Carrier Dome naming rights article

[Townie72]

Now on to the Tax Dollars part of the discussion.

In 78/79 when the Carrier Dome was being planned, $15 Million came from the State of NY. It was part of a political deal that offset pork barrel spending Downstate, "You don't complain about the money were are spending Downstate and we'll give you money to spend Upstate".
]
Reminds me of the Reagan quote, "Tax dollars seem to belong to no one. So the bestowing them on someone for political benefit is irresistible". (or something like that)

Now to get these tax dollars, what is the deal going to be?

Just remember, SU Administration, what Napoleon said, "When you lay down with dogs, you get fleas."

But don't worry about it, folks. Taxes aren't high in NYS, are they? What's a few more hundred million?

 

[Townie72]

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...

\
Sounds like a "a polygonal vault, ceiling, or roof" to me.

I don't think SU wins this one in court. And trying makes the University look bad, bad, bad.

I ca see the artical headline niw, "SU chooses roof design to cheat Carrier out of naming rights".

 

[Antiprodigy]

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.

I don't see anywhere on this thread that anyone said the financial plan assumed a new naming agreement without paying Carrier off for the old one. So, I'm not sure where that statement from you is coming from.

My post expressly stated that the scale of the building changes were likely to give the University ammunition (and I will post my actual words from the previous post) "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."

Again, your view is that the proposed changes don't warrant a name change. Good for you. But your views on the matter aren't relevant. Only The University, Carrier & possibly the court system.

Considering the potential amount of money, and past precedence in similar situations, it is highly likely that there will be a new name on the facility at some point, despite the amount of heartburn this obviously causes you. You are easily in the minority on this issue as evidenced by the numerous threads on here over the years, as well as posts on syracuse.com.

 

[Townie72]

I don't see anywhere on this thread that anyone said the financial plan assumed a new naming agreement without paying Carrier off for the old one. So, I'm not sure where that statement from you is coming from.

My post expressly stated that the scale of the building changes were likely to give the University ammunition (and I will post my actual words from the previous post) "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."

Again, your view is that the proposed changes don't warrant a name change. Good for you. But your views on the matter aren't relevant. Only The University, Carrier & possibly the court system.

Considering the potential amount of money, and past precedence in similar situations, it is highly likely that there will be a new name on the facility at some point, despite the amount of heartburn this obviously causes you.

Want a prediction? SU pays Carrier off without going to court.

Are you an alum? You seem to be insensitive to the impact on this to the reputation of the University.

 

[orangefog]

\
Sounds like a "a polygonal vault, ceiling, or roof" to me.

I don't think SU wins this one in court. And trying makes the University look bad, bad, bad.

I ca see the artical headline niw, "SU chooses roof design to cheat Carrier out of naming rights".

I don't disagree with you, but I don't think you would find much empathy for Carrier throughout the U.S.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

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.

Not running it like a business is why the old chancellor is out and the new one is in.

 

[Townie72]

I don't disagree with you, but I don't think you would find much empathy for Carrier throughout the U.S.

You are right.

That's because they moved to survive economically. Manufacturing costs do matter and if your competition's sales price is the same as your manufacturing costs, you can't stay in business.

And politicians have made that into a political football and villainized companies like Carrier for a population too stupid to understand basic economics or business.

Tarrifs will absolutely protect US jobs. They'll permit the auto industry to have high profits and pay high wages. Of course, there's the matter of product price to worry about. How many of you would like to buy a $50,000 Chevrolet Impala?

Can't have it both ways, folks.

 

[Townie72]

Not running it like a business is why the old chancellor is out and the new one is in.

You're right.

But Nancy's transgressions go way beyond not running a business.

She was a utopian dreamer who wanted the University to make a huge difference in the community.

We don't need to swing the pendulum all the way to the other side.

 

[Antiprodigy]

Want a prediction? SU pays Carrier off without going to court.

Are you an alum? You seem to be insensitive to the impact on this to the reputation of the University.

Where did I state my personal views on this matter? Nowhere. Like you, my view doesn't matter, so I don't give input. You seem a little too personally charged by this issue. I wouldn't worry, lawyers will figure it all out. They will get paid. Both parties will put smiles on their faces, and 10 years from now, very few people will even remember.

 

[orangefog]

You are right.

That's because they moved to survive economically. Manufacturing costs do matter and if your competition's sales price is the same as your manufacturing costs, you can't stay in business.

And politicians have made that into a political football and villainized companies like Carrier for a population too stupid to understand basic economics or business.

Tarrifs will absolutely protect US jobs. They'll permit the auto industry to have high profits and pay high wages. Of course, there's the matter of product price to worry about. How many of you would like to buy a $50,000 Chevrolet Impala?

Can't have it both ways, folks.

I agree with you, but on the PR front, I don't think SU would take much heat. I understand and respect your stance based on having a signed contract and honoring that contract. I have not made up my mind yet. I would like for them to alter the building enough for me to not feel guilty about renaming the building, I am just not sure how much that would take. Perhaps some sort of compromise can be found.

 

[reedny]

I don't disagree with you, but I don't think you would find much empathy for Carrier throughout the U.S.

How about "zero point zero". Not only did Carrier sell out to Mexican labor, it made an absolute killing on the Dome naming rights. We're talking 10-20 times under value. I'm not blaming Carrier for making the deal. But given such a dramatic return for relatively little investment, they should be throwing cash at SU to keep the name (remember .. the "Dome" is going away). If not, I'd give Carrier the same treatment they gave their US workers.

 

[sutomcat]

\
Sounds like a "a polygonal vault, ceiling, or roof" to me.

I don't think SU wins this one in court. And trying makes the University look bad, bad, bad.

I ca see the artical headline niw, "SU chooses roof design to cheat Carrier out of naming rights".

You are mistaken.

The new roof, if the design is accurate, is an arch that connects the north and south sides of the building.

The roof does not extend to the top of the building walls on the eastern and western sides of the building. Those will be left open, with the gap between what is left of the existing walls and the roof presumably made of see through EFTE. Please review the designs below.

This is the fundamental difference between a dome and an arched roof.

Regardless of whether SU chooses to use a vastly different dome design or an arch roof design, there are many other fundamental differences besides the roof between the building Carrier paid to name back in 1979 and the proposed facility SU will be building in the next few years.

I will be forever grateful that Carrier came up with the money to help get the Dome built. Hwever,it is my position that when the appearance and functionality of most of a building has been changed dramatically, it is no longer the same building.

The courts may end up deciding who is right here and if so, I believe they will agree with me. I hope UTC does the right thing and ponies up a fair price for naming rights for the new facility without a protracted legal fight. The original naming gift was a great move for both parties and I believe the new naming gift will again greatly benefit all involved.

 

[reedny]

You are mistaken.

The new roof, if the design is accurate, is an arch that connects the north and south sides of the building.

The roof does not extend to the top of the building walls on the eastern and western sides of the building. Those will be left open, with the gap between what is left of the existing walls and the roof presumably made of see through EFTE. Please review the designs below.

This is the fundamental difference between a dome and an arched roof.

Regardless of whether SU chooses to use a vastly different dome design or an arch roof design, there are many other fundamental differences besides the roof between the building Carrier paid to name back in 1979 and the proposed facility SU will be building in the next few years.

I will be forever grateful that Carrier came up with the money to help get the Dome built. Hwever,it is my position that when the appearance and functionality of most of a building has been changed dramatically, it is no longer the same building.

The courts may end up deciding who is right here and if so, I believe they will agree with me. I hope UTC does the right thing and ponies up a fair price for naming rights for the new facility without a protracted legal fight. The original naming gift was a great move for both parties and I believe the new naming gift will again greatly benefit all involved.

Carrier made a deal. That's fine. It got 35 years worth of essentially free publicity for about a 2 year investment. The new roof will obviously not be a "Dome" any longer, and the superstructure is scheduled for radical changes, including new pillars and extensive foundation work. So if Carrier decides to fight over its sweatheart deal, I think the company will be disappointed. Not only will there be no longer be a "Dome" to sue over, the concept of "perpetual" goes over in the Court system about as well as "Hoya" does at the Varsity.

 

[reedny]

\
Sounds like a "a polygonal vault, ceiling, or roof" to me.

I don't think SU wins this one in court. And trying makes the University look bad, bad, bad.

I ca see the artical headline niw, "SU chooses roof design to cheat Carrier out of naming rights".

Or maybe after you woke up, the headline read: "UTC/Carrier Sends Jobs to Mechico, Then Sues SU To Keep Name on Non-Existant Dome".

 

[Orange87]

If the University and Carrier can agree on a buy out price or if there is a clause somewhere in the original contract saying that under certain circumstances the University can once again have the right to re-name the facility and those particular circumstances are met then what's the issue?

Naming rights and fees for sporting arenas wasn't even a thing in 1981. The Carrier Dome was looked at like any academic building on campus - Carnegie Library, Shine Student Center, etc. You donate enough you get a building named after you.

It doesn't work like that anymore and hasn't for a long time. Carrier Corp. is well aware of this. If the University didn't explore this they would be irresponsible. Its a major revenue stream that simply cannot be ignored. Carrier got much, much more than their money's worth since the Dome was built. There is no reason for either side to be dissatisfied with the history of this deal.

If Syracuse University was Hobart or Colgate, there would be no need for this to happen but SU competes with the top Division I programs in the country in many sports on a regular basis and has since before the Dome was built. My point is that it is part of SU's mission, and to continue it, the existing facility must be upgraded or replaced and revenue needs to be generated from it.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Not sure the naming rights only apply to a Dome.

 

[TheCusian]

Want a prediction? SU pays Carrier off without going to court. Are you an alum? You seem to be insensitive to the impact on this to the reputation of the University.

I am. And I think there would be more pushback if we didn't explore our options for renaming for more money.

 

[Townie72]

If the University and Carrier can agree on a buy out price or if there is a clause somewhere in the original contract saying that under certain circumstances the University can once again have the right to re-name the facility and those particular circumstances are met then what's the issue?

Naming rights and fees for sporting arenas wasn't even a thing in 1981. The Carrier Dome was looked at like any academic building on campus - Carnegie Library, Shine Student Center, etc. You donate enough you get a building named after you.

It doesn't work like that anymore and hasn't for a long time. Carrier Corp. is well aware of this. If the University didn't explore this they would be irresponsible. Its a major revenue stream that simply cannot be ignored. Carrier got much, much more than their money's worth since the Dome was built. There is no reason for either side to be dissatisfied with the history of this deal.

If Syracuse University was Hobart or Colgate, there would be no need for this to happen but SU competes with the top Division I programs in the country in many sports on a regular basis and has since before the Dome was built. My point is that it is part of SU's mission, and to continue it, the existing facility must be upgraded or replaced and revenue needs to be generated from it.

So because SU competes at a higher level, it's OK to pursue scheming a way out of this contract because it no longer is the revenue-maximizing approach?

Naming rights aren't all that big a deal in the total picture of financing this thing. Why whore yourself out anymore than you have to.

You say "irresponsible", I say unethical and wrong.

 

[Townie72]

Carrier made a deal. That's fine. It got 35 years worth of essentially free publicity for about a 2 year investment. The new roof will obviously not be a "Dome" any longer, and the superstructure is scheduled for radical changes, including new pillars and extensive foundation work. So if Carrier decides to fight over its sweatheart deal, I think the company will be disappointed. Not only will there be no longer be a "Dome" to sue over, the concept of "perpetual" goes over in the Court system about as well as "Hoya" does at the Varsity.

No, they didn't get 35 years of free publicity. They got the publicity they paid for.

The "sweetheart" part of this deal was when SU got the money.

 

[Townie72]

You are mistaken.

The new roof, if the design is accurate, is an arch that connects the north and south sides of the building.

The roof does not extend to the top of the building walls on the eastern and western sides of the building. Those will be left open, with the gap between what is left of the existing walls and the roof presumably made of see through EFTE. Please review the designs below.

This is the fundamental difference between a dome and an arched roof.

Regardless of whether SU chooses to use a vastly different dome design or an arch roof design, there are many other fundamental differences besides the roof between the building Carrier paid to name back in 1979 and the proposed facility SU will be building in the next few years.

I will be forever grateful that Carrier came up with the money to help get the Dome built. Hwever,it is my position that when the appearance and functionality of most of a building has been changed dramatically, it is no longer the same building.

The courts may end up deciding who is right here and if so, I believe they will agree with me. I hope UTC does the right thing and ponies up a fair price for naming rights for the new facility without a protracted legal fight. The original naming gift was a great move for both parties and I believe the new naming gift will again greatly benefit all involved.

"Forever grateful"?

Yeah, right.

Sounds more like grateful till a chance to make some more money appeared.

 

[Townie72]

How about "zero point zero". Not only did Carrier sell out to Mexican labor, it made an absolute killing on the Dome naming rights. We're talking 10-20 times under value. I'm not blaming Carrier for making the deal. But given such a dramatic return for relatively little investment, they should be throwing cash at SU to keep the name (remember .. the "Dome" is going away). If not, I'd give Carrier the same treatment they gave their US workers.

So if your stockbroker steers you to a stock and makes a commission, and the stock does better than expected, he can come back and ask for more money?

Besides, you are tremendously overstating the value of the name to Carrier. I'd like to know how many people outside of CNY actually know the Carrier in Carrier Dome is the air-conditioning company.

 

[Townie72]

This whole thing has problems way beyond beating Carrier out of the naming rights the University agreed to.

$200M and no increase in capacity? How's that make financial ssense? Athletics at SU barely breaks even now.

And as far as I can read, they don't have a nickel yet to pay for this. Remember, in building the Dome originally, they had a majority of the money first ($15M of the $26M came from the State before they started knocking Archbold down.)

Luxury boxes? Maryland spent $50 M to add luxury boxes and amenities to Byrd Stadium along with 4,000 additional seats. Guess what. It's been a disaster. No one will buy/lease to luxury boxes. And there's a whole lot more money in Balt-DC than there is in CNY.

Government Money? What Government money is that? I suspect they'll be a political fight over spending NYS tax dollars on a private university. It got through unnoticed in 1979. It's a different era now.

Universities make these kind of announcements all the time. But they are more like "goals" than real plans. Six or seven years ago, Maryland announced to some fanfare that they were going to spend $1Billion to develop the East side of US#1, Nothing has happened. Why not? Couldn't identify funding.

Forget the naming rights and worry about the 10's of millions they want from the State and from unknown donors.

The naming right at $1M per year for 10 years isn't 5% of the cost. This thing has way bigger problems than that.

 

[Townie72]

Couldn't we see it named "The Carrier Dome at Wegman's Center" or whatever and skirt the Carrier issue?

Wegman's is a Rochester company. What other grocery chains have sports arenas names for them?

Maybe that hot dog joint in Liverpool (Heid's?) might be interested.

 

[TheCusian]

This whole thing has problems way beyond beating Carrier out of the naming rights the University agreed to. $200M and no increase in capacity? How's that make financial ssense? Athletics at SU barely breaks even now. And as far as I can read, they don't have a nickel yet to pay for this. Remember, in building the Dome originally, they had a majority of the money first ($15M of the $26M came from the State before they started knocking Archbold down.) Luxury boxes? Maryland spent $50 M to add luxury boxes and amenities to Byrd Stadium along with 4,000 additional seats. Guess what. It's been a disaster. No one will buy/lease to luxury boxes. And there's a whole lot more money in Balt-DC than there is in CNY. Government Money? What Government money is that? I suspect they'll be a political fight over spending NYS tax dollars on a private university. It got through unnoticed in 1979. It's a different era now. Universities make these kind of announcements all the time. But they are more like "goals" than real plans. Six or seven years ago, Maryland announced to some fanfare that they were going to spend $1Billion to develop the East side of US#1, Nothing has happened. Why not? Couldn't identify funding. Forget the naming rights and worry about the 10's of millions they want from the State and from unknown donors. The naming right at $1M per year for 10 years isn't 5% of the cost. This thing has way bigger problems than that.

It makes financial sense because:

- it relies on an outdated roofing method that requires significant $ for upkeep. It also can fall in like in Minnesota, costing lots of money in emergency spending and lost revenue (not to mention the damage done to the teams who rely on it as a home venue).

- if you're competing in D1 sports you need a facility to play in. Something has to be done.

- some of the minor reasons attendance has fallen off is it lacks the amenities and comfort we expect in a modern facility.

- Since we never sell out for football now, an increase in seats doesn't move the needle. An increase in the fan experience provided by a stadium with modern amenities will.

So to recap: something needs to be done. We don't need more seats. We need a modern and enjoyable fan experience.

As far as money? We don't know the plan, so it's probably a little premature to get huffy about government spending.

 

[sutomcat]

"Forever grateful"?

Yeah, right.

Sounds more like grateful till a chance to make some more money appeared.

Syracuse could have made a lot more money that the one time payment of $2.75 million for naming rights Carrier made in 1979.

The University of Minnesota got $1.4 million a year from TCF Bank for naming rights to their new stadium. UCF got $1 million per year from Bright House Networks. Florida Atlantic got $500K per year for 12 years from the GEO Group. Even lowly Rutgers got $6.5 million in a 10 year deal for the naming rights to their football stadium back in 2011.

Since the facility hosts basketball as well, naming rights are a lot more valuable than a normal football stadium. Yum! paid $13.5 million for a 10 year naming agreement for UL's new basketball arena. DePaul is getting at least $22 million for naming rights to their new basketball arena, the McCormick Place Events Center.

To their credit, they honored the agreement.

My position is that when vast changes are made to a building along the lines of what has been proposed for the Carrier Dome, it really isn't the same building. If you replace the walls, the roof, the lighting, heating and cooling (added/not replaced), the scoreboards, the sound system, the playing surface for football and basketball, the bathrooms, all the entrances, extend the concourses, replace most or all of the seats, add private boxes, add a food court, attach a hotel, attach an academic building, attach a recreational building with many amenities for fans, etc., the question becomes, what remains of the original building? Hevck, it isn't even going to be the same type of building.

This isn't a question of ethics. It is a question of how much a building can be changed and still be considered the same building. If the proposals and accidentally leaked drawings are accurate, no reasonable person could look at the building SU is going to have and the building that was built in 1979 and consider them the same building. At least in my opinion.

I hope this issue doesn't get brought into the courthouse. If it does, I am confident SU will be found to be in the right here. Especially if the case is heard in Syracuse, after what UTC has done with Carrier since they bought the company.