So is every stadium named after a corporation. At least this has some historical meaning to it.
Any time a company has more expenses (including asset depreciation or losses) than income - its consequential. If they took in tens of billions and only spent nines of billions, then we wouldn’t have to bail them out. But they take in tens of billions and have spent (in this case in terms of asset writeoffs) elevens of billions - therefore $20M IS consequential.
When companies start to loose money, they slash expenses. Advertising expenses - particularly ones that can not be easily tied back into sales like stadium naming rights - are often high up on the cutting block to go. (Donuts at meetings go first - and if $20 in donuts isn’t inconsequential, nothing is).
If they want to slow bleed their money away and go bankrupt ala the airlines or GM, they can do that without taxpayer money. If they want to survive, they’d better stop spending money stupidly - even if its a drop in the bucket.
Well, if NYC cared that much, they should have bid for the name.
Seriously, it’s not like a a new dorm; you don’t automatically name the place after who paid. The name itself is bid on and sold. If you don’t bid on the name, it won’t be named for you.
Not saying it’s particularly ideal, but it’s not a particularly new or complicated concept.
Not entirely true. I’d have no idea what Bank One, Comerica, US Cellular, Citizens Bank were if not for their MLB stadia. Hell, I still don’t know what PNC or Safeco do, but I know they exist.
Does CitiBank know how many customers they can expect to bring to in because their name is on the stadium? Or was this another shitty decision by management without any real facts or figures looked at, like they made so many other shitty decisions?
Preponderence of evidence seems to suggest, IMO, that this was probably just another shitty decision along the lines of “yeah that sounds good; let’s do it”.
They took the money, they’re going to face intense scrutiny now. Their days of conducting business with no one watching are over, for now at least.
Buying the name of a stadium is either a good business move, or a bad business move. It either brings you in more profits from customers than it costs, or less profits than it costs. Now, I can’t personally say whether it’s a sound decision or not, but I don’t see how it depends on whether you’re being bailed out. If it’s unprofitable, then they should have given it up already. If it’s profitable, then they should keep doing it. If this is in fact a great bargain as advertising goes, then they’d be fools to give it up right when they need great bargains so desperately.
It seems that shame is a powerful motivator after all.
GM, Ford Will Sell Corporate Jet Fleet
Kudos to Ford’s Alan Mulaly for at least attempting to set the standard. cite
I guess he decided he can live off just the bonuses, stock options, restricted stock grants, his $7 mil hiring bonus, the $11 mil offset from his hiring and, presumably, his savings. :rolleyes:
$28 million dollars for 4 months work back in 2006, too, in addition to nearly $8 mil from Boeing that year. cite. Ah well, at least he’s willing to try and appear to be tightening his belt. Good on him for that, I suppose.
Not all of them are terrible. Some are downright mediocre. Still Cititaxpayer field is bad even for a corp name, much worse than Citifield. I don’t think the Mets should be forced to change the name. They signed a contract to make it Citifield. They did nothing wrong here.
Right we should have made naming a condition of taxpayer financing. Then again NYC is slashing funds for many things we need while funding things we don’t need, like renaming the Triboro bridge after RFK, and moving the Washington Square Fountain two feet.
None of those banks are Citi bank. What I said doesn’t apply to them, but still applies to Citibank.
Well, the hard part’s done. Now all they have to do is keep selling cars that aren’t in demand during a recession while developing more fuel-efficient vehicles to compete with rivals who are years ahead of them. Thank goodness they sold those jets! 
‘The Mets’ in this case being the shareholders that are going to be making bank off of selling out the stadium on the taxpayer’s dime. Sorry if I don’t feel that bad about it.
Regardless it ain’t going to happen, but that doesn’t mean I don’t wish it would.
When drowning, every little bit of flotsam that helps keep you afloat is a good thing.
Combined, GM and Ford asked the government for $27 billion in funds and loans today. Selling the corporate jets won’t keep them afloat. The difference in scale makes that idea laughable. It’s just about appearances.
It’s not ‘Just about appearances’. Those Jets are worth the yearly salary of line workers many times over. This whole idea of looking at money proportionally is the height of lunacy. 3 will still get you a Big Mac. So just because 27b is more doesn’t mean $ 500m is insignificant.
If you think so, then next time a topic on the Bridge to Nowhere comes up, I expect you to defend Ted Stevens.
Yeah, it really is. The reason these specific expenses are being highlighted is only their appearance. I’m not saying all their spending is just about appearances or that they shouldn’t cut money, but these two items in particular are nothing else.
So by what process have you determined that they didn’t need the jets?
:rolleyes: So in other words, having a corporate jet is equivalent to wasting taxpayer money? There’s no logical use for the aircraft, it’s just a boondoggle?
Did somebody break the name “Shea Stadium”?
Yes, it’s about appearances primarily but that is real money, it’s not irrelevant as you are arguing.
Well the fact that they are selling them tells us something. There is no reason a CEO can’t fly first class.
There is a logical use, it makes the CEOs feel important and gives them convenience that the peons aren’t privy to. I can think of many reasons why one would use a private Jet, but I can also think of many reasons why you’d want to depress the incomes of your workers so you can continue to afford your CEO perks.
Shea was their old stadium. Citi is where they will start playing next season.
I’ve put more energy into defending unnecessary spending by flailing coporations than I meant to. Here’s my basic point: the jets and the ballpark name are ‘show’ issues that don’t address anything of consequence. Ford and GM aren’t running out of money because they have corporate jets. They’re running out of money because of years and years of mismanagement and idiocy. If they deserve a bailout despite those failings, the fact that they have jets is really irrelevant. Similarly, if you want to contend that Citi screwed up by getting into the wrong markets and such, that’s far more important than the name of the Mets’ stadium. I’m fine with the executive pay cuts and lack of bonuses - actually I think that should be a requirement of any aid package. And I thought it was infuriating when AIG took their bailout money and organized a spa retreat - and then quickly asked for more money. But I can’t get worked up about the naming and jet issues on their own.
No, but the thing with that name is (going to be) a pile of rubble.
What is it with NYC and re-using stadium names, anyway? Yankee Stadium, and weren’t there like nine Madison Square Gardens?
Well then you and I have different perceptions. Because spending money on executive perks while the company is going down is pretty integral to corporate mismanagement IMV.
Why? Did the stadium get broken?