Daily Finance on AOL asks about that naming rights deal.
From the article: What bothers me is that Pandit appears less embarrassed about pouring out $400 million of shareholder money to put Citi’s name on the Mets’ new stadium while his company holds $45 billion in Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) money, $306 billion in loan guarantees — and posted a 2008 loss of $27.7 billion.
Nothing really new, but Mets news is hard to come by these days.
No. Naming rights are a form of advertising. Should companies that receive government money not be allowed to advertise?
I remember that debate back in the off season even before Shea's body was cold on the ground. I was even getting all excited to see something fail with the new ballpark before it opened (boy if I knew what was inside, that would only seem little). I even ran a poll asking fans what they'd like to see for the ballpark's non-sponsored name.
any bank who receives assistance needs to be wise with their spending, but TomG is right that it is a form of advertising, and it's probably very hard to get the ship righted without advertising. and there are probably legal obstacles if they try to break the deal.