JetNation Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 New York House members want the Obama administration to ignore the little-town blues of a couple of out-of-state congressmen who want a $400 million stadium-naming deal between Citigroup and the New York Mets to disappear. More... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Last week's NEWSWEEK also had an interesting article on the subject: http://www.newsweek.com/id/183148 Batter Up Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neckdemon Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 i think they should kill the deal.....but no point in arguing about it cause what me or you think doesn't really matter much, we can't change a thing. that's the reason i don't get it when people argue incessantly about politics. except for voting you can't do much about anything, and arguing about it (especially since the arguments usually end up very nasty) is pretty much useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZachEY Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 i think they should kill the deal.....but no point in arguing about it cause what me or you think doesn't really matter much, we can't change a thing. that's the reason i don't get it when people argue incessantly about politics. except for voting you can't do much about anything, and arguing about it (especially since the arguments usually end up very nasty) is pretty much useless. You're right. I just thought Newsweek provided the best answer for why they should keep it that I've heard to date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 New York House members want the Obama administration to ignore the little-town blues of a couple of out-of-state congressmen who want a $400 million stadium-naming deal between Citigroup and the New York Mets to disappear. More... I can see their point. $400 mil is a LOT of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thai Jet Posted February 12, 2009 Share Posted February 12, 2009 Last week's NEWSWEEK also had an interesting article on the subject: http://www.newsweek.com/id/183148 Batter Up Why Citi shouldn't cancel its $400 million purchase of naming rights for the Mets new stadium. 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.