The Citigroup thing would've cost them more had they breached their contract, or at least that's how I understand it. Citi signed an agreement way in advance that had their name on the stadium, and their contract would totally screw them over financially if they breached it.

 

I think that's an important point. I'm not sure most of us really understand how this would affect some communities/states.....I sure don't. There is a Toyota plant about 30 miles from where I live, and while it might be in the top 10 largest employers in the county, it's not like 1 and 5 or 1and 10 people in the county work in that one industry so it wouldn't wipe the city or county out like it would in other places.

I'm not saying I agree with a bailout, just being sensitive to the human element of letting the domestic auto industry fail. Letting them fail would probably make several small cities ghost towns! I don't know the right answer, but it's something to think about.

 

King....

In cases like that seeing as how they are now making that payment with tax dollars the government should have stepped in as a mediator and helped them achieve a better solution that diddnt drop 600 million dollars that WE have to pay back on something as superficial as a stadium name.

If they are going to be recieving a government bailout, then i fully believe the government should be making the decisions with a firm hand on weather or not that 600 million gets paid.

that is a rediculous amount of money, and that transaction should have been frozen or halted.

Put it like this.

600 million dollars is enough to pay 1,200 american workers a 50k salary for the next 10 years.

 

I completely agree. But the government didn't step in, so it's left as it is. I'm not saying that I agree with the Citigroup deal, but it is what it is.

 

I guess that makes sense.

But they could at least try to like "sub-sell' the name of the stadium if that makes sense and take a small hit instead of wasting all that money.

 

That's exactly my point. I understand that the automotive industries are partially at fault, but we can't just let them fall or else we won't have an economy. It is hard to imagine, but as I stated before 1 in 10 workers is in some way affected by the automotive industry. Whether it be the guy who makes the steel for the frame, or the guy who puts together rear-view mirrors, our economy would literally fall apart if we just let them fall.

Now I know that Ford, GM, and probably Chrysler too have made their ordeal seem worse than it actually is, but I can PERSONALLY tell you that Ford has been trying to overcome this for the past four years now. I've had to move twice in two years; once from Tennessee to Kentucky, and now here to Missouri because Ford was having to cut jobs to stay afloat.

I don't agree with just handing them a blank check and saying "here's your money", but I also don't think that after the bank bailout scam we can really say anything. If I was in the position of determining whether or not to give them money I'd make the stipulation that ALL three of them have to at least have one car that is either plug-in electric, or some other form of non-fossil fuel vehicle. It blows me away that the Ford Fiesta in Europe hasn't been brought over here yet. A 50-mpg SUV is exactly what people would want, but yet we're too greedy. I couldn't even begin to work this out, but I do believe that something has to be done.

 

I agree, but in this market no one really has that kind of advertising money anymore.

 

Once one company gets something, it opens up the flood gates. So the answer is never. Just like how it only took one slight tweaking of the tax code after 86 to turn it into a mess again, all it took was for the banks to get cash.

And Jack, sorry, it appears I was the one who was reading thins wrong.

 

By letting the Big Three fail without a bailout would not mean that all the jobs would be lost.It's what they want you to believe.They would have to file Chapter 11 Bankruptcy and restructure like everyone else who has a failing business would have to do.Yes there would be Jobs lost and the Unions would probally be gone but is that really a bad thing.

We are letting our Country be taken over by the Government right before our eyes and we are letting it happen.It's what you call Socialism!!

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

I agree to a point. I just don't see how leaving that many people jobless is okay because of someone elses mistakes.

 

I see everything being fubar for the next decade or so hopfully after that some hard lessons will have been learned and we can move forward as a more economically wise and strong country

 

Lol Socialism. Check your facts next time, the entire foundation of our government is Socialism. Health care, Social Security, TVA, WPA, it's all Socialism technically. You sound like all of the Obama haters now....

You do realize that my entire family works for Ford, from union offices to the assembly line my father, grandfather, and my uncle all work for Ford and I can tell you for a fact that all three of them would lose their jobs if Ford was left to fall. Even though my father has 24 years in, and my grandfather has 32, they would be cut almost instantaneously. Ford isn't lying when they say that workers jobs are in danger. Ford went from 72,000 employees in 2005 to only 43,000 now, that's a huge cut. In relation, you can't say that they aren't trying. Yes, cutting jobs isn't going to fix everything, but I haven't seen GM or Chrysler cut jobs yet....

 

hahahahahahaha


i guess they approved 14 billion in the bail out.

 

Yeah, it's supposed to hold them over until Jan. 20th when the Obama administration takes over. I doubt it will happen...I still think Pontiac, Saturn, Volvo, Saab, and maybe if not all a good portion of Dodge will tank.

 

I understand the need to make different cars, but when they all use the same chassis that's just plain stupid. I say let all of the smaller companies go, IMO they only hurt the bigger companies in the long run.

 

Companies would tank if every car used different platforms. Problem is when the automakers are lazy and just change badges instead of looks and features. Fine examples include:
- Chevy and GMC Suburban, GM was even to lazy to change the model name until the Yukon came.
- Saturn and Opel Astra
- F-150 and Mark LT

Remember, the Chevelle, Le Mans, Tempest, Cutlass, 442, GTO, Malibu, Skylark, and GS/GSX were all based on the GM A-Body. Can't tell me those weren't successful (which they were because none of those cars looked alike and all had different characters).

Remember though, those smaller companies aren't hurting their owners since most are for niche markets and are doing just fine (like Volvo). Problem is the owners need the cash for their larger divisions, so they can't hold on to them (one of the reasons why Ford let go of the Brits) because they can't cough up the cash to maintain them.