It just keeps getting better. Citigroup has announced that they plan on going forward with a deal to maintain naming rights on the Met’s new stadium, Citi Field. The 20 year deal carries a price tag of $20 million a year, totalling a measly $400 million. Definitely a good financial decision when you have to borrow $300+ billion from the government. In fact, a Citigroup spokesman told Reuters on Friday: “We remain committed to our relationship with the Mets. It’s an important marketing priority for us.” Hmmm, maybe once the bailout goes through the Citi execs can join the AIG folks at the posh California spa for a relaxing retreat on the taxpayers’ tab. And I wonder how the 55,000 newly unemployed workers feel about this “important marketing priority”. How many of those jobs could have been spared? Don’t forget about AIG’s 4 year $56.5 million sponsorship of Manchester United. This is just a forward email I received from a friend…
I agree that this is rather ridiculous. If GM is going to the extreme measure of getting rid of voicemail systems (yes, you can only reach someone at GM now if they are at their desk), you would think a $400 million stadium naming deal ought to get the axe. I don’t know much about marketing and obviously a naming rights for a stadium in a huge market such as NYC has the potential for a huge increase in revenue, lets face it, the mets suck after all. Why would you want your company’s name on that stadium?
At this point I think they have plenty of name recognition.
Don’t you go messing with my Mets…
GM didnt renew their contract with Tiger.
JoeyDVivre Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Don’t you go messing with my Mets… Oh come on Joey, the Mets are a disgrace to New York, you have to admit that. As someone whos more well-educated than the average about statistics, I completely understand the fact that just about all sports bets are 50/50 with the spread and all that. But the closest thing I’ve ever gotten to a sure bet was giving my friend whos a Mets fan 6:1 odds that they wouldn’t make the playoffs this season. Was there ever any doubt they’d collapse yet again? (And yes, you guessed it, I’m a yankees fan).
Turns out Vikram LOVES Mr. Met.
NakedPuts Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Turns out Vikram LOVES Mr. Met. I hear Vikrams nephew IS Mr. Met.
It’s slightly off topic, but I think relevant as it relates to corporate excesses. Whether it’s a matter of signs on stadiums, private jets, or exec. compensation, they are all part of the same narrative. I’ve never been against executive compensation, even at insane big bulge levels. Talent needs to be rewarded for endeavors, and appropriate risk taking should be incentivized. That’s what creates prosperity, progress, and the animal spirit all us Econ majors puzzled over for years in UG. All of that said…How do you run a company into the ground, gamble and fritter away the billions of dollars of profit and retained earnings, and then expect the gov’t to bail your sorry a$$ out, all w/ the expectation of a huge payday? It is unconscionable for the “masters of the universe”, who failed in such spectacular fashion, to come away richer than ever. I’m against most all gov’t bailouts, but if they must be saved (as a result of labor quid pro quoes, politics, or “cascading financial systems”), lets not let the titans of industry to walk away unscathed. Why should the taxpayer, shareholder, or worker get stuck holding the bag while the CEO and his team are boarding the next gulf-stream out of Dodge? In this country, you don’t get to have your cake and eat it too. Success is rewarded, failure is punished; and there has to be some downside for these guys.