Those like Matthews feel that taxpayers are the primary financial backers of Citi Field due to the hundreds of millions of dollars in tax-free bonds allotted to the organization to build the field. On top of that - they are essentially the ones bailing out these floundering financial institutions. Why should the fans who can't afford a seat at the ballpark, be forced to see the name of the failed bank (that their tax dollars are going towards) emblazoned on the outside of it?
Don't look for Oddo and Ignizio's request to happen anytime soon though. According to SI's John Heyman, Citigroup released a statement saying they were still committed to their $20 million yearly investment in the field as it is a vital marketing tool for them. However if Citigroup does tank, would the stadium go the way of Enron Field?
Back in 1999, Enron purchased the naming rights for the then new home of the Houston Astros to the tune of $100 million over 30 years. When the Enron scandal broke in 2001 - the Astros organization was left to fix a PR nightmare. They purchased back the naming rights to the stadium, and the following year it was re-named Astros Field.
Could the same situation happen in Queens? As of the end of yesterdays early trading session, Citigroup was up to 8.29 a share (the stock was as low as 3.77 a share prior to the government stepping in) and things are looking positive due to a 5 day market rally. Regardless of the jump, in this volatile financial climate, things can swing in the other direction at any moment.
Though we Mets fans may not be looking at "Taxpayer Field" come April 13th - "Mets Field" or something of the like isn't completely out of the question.
Cartoon by Sean Delonas of the NY Post.
Posts
stumble it!