) Steve needs to keeps his beefs about the 'Pool family within the 'Pool family. All caught up. metsmarathon Nov 18 2008 07:37 AM i so wish i had seen this thread earlier yesterday... i still haven't gotten an answer on what evidence there is showing cal ripken's hatedness. and i still don't know how david wright parallels derek jeter. i also would think that the whole point of this thread, initially, was to point out what i would call special hate, not just the generic 'waah i hate XXX 'cos they're our rival and they suck and blah blah blah, and i hate YYY cos he's their best player and he sucks too!' the instances stevie seems to be pulling out about fans of other teams whining over wrights accomplishments and cheering his misaccomplishments seems more like hating on, than hating. "david wright doesn't deserve to win the mvp because YYY was a muuch better player and he didnt come through when they needed him anyways" isn't hating, its hating on, or deliberately (and perhaps intellectually dishonestly) minimizing his accomplishments and value. and of course, using sound logic and reasoning in a fact-based argument against the gross overrating of a player, well, that's not hating. that's called analyzing derek jeter. and he does a terrifically poor job of relaying the conversations of this board to other boards. i mean, jeez! Benjamin Grimm Nov 18 2008 07:51 AM ="metsmarathon":3by8ybm2]and he does a terrifically poor job of relaying the conversations of this board to other boards. i mean, jeez![/quote:3by8ybm2] Is that at all surprising? It's amazing how tenaciously he's held on to this issue, even going to other boards to try to get validation for his point of view. It's appropriate that his link back to us contained the phrase "getalifealready" Centerfield Nov 18 2008 07:56 AM For the record, I have no problem with him talking badly about us on other boards. In fact, I wish he would post on those other boards more often. Like all the time. Steve, don't go away mad... themetfairy Nov 18 2008 08:47 AM There was also the great leap of logic (if you can call it that) that Steve made. He asked, "How can you not like Mario Rivera?" I answered that I found the electrified pool to be a reason not to like him. He then extrapolated that I was blinded by irrational hatred, and posted about my obsessiveness all over the Internet. Yeah, I was the obsessed one here.... G-Fafif Nov 18 2008 09:10 AM I have to confess I barely remember the Mariano Rivera pool story and don't remember, at all, the conversation here about it. That said, fuck Mariano Rivera and fuck the Yankees. I mean, geez... soupcan Nov 18 2008 09:19 AM I didn't get much of a chance to get here yesterday and read most of this thread on my BlackBerry on the train home. "It's gold Jerry, pure gold!" Seriously, I was cracking up all the way home. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 10:03 AM I keep Metro North moving. Kong76 Nov 18 2008 07:21 PM SJR: I'm clarifing it for you by holding up a fucking mirror <=== EDC: Don't fucking mirror me. <===

]Thanks, can you cop to making up quotes to generalize about the entire board when the only one using words like that was centerfield? Fine, but most of this board feels the same way as CF does. As evidence to the infamous thread between me and SK a few years back in the RLF. ]Can you cop to spinning the incident using nebulous terms like "was involved with"? No, because that is the extent of his involvement in the incident. There really isn't a smoking gun. ]Will you admit to being wrong that nobody else anywhere has criticized him? Other than blovating Yankee hating forum members? Seriously, try putting the theory on any rational board, even filled with Yankee haters, and you get looked like you wear a tin foil hat. Look, the point is that people have irrational hate for teams and players, that is the bottom line answer to Irish's original question.