citibank to explore doing the right thing

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:55 am

http://uk.reuters.com/article/usTopNews/idUKTRE51213720090203

Citi explores breaking Mets deal: report
Tue Feb 3, 2009 12:14pm GMT
(Reuters) - Citigroup Inc is exploring the possibility of backing out of a nearly $400 million marketing deal with the New York Mets amid concerns over how lenders are using government bailout money, the Wall Street Journal said, citing people familiar with the matter.

Officials at Citigroup have made no final decision about whether to try to void the 20-year agreement, which includes naming the Mets' new baseball stadium after the bank, the people told the paper.

The Mets deal was attacked last week as an example of misplaced spending by financial institutions that needed bailout funds, according to the paper.

A Citigroup spokesman in New York told Reuters on Tuesday that "no TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) capital will be used for Citi Field or for marketing purposes."

Members of the U.S. House of Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Ted Poe wrote to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner last Wednesday, asking him to push Citigroup to dissolve the Mets deal, the paper said.

"Citigroup is now dependent on the support of the federal government for its survival as an institution," the paper quoted the letter as saying. "As such, we do not believe Citigroup ought to spend $400 million to name a stadium at the same time that they accept over $350 billion in taxpayer support and guarantees."

If Citigroup backs out of its agreement with the Mets, it likely would not happen immediately and could involve the bank paying a break-up penalty to the Mets, the paper said, citing people familiar with the situation.

Citigroup "signed a legally binding agreement with the New York Mets in 2006," the Citigroup spokesman in New York told Reuters.

"The Mets are fully committed to our contract with Citi," Mets spokesman Jay Horwitz told the Journal.

The New York Mets could not be immediately reached for comment by Reuters.

(Reporting by Ajay Kamalakaran in Bangalore; Editing by John Stonestreet and Hans Peters)

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 9:54 am

Hmmm...I'm on the fence on this one. Being in marketing I see the merit of making deals like this one. I'm wondering how many more things like this will pop-up with sports like NASCAR which is totally run by sponsorship. Basically, the sport would go away if sponsors pulled out (which I know would make some people happy)...again, on the fence because Bill would be depressed about it but I would have my Sunday's back to make him attend to his "honey-do" list.

I digress...overall though I agree that the TARP dollars shouldn't be spend on marketing and I question whether Citi really needs to market all that much anyway...aren't they one of like 5 banks we get to choose from using? (exaggeration).

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 10:19 am

Who sucks worse, the Mets or their sponsor?

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 5:12 pm

Isn't saying they won't use TARP funds kind of misleading? I mean they may not write the check directly from the gov't account but aren't they really just freeing up non-TARP money by way of TARP money?

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:02 pm

95 - business goes on...some use the TARP money one way, some don't use it at all...if Sen Whoever was so good at banking, he'd be a banker running a bank.

a1bion · Post by **a1bion** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:24 pm

I think we've learned over the past couple of years that you don't have to be any good at banking to be a banker running a bank.

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Tue Feb 03, 2009 8:05 pm

C is insolvent. Let them go under.