According to currently reliable rumors, Citibank plans to spend roughly $400 Million for a “naming rights” on a sports stadium. This is right after accepting…what was it again?..20?..25 Godzillabucks of our money?
By Og’s Bleeding Piles, what the fuck do these people think they’re doing! Have they recently included “Incite class war” in their mission statement? How utterly brain-dead, tone-deaf and gobsmacked do you have to be to come up with ideas like this?
Let’s write them letters. Advise them that they have overdrawn their account with us, and as a courtesy, we’re only going to charge them 20 times what they misspent, subject to the miracle of compound interest on an hourly basis. Ya know, like they do to us!
Failing that, there’s always Plan B. (Pitchforks? Check. Torches? Check. Proletariat rage? Oh, yeah. Buckets of it…)
Maybe its all a joke. Maybe they’ll tell us real soon, no, of course, they wouldn’t do anything so arrogantly insulting to the poor dumb shmucks who just bailed out their sorry silk-lined asses! Maybe if I have a nice cup chamomile tea and read a little P.G. Wodehouse, I won’t have a fucking stroke!
Given the apparent idiocy of management I don’t want to defend them but if you’re talking about Citi Field, the new stadium for the New York Mets, note that they made the agreement two years ago, well before their current problems began. And that the $400 million is for payments of $20 million a year for at least twenty years.
Well, what a bargain, then! Gosh, twenty years, huh? Shit, that’s like buying it at the Dollar Store then, isn’t it? Did they put their first born children down as a deposit, to ensure that they couldn’t change their minds due to unforeseen circumstances?
Perhaps they just couldn’t bear the heartbreak. In my interactions with bankers, I hadn’t noticed any overpowering sentimentality.
Still, your point stands, they are pissing our money away in very measured and methodicial ways.
GM cancelled their contract with Tiger Woods. They were aware of how it looked.
AIG goes on expensive junkets. They waste tax payers money. After all once they pass it over to them they treat it like it is theirs. So they squander it however they feel. Citigroup spends 400 mill as they gobble up tax money. It is not your money. it belongs to them and they are just not used to metering it out. They are playing us for fools because they can.
I love the fact that it’s the new home of the Mets. I mean, it’s not as if that stadium has been around for a decade or so, but the Mets will have this big ceremony with great fanfare and everyone’s gonna be thinking “Fuck those fucking scumbags at fucking Citibank…” the whole time.
The New York Mets could find a way to fuck up a wet dream.
The taxpayer is now being screwed every which way on this stadium.
First, the $850 million cost of the stadium itself is being subsidised to the tune of about $450 million by the city, the state, and the federal government.
Then, they sell the naming rights for $20 million a year, money that goes straight into the pocket of Mets ownership.
And now, in further evidence that socialism abounds in America—as long as you’re a large corporation—that $20 million a year in naming rights will now also be effectively underwritten by the American taxpayer.
I have a Citibank credit card. One of those “cashback rewards” dealies where I can get up to $300/year back in cash based on 1% or 2% of every purchase.
When I got it I had a decent rate, 11.99% I think. Over the past coupla years it’s gone down. Now at it’s lowest 9.49%. I’m one of those folks who does pay interest every month. Maybe like $15-30 a month over the life of the card.
I got a letter in the mail the other day telling me that my new rate is going to be 16.99% starting Dec 3 - just 'cuz. Not because I paid late or because I overdrew. Just 'cuz.
My parents, who also have a Citibank card and pay it off every month, got the same letter. 16.99%
Luckilly for me I was trying to decide which card to pay off next week - Citi or BoA. Citi was kind enough to make the decision easy for me.
So, I wish I could tell the Mets fans that I will be paying for the stadium, but I won’t and neither will my parents. But, all of the other suckers who can’t really afford a doubling of their APR right now will be contributing.
Oh Citibank… Citibank. Must you compound the indigniti?
So. The stadium cost $850 million, of which $450 million is subsidized directly with public funds, and the other $400 million is paid by Citibank with federal bailout money. In return for which, the stadium will be named after Citibank.
This involves so much money, and is so alien to my understanding of cause and effect, that for me it might as well be happening in the Andromeda galaxy.
But every time such deals come up before the electorate, the fucking sheep keep on saying, ‘Yeah, we need that new stadium! Can’t lose the team!’ And then vote for the proposal, or to re-elect the assholes who worked out that deal.
And it’s not just big stadiums that are subject to those kind of fractions, little ones, too get hugely subsidized by the government, too. I wonder just how much fucking money NY could trim off it’s budget deficit if they managed to drop all the fucking sports subsidies… Not that it’s going to happen, but I can dream. sigh
Advertising is an essential and effective method of growing/maintaining a business. During tough times, you might continue to invest in the company for growth or maintaining the brand.
Advertising did not create the hole for Citi, but it sure did help position themselves as one of the largest banks in the world.
Set feelings aside and look at the business-side of things. I understand the initial reaction, but focus on the root causes of how Citi got in trouble. They owe their existence to a powerful brand, a worldwide image and effective advertising. Abandoning that jeopardizes their success.
If the data shows advertising works, they should stick with it. Remember, many banks got in trouble by ignoring the data that proves X works over Y. They pursued Y and lost. If X works, stick with it.
.
And it’s not just New York. The problem is that not only do these new stadiums generally NOT bring much in the way of extra revenue or jobs, but very often the threats by owners to relocate are hollow anyway. There are only so many markets in the US that can provide the sort of revenue that a major sports franchise needs, and the owners themselves know very well that, in most cases, their real opportunities for moving are rather limited.
There is apparently a more recent, updated edition (i have the original edition), and the authors also have a companion website where they follow issues of stadium financing.
For an interesting look at how this sort of thing plays out at the minor league level, check out J.C. Bradbury’s website, Sabernomics, and particularly his long-term analysis of the stadium financing deal of the Gwinnett Braves, a Triple-A team about to begin a new chapter in Gwinnett, GA, after being enticed from Richmond, VA, with promises of tax breaks, a stadium, etc. Bradbury, an economics professor, basically concludes that, despite the city council’s constant reassurances that the deal “will pay for itself,” the taxpayers of Gwinnett have been royally fucked.
Seriously, it’s easier for me to focus on the things that I see locally and which I suspect are examples of a systemic problem than to go the effort of gathering the research for the larger picture.
I’m not so sure that fighting to keep a team in those areas where the threat is real (c.f. Buffalo Bills, and the potential move to Toronto) is actually a good idea for either the team, or the local public. Just in terms of looking at market size and strength: Toronto is a huge metropolitan area, and still growing. Buffalo… isn’t. And trying to compete with the offers that a metropolitan area with that kind of strength can make is just going to do worse things for Buffalo’s economy.
That may once have been true. Right now they owe their existence to $45 billion in taxpayer funds.
Does spending bailout money on ostentatious stadium branding count as “effective advertising?” This kind of runs against my rudimentary grasp of such lofty matters. Then again, I never really understood the adage: “All publicity is good publicity,” either.
Speaking of which, I wonder if anyone realized when they proposed the name “Citi Field” that this will inevitably result in the stadium being colloquially referred to as “Shitty Field.” Mets fans being Mets fans, I don’t think there’s any way of avoiding that particular cold equation.
And I want them doing with my tax money what they know is a key to their success. Instead of worrying about what the ad geniuses are doing (they are the ones that have their shit together there), concern yourself with dumb/risky lending practices that might not be altered. There are dumbass things that went on in some banks, and those dumbass things were done because they ignored an effective business model.
Please, people, get a grip. Money spent advertising and building a brand is necessary…but there are lending/investing practices and other bad business decisions that will run the company down into the red. Please, worry about those…try to expend energy there, as that will waste your tax dollars if not corrected. The image/brand/ad guys helped build their enterprise.
