Should Citibank be spending $400 million on stadium naming rights?

They needed $45 billion in Federal Welfare funds..Seems like they would have more important things to do with $400 Million, like lending it to businesses that can pay it back.

Should Citibank be spending $400 million on stadium naming rights?
i think if they needed federal aide they should not be sponsoring stadium naming rights. I think it is just a little irresponsible with government tax money. Of course they could pay back the 45 billion and sponsor as they please but until then they need to let the naming rights go elsewhere. But that is just lil old me
Reply:Citigroup Inc., which late last year said it planned to cut 53,000 jobs worldwide and received $45 billion in federal bailout aid, said in a statement: "Citi signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006." The bank said that none of the bailout money would be used for Citi Field.





Mets chief operating officer Jeff Wilpon said, "Citi is fully committed to their contract. We're fully committed to them. There's no change in status whatsoever."





Two members of Congress said last week that in light of the bailout, the Obama administration should pressure Citi and the Mets to drop the deal.


[end of quotes]





This should be a lesson to all American businesses and all citizens that Nothing Is Free..there are always strings attached! Citigroup forfeited their independence and that's the problem with this whole Bail Out mentality! Once you let the fox [government] into the hen house it's all over but the crying. Let the corrupt and irresponsible Fail and other 'smarter' businesses will replace them.
Reply:Once federal bail-out funds have been issued to banks, certain spending criteria should be implemented. Buying naming rights to stadiums should be forbidden along with gold plated trashcans and antique Persian rugs.
Reply:Citibank made this deal some time ago before all of this happened. It would now cost them a great deal of money to get out of it.
Reply:No, they should go off of welfare so others can go off of welfare.
Reply:This was a deal worked out in 2006........it has nothing to do with bailout funds.