|
|
|
In the New York Times, George Vecsey criticizes the Mets and Citigroup for continuing on with ‘the Citi Field deal,’ despite a $300 billion loan to the banking giant from the Federal Government.
Vecsey uses typical buzzwords like ‘socialism,’ while writing, “My rage gave way to pride, however, knowing that we are all, in a broad sense, shareholders in the Mets.”
I look forward to reading George’s next few columns, during which I am sure he will express an equal amount of rage in also being a shareholder of AIG, Chrysler, Bear Stearns, the airline industry, countless other banks, the police department, the fire department, my nephew’s public school, my grandparents prescription drug plan, and the countless 
other organizations our taxdollars help to support and finance. I mean, the entire city of New York was bailed out in 1975 for Pete’s sake.
Anyway, I, too, am confused by the Mets, who are continuing their relationship with Citigroup. But, I have kept quiet on this issue, because, frankly, at this point, what is there to say?
Whether it’s Citigroup, the Government, Tiger Woods and GM, the insurance companies, the auto manufacturers, ‘the bridge to nowhere,’ the credit industry or the Mets, it’s the same-old, tired, complicated story, all of which beat around the bush. To me, it would be a waste of time to criticize one, and not criticize the other, all while never addressing the real, macro problem at hand.
That said, I am surprised the Mets have continued their partnership with Citigroup, strictly from a public relations point of view. I mean, whether you are for it, against it, whether you’re ignorant like me, or you’re a financial expert, the partnership does look a bit gluttonous, which is never good. Typically, the team is so paranoid of what other people think, so I am surprised this has yet to impact their thinking.
Frankly, I feel like the Mets should keep the name, take the money and give the cash to people who were laid off by the bank, or something to that affect – but what do I know. I mean, I’m still hoping Apple steps in and names it The Big Apple.
By the way, I’ll be at Citi Failed today, I mean Field, taking pictures and video with SNY’s Ted Berg, which I hope to have uploaded before the end of the day.
 |
 |
 |
RSS 2.0 Both comments and pings are currently closed.
AIG Field
bonuses for everybody lol
Let’s hope Citi doesn’t bail on the deal…if they do there’ll be no K-rod, no set up man, no left fielder, no second basemen and certainly no front line starter
No the Mets will be just fine.. SNY alone can bankrolll a team twice the size of last year’s payroll.
The mets and wilpons are very wealthy and very lucrative.
plus Im sure they could find another corporation to put their name on the field maybe starting in 2010. im still waiting to use the hilarious nicknames for a field named after johnson and johnson.
That Taxpayer Field suggestion is so ridiculous. Like Matt said, We taxpayers pay for pretty much everything in this country. Citigroup is not the only company being bailed out by taxpayers. I mean, what next “Taxpayer Mustang” (Ford), will i be getting a loan from “Taxpayer Bank ” (Citibank). It’s nonsense!!
How old are you?
gimme half a million i’l be good..
Trump Field - coming in 2011.
The naming rights / partnership is completely unimportant as long as the Mets get their money. If there is danger of not getting the money promised, then find a new partner. That being said, I do mind if its a terrible name like Minute Maid Park or US Cellular Field.
Eminent Domain Park At Flushing Scrapyards
Good one. I was gonna suggest Landgrab Field.
Good column Matt. Well done.
Not really. Matt makes little sense.
wow, I feel like I have read that article about 300X in the past 6 months.
Is it a requirement for all NY papers to have their hack writers whine about this topic at least 3x a week?
Wallace Matthews article in Newsday on this topic was the worst.
Its, IMO, an easy op-ed for these hacks when they run out of ideas for articles near their deadlines. At least have some new info in your articles on the situation.
lame
I actually thought Matthew’s article was okay. As for the other 299 articled you speak of - I’ve only come across 5 or 6. It’s a debatable issue and people are going to read + write about it.
Wallace Matthews writing on any topic is guaranteed to be the worst.
my favorite was his open letter to Jose Reyes last season…
“Dear Jose,
Are you going to be like Derek Jeter or Rey Ordonez?”
he is the king of hack writers
haha…yea I remember that article…complete waste of time and a shame Newsday readers have to be subjected to such poor writing
While the original deal does seem a bit on the crazy side, $-wise etc., the fact of the matter is, its not necessarily a good idea for Citigroup to pull out of this deal right now. All that would say to shareholders and the public is that they are extremely worried that they won’t be able to stay afloat from this point on, even with the bailout money. Working, successful companies need advertising, and thats exactly what this parternship is: big, expensive advertising.
Whether the Mets should have pulled out of the deal, perhaps is a different story, but it wouldn’t be particularly good publicity for the Mets either, would it? Tricky situation. Continuing on without change may be the safest course of action. (or maybe not, i don’t think we can really be sure, but thats the decision they seem to have made.) No sense in whining about it…unless you have a column that needs filling.
I think I disagree that successful companies need big expensive advertising. Especially when their profits do not come directly from consumers. In the biz of mort-backed securities, little advertising is done. In fact, if more was done, people would have been like WTF long ago. Citi already has name recognition.
My problem with all the whining columnists is, where the hell were they when these deals were getting done? Media needs to be there when decisions are being made, to open up issues to debate. Instead, they are lazy and wait for all the info to trickle in… too little too late.
good point about the columnists. i should have been more specific - in the recent past nyc/northeastern personal/small biz banking climate advertising was at least somewhat necessary. Look at Chase and Bank of America and what was happening before all this bailout stuff. Citi couldnt just sit on their hands and say “people know our name - we’ll be fine.” Whether they needed to pay what they did to have a stadium named after them is of course a different story, but the fact is, i don’t think you can blame them outright for wanting to advertise.
It’s not that easy for the Mets to get out of the deal even if they wanted to. Both parties signed on the dotted line. Citigroup, regardless of their financial situtation, has the legal authority to take the Mets to court if the club wanted out of the contract.
Exactly. It’s our the country works. They signed an agreement, whether or not Citi Group needed help on their end has to impact on their deals. Should we not pay back interest in Citi credit cards because of this? Maybe they shouldn’t have bought the naming rights to begin with, but there was absolutely 0 wrong with the Mets selling them.
This is a financial issue, and there really isn’t much to talk about from a baseball point of view.
Financial issues are essential to baseball.
Does someone have the contract language? I am sure there are outs.
If the name has become a liability, which it seemingly has given the public distaste for the financial service industry bailout, there are clear ways out of this (if its an important issue. I think its important enough, but maybe its not to most met fans).
Where is the poll????
I’m pretty sure most Mets fans would prefer the team have an extra $400 million dollars than them trying to find that extra cash via ticket sales.
Are we screaming and yelling because AIG had a banner on the wall? Not all advertisers are great companies, but I’m not going to the Citi to support the advertisers, it’s to support the Mets.
AIG signed a 4 year $56 million deal with Man U for their Jerseys. That $56 million is nothing to them or Man U for that matter, being that they are the in the top 2 of wealthiest franchises in the world of sports.
If Citi thinks it in there best interest and makes strategic sense to maintain the naming rights then so be it. Why should the mets be viewed in a negative fashion for maintaining the contract they entered into. The Mets are fine on this one, when it comes to the
Mets, the times should be more worried about whose closing games for us next year then the name of the stadium
I agree 100%. Citigroup and the Mets are contracturally obligated to each other.
Let’s keep the discussion to the future closer and set-up guys. No need to steer the blog in this direction.
Why should taxpayers that are fans of another team have to foot the bill??? No hate against the mets, but another company should absolutey step in and partner up w/ the team! And definitely give the money to those that were laid off by Citi, especially since the execs are probably very nicely set financially!
I hope Vescey’s a guest columnist in Detroit as well, because Ford Field is equally offensive in that regard, as is the team that plays in it.
Sorry, this comment wasn’t meant to go there at all…
Ford owns the lions and their stadium? Citi has no influence on our stadium other than its name. Or are you saying they should sell those naming rights to help the company?
Thanks for adding to the conversation. I’m aware that Citi has no influence on the team.
I’m saying that if Vescey is angry about Citi/Mets, he should be equally as angry about Ford/Lions.
I gotcha…I’m just saying the relationship between Ford and Lions is totally different in that they are directly related. Now, maybe The lions have no impact on how Ford the company operates, and vice versa, I don’t know that, but you are right, there should be even more coverage about that link than there is regarding the Mets and Citi.
i understand why you would feel unhappy about this, but it really just doesnt work. the bailout money isnt really going straight towards the naming rights. Its going towards the company, which then decided that their best course of business action is to continue that advertising deal. Its not like citigroup made the deal because theyre mets fans.
yeah, exactly why this company should go belly up. It can’t make wise investment decisions.
I hope Vescey plans on hovering himself over to “New Shea” to see a game. God forbid he take the socialist subway or road system to get there.
he will float on his smug cloud to the new park
great post and conversation starter. Thanks Matt and George.
There is alot of scandalous stuff out there including all the lost tax revenue and public subsidy of the new NY stadiums.
They should take the Citi money, use it to pay back NYC for all the sewer and road maintenance, make up for lost tax revenue, or drop ticket costs by $20mill, etc.
What about calling it the Polo Grounds?
It is a bad move that the gov’t is giving all this away without taking some votes on Citi’s board. Thats what they are doing to banks in Europe now, and I bet they right their ship before we do ours because frivolous costs such as these can be kept in check.
Does this mean I can officially refer to the Mets as “we” without being criticized for doing so?
Yeah, what’s to say? Citi bank made a lot of bad choices (I’m sure there’s some Citi employees reading this), and they had to run to the gov’t, hat in hand, asking for a serious bailout. Vescey’s old school about the whole naming rights thing; I’m sure he would prefer the separation of corporate logos and baseball, and probably wonders how far we are from logos appearing on uniforms (the horror!, and yet they appear everywhere else!). Face it, our favorite sport is a money-driven enterprise, and the name “Citi Field” is less offensive than some we could think of, but still points to the corporate-driven nature of the sport. Everything’s about the highest bidder; I love the sport more than any other, and I put up with the corporate baggage, but I resent it as well. I think Vescey’s trying to say something about that. Remember when George S. asked Cuomo back in the early ’90s for a huge amount of money for upgrading Yankee Stadium, threatening to move to Jersey if he didn’t get the money. Well Cuomo responded–only half joking–that why didn’t George just sell the team to NY State for a slightly higher fee and put the team directly in the hands of the fans?
wall street has become welfare street.
ZING!
Granted this is not the greatest PR for a team, but it’s not Enron Field…
Citi’s bailout was 300 Billion.
There contract with the Mets is 400 million.
Thats .0013%. A tenth of a freakin percent.
Plus, whose not to say Citigroup will not make some money from the new bal park. Im sure they have ATM Fees, etc…
I believe it was infact less than 300 Bill, but you and I are both making the same point.
I’m going with what MAtt said
Ravi, it was 300+ Billion
but 50,000 employee were laid off. they could be paid with that $400 million.
if you are getting welfare as a corporation you shouldn’t be firing people as you pay a baseball team
Ok, 8K per employee? Whats that?
How about using some of the 300 BILLION for the employees? Then the employees can get a bigger severance than 8K.
Take 1 Billion from the 300+. Give it to the employees.
My point is that the 400 million is not even a tenth of a percent. and its only 20 million per year. Whats not to say 10 years from now Citi regains in power.
Its like getting $1,000 a month from the goverment and spening .50 cents on a lotto ticket. gimme a break.
we’re talking principle here. not simply cash.
Right, and i completely understand what your saying. But the deal with the Mets is so immaterial that principle i think, shoudl nto be an issue. Cash you have to take into consideration the amount of cash in order to say whats right and wrong.
Principle? Capitalism and Principles don’t go together sadly.
neither do capitalism and government bailouts
Zen, unfortunelty, it does now.
without bailouts, things would be much much worse.
For the record, while people can and will criticize the Mets/Citi for this deal, at the end of the day, the naming rights deal is is 2% of the total bailout. The jobs that are being lost are from divisions which Citigroup is divesting itself of, so regardless, those 53K jobs are gone.
I’m sure Citi’s not about to relieve homeowners of their mortgage obligations just because times are tight. So I don’t expect the Mets to relieve Citi of its obligations, either.
If Citi doesn’t like it, they can go to court; I’m sure they’ll find a friendly judge to cut them a deal. But don’t make it like the Mets are the bad guys because they expect Citi to honor a contract they freely signed.
How many sponsorships do you think Citi is currently connected with right now? Are all of those companies going to return the money Citi promised them?
I wonder how many Citi ads are in today’s edition of the NY Times. Will George Vescey return whatever portion of his paycheck is paid by those ads?
If nothing else, maybe this will teach corporations the idiocy of paying buttloads of money for naming rights. There’s virtually nothing good to be gained from it, and obviously a whole lot of bad.
Newspapers are wise places for financial services ads. Baseball stadiums? They are just distractions.
I don’t think the mets in the wrong for taking money. But if Citi decides to spend it elsewhere, the mets should let it go. So that means we can’t resign Alou, Pedro, and El Duque.
:(
The burden’s on Citi here, as far as I’m concerned. They signed a contract. So either fulfill that contract or find some way out of it. It’s not the Mets’ fault that Citi couldn’t run their business properly, and as a fellow business, they’re not obligated to throw Citi a dime. I mean, this ain’t Bailey Savings and Loan we’re talking about here.
It should be called Jackie Robinson Field but I guess that’s altogether unrealistic.
As a Citi still-employee, I’m all for Matt’s idea of giving the money to laid off staff!
Jackie robinson did great things for the sport and for african americans (and eventually others) in the sport. The jackie robinson rotunda is fine. But why push all the dodger stuff so far? I know why wilpon is doing it - he was a dodgers fan as a boy and finally can live his dream of going to a NY Dodger game again. But the rest of us are Mets fans right? Make it a Mets stadium, not a Dodger stadium….
Right, naming the Rotunda is a nice tribute, naming the whole stadium would be obsessive.
eh, whatever, as long as it says Mets on the Jerseys they could freaking play in the eyesore/dump across the street.
but they were just playing there already werent they? ….oh you werent talking about shea, were you. (jk i really loved shea, i actually think it often got a bum-wrap…)
I know its nitpicky but im kind of confused about some of the decorating of citifield. I realize there will be more mets stuff added before opening day, but right now, youve got green seats, red and tan brick outside and the Citifield sign on both the inside and outside of the stadium only has orange (field) white (citi) and red (the little thing that dots the ‘i’s over citi. is it just me, or does that sound more like Tigers than Mets? Wheres the blue?
if they get to name it, I vote for Metropolitan Park. It sounds good, it actually references the team that plays there, and it just makes sense. All 3 good reasons why the Mets won’t use it
what are you going to spend your $384.00 anually on?
this whole idea is stupid.
FYI - No baseball stadium has ever been named after a player. Closest was in Atlanta, which almost became Aaron Stadium but of course Ted puts his name on everything.
So Jackie Robinson or Seaver Field are names we are unlikely to ever see. And anyway, why name it after a Dodger?
The Mets are only paranoid when it is about spending their money. When the topic is about something that will line the Mets pockets with green, they have no conscious.
you’re a total clown…I swear most of this stuff is back handed antisemitism….they’re jewish so they don’t care as long as they make money…
I have no real opinion about keeping it CitiField, but Matt, please don’t respond to ridiculous columns with your own.
There is a big difference between the government propping up a private enterprise (such as Citibank) and paying for the public service areas you mention ( the police department, the fire department, my nephew’s public school, my grandparents prescription drug plan).
Ultimately, the government can place conditions on the bailout, including forcing Citi to back out of deals such as naming rights. Once you go down the path of taking the money, you lose some of your independence (watch what will happen as a condition for an automaker bailout).
So let’s not get overheated and start comparing private businesses that are taking the extraordinary step of getting government financing with government agencies. You are usually smarter than that, I hope it’s just a rare slip.
i know this kind of response often incites arguments or the same counterpoint of “he owes us as readers” or “he shouldn’t be a hypocrite” but really, its his blog. Should he keep it to baseball and stay away from politics and economics? probably, but i think this one was close enough, and - it being his blog - i think he’s entitled to his opinion. Just like Vecsey is entitled to his opinion (although to a lesser extent, since newspapers are more of a news source usually than blogs). And of course this means you are entitled to your opinion about Matt’s opinion. And I to my opinion of yours. But you see the spiral it leads us into…
Yes, good comment. I think its important to hold these distinctions.
As I mentioned earlier, an important condition would be votes on the board of directors. Or, more importantly anti-trust legislation should be enforced, so that companies can’t get too big to fail.
Heilman, delgado and F-mart for JOHN LACKEY..
Hes a free agent after next year.
so is delgado..
If they can sign CC. i see that happeneing lol
yeah ok..
lackey
If this was simply a naming rights deal, then I would agree that the Mets should try to get out of this agreement.
However, there is a brand new stadium that needs to be paid for, and it really isn’t fair to suggest that the Mets should eat that entire cost.
This naming rights deal was made solely with the intention of paying for that new stadium, and the Mets have every right to want that money, and to expect Citi to fulfill their promises.
The Mets are not at fault here. They did everything that was right for their organization. Citigroup is to blame for entering into an agreement like this, with plenty of warning signs about their financial well being.
Besides, this is $20M a year we’re talking here. If the agreement dies, Citi will still turn around and dedicate that money to advertising anyway. So, what’s the problem??
Well, if you’ve been reading the mets are not eating the entire cost. NYC and the state is eating part of it.
Yep, I’ve been reading. The entire project will cost $850M. $450M to be paid by public funding, the remaining $400M by the Mets.
That $400M is what I was referring to when I said ‘The Mets shouldn’t be expected to eat the entire cost’.
$400M naming rights = $400M Mets portion of the stadium.
I don’t know about you, but that’s alot of money to lose, just because people think it’s the right thing to do.
Matt, please take some pictures from the promenade level
A lot of mets fans will be sitting there.
Enjoy your trip at the Fed
After their recent finishes, one could very well have thought it would be the Mets bringing Citi down and not the other way around…
I’m sure Heilman could get Citi out of that jam.
oh and Matt could you get some good pics of the outfield walls if possible? I still havent been able to find good pictures of the wall’s dimensions - in terms of height and depth, and how that overhanging seating area will affect things. it looks like it will be a real doubles/triples part for jose (shallow in the corners, and a bit more shallow than it used to be in center, but very deep in the gaps), but its hard to really feel it just from the dimension numbers.
thanks!
I was hoping Chase would buy Citibank and rename the stadim to Chase Stadium
That doesn’t really roll off the tounge…and + our stadium would be named after one of our biggest rivals at the moment in Chase Utley…
I like Matt’s idea with Apple buying the naming rights only they should name it iPark or iField
Chase stadium doesnt sound right. It almost sounds like shea stadium. When my uncle says shea stadium it sounds like he says chase stadium cause of his spanish accent.
I think there are a lot worse things then having the stadium named after citi, what about Enron, What about Allianz, What about Ford,GM etc.
Citi is in trouble, but two years from now they’ll probably be more liquid then most U.S. Banks…and the U.S. Government will be paid back on their loans. People need to think long term…
Finally Wallace Matthews, is a Met Hating T00L who will look for any reason to rip on them
This is so silly, Matt. You were better off staying out of this and just linking to the story.
Your suggestion that the team take that money and pay the employees is just ridiculous, I hope you were kidding.
Just call it Shea.
The Times has become irrelevant !
Good point ‘Lanta. People forget that the government will actually make money off this in the long run.
Also, the money isn’t a gift from Citi. It’ s brand name advertising that earns intself back over the long term and a small part of a very necessary advertising budget.
Finally, it would be a really bad move on the Mets part to abandon Citi. The resultant hit to an already damaged reputation will be another hurdle to overcome. The city needs Citi. If you lay off all NY Citi employees, you’ll have a lot of people out of work who support other business who support even more businesses, etc. These jobs will not come back to NY when the industry recovers. I;m not saying that it’ll be Johnstown PA when the steel industry went down but it will sure look like it to some people.
companies sell shares and borrow money all the time.
the “bailout” is really another form of this. The government gets a stake in Citi, and should eventually make money off the deal.
Very good point. The Chrysler “bailout” of the 1970s made the US Government $300 million off a $1 billion investment.
That’s why I don’t have a strong opinion about the naming rights issue, but think its silly for Matt to get political here.
Can we call the Mets Americas Team?
The mets should cancel the citi partnership or give the money away? That is insane. What citigroup is doing is paying for advertising by buying naming rights. Should all the TV networks cancel all commercials for citigroup or give away the revenue? Should all newspapers also cancel all print ads with Citigroup? Is Vescey asking the NY Times to do what he is asking the Mets to do?
That’s the smartest comment of the day on Vecsey calling on the NYT to not take Citi advertising.
great thoughts Matt! I guess I”m a little miffed at to what the rest of the world really wants the METS to do….isn’t there a contact? woudln’t it cost more for CitiGroup to get out of the arrangement than for them just to keep the naming rights for $20 million a year? It’s NOT the Mets fault in my mind…
but people who hate the METS will try and find a way to make it seem like the mets are cold, calculated, haters….
I’m curious if Geico were to ask cash from the gov’t or if Citi were to advertise on metsblog, if Matt would take the advertising money and give it to the employees who were laid off.
I just gained a ton of respect for George Vescey. I contacted him regarding my opinion. He did not get defensive as I expected, but actually agreed it was a fair point. How can you not respect that?