Skip to comments.
GMAC Continues Sponsorship of Bowl Game Despite $5 Billion Taxpayer Bailout
businessandmedia.org ^
| January 2, 2009
| Jeff Poor
Posted on 01/02/2009 2:29:14 PM PST by Rufus2007
GMAC may be in financial trouble, but that isnt stopping the auto lender-turned-bank holding company from maintaining its corporate sponsorships.
In October, GMAC changed its legal status so that it would be eligible for TARP funds passed by Congress. Late last month, GMAC was approved to receive a $5 billion lifeline from the U.S. government. However, the company is still maintaining its sponsorship of a collegiate bowl game set for Jan. 6 in Mobile, Ala.
Theres about 34 bowl games, 30 of which are sponsored in one way or the other, Fox Business Networks Jenna Lee said Jan. 2 on the Fox News Channels Happening Now. The lower-level, the mid-level games pull in about six figures to have your name attached to one of the games thats the estimate. And the big games, lets say the Rose Bowl for example, or the Sugar Bowl, or the Orange Bowl those figures go upwards of $5 to $6 million for some sort of sponsorship.
...more (w/video)...
(Excerpt) Read more at businessandmedia.org ...
TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; bailout; bowlgames; gmac; tarp
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
I guess this one went unnoticed.
1
posted on
01/02/2009 2:29:14 PM PST
by
Rufus2007
To: Rufus2007
How dare GMAC have a marketing department!
2
posted on
01/02/2009 2:31:13 PM PST
by
omega4179
(Bush Abandoned Ramos and Compean)
To: Rufus2007
The contract to do this was probably done and paid for a year agao
3
posted on
01/02/2009 2:31:26 PM PST
by
Las Vegas Ron
(The tree of liberty is getting mighty dry)
To: Las Vegas Ron
And I meant to add, how are they supposed to sell without advertising their product?
4
posted on
01/02/2009 2:32:59 PM PST
by
Las Vegas Ron
(The tree of liberty is getting mighty dry)
To: Rufus2007
In October, GMAC changed its legal status so that it would be eligible for TARP funds passed by Congress. Late last month, GMAC was approved to receive a $5 billion lifeline from the U.S. government. However, the company is still maintaining its sponsorship of a collegiate bowl game set for Jan. 6 in Mobile, Ala.Hey, this stylish government takeover worked for the U.S.S.R. didn't it, why wouldn't it work for the U.S.A.?
5
posted on
01/02/2009 2:34:57 PM PST
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, Question everyone else)
To: GOP_Raider
6
posted on
01/02/2009 2:38:21 PM PST
by
MplsSteve
To: JEFF POOR
What was your 2007 personal federal income tax liability? Did you receive and cash a federal govt. stimulus check? Nothing personal, I'm just curious how pristine those who are doing all the carping are.
|
|
|
To: Las Vegas Ron
"The contract to do this was probably done and paid for a year ago" I agee but, they still have my money when they should gone out of business.
8
posted on
01/02/2009 2:40:50 PM PST
by
blam
To: Rufus2007
It’s right in line with the way some of us at a local level get to pay dramatically higher property taxes to build these stupid stadiums for privately-owned football teams. Isn’t access to sporting events guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution?
To: Las Vegas Ron
What if they used that as a gimmick? Say they started on January 25th, and said, "We're cutting off all advertising for the month of February, come in, and get an EXTRA $1000 off of a car!"
When you see the enormous amounts being spent on advertising at all levels, it's gotta cost nearly that per vehicle for the few cars they're selling these days.
10
posted on
01/02/2009 2:42:22 PM PST
by
hunter112
(We seem to be on an excrement river in a Native American watercraft without a propulsion device.)
To: I see my hands
I gladly took my rebate and used it; it was a tax rebate, and a small amount of the total taxes I paid. GM did not pay $5 billion in taxes, let alone the $100 billion it would take to equal the amount of rebate I received from that $600 check.
11
posted on
01/02/2009 2:48:15 PM PST
by
PugetSoundSoldier
(Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
To: blam
I agee but, they still have my money when they should gone out of business.I coulddn't agree with you more, but that wasn't my point
12
posted on
01/02/2009 2:51:31 PM PST
by
Las Vegas Ron
(The tree of liberty is getting mighty dry)
To: hunter112
advertising for the month of February, come in, and get an EXTRA $1000 off of a car!"Unless I am misunderstanding your point, they would have to advertise that, no?
13
posted on
01/02/2009 2:53:20 PM PST
by
Las Vegas Ron
(The tree of liberty is getting mighty dry)
To: Rufus2007
GMAC changed its legal status...At one time GM was free and twisted governments arm via their production as a company promoting freedom.
During WWII another option wasn't available to maintain sovereignty as a nation.
Today, government dictates.....
14
posted on
01/02/2009 2:54:09 PM PST
by
EGPWS
(Trust in God, Question everyone else)
To: Rufus2007
And how much did Citigroup agree to pay for the naming rights to the Mets new stadium? And how many billions did they get from the Feds? What about Citizens bank and the Phillies? Bank of America? M&T Bank?
To: Las Vegas Ron
Yes, they would advertise it for the last week of January, then go silent. February's a short month, they can piss money away like gangbusters again in March if they want. Or, if they still feel that advertising during the Super Bowl would actually convince people to buy cars, they could just delay the whole thing until March.
I remember when ARCO Oil decided it would no longer take credit cards so that it could save money on the sale of gasoline, and pass that on to the buying public. They consistently sell for about ten cents a gallon less than their competitors. It's going to take something besides the old ideas to get things moving again.
16
posted on
01/02/2009 2:57:31 PM PST
by
hunter112
(We seem to be on an excrement river in a Native American watercraft without a propulsion device.)
To: PugetSoundSoldier
"I gladly took my rebate and used it" I didn't get one. I guess I paid for yours. Your sense of entitlement is bold. The check wasn't a rebate, it was welfare.
|
|
|
To: I see my hands
Yes, paying $12,000 in taxes, and getting a $600 check is definitely welfare...
18
posted on
01/02/2009 3:03:34 PM PST
by
PugetSoundSoldier
(Indignation over the sting of truth is the defense of the indefensible)
To: hunter112
It's going to take something besides the old ideas to get things moving again As I posted earlier, these ad deals are made and paid for way in advance, so they are committed...now if they had gone bankrupt...
We probably both know what it's going to take for the auto industry to get out of this mess and we both know it will never happen
19
posted on
01/02/2009 3:07:15 PM PST
by
Las Vegas Ron
(The tree of liberty is getting mighty dry)
To: PugetSoundSoldier
"Yes, paying $12,000 in taxes, and getting a $600 check is definitely welfare" Do you think 12K pays for your family's keep? I paid much more Fed income tax than 12K, didn't get a check and paid for yours. Too bad takers can't market rationalizations.
|
|
|
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson