Jump to content

TMZ: New Stadium Offered $25M to Promote Adultery


Maxman

Recommended Posts

http://www.jetnation.com/?p=4364

TMZ.com has an interesting story on the naming rights for the new stadium. According to TMZ, adult dating site Ashley Madison has made a 25 million dollar offer to have the stadium named after them. This is ironic because no matter how much money they offered, the Jets and Giants could never accept it. It is actually a smart marketing move from ashley madison, they will get a ton of free publicity out of this and it won't cost them anything. The NFL has been clear with their policies and there is no amount of money that could get this done.

NFL Stadium Offered $25M to Promote Adultery

Originally posted Jun 10th 2010 12:10 AM PDT by TMZ Staff

Meadowlands Stadium
-- the brand new home of the
New York Giants
and the
New York Jets
-- now has 25 million reasons to endorse homewrecking ... courtesy of the
dating site.

AM founder
Noel Biderman
sent a letter to the CEO at New Meadowlands -- obtained by TMZ -- declaring, "At this stage, we are prepared to make a preliminary offer ... of $25,000,000 for the Naming Rights for a five-year term."

He adds, if the stadium gets better offers, "We would be pleased to match any such superior offer."

The offer (which works out to $5M a year) is pretty big, but it's still below the average for other stadium sponsorships -- Bank of America pays $7M a year to sponsor the Carolina Panthers stadium and FedEx drops $7.6 a year on the Redskins stadium in D.C.

You can discuss this in the New York Jets forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they are already promoting ruthless violence... I say take these b--ches money and give it to revis.

Who cares? It could be hustler stadium for all I care. I still call it Brendan Byrne, I still call it the garden state arts center, and now that I live in Fl I know no one called it Landshark last year and they're not calling it sunlife this year. It's still Joe Robbie.

This advertising crap is just that. WHO CARES?????? If they want to give us money then take it and like Bitonti said... GIVE IT REVIS!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably stating the obvious here, but this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. I know the economy is down, but I can't see the Jets and Giants agreeing to a deal that only pays them $5 million from anybody, let lone a company that could spark protests from many religious groups.

I have no moral objection to the stadium being called 'Ashley Madison Stadium' (though I know others would) and it even sounds like a cool name, but $5 million a season? Please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably stating the obvious here, but this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. I know the economy is down, but I can't see the Jets and Giants agreeing to a deal that only pays them $5 million from anybody, let lone a company that could spark protests from many religious groups.

I have no moral objection to the stadium being called 'Ashley Madison Stadium' (though I know others would) and it even sounds like a cool name, but $5 million a season? Please.

No different than the mancrunch.com publicity stunt.

I'd be shocked if they could even afford that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

TMZ needs to learn how to write headlines.

Not to be a grammar mod, but saying "New Meadowlands Stadium offered ..." means that it was the Stadium that made the offer rather than was offered by someone else. There is absolutely no other way to read that sentence as written.

The title should have been "New Meadowlands Stadium was offered ..."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably stating the obvious here, but this is nothing more than a publicity stunt. I know the economy is down, but I can't see the Jets and Giants agreeing to a deal that only pays them $5 million from anybody, let lone a company that could spark protests from many religious groups.

I have no moral objection to the stadium being called 'Ashley Madison Stadium' (though I know others would) and it even sounds like a cool name, but $5 million a season? Please.

I have to agree, this is nothing more than another stunt by Ashley Madison.com

They know that JETS/GIANTS properties, INC. are looking for what amounts to $350 - 500 Million for a 30 years of naming rights. That would be between $35 - 50 Million a year!

This low ball - Biderman is offering $5 Million a year for 5 years, is just that - a publicity stunt, especially since the final year of the naming rights would end the year after the Meadowlands Stadium Superbowl.

What a corndog!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jun 10, 2010

Adulterer dating site AshleyMadison.com offers $25M to buy rights to new Giants-Jets Meadowlands stadium

01:32 PM

Two weeks ago, New York Giants co-owner John Mara said the NFL's decision to award the 2014 Super Bowl to New York might help attract a naming-rights sponsor for the new Meadowlands stadium.

"It can't hurt," Mara said. "This is a positive factor. It makes it an even more attractive package, the potential naming rights part, but that will come."

And now the Giants and the New York Jets, who co-own the stadium, have a company that wants to buy the rights: AshleyMadison.com, which has offered $25 million to buy the naming rights for five years.

AshleyMadison.com is a dating service that caters to adulterers -- proudly. The language on the site's welcome page reads: "Life is short. Have an affair."

AshleyMadison.com founder Noel Biderman told TMZ the site might even up its offer. "We would be pleased to match any such superior offer," he told the site.

The site will probably need to do just that. The New York Daily News reported that the Giants and Jets are seeking about $20 million per year for the rights.

-- Sean Leahy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a site for married people looking for a person to cheat with. Thats disgusting.

Nothing is sacred here anymore. Im not even religious like that and even I know thats dead a** wrong. Satan's at it again cuz people will do ANYTHING for money, sex and power, which I never understood. Shyte, I dont even like jewelry and tattoos.

Funny how the view, larry king, dr. phil and good morning america has promoted this site as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its funny how a person can be judged but a "corporation" can do anything under the sun and its accepted.

People get away with affairs all their time on their own. I equally judge this corporation AND the people who cheat, so not sure what point you're making here.

The people who created this company probably have a special place in Hell reserved for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People get away with affairs all their time on their own. I equally judge this corporation AND the people who cheat, so not sure what point you're making here.

The people who created this company probably have a special place in Hell reserved for them.

No one ever sees my point. Take a ticket and get in line cuz you're not the first.

But to clairify, this is a company that has enough money to offer 25 million for naming rights, Numerous TV shows have promoted its service, and its all because people "say" these acts are not acceptable yet this company has to be successful in order for it to be able to shell out that type or money or have 25 mil in backing. Thats my point. If it wasnt accepted, it wouldnt be around.

You dont accept it, I dont accept it, but plenty of people accept it, and there's something very wrong with that. Thats my other point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are some gems from the ashley madison FAQ:

Q. What is the ratio of female to male member sign ups?

A. At present, there are about 7 men for every 3 women that join AshleyMadison.com.

Q. How can I reduce the risk of HIV or other diseases?

A. Because sexual contact is the major transmission route for HIV infection, eliminating sexual contact eliminates risk of transmission by this route. Abstinence, however, may be neither desirable nor practicable for many people. Nonetheless, it is an important option to consider, as some persons may feel that at least limited periods of abstinence may be the best choice under certain circumstances.

Sexual contact with many persons increases the probability of coming in contact with an HIV-infected partner. Thus, one risk-reducing strategy to consider is a reduction in the number of sexual partners, but this in no way reduces the risk of infection by sexual contact with even a single partner who is HIV positive. Because risk of HIV infection derives only from exposure to HIV-infected partners, avoiding sexual exposure with partners known or likely to be HIV infected would be an appropriate risk-reduction strategy for many people, but in many cases it is not possible to tell whether or not a given partner is HIV positive. One reasonable approach is to choose a partner who is at low risk of being HIV infected and then practice safer-sex techniques with that partner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...