Poll: Should Citi Field be renamed?

[Mr. Laser Beam]

There is of course quite a bit of yakking over whether Citigroup should back out of its naming rights deal with the Mets' new ballpark. Even though Citi has said that no federal bailout money will be used to promote the park or the team. I believe they are indeed considering backing out of the deal, though, just in case.

So what do you all think? Should Citi Field be renamed? (IMHO, no, it should not.) If so, what do you think they should change it to? Such as:

- Do what the Yankees and Cardinals have done; give the new ballpark the same name as its predecessor. Shea Stadium II?

- Remove all naming rights whatsoever and just call it something like "Mets Stadium" or "Mets Ballpark". Hey, it worked for the two L.A. teams, didn't it?

- Name it after another famous person associated with the team. Jackie Robinson, for example. They've already got the rotunda named after him, though. I forget, can a stadium be named after someone who is still alive? How about Tom Seaver?

- Get a new corporate sponsor. In this case, who do you suggest they should contact? What would sound good?

 

[fennrysha]

Well, they should change it just because it's a stupid name. But not because they had to be bailed out. I'm assuming Citi signed a contract and even if they pull out, they're on the hook for a lot of money.
And the Cardinals stadium IS a corporate named stadium. It just so happens they kept the same sponsor as the previous stadium. So, while they kept the same name, it's not exactly the same as Yankee Stadium keeping the same name.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Well, they should change it just because it's a stupid name. But not because they had to be bailed out. I'm assuming Citi signed a contract and even if they pull out, they're on the hook for a lot of money.

They would have to return the money they originally paid, yes.

And the Cardinals stadium IS a corporate named stadium. It just so happens they kept the same sponsor as the previous stadium. So, while they kept the same name, it's not exactly the same as Yankee Stadium keeping the same name.

Agreed, but the fact remains - in both of those cases, the teams got away with naming their new stadiums the same as the old. If, for example, the new Mets park were also to be named Shea Stadium, I wonder if that would work. Would William Shea's estate allow it? (It would sure make it easier on the MTA - they still haven't changed the name of the subway and LIRR stations to fit the new park.)

 

[fennrysha]

What I mean is, if Citi, pulls out, I'm sure they have to pay a large penalty. So is it worth it for them to still pay a ton of money and NOT have their name on the stadium or pay the full amount and have their name on it for however many years.

And it's not like the Cardinals just thought "Busch" was a nice name. They didn't keep it just because it worked. Anhauser Busch paid for it. The Cardinals didn't "get away" with anything.

 

[SmoothieX]

At least Citi Field sounds reasonable. Kinda sounds like City Field, some generic municipal stadium. Some corporate named stadiums don't sound that bad. Pacific Bell Park sounds kinda pleasant.

Energy Solutions Center (a real NBA venue) et al. sound just awful.

I'd prefer a non-corporate name but at least Citi isn't that bad.

I'd be in favor of it being renames Robinson field if Citi drops out.

More Shae demo pics up. Man that is bumming me out. But, I do have tickets in late April to check out Citi. It will be bittersweet because by then Shea will be totally razed and on its way to being a parking lot. But it'll be sweet to check out the new digs.

 

[wamdue]

I would never be against it being called Shea Stadium or New Shea Stadium, but as has been said there are worst names for a stadium than "City Field" fans will call it what they call im sure if Fenway Park suddenly became Coca Cola Park, the fans would still call it Fenway.

However there is a reason the Mets took this sponsor ship deal, they cant back out. It It would be nice to think banks who have had a bail out to cut spending like this, and channel the money into paying back the loan, that isnt going to happen. If there is a financial plenty on them withdrawing, then they should look very carefully about which is the cheapest option.

I could at this point write a post about how unwise governments have been about the bank bail outs but I wont bother.

 

[Canadave]

At least Citi Field sounds reasonable. Kinda sounds like City Field, some generic municipal stadium. Some corporate named stadiums don't sound that bad. Pacific Bell Park sounds kinda pleasant.

Energy Solutions Center (a real NBA venue) et al. sound just awful.

I don't think anything will ever be worse than the Gaylord Entertainment Centre, myself.

And personally, I'd say give it a name that isn't corporate. I hate this trend, myself... the Rogers Centre, for example, will always be SkyDome to me. I'll never understand why they couldn't have just named it Roger's SkyDome or something instead.

 

[Mr. B]

The government has no business telling any company, bailout or not, how to spend their advertising dollars.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

But if any company is in such dire straits as to even need bailout money, then what business does it have wasting money on naming rights deals?

 

[Mr. B]

Doesn't matter... if the government can do this, what would stop them from wanting a say in what commercials they produce and air? Those can get expensive too.

 

[wamdue]

of course the government should get a say in how ANY money is spent.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Doesn't matter... if the government can do this, what would stop them from wanting a say in what commercials they produce and air? Those can get expensive too.

Citigroup gets the bailout money *from* the government, right? That gives the gov't the right to set conditions on how that money is used.

 

[Mr. B]

So if Citi spends company funds that aren't in the "bailout account," this is a non-issue?

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

So if Citi spends company funds that aren't in the "bailout account," this is a non-issue?

It's more of a moral issue, then. A company that needs bailout money *at all* should be putting ALL of its money towards making itself solvent. Not spending it on trivialities. It can be argued that stadium naming rights are just such trivialities, because a stadium can get by without such names.

 

[SmoothieX]

I don't think anything will ever be worse than the Gaylord Entertainment Centre, myself.

Makes you think twice before going there to watch them smack some balls around.

 

[wamdue]

So if Citi spends company funds that aren't in the "bailout account," this is a non-issue?

the fact they need a bail out suggests that all the other accounts are as good as empty, and they really need the money to survive, survival is not having baseball stadiums named after you.

 

[Mallory]

I'd argue that survival includes advertising, especially for an outfit like Citibank. And having your name on a stadium insures a steady stream of free references on TV and the radio and in print.

 

[deh34]

if the government ever wants its money back, they better hope that citigroup advertises...

 

[wamdue]

but is it the right kind of advertising? do people really decide which bank to use based on who has the naming rights to there baseball club field? no they dont they search for the best deal, and go to that bank.

 

[SmoothieX]

I'm going to a game there in May. I'll let you know if I have an overwhelming desire to run right out and apply for a mortgage from Citi right after the final pitch.