English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Citibank got the naming rights to the NY Mets new stadium, for which they paid $10 million.

2006-11-11 10:40:43 · 14 answers · asked by goodriddance 1 in Sports Baseball

14 answers

i think they should call it Mookie Field

2006-11-11 10:42:14 · answer #1 · answered by The Indigo Cobra 4 · 0 1

Sadly, I expected as much, given the depressing trends of corporate sponsorship (look at the packaging of a die-cast NASCAR race car and see how much space is devoted to listings of licenses, copyrights and trademarks).

At least Citibank (the original name was First National City Bank) has a New York City connection. But it doesn't hold a candle to William A. Shea, without whom there would be no National League team in New York and hence no Mets.

Perhaps it was time to replace the stadium (it is 42 years old, and if I recall correctly, only Fenway Park, Wrigley Field and Yankee Stadium are older), but I will be saddened, just as I was when they knocked down the Polo Grounds and even Ebbets Field (though I remain a Dodger hater). "William A. Shea Stadium" was part of Americana, and, unlike steam locomotives, appears to be a part of Americana that will not be preserved.

Soon we, too, will vanish, and no one will ever again hear in their memories: "At 9:07 on September 24..."

2006-11-12 05:50:14 · answer #2 · answered by BroadwayPhil 4 · 0 0

I think of all the names there could have been (like Banco Popular Field or the almost-forced Jackie Robinson Field), I think Citifield is okay. Citibank isn't asking for "Citibank Field" or "Citibank Park" so it is still easier to say. People will start saying things like "The Mets are in the Citi tonight."

2006-11-11 23:18:57 · answer #3 · answered by jerry 5 · 2 0

It's not much different than other sports franchises hooking up
with corporations to get additional revenue, so the corporations
get naming rights. Look at the NHL, NFL, and NBA, and you will
see examples of this, as well as MLB. The Reds have Cynergy
Field, the Tigers have Comerica Park, and the White Sox have
U.S. Cellular Field for examples in MLB. The Mets are not much
different than a lot of North American sports franchises in this
respect. I don't like it, but that's the way it goes. For the right price, I guess any team can be bought. Look at how many teams
in Los Angeles call The Staples Center home.

2006-11-11 10:51:32 · answer #4 · answered by Answerer17 6 · 4 0

this is the era of corporate names for sporting venues.....most teams play in stadiums or arenas with corporate names.

there certainly could have been worse scenarios of companys to purchase the the naming rights. citifield isnt too bad considering,

and the deal is for 20 million a season for 20 years with provisions to increase it up to a total of 35 years........hard offer to pass up.

2006-11-11 12:56:29 · answer #5 · answered by jimmfo 4 · 1 0

It's a sign of the times. Money talks

2006-11-12 03:36:13 · answer #6 · answered by 10 to 20 5 · 2 0

TYPICAL BUSH LEAGUE MOVE BY THE SECOND TEAM IN THE BIG APPLE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHEA STADIUM OR GIL HODGES PARK.

2006-11-12 05:30:13 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Bunk utter bunk

2006-11-11 10:42:29 · answer #8 · answered by bartleyrose 3 · 1 0

It horrible but that's how it goes, to the highest bidder right?

2006-11-12 07:30:55 · answer #9 · answered by Grazia 3 · 0 0

Welcome to the 21st Century. Many companies are doing this for many professional sports teams. They want the extra name recognition.

2006-11-11 11:24:07 · answer #10 · answered by Adam 7 · 3 0

CitiBank sucks! If they're with the Mets, they suck!

2006-11-11 10:44:06 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

fedest.com, questions and answers