Citigroup may back out of $400 million deal with the Mets.
By on Feb 3rd, 2009 at 2:41 pm
Citigroup may back out of $400 million deal with the Mets.
In November, various bailed-out financial institutions came under fire for refusing to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in sports team sponsorships. One such arrangement was with Citigroup, which had “a 20-year contract to pay the New York Mets $400 million to name the team’s new stadium ‘Citi Field.’” Today, however, the Wall Street Journal reports that Citigroup is “exploring the possibility of backing out” of the deal. In a statement yesterday, the company also said that “no TARP capital will be used” for the stadium.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Beck
Birther
Brown
Budget
Bush
Business
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
DADT
Deficit
Economy
Education
Election
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Global Warming
Haiti
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Iran
Justice
LGBT
Limbaugh
Lobbying
McCain
Media
Military
National Security
O'Keefe
Obama
Palin
Race
Radical Right
Robertson
Sports
Steele
Steve King
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Terrorism
Torture
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Citigroup reason:
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm“We never MET before”>.
They damn well better. Then again if no TARP funds are to be used, they probably can’t do it now can they?
-AF
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 pmAndrew Sullivan Is A Fraud
“No TARP capital will be used?” The total adds up to the same regardless of which account you draw it out of.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 pmwhy? its the “new strategy”, all the banks are doing it!
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 pmOne of the better decisions they can make, the US public is already pissed off (or on) about how taxpayer money is being used by the uber wealthy. last time I checked if I blow all my money gambling in Vegas, the US government is not going to hand me more money.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:48 pmJ.Davis Says: (mumble, mumble, mumble)
Are you feeling OK? Sounds like somebody had a little too much cough syrup for breakfast.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:49 pmI’m late to the site today and there really wasnt a topic that I could display this on but this is more important to me. On this day 4 years ago America lost a truly good man, he wasnt an actor, a pro athlete, or a politician, he was just a good man, a Soldier, and he touched all who knew him, he was that person that everybody liked and we all miss him.
Even though he was from Jersey, and I was from New York, even though he liked the Redskins and I the Giants, even though he liked the Orioles, and I the Yankees, I loved him, because we both hate the Mets!!!
So excuse me for being off topic.
RIP
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pmSGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
I’ll let Citigroup (or any of these bailed out companies) sponsor my toilet if they feel they need to have their name somewhere.
I’ll even name my tirds after them – e.g.:
“That big one with the corn in it is named Vikram Pandit”.
OK, sorry………
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pmCitibank is bankrupt – kapoot. No money. I am not sure how they contend to go ahead with the $400 million deal without TARP money. Where does a bankrupt company find $400 million? I think they are lying to the American people again. When you are used to doing what you want, it is difficult to ask others for permission first. Banks don’t like asking for permission. After all, they have been so profitable the last 8 years. /snark off
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:54 pm.
… Because it’s already been allocated for CEO bonuses and private jets? Oh, I know, Superbowl parties and remodeled offices and bathrooms?
.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:55 pmJ.Davis Says: “Are y’all really serious about having faith in the federal govt.?”
Where did you ever get that idea from this blog? Who has ever indicated we have any faith in the federal government? We’re just offering critiques and ideas, and chopping the really bad ideas into kindling for the stove.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:56 pmYour idea of a 50 state solution is so sopping wet it isn’t even worth that. Best just to spread it on the fields.
I will agree with your post #11, Jeffy, and I gave you the attaboy.
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pmMAY?
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pmTired Of Fighting Says:
So excuse me for being off topic.
RIP
SGT Stephen R. Sherman
C CO 1-5 IN (STRYKER)
KIA 3 Feb 2005
Mosul, Iraq
~~~~~
It is never off topic to remember your friend…
February 3rd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pm.
Dear J.Davis,
The DOL called and said your drivers licence is expired and wished to inform you that drive bys are now illegal.
.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:00 pmOur tax dollars went to bail out banks who give that money to the sports teams. Our tax dollars go to build these stadiums, yet the profits all go to the teams. Then the state of NY realizes it has no money and is issuing 88 new taxes on us NY’ers.
Yet, they can’t increase the taxes for the rich (like the bankers and team owners) because then they’ll leave our state.
It’s good to know I’m a third class citizen.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:05 pmThey’re not ‘banker’, folks; they’re ‘banksters’.
Who else could legally charge you more interest than the Mafia?
Who else could get billions in free money…& then give it to CEO’s?
Who else can change terms of agreement w/o your signature?
Who else gets a 0% interest rate with other banksters, but if you’re in a bad mortgage your interest is upwards of 30%?
Again, folks, it’s BANKSTERS
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 pmI mean Humphrey, one of the democrat party’s biggest blowhards.
I’ll take a blowhard any day over a blood and money sucking Republican neo-con.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:18 pmWindsor: I know you get your words from limbaugh (why?, I have no idea, but you do). Please drop the schoolyard crap about renaming the party where over 70% of the US population identifies with: Democratic party – not Democrat party. By using the wrong term to describe citizens who disagree with you simply make you seem a very small person – nothing to work with but name calling and childish rants. Small, irrelevant nobodies substitute name calling with ideas. Now, besides calling other people names, do you have any idea how to fix our economy after Bush destroyed it?
Didn’t think so…
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:32 pmkeep your powder dry
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:43 pmThis will save them the noticeable embarrassment of having to rename the stadium CitiField/TaxPayer Park.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pmIn 2000, Citigroup had co-CFO’s John S. Reed and Sanford Weill. Reed earned $293 million that year and Weill earned $224 million that year. That’s $517 million for two people for one year! Source: Business Week.
Let those two rescue Citigroup.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:55 pmGee, Wayne and I were already referring to the new stadium as “Bailout Field.” I was quite happy with Shea Stadium for lo these 40+ years, and the sellout to CitiBank pissed off all Mets fans. (Yeah, all 20 of us!) In one way, I’m kinda happy about this because I hate corporate sponsorship and I certainly would never have wanted bailout money to pay for the new stadium, I’d be ashamed for life. And, unfortunately, it’ll probably be another big corporation that buys the stadium, so I lose no matter what. I expect to do that on the field with the Mets, but not off. I’ll probably never be able to afford tickets again after this.
Tired of Fighting, as I do every time I see your posts, I grieve for your friend. Please accept my heartfelt sympathy for your loss.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:56 pm“TaxPayer Park”
EnnuiDivine, I almost wouldn’t mind this – at least it would be honest.
February 3rd, 2009 at 3:58 pmThey should have done that in the beginning!
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:02 pmJust as long as anyone but Wal-Mart doesn’t get the new naming rights to the Mets new ballpark.
They’re already infringing on every aspect of Americana as is.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:08 pmScratch the “doesn’t” in my last post.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:11 pmWait, scratch that.
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:12 pmTired Of Fighting Says:
So excuse me for being off topic.
No worries, ToF. Your posts are *always* on topic, and I thank you for them.
Your admiring friend,
~A
February 3rd, 2009 at 4:16 pmFebruary 3rd, 2009 at 4:52 pm
Okay, lets say Citi pays a dollar for the stadium. How in the world do they show that dollar was or was not TARP money ?
Its a total impossibility. Look at how Enron used smoke and mirrors.
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:07 pmPerhaps they’ll use only the money that’s been colored by an exploding dye packet during a robbery. That would be ironic, since Citi is robbing us.
February 3rd, 2009 at 5:33 pmIt’s time for big sports to learn that they too are just people and, as such, are no more entitled to “everything bright and beautiful” than are the rest of us.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:02 pmrastaman Says:
MAY?
Well, it’s possible they may already be legally obliged to continue. That stuff can get complicated.
February 3rd, 2009 at 7:39 pmActually most of us would be to poor to go to a sports event. If the economy gets worse, they may not be able to give tickets away. Then those over paid athletes might not get the next years bigger salaries. Too bad!!
February 4th, 2009 at 12:51 am