Willets Point

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.

Did the cross-checker then serve a two minute minor?

Looks like MTV Films does Star Trek. Gag.

="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!

="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!

="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!

"Straight to Hell" is better than 2 1/2 stars.

I think that's the name for the ramp. Ramp {Gate}B #4.

The sad part is that all the laid-off employees wouldn't even fit in CitiField, although there would be room in Shea.

The upside of using Heilman as a starting pitcher is that the number of inherited runners he allows to score would make an impressive drop.

="Edgy DC":2wvy2rql]Has Glavine retired yet?[/quote:2wvy2rql] That would be just the type of thing he would do now that he's not a Met. Bastard! Frayed Knot Nov 20 2008 11:22 AM ="metirish":tw53s5c3]According to the Elias Sports Bureau, [Mussina] is just the fifth pitcher since 1900 to win 20 games or more in the final season of his career -- and the first since Sandy Koufax in 1967.[/quote:tw53s5c3] 3 of which kind of don't count. Koufax's left arm was virtually crippled by his final season so he was really forced to retire at age 31. And two of the others were 'Black Sox' hurlers Cicotte & Williams who didn't retire off 20+ win seasons but rather were thrown out of the sport entirely. So it's Mussina plus some guy in the early 1900s. Not sure what his story was. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 20 2008 11:34 AM The whole "20 wins" thing is pretty shaky as a benchmark to begin with but Mussina did have 19 wins in the shortened 1995 season.

="Edgy DC":ez0b190s]Looking at those pictures, it's be kind of cool if they just paved over the field area and let the structure stand, letting early comers park and tailgate on the former field.[/quote:ez0b190s] And in a thousand years it will have the derelict charm of the Roman Coliseum. Hey, it already has the feral cats. Benjamin Grimm Nov 19 2008 04:29 AM I've thought the same thing. They'd just have to pop out some passageways so that traffic could flow easily. SteveJRogers Nov 25 2008 02:15 PM From baseball-fever.com a view from behind home plate (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008) Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 02:18 PM That porch in right field looks like a drawer that needs to be pushed shut. (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008) metirish Nov 25 2008 02:26 PM From baseball-fever (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008) G-Fafif Nov 25 2008 02:27 PM Orange foul poles, my heart be still. (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008) Benjamin Grimm Nov 25 2008 02:29 PM I can picture a slicing line drive landing in fair territory and bouncing into the stands at the lower left. I guess it would still be a ground-rule double if that happened, even though the stands it bounces into are in foul territory. I wonder what "Hal the Referee" would say? (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008) John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 25 2008 02:31 PM ="G-Fafif":17s8qtsk]Orange foul poles, my heart be still.[/quote:17s8qtsk] Yeah. Looked like earlier versions had 'em yellow. Maybe they were just renderings. (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008) Frayed Knot Nov 25 2008 02:34 PM Oh it would be a G-R double. Stuff like that happens all the time in Philly (both the new place and the old) and both in YSII and in RF in Boston (and I'm sure others as well). Hard to tell, but these jutting stands in LF don't look to have as extreme an angle as those in Philly but looks like we'll still get our share of goofy bounces back towards fair territory for balls that stay low enough to hit the facing of the stands and not bounce into the seats themselves. (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008) metirish Nov 25 2008 02:35 PM This link here has a better picture of the lines and the foul pole. http://www.baseball-fever.com/showthread.php?t=60954&page=341 Also there are drawings of the park. (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008) Farmer Ted Nov 25 2008 02:46 PM There appear to be extra tunnels in the upper deck behind home plate. Quick outs for the upper level fat cats. What is that press-box-looking-structure behind home plate (about 15 feet up from playing level? (Merged from More Citi Field photos, 11/25/2008) Benjamin Grimm Dec 02 2008 04:08 PM ]Citi Field nearly ready to open its doors Builders of Mets' new ballpark influenced by other stadiums By Anthony DiComo / MLB.com NEW YORK -- The left-field wall rises conspicuously high at Citi Field, making it both a point of note and, recently, a point of contention. "Eighteen feet," Mets COO Jeff Wilpon guessed on Tuesday, before a site worker pegged the actual height at 16 feet. And Wilpon was pleased. Citi Field, he said, may retain its predecessor's reputation as a pitcher-friendly park, but it hardly caters only to those on the mound. Toward the end of September, in fact, Wilpon invited players David Wright, Daniel Murphy and Nick Evans out for a private batting practice session at the new park, and all three of them managed to yank a pitch over the wall. "Evans put it halfway up the left-field deck," Wilpon said. "It's totally reachable." Such details of the new stadium have now become focal points, because Citi Field is so close to completion. A stroll through the park on Tuesday revealed that all the seats have been installed, the press box and Diamond Club are already encased in glass, and workers have begun installing major appliances within the concession stands. Yet of greater interest to Wright, Murphy, Evans and others in uniform, of course, is what lies deeper within the stadium. Lockers have been fully installed in the home clubhouse -- Wright has already chosen his -- and the carpet and bathroom tiles feature images of the fluorescent icons affixed to Shea Stadium's exterior walls. Adjacent rooms lead to some typical clubhouse amenities -- the manager's office, kitchen and weight room, to name a few -- save for one in the back that houses a hot tub, a cold tub and an underwater treadmill. Unlike anything at Shea Stadium, that room, along with one for indoor batting cages and pitching mounds, will allow players to rehab injuries at Citi Field, rather than always fly to the team's Spring Training complex in Port St. Lucie, Fla. In designing this ballpark, the Mets patched together ideas and influences from stadiums around the country. An overhang in right field, for example, protrudes above the warning track in a nod to the old Tiger Stadium. In the upper deck, a two-tiered layout reveals influence from Cincinnati's Great American Ball Park. Pieces of Citizens Bank Park in Philadelphia and Coors Field in Denver are present, though Wilpon noted that his greatest influence in the design of Citi Field was seven-year-old PNC Park in Pittsburgh. "I wanted to super-size Pittsburgh," said Wilpon, who went on a nationwide ballpark tour before building his own. "I really liked Pittsburgh the best." Yet the one influence, even more than Pittsburgh's, that Wilpon wanted to capture was that of Ebbets Field in Brooklyn -- the inspiration for Citi Field's exterior and perhaps its most prominent feature, the Jackie Robinson Rotunda. Still incomplete, the rotunda will become Citi Field's main entranceway, allowing fans to spill out of the Willits Point subway station and into a miniature baseball shrine. An escalator leads up to the seating bowl and down below, Robinson's nine values -- a staple of the Jackie Robinson Foundation's message -- are featured. Before Opening Day, workers will also erect a nine-foot No. 42 for fans to see as they enter the park. Steps outside the rotunda lies something similarly striking, if only for its incompleteness. Shea Stadium, home of the Mets for 44 years, has been reduced to an empty dirt bowl, its seats stripped, its sod removed and nearly all of its signage disappeared. Wilpon said he hoped that Shea would be completely disassembled and converted into a parking lot by Opening Day, with small markers at the site of home plate and the pitcher's rubber. Already, Shea Stadium's frame is nearly lost in the shadow of Citi Field, which -- despite holding only 42,500 seats, roughly a 25 percent drop from Shea -- seems built on a much greater scale. There are open areas for picnic tables and standing room, and a "GA Club" behind home plate in which ticket-holders can mingle. There is a Diamond Plaza near the rotunda where Shea Stadium's old home run apple will rest, and a large concrete basin in center field for Citi Field's new apple. There are tiered bullpens in center field -- the Mets will have the lower one, closer to the field -- and a plaza outside the rotunda for greenery. Wilpon was steps away from that plaza, inside the Jackie Robinson Rotunda, when he looked up and admired his handiwork. "Powerful, right?" he said. "It's now becoming what we want it to become." G-Fafif Dec 02 2008 04:34 PM Very pretty pictures of a very pretty ballpark-to-be. But their immediate impact is to make me sad in that it's so not Shea. I know, I know: that's the idea. A few innings inside could have me changing my tune pretty quickly, but it just looks like something else from somewhere else right now. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 04:56 PM ="Anthony DiComo":3aqa8uko]Toward the end of September, in fact, Wilpon invited players David Wright, Daniel Murphy and Nick Evans out for a private batting practice session at the new park, and all three of them managed to yank a pitch over the wall.[/quote:3aqa8uko] What in particular gets your attention about this sentence? metirish Dec 02 2008 04:59 PM That Nick Evens hit one out , that it was towards the end of September ,that " yank a pitch over the wall" doesn't sound that far. Benjamin Grimm Dec 02 2008 05:10 PM I like that the tiles and carpeting include a tribute to Shea Stadium. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:14 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 02 2008 05:23 PM Richard Pryor had this observation to make during a seventies routine. People were talking about this dystopic futureshock sci-fi movie, called Logan's Run that left them unsettled. He went to it and was unsettled for a different reason. "I noticed there were no colored folks in this movie. Somebody's not expecting us to be around." Not that I think they're eradicating peeps of color from the roster, but while some Omar-critics may find it depressing that only five of 17 batters on the roster are caucasian, I noticed three of those five were the only ones invited to Jeff Wilpon's (who I don't think is a moron) private sleepover. Dude needs to broaden his experience. This ain't the Greenvale School. Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:16 PM And yeah, I'm not too keen on Wilpon not understanding that they should be focused on the business at hand in late September. Nymr83 Dec 02 2008 05:18 PM It seems obvious that Wright would be the first one invited and Murphy was being rewarded for his explosive rookie performance. Nick Evans? really? you need Nick Evans to test out your new park? I understand not inviting Delgado who might not be back but where was Beltran? Reyes? Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 05:23 PM Pat Zachry. I mean, good sources have assured me that they speak English and everything. G-Fafif Dec 02 2008 05:48 PM ]Still incomplete, the rotunda will become Citi Field's main entranceway, allowing fans to spill out of the Willits Point subway station Anthony DiComo obviously drives to games and has never seen the sign for the station (or met our own Willets Point). With the ballpark name in at least a little limbo, one hopes the MTA hasn't invested in new station signs just yet. metirish Dec 02 2008 05:58 PM ="metirish"]That Nick Evens hit one out , that it was towards the end of September ,that " yank a pitch over the wall" doesn't sound that far. I had not read the article when I made that comment , so Wilpon was talking about a 16 foot high wall in LF , not sure if I'm Nick Evens I think that the boss is giving me a compliment here. ] Evans put it halfway up the left-field deck," Wilpon said. "It's totally reachable." Edgy DC Dec 02 2008 06:10 PM I want it noted, suckers, that one of the primary indictments of Shea --- that the outfield field-level seats largely face directly toward the outfield, rather than the infield where most of the action occurs, does not appear to be improved upon at all at Citi. soupcan Dec 04 2008 08:23 AM bb-f again ="Edgy DC"]I want it noted, suckers, that one of the primary indictments of Shea --- that the outfield field-level seats largely face directly toward the outfield, rather than the infield where most of the action occurs, does not appear to be improved upon at all at Citi. Not so! Angled seats... metirish Dec 04 2008 08:54 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Dec 04 2008 09:44 AM High staircase and escalator obviously , people falling and going splat on the Robinson rotunda is to be expected I would think. Edgy DC Dec 04 2008 09:25 AM ="soupcan":188c6xn0]Not so! Angled seats...[/quote:188c6xn0] Well, shut my mouth. Rows angled maybe ten degrees toward the infield. Seats angled ten degrees more. That's something. Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2008 09:27 AM I do like the improved legroom. You can even have a guy in a hardhat kneel down in front of your seat, if that's your idea of a good time. Edgy DC Dec 04 2008 09:30 AM You've been reading my blog. soupcan Dec 04 2008 01:12 PM Cool little video tour of Citi[/url:3bdfxevb] metirish Dec 04 2008 01:18 PM ="soupcan":3fpddl03]Cool little video tour of Citi[/url:3fpddl03][/quote:3fpddl03] Very cool , at the 2:10 mark they show a fenced in patch of green next to the stand in what I think is left of center field , is that the bullpen? Farmer Ted Dec 04 2008 01:28 PM Mets logo on the end seat of each row. Looking classy. soupcan Dec 04 2008 01:29 PM A lot of nice hi-res shots like this at metsblog.com on the front page. This the first pic I've seen of the nice w - i - d - e concourses. seawolf17 Dec 04 2008 01:34 PM ="metirish":cf49cmfu]High staircase and escalator obviously , people falling and going splat on the Robinson rotunda is to be expected I would think.[/quote:cf49cmfu] Considering what happened this year, you'd think they'd be conscious of that. Benjamin Grimm Dec 04 2008 01:40 PM They should string circus-style safety nets below each of the escalators. That concourse does look nice. It's easy to see how you could be standing on the hot dog line while keeping an eye on the game. That, I think, is the best thing that the new stadium will have over Shea. I also like the visible steel infrastructure, although that's hardly an innovation. John Cougar Lunchbucket Dec 04 2008 01:43 PM ="Benjamin Grimm":3jnxf2zm] I also like the visible steel infrastructure, although that's hardly an innovation.[/quote:3jnxf2zm] Yeah, though its supposed to subtly remind you of the bridge on the Mets logo, which is supposed to remind you of how the Mets reached across the city to "bridge" fans of the Giants and Dodgers, and the Eastsiders and Westsiders, and Kiddies and Wives, and the Butcher, the Baker and the People on the Street. Edgy DC Dec 04 2008 01:49 PM Thank God the Mets brought kiddies and wives together. Willets Point Dec 04 2008 03:19 PM ="Edgy DC":h0g9fccu]You've been reading my blog.[/quote:h0g9fccu] I want to read this blog. Valadius Dec 04 2008 04:02 PM I like the use of brick on the inside of the stadium rather than just the facade. Rockin' Doc Dec 04 2008 05:23 PM No one will ever pull an Endy on that left field wall. How tall is that wall in left field? Zvon Dec 04 2008 05:33 PM What I like: almost everything. It looks beautiful, real low to the ground. User friendly for the fan. On the whole a nice new home for my Metsies. What I don't like: I've never been a fan of the two tier bullpen. Hate em! Bullpen fights could make things exciting though. I really like the use of chain link fence here, but that one outjutting looks like trouble to me. Once again, the whole right field set up should make things exciting. (I'm not against "exciting", I just do not like silly injuries) I like an outfield wall where there's always a possibility of pulling one back into the park. So I'm not too thrilled with the height of that left field wall. I am assuming that these are the outfield walls (that there wont be wooden ones placed a foot or so in front of those we see, which I think I'd prefer). I'm sure that if they go with these concrete walls that will be padded with the best material available, but I still don't like the idea of a wall with absolutely no give to it. Don't mind me. Im just being an idiopathic idiosyncrat. themetfairy Dec 04 2008 05:57 PM Not at all Zvon - I enjoyed your illustrative input. Edgy DC Dec 04 2008 06:05 PM I like an outfield wall with a hidden door that an outfielder can suddenly disappear through. Valadius Dec 04 2008 06:36 PM It's almost like they're setting up for a Field of Dreams cornfield stunt. Frayed Knot Dec 04 2008 09:20 PM Or a Manny signing. soupcan Dec 07 2008 04:02 PM Old Apple goes here? Benjamin Grimm Dec 07 2008 05:23 PM My understanding (could be wrong, though) is that the old apple is going to be inside the stadium but somewhere in centerfield. Edgy DC Dec 07 2008 05:36 PM That'll be an all-nu apple. soupcan Dec 07 2008 05:42 PM You saying all-nu inside or all-nu outside? Edgy DC Dec 07 2008 07:15 PM All-nu inside. soupcan Dec 07 2008 07:21 PM Right - but that podium or hole or whatever is outside, so I'm thinking that's where the old one will go. Or a statue..? Frayed Knot Dec 07 2008 07:23 PM Yeah, my understanding was nu-apple inside, apple-classic on view somewhere outside. G-Fafif Dec 07 2008 08:08 PM Both will be out in center, according to Metsblog, which was on the media tour last week. ]For starters, Jeff Wilpon told reporters that the old Home-Run Apple from Shea Stadium will be on display in back of the concourse in center field, which was good to hear. However, a new Apple will pop up from a concrete cannister beneath the center-field scoreboard. That thing they're building outside, obviously, is a kiddie pool. soupcan Dec 12 2008 02:41 PM So the outside is an homage to Ebbets. The green seats are supposedly a nod to the Polo Grounds. Where's Shea? Oh there it is, on the floor of the locker room. Is that the ugliest damn rug you've ever seen or what? Edgy DC Dec 12 2008 02:44 PM That honor still belongs to the late Joe Pepitone. Zvon Dec 12 2008 02:49 PM That is one ugly rug. So Shea gets the honor of being stepped on? Valadius Dec 12 2008 04:58 PM Pepitone's rug looks like Blagojevich's. metirish Dec 12 2008 05:03 PM ="Edgy DC":befgt7hd]That honor still belongs to the late Joe Pepitone. [/quote:befgt7hd] Very funny. dgwphotography Dec 12 2008 05:11 PM ="Edgy DC"]That honor still belongs to the late Joe Pepitone. I'm think Phil here would give Joe a run for his money: themetfairy Dec 12 2008 05:14 PM That has to be Phil's own hair. Nobody would construct a toupee THAT ugly! metsguyinmichigan Dec 12 2008 05:43 PM ="metirish":3bn5ocf6]="Edgy DC":3bn5ocf6]That honor still belongs to the late Joe Pepitone. [/quote:3bn5ocf6] Very funny.[/quote:3bn5ocf6] WOW. And the rug on the guy on the right in the tan coat is horrible, too! And if I were Phil Spector's attorney, I'd go for the insanity defense and just point to him sitting there with that 'do and sit back and wait for the acquittal. soupcan Dec 12 2008 07:11 PM Pepitone's dead? Edgy DC Dec 12 2008 07:59 PM Guess not. My boo-boo. Sorry, Joe. I just sent a white elephant Christmas gift to my sister's Yankfan boyfriend. It was a Yankee hat that my brother got Pepitone's autograph on. What did he ever think I'd want with that. One time Pepitone, after missing a ballgame with a niggling injury while playing in Japan, was photographed at a disco later, out dancing with his wig. To this day, supposedly, American players who come to Japan and play the diva are called "Pepitones." Willets Point Dec 13 2008 05:52 PM ="soupcan":1k1wbb9f] Is that the ugliest damn rug you've ever seen or what?[/quote:1k1wbb9f] The carpet will be vastly improved by frequently soaking it in champagne. Farmer Ted Dec 13 2008 06:47 PM I was living in NC in the mid 90s and in charge of putting on a sports-related banquet. The Yankees had a minor league team in Greensboro for a number of years and the committee board voted to have a former Yankee or a current member of the organization to be the featured speaker. I swallowed my pride and called the Bronx. The PR office hack said someone would be in touch in a few days. Phone rings 20 minutes later. Pepitone on the other end. No shit. I explain we're looking for a speaker yadda yadda yadda and he says "I'll do it (basically volunteering himself). We can work on a fee but you need to fly me down there. Great times I had in that town." Apparently he had the gig of lining up the Yankees alumni for public appearances. I went back to the committee and told them Pepitone was the best I could do (not that I tried any harder). The room busted into hysterical laughter and we found someone else from a different sport to speak. Edgy DC Dec 13 2008 07:03 PM There was an episode of Mad About You where Jamie asked what ballplayer they can get for a personal appearance on a limited budget. Paul's answer was an aging swinger of a sixties Yankee firstbaseman clearly based on the Pep. cooby Dec 13 2008 07:56 PM I swear I was thinking about Joe Pepitone this morning. And why? Ashie62 Dec 17 2008 07:05 AM ="cooby":3lcpnzjo]I swear I was thinking about Joe Pepitone this morning. And why?[/quote:3lcpnzjo] Did you wake up with a woody? Rockin' Doc Dec 17 2008 10:24 AM I believe that would be a physical impossibility for cooby. metsmarathon Dec 17 2008 11:46 AM well, this thread sure has taken some strange strange turns hasn't it? Edgy DC Jan 07 2009 07:49 AM NEW YORK-- Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration will forgo luxury boxes at the new Yankees and Mets ballparks, the city said Tuesday after months of criticism about its handling of the stadium projects. The administration has worked out a new deal with the Yankees to get extra money, instead of a luxury box. A separate and similar agreement is being worked out with the Mets for their new park, a Bloomberg spokesman said. Senior Bloomberg aides had fought hard to get the luxury boxes, describing the perk in internal e-mails as "a big issue to the mayor" during negotiations with the teams in 2006. That battle for the boxes only recently came to light as state and federal lawmakers launched investigations into how the teams and the administration went about making those deals. The decision to give up the luxury boxes comes as Bloomberg seeks reelection this year and repeatedly cites the city's enormous budget shortfalls. John Cougar Lunchbucket Jan 07 2009 07:56 AM They gave it up at the same time they were forced to cough up reams of smoking guns on how filthy the whole thing was, including begging by the MFYs to increase their duistribution of public $$ to cover shit like their scoreboard and video board. Mets are also asking for more but about half the MFYs overall since the project was so much less expensive. Centerfield Jan 07 2009 03:17 PM I think the Mets should sign Manny and ask the public to pick up the tab.

Edgy DC wrote: Tweach his own, but I'm surprised anyone can find BB to be totally virtue-less. That's some of the best music of the twentieth century there --- as much Memphis Soul as Chicago Blues (and Aretha brought the Muscle Shoals sound). Simply as a delivery system for that music, I dig it. I also like seeing Landis use other filmmakers as actors. Like Purple Rain a good soundtrack does not a movie make. I'll take my soul & blues without endless car crashes thank you very much.

Lorne Michael's father probably had already been serving for 5 years and came home on leave.

="Edgy DC":133d3wiq]What? The auction house couldn't generate any action on the spongetech.com sign?[/quote:133d3wiq] Maybe Bubba Sponge? Farmer Ted Nov 18 2008 11:31 AM Missed the Spongetech sign. Very sponge worthy. soupcan Nov 20 2008 10:01 AM More pictures available at nycsubway.org 9/1963 5/10/1964 8/1/1979 8/1/1979 Tiles removed between 1979 and 1980. 8/16/1980 9/24/2008 holychicken Nov 24 2008 09:01 AM 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. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 24 2008 09:47 AM ="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? holychicken Nov 24 2008 09:56 AM ="John Cougar Lunchbucket":22rs38rb]Is she like, legal?[/quote:22rs38rb] Oh, I see. You see a dark-skinned person and immediately think "illegal immigrant." You should be ashamed! ehehhe SteveJRogers Nov 24 2008 11:37 AM ="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! Benjamin Grimm Nov 24 2008 11:39 AM I find it a little odd to be lusting after someone when all you know is the shape of her nose. Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 11:44 AM And which pores are and aren't corrupted. holychicken Nov 24 2008 12:06 PM 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. seawolf17 Nov 24 2008 12:08 PM ="holychicken":21z05y4i]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:21z05y4i] It's okay, you can still post it. We don't mind. Edgy DC Nov 24 2008 12:25 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 24 2008 12:42 PM Butts, schmutz. Steve's a snot man. seawolf17 Nov 24 2008 12:38 PM ="Edgy DC":1hrzmxox]Butts, schmutz. Steve's a snot man.[/quote:1hrzmxox] Must be a Yankee fan thing. SteveJRogers Nov 24 2008 01:14 PM ="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.

Heavy!

Surely you can't be serious about voting for Die Hard!

="G-Fafif"] David Cone, albeit in his unfortunate MFY phase, in drag with David Wells when Derek Jeter hosted, 2001 That was a pretty hilarious sketch though.

Sadly I cannot find the video online but it was a cold opening to the show where they made it look like there was rain falling in the studio and that umpire Ron Luciano would call the show. Transcript

="Rockin' Doc":x646ax5a] Personally, I don't know Mariano Rivera well enough to form an opinion of him as a man. Unlike Steve, I have not spent time reading up on his life. However, I do admire his talent and accomplishments as a baseball player, though I dislike the team that employs him. I do believe that he exercised poor judgement when he electrified his home swimming pool.[/quote:x646ax5a] That about sums it up for me too. Centerfield Nov 17 2008 08:55 PM All kidding aside, my feelings don't really fit into one of those categories. I dislike Mariano Rivera because I hate the Yankees and because he did something unspeakably reckless. I also get annoyed at how there is a double-standard in the media for "good guys" versus "bad guys". If you guys remember, the reports of the pool incident indicated that Rivera had electrified the pool because he was sick of trespassing from neighborhood dogs. The nephew wasn't aware that the pool was still electrified and jumped in to his death. His father died trying to save him. It's amazing how many articles glossed over this fact, or neglected to mention it altogether. First of all, electrifying a pool doesn't seem like a measure aimed at keeping dogs out. It seems like a good way of frying them once they're in, so they don't visit again and the owners learn a lesson. I say this because, why is Michael Vick in jail again? Secondly, intentionally electrifying a pool when you have kids around is so reckless, I can't imagine a jury here wouldn't convict the owner of negligent homicide. I grew up around a neighborhood pool. The owners wouldn't let us into the pool within a half hour after eating...not even in the shallow end. I can't imagine anyone having such a disregard for human life that they would ever think to electrify a pool anywhere near kids. You just have to wonder what he was thinking. In his defense, this incident seems completely out of character. And you wonder if it was his call or if he even knew about the pool. Everything he does on the field is done with class (none of the K-Rod like hysterics), he is supposedly a good family man and I've never heard him say a bad word about anyone. I just think that even if good people do something this dumb, they should be called on it. Imagine how different the media would have treated this if the kid had died in Ron Artest's pool. Valadius Nov 17 2008 09:00 PM I dislike Mariano Rivera because he's a Yankee and because he's overrated. The pool incident is irrelevant to me. metsguyinmichigan Nov 17 2008 09:33 PM I think he showed bad judgment. A fence keeps out dogs and nephews, and has to be less expensive, unless its a really big fence. I'm glad he didn't start the All-Star Game. Fman99 Nov 18 2008 05:07 AM Fuck him and his pool filled with electric eels. The guy's a menace and he's stupid looking. Wait, who are we talking about? HahnSolo Nov 18 2008 07:13 AM Where's the "I hate Rivera because of Rogers" choice? holychicken Nov 18 2008 07:25 AM Where is the choice for hating him because he stole Wagner's entrance music? metsguyinmichigan Nov 18 2008 08:20 AM ="holychicken":2tzg0576]Where is the choice for hating him because he stole Wagner's entrance music?[/quote:2tzg0576] Badass! G-Fafif Nov 18 2008 08:42 AM ="metsguyinmichigan":1u1s036d]I'm glad he didn't start the All-Star Game.[/quote:1u1s036d] It didn't really count as a result.

="Frayed Knot":12ngkcxw]Born same day/same year: Tom Seaver, Jim Boeheim, Lorne Michaels, Danny DeVito[/quote:12ngkcxw] So Lorne Michaels produces Saturday Night Live, Tom Seaver appeared once on SNL, and Danny Devito is in the Five Timers Club. Jim Boeheim is the outlier with no known SNL connections. Benjamin Grimm Nov 17 2008 08:18 PM I have no idea who Jim Boeheim is. themetfairy Nov 17 2008 08:22 PM When was Seaver on SNL? Edgy DC Nov 17 2008 08:31 PM About 1983, playing himself as NBC sportscaster. themetfairy Nov 17 2008 08:39 PM Was he any good? Willets Point Nov 17 2008 08:50 PM Sadly I cannot find the video online but it was a cold opening to the show where they made it look like there was rain falling in the studio and that umpire Ron Luciano would call the show. Transcript themetfairy Nov 17 2008 08:53 PM Good find. Thanks Willets! RealityChuck Nov 18 2008 08:07 AM Will you still need me; will you still feed me. When I'm 64? metirish Nov 18 2008 08:18 AM Happy birthday Mr. Seaver. G-Fafif Nov 18 2008 08:19 AM ="RealityChuck":3ibqb112]Will you still need me; will you still feed me. When I'm 64?[/quote:3ibqb112] Not really a problem for Tom when he was 63[/url:3ibqb112]. metirish Nov 18 2008 08:21 AM ="Benjamin Grimm":3p9ulhnh]I have no idea who Jim Boeheim is.[/quote:3p9ulhnh] I knew the name but googled to make sure, he is the basketball coach at Syracuse . G-Fafif Nov 18 2008 08:32 AM Top of the head list of Mets on "SNL" besides Tom Seaver (which I had completely forgotten about): Ed Kranepool and Steve Henderson in Spring Training Chico Escuela comeback sketch, 1979 (count ST invitee Nelson Briles, too, if you like) Todd Hundley in the Chris Kittan as kid being visited in his bedroom by succeedingly disappointing sports heroes sketch, 1997 (Not Mets at the time, but Gregg Jefferies, Todd Zeile and Cliff Floyd also appeared) Ron Darling in a faux press conference apologizing to "SNL" for allowing Game Six to go on so long, thus causing the show to tape for later showing, 1986 David Cone, albeit in his unfortuante MFY phase, in drag with David Wells when Derek Jeter hosted, 2001 (Cone, Mike Stanton and Felix Heredia also did cameos after 1998 World Series with Ben Stiller) Anybody remember any others? Willets Point Nov 18 2008 09:20 AM ="G-Fafif"] David Cone, albeit in his unfortunate MFY phase, in drag with David Wells when Derek Jeter hosted, 2001 That was a pretty hilarious sketch though. Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 10:12 AM ="G-Fafif"]Top of the head list of Mets on "SNL" besides Tom Seaver (which I had completely forgotten about): Ed Kranepool and Steve Henderson in Spring Training Chico Escuela comeback sketch, 1979 (count ST invitee Nelson Briles, too, if you like) Todd Hundley in the Chris Kittan as kid being visited in his bedroom by succeedingly disappointing sports heroes sketch, 1997 (Not Mets at the time, but Gregg Jefferies, Todd Zeile and Cliff Floyd also appeared) Ron Darling in a faux press conference apologizing to "SNL" for allowing Game Six to go on so long, thus causing the show to tape for later showing, 1986 David Cone, albeit in his unfortuante MFY phase, in drag with David Wells when Derek Jeter hosted, 2001 (Cone, Mike Stanton and Felix Heredia also did cameos after 1998 World Series with Ben Stiller) Anybody remember any others? Only Met to host: Garth Brooks. Frayed Knot Nov 18 2008 10:39 AM ="metirish":kmt911pg]="Benjamin Grimm":kmt911pg]I have no idea who Jim Boeheim is.[/quote:kmt911pg] I knew the name but googled to make sure, he is the basketball coach at Syracuse .[/quote:kmt911pg] And has been so for like the last million years. ESPN's 'PTI' program always mentions a sport or pop culture related birthday during its close and used Boeheim yesterday (not surprising that a college hoops coach trumps a Tom Seaver on the planet of ESPN). I just happened to hear about Michaels on the radio yesterday and the age coincidence struck me. Then in re-checking Michaels' age I saw DeVito's also. I suspect that 4 people as famous as them sharing a same-day/same-year b-day is rare - especially in an era with fewer births due to so many men being overseas. (So what were their fathers doing anyway?) Edgy DC Nov 18 2008 11:03 AM Charlie Seaver's war years from stanfordmensgolf.com: After Stanford, Seaver moved to Fresno, California in 1939. He worked for many years in the California food industry, and at his suggestion, raisins were first added to breakfast cereals. While in Fresno, Seaver won the Fresno City Amateur Championship six times, winning four consecutive titles from 1945 through 1948, and again in 1950 and 1954. In 1949, he started what would extend to 39 consecutive appearances in the Bing Crosby (now AT & T) National Pro-Am tournament. Teaming with professional Mike Fetchik (winner of the Western Open) in 1964, Seaver won the pro/am division by one stroke over Tony Lema and John Durkin. Seaver served on the Board of Directors of the NCGA and he was elected its president in 1980.He was born in 1911, so he would have been 30 when Pearl Harbor hit. They were drafting up to 45, but I'm guessing the draft boards were looking for men under 30 first. With a Princeton/Stanford education and leadership in a crucial industry --- dried food --- he was probably seen as more valuable on the home front. John Cougar Lunchbucket Nov 18 2008 11:25 AM Two scoops of interesting stuff. Frayed Knot Nov 18 2008 11:39 AM - So Seaver's father was tied up in industry. - DeVito's father may have been too short to serve. - And who knows what the rules were in Canada that allowed Lorne Michaels father to be lazing around the house in early 1944 Now we just need to figure out what Boeheim's father was up to that contributed to this pre-baby boomlet. Willets Point Nov 18 2008 12:55 PM Lorne Michael's father probably had already been serving for 5 years and came home on leave. soupcan Nov 18 2008 01:23 PM Boeheim's dad was a leader in another crucial industry - amusement park shilling. metirish Nov 18 2008 01:27 PM I really dig how threads at this place can turn informative and funny and interesting in a short time.

="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!

="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