Carrier Dome naming rights article

[Cheriehoop]

or

 

[Townie72]

I certainly hope the University stands by the original agreement and does not attempt to do this. Principles matter. That was a good faith deal that both sides benefited from.

In my mind, it would be incredibly sleazy to try and wriggle out of it. Shameful, really. It would certainly change this old alum's view of the University in a very negative way.

As to the students who wanted the Dome named after "Ernie Davis? What was their plan for the $2.5M Carrier pitched in that would have had to been forgone?

 

[TheCusian]

I certainly hope the University stands by the original agreement and does not attempt to do this. Principles matter. That was a good faith deal that both sides benefited from. In my mind, it would be incredibly sleazy to try and wriggle out of it. Shameful, really. It would certainly change this old alum's view of the University in a very negative way. As to the students who wanted the Dome named after "Ernie Davis? What was their plan for the $2.5M Carrier pitched in that would have had to been forgone?

Disagree.

How much does a building have to change for it not to be the thing that was originally named?

If the name was "The Carrier Dome" and it's now an arena? Or a stadium?

It would be silly and unfortunate (maybe irresponsible) not to explore the terms of the deal with so much changing about the structure.

 

[sutomcat]

Disagree.

How much does a building have to change for it not to be the thing that was originally named?

If the name was "The Carrier Dome" and it's now an arena? Or a stadium?

It would be silly and unfortunate (maybe irresponsible) not to explore the terms of the deal with so much changing about the structure.

Agree. It isn't right to change the name of the building when only superficial changes have been made, like installing fieldturf and ribbon scoreboards.

If the entire structure of the building is changed, where the weight bearing columns are replaced, the roof is replaced with a completely different design, concourses are expanded, restrooms and concession areas are completely redone, exterior walls are partly or entirely replaced or covered over, buildings are added to become part the facility, most of the seating is replaced, and the work done costs over 10 times what it cost to build it in the first place, how can it be argued it is the same facility?

If you believe that, I suggest that you should be arguing that the building should be called Archbold Stadium. Anyone from the Archbold family on the board?

 

[Townie72]

Agree. It isn't right to change the name of the building when only superficial changes have been made, like installing fieldturf and ribbon scoreboards.

If the entire structure of the building is changed, where the weight bearing columns are replaced, the roof is replaced with a completely different design, concourses are expanded, restrooms and concession areas are completely redone, exterior walls are partly or entirely replaced or covered over, buildings are added to become part the facility, most of the seating is replaced, and the work done costs over 10 times what it cost to build it in the first place, how can it be argued it is the same facility?

If you believe that, I suggest that you should be arguing that the building should be called Archbold Stadium. Anyone from the Archbold family on the board?

Wow! Talk about a tortured and artificial case for a disgusting money grab.

On your last point, are you actually suggesting that the minor changes and improvements to Dome are somehow equivalent to the total destruction of Archbold? That's ridiculous. You must have gotten carried away building your case to come up with that absurdity.

Here's a test. Compare three photographs.

One of Archbold. One of the Dome in 1982. And one of the Dome in 2016.

One of these is different. Which one is it? Now which two are the same?

I'd be shocked if SU pursued this. Some one on campus must have a shred of moral fiber. And this would be IMO opinion, wrong and immoral.

 

[Townie72]

Disagree.

How much does a building have to change for it not to be the thing that was originally named?

If the name was "The Carrier Dome" and it's now an arena? Or a stadium?

It would be silly and unfortunate (maybe irresponsible) not to explore the terms of the deal with so much changing about the structure.

It would be an immoral, naked grab for money that would damage the reputation of the University.

Just because you might be able to do something like this doesn't make it right.

It would open up some interesting new marketing approaches for the University, however. Like "Come to SU, where our word lasts as long as its convenient" Or "Learn in a place where Ethics are fine unless they get in the way of more revenue."

 

[sutomcat]

Wow! Talk about a tortured and artificial case for a disgusting money grab.

On your last point, are you actually suggesting that the minor changes and improvements to Dome are somehow equivalent to the total destruction of Archbold? That's ridiculous. You must have gotten carried away building your case to come up with that absurdity.

Here's a test. Compare three photographs.

One of Archbold. One of the Dome in 1982. And one of the Dome in 2016.

One of these is different. Which one is it? Now which two are the same?

I'd be shocked if SU pursued this. Some one on campus must have a shred of moral fiber. And this would be IMO opinion, wrong and immoral.

I am talking about the fixed roof facility that will replace the dome after the proposed major renovation.

Not about the Dome as it stands today.

You really can't follow that? In that case, it is understandable why you feel the way you do.

 

[longtimefan]

It would be an immoral, naked grab for money that would damage the reputation of the University.

Just because you might be able to do something like this doesn't make it right.

It would open up some interesting new marketing approaches for the University, however. Like "Come to SU, where our word lasts as long as its convenient" Or "Learn in a place where Ethics are fine unless they get in the way of more revenue."

That is the unspoken motto of the majority of companies in the world.

 

[Townie72]

I am talking about the fixed roof facility that will replace the dome after the proposed major renovation.

Not about the Dome as it stands today.

You really can't follow that? In that case, it is understandable why you feel the way you do.

A "renovation" is not a new building.

Good luck to SU on raising the money to "renovate" when their promises and contracts are so clearly up-for-sale.

 

[Townie72]

That is the unspoken motto of the majority of companies in the world.

Of course. But a University is not a Corporation and shouldn't act as one.

And even Corporations have reputations for fair dealing to consider.

 

[TheCusian]

A "renovation" is not a new building.

Good luck to SU on raising the money to "renovate" when their promises and contracts are so clearly up-for-sale.

Exactly when does it become a new facility?

 

[Townie72]

Exactly when does it become a new facility?

When you knock the old one down, cart away the materials and build a new one in it's place. You know, like what SU did with Archbold Stadium.

Would a new building use some of the concrete foundation of the old one and still be a new building? Who knows where the line can be drawn.

But a new roof is a renovation.

Now an honorable approach for SU would be to buy back the naming rights from Carrier. A "fair" price would be the $2.5M in 2016 dollars. Any Interest would have been offset by the value of the name to Carrier.

And then get out of the corporate naming rights game and name it Alumni Stadium or Ernie Davis or whatever.

It's interesting to see the different positions on this. I suspect there's a segment of the SU fan base that would want a new or renovated facility and don't particularly care what the University has to do to get it. That's the University's problem and not theirs. And if there need to be some ethical shortcuts that need to be taken, that's also the University's problem, not theirs.

 

[Bayside44]

Of course. But a University is not a Corporation and shouldn't act as one.

And even Corporations have reputations for fair dealing to consider.

I love ya Townie but you're sounding like Bernie Sanders.

New roof, new entrance new outside walls, a whole new wing of the place, new seats and suites - it's not going to be the Dome as we know it.

 

[l'orange]

Considering it won't be a dome any longer, maybe Carrier Center?

 

[TheCusian]

When you knock the old one down, cart away the materials and build a new one in it's place. You know, like what SU did with Archbold Stadium. Would a new building use some of the concrete foundation of the old one and still be a new building? Who knows where the line can be drawn. But a new roof is a renovation. Now an honorable approach for SU would be to buy back the naming rights from Carrier. A "fair" price would be the $2.5M in 2016 dollars. Any Interest would have been offset by the value of the name to Carrier. And then get out of the corporate naming rights game and name it Alumni Stadium or Ernie Davis or whatever. It's interesting to see the different positions on this. I suspect there's a segment of the SU fan base that would want a new or renovated facility and don't particularly care what the University has to do to get it. That's the University's problem and not theirs. And if there need to be some ethical shortcuts that need to be taken, that's also the University's problem, not theirs.

If it was just the roof, you'd have a point.

Also - I think you're overstating the ethics angle and people being upset. I think you'd be in the minority.

Side note: I often wonder if all the "it's super hot in here, and it's named after an air conditioner company" snickering that announcers do on tv doesn't harm Carrier marketing-wise.

 

[Antiprodigy]

When you knock the old one down, cart away the materials and build a new one in it's place. You know, like what SU did with Archbold Stadium.

Would a new building use some of the concrete foundation of the old one and still be a new building? Who knows where the line can be drawn.

But a new roof is a renovation.

Now an honorable approach for SU would be to buy back the naming rights from Carrier. A "fair" price would be the $2.5M in 2016 dollars. Any Interest would have been offset by the value of the name to Carrier.

And then get out of the corporate naming rights game and name it Alumni Stadium or Ernie Davis or whatever.

It's interesting to see the different positions on this. I suspect there's a segment of the SU fan base that would want a new or renovated facility and don't particularly care what the University has to do to get it. That's the University's problem and not theirs. And if there need to be some ethical shortcuts that need to be taken, that's also the University's problem, not theirs.

You have your view, as stated, on whether this is a renovation or re-build. Though, the proposal isn't just a new roof, as you stated. But like everyone else, it really doesn't matter how you feel, as you are not one of the involved parties.

Ultimately, this is a discussion between the University & Carrier. It could ultimately include a court decision, if the two parties can not come to an amicable solution. But it is foolish to think of a University as anything other than a corporation. You personally may feel differently about that, but I doubt the business side of the University does. This is modern corporate ethics, whether you like it or not.

I suspect that the naming issue definitely played a part in the scope & scale of the re-build. I am willing to bet that the University wanted to ensure that there would be enough changes to the facility to give them plenty of ammunition in the case that they would not be able to come to terms with Carrier. The potential income stream from naming rights would be a significant sum for the University.

 

[Townie72]

I love ya Townie but you're sounding like Bernie Sanders.

New roof, new entrance new outside walls, a whole new wing of the place, new seats and suites - it's not going to be the Dome as we know it.

Bernie Sanders? I'll have to think about that one.

But it looks like a new roof and some upgrades to me.

Want the naming rights back? Buy them back from Carrier.

I remember when the University was scrambling to get the $26.5 M to build the Dome. They sure as Hell weren't telling Carrier that this deal was conditional. They wanted and needed the money to make it work.

I think Carrier did this out of the goodness of their hearts. They threw us a life line. It ended up being a better PR deal for them than they could expect at the time.

I don't want SU saying, "Yeah, we needed the money back then. But now we need more money, so we are going to see if we can find a way around that agreement. That was then. This is now. What have you done for me lately?"

Back in Bus Law, the prof explained to us that we shouldn't confuse what is legal and what is the right thing to do.

 

[DoubleDee]

Considering it won't be a dome any longer, maybe Carrier Center?

It won't be air supported bubble, but if it's a hard fixed arched roof is it not still a dome? I think it is.

 

[Townie72]

You have your view, as stated, on whether this is a renovation or re-build. Though, the proposal isn't just a new roof, as you stated. But like everyone else, it really doesn't matter how you feel, as you are not one of the involved parties.

Ultimately, this is a discussion between the University & Carrier. It could ultimately include a court decision, if the two parties can not come to an amicable solution. But it is foolish to think of a University as anything other than a corporation. You personally may feel differently about that, but I doubt the business side of the University does. This is modern corporate ethics, whether you like it or not.

I suspect that the naming issue definitely played a part in the scope & scale of the re-build. I am willing to bet that the University wanted to ensure that there would be enough changes to the facility to give them plenty of ammunition in the case that they would not be able to come to terms with Carrier. The potential income stream from naming rights would be a significant sum for the University.

There isn't a "Business side" and a "Non-business side" to a University. There's just a university. Unless you are talking about "for profit" education.

I get there are business aspects to a university. But the idea is that the university should adopt the most noxious, hard-knuckled, profit-maximizing behaviors of corporations, is IMO not a good thing.

And I doubt that the University planned this with an eye to doing enough renovation so that it could void the Carrier naming agreement. It's hard enough to plan something like this without considering things like that.

If the financial plan for this ASSUMES a new naming agreement without paying Carrier off on the old one, I would very much think that they whole plan is full of holes and flaky assumptions on building and operating it.

 

[Townie72]

It won't be air supported bubble, but if it's a hard fixed arched roof is it not still a dome? I think it is.

Bingo!

A dome is a shape, not a material.

And the name is not "The Carrier Fabric, Inflatable Dome"

 

[OrangeXtreme]

It won't be air supported bubble, but if it's a hard fixed arched roof is it not still a dome? I think it is.

Kingdome
Astrodome
Superdome

There's no rule that a "Dome" has to have an air supported roof. The first domes didn't.

 

[Toga]

Dome

Not a dome

 

[l'orange]

Bingo!

A dome is a shape, not a material.

And the name is not "The Carrier Fabric, Inflatable Dome"

--

I assumed it would have a different shape?

 

[Townie72]

--

I assumed it would have a different shape?

If it had a different shape, it could still be a Dome. Here's the Webster definition:

Simple Definition of dome

• : a large rounded roof or ceiling that is shaped like half of a ball
  
  
• : a structure that looks like the dome of a building
  
  
• : a stadium that is covered by a roof
  

 

[sutomcat]

It won't be air supported bubble, but if it's a hard fixed arched roof is it not still a dome? I think it is.

I agree. It all depends on the design of the roof.

The new facility the Vikings are building does not have an arched ceiling. It is not a dome and accordingly, is being called US Bank Stadium.

Here is the definition of the word dome we are discussing:

noun
1.
Architecture.

1. a vault, having a circular plan and usually in the form of a portion of a sphere, so constructed as to exert an equal thrust in all directions.
2. a domical roof or ceiling.
3. a polygonal vault, ceiling, or roof.

It remains to be seen what the roof of the SU athletic facility will look like.

If the saw tooth design leaked by the sub-contractor is used , it really isn't a dome. It is an arched roof. The arch runs only north and south.

I say there is no way the new facility will be called a dome, because it won't be one. At least if the leaked design holds true...