Future Campus Framework Presentation...

[cliftonparksufan]

They had a falling out several years ago. Not positive if its been repaired or can be repaired.

Not surprisingly. I've heard he is a tough person to work with. A phenomenal businessman but not a great person. Almost sounds like one of our presidential candidates. I would love to see Billy involved with the Cuse program. Not sure it would ever happen but it could be a nice marriage for both sides.

 

[orangenauburn]

They had a falling out several years ago. Not positive if its been repaired or can be repaired.

Is that why his son walked on at UNC ?

 

[rocklloyd]

I honestly can't see an upside to carrier naming rights. They are already a known quantity. Why would they shell out what probably would amount to 30 million over 15-20 years. That's a lot of hvac systems To make up that much money. Where is the upside?

They might not.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

The top two targets for sure. Billy of course played FB at Syracuse.

For multitude of reasons the Syracuse football alumni's relationship with the program and the school has been strained. It's been discussed many times but you don't see a lot of the faces. You would think that guys like Chris Gedney and Tim Green and others would help bridge the gap. Melo made a huge investment in the basketball program. Has any football players done the same.

 

[RMH44]

Not surprisingly. I've heard he is a tough person to work with. A phenomenal businessman but not a great person. Almost sounds like one of our presidential candidates. I would love to see Billy involved with the Cuse program. Not sure it would ever happen but it could be a nice marriage for both sides.

From what I've been told you've heard wrong. Word is he's great to work for. His employees really like him.

Believe me, I wish you were right. I can't stand the commercials. He runs the same HUGE bs campaign in Florida. I almost wrecked my rental when it came across the radio.

 

[TheCusian]

You whole interpretation on this ABSURD.

It isn't wouldn't embarass anyone because no one is going to know it.

The Carrier Dome is un-airconditioned as we all know. How many people besides SU fans know that? No one.

Why not?

Because no one cares.

And absolutely no one with a brain is going to care what AC is in the Dome.

This dismissal is poor form. You must not be in marketing.

If I'm a competitor, I beat the hell of that drum. Commercials. All my printed material. Website. I look to sponsor something else to get my name on it so announcers have to say it.

 

[Consigliere]

The Metro Mattress Pad.

 

[BKCuse]

You can't read...or are delusional. But hey, if it works for you.

But you do admit to scoffing at the notion we could somehow get out of the Carrier deal right?

I mean, you claimed it was tantamount to removing the Crouse name from Crouse College.

 

[cliftonparksufan]

From what I've been told you've heard wrong. Word is he's great to work for. His employees really like him.

Believe me, I wish you were right. I can't stand the commercials. He runs the same HUGE bs campaign in Florida. I almost wrecked my rental when it came across the radio.

Yeah, I didn't mean to work for. I meant to do business with. But like I said, he's a great businessman. His style has worked well for him.

 

[supp]

Taking into account recent expansion, Wegman's would be a great fit. Especially if that expansion continues southward through the remaining ACC markets.

Though I will note that Fuccillo has car dealerships in Pennsylvania, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Kentucky, Georgia and Florida...

It doesn't have to be a local company. It can be a company with a major local presence. A few years back when SU was thinking about building a stadium downtown, I was told that Dick's Sporting Goods was interested in naming rights.

 

[Toga]

It doesn't have to be a local company. It can be a company with a major local presence. A few years back when SU was thinking about building a stadium downtown, I was told that Dick's Sporting Goods was interested in naming rights.

Hey honey grab your coat, we're going to the Dick.

 

[xc84]

But you do admit to scoffing at the notion we could somehow get out of the Carrier deal right?

I mean, you claimed it was tantamount to removing the Crouse name from Crouse College.

Yes, legally it is the same as removing the name Crouse from that building simply so they could generate some more money for naming rights from it. They can't legally do that.

The thing I scoffed at is this emotional notion that SU could just tell Carrier that gift agreement that was made between the two entities was no longer in effect because they had the name "long enough" or some other goofy reason.

I also said many times that if he building changes significantly, that could be legal grounds for saying it is not the same building and SU could possibly (legally valid) say they building that accepted the gift no longer exists and SU could then sell naming rights to the "new" building. I also said that if that does not happen, Carrier has little incentive to relinquish the name. It's silly to think that SU can just "break the agreement" simply because Carrier's deal was (in hindsight) very good for them.

Here is in example of the goofy nonsense from you:

"IMO moving your manufacturing out of Syracuse and severely damaging the city's economy is more than enough of a moral clause offense to break deal."

Sounds like something a 12-year old would say.

 

[Townie72]

xc84;

Your post above is correct.

That's why SU talked about "negotiating" with Carrier.

If SU wants to buy their way out of the deal, that's fine. Carrier isn't getting all that much benefit out of the name (Because of the nature of the markets Carrier competes in) and SU can sell it to another entity that has more utility for it.

Going to court and claiming that this is a different building may or may not work. But even attempting it will put SU in a very bad light. SU's new Development slogan can be, "Give us a gift and we'll name a building after you (until a higher bidder comes along.)

As an alum, it is very important to me that the University conduct itself ethically in a manner that is above reproach. The Carrier Dome refurb is just part of a much larger effort on campus and guess who SU is going to come to to fund a chuck of that big spending. The alumni.

 

[elimunelson]

xc84;

Your post above is correct.

That's why SU talked about "negotiating" with Carrier.

If SU wants to buy their way out of the deal, that's fine. Carrier isn't getting all that much benefit out of the name (Because of the nature of the markets Carrier competes in) and SU can sell it to another entity that has more utility for it.

Going to court and claiming that this is a different building may or may not work. But even attempting it will put SU in a very bad light. SU's new Development slogan can be, "Give us a gift and we'll name a building after you (until a higher bidder comes along.)

As an alum, it is very important to me that the University conduct itself ethically in a manner that is above reproach. The Carrier Dome refurb is just part of a much larger effort on campus and guess who SU is going to come to to fund a chuck of that big spending. The alumni.

I agree with all of this above. Need to be sensitive with how they exit this relationship (if that is the plan).

 

[xc84]

xc84;

Your post above is correct.

That's why SU talked about "negotiating" with Carrier.

If SU wants to buy their way out of the deal, that's fine. Carrier isn't getting all that much benefit out of the name (Because of the nature of the markets Carrier competes in) and SU can sell it to another entity that has more utility for it.

Going to court and claiming that this is a different building may or may not work. But even attempting it will put SU in a very bad light. SU's new Development slogan can be, "Give us a gift and we'll name a building after you (until a higher bidder comes along.)

As an alum, it is very important to me that the University conduct itself ethically in a manner that is above reproach. The Carrier Dome refurb is just part of a much larger effort on campus and guess who SU is going to come to to fund a chuck of that big spending. The alumni.

The only thing here we differ on is that "Carrier isn't getting all that much benefit out of the name"

The dome is unique to college sports in that it hosts a national powerhouse basketball team and a (ahem) high level football program. There are many football and basketball events there that get national and regional exposure. On every broadcast, Carrier gets "free" advertising when their name is mentioned over the course of an event. What type of buyout do you think Carrier would accept and then how much do you think SU could get on the open market for it?

The only time I would expect an entity to accept less than the market value is in a case like Enron Field where creditors would be willing to accept pennies on the dollar just to get something from a bankrupt corporation.

 

[Newhouser]

Fuccillo is out. The relationship has been severed.

Would he have the money to buck up for the rights every year? Being rich and having the ability to pay for things aren't always the same thing.

 

[sutomcat]

It doesn't have to be a local company. It can be a company with a major local presence. A few years back when SU was thinking about building a stadium downtown, I was told that Dick's Sporting Goods was interested in naming rights.

I heard a couple of banks were interested in naming rights as well.

 

[BKCuse]

Yes, legally it is the same as removing the name Crouse from that building simply so they could generate some more money for naming rights from it. They can't legally do that.

The thing I scoffed at is this emotional notion that SU could just tell Carrier that gift agreement that was made between the two entities was no longer in effect because they had the name "long enough" or some other goofy reason.

I also said many times that if he building changes significantly, that could be legal grounds for saying it is not the same building and SU could possibly (legally valid) say they building that accepted the gift no longer exists and SU could then sell naming rights to the "new" building. I also said that if that does not happen, Carrier has little incentive to relinquish the name. It's silly to think that SU can just "break the agreement" simply because Carrier's deal was (in hindsight) very good for them.

Here is in example of the goofy nonsense from you:

"IMO moving your manufacturing out of Syracuse and severely damaging the city's economy is more than enough of a moral clause offense to break deal."

Sounds like something a 12-year old would say.

There you go again, defending Carrier's honor above the University.

In fact you specifially said renovations aren't enough to change the name and it would have to be a new building.

Ironically the university has done just what I said: Told Carrier the old deal is over and if they want to keep their name on the renovated (not new) building they will need to renegotiate.

This is EXACTLY what angered you so much when I originally raised the strategy and had you acting all high and mighty as if this scenario could never happen.

Yet here we are, and you fell right in step as soon as this "goofy thinking" became reality.

Where would we be if SU was as afraid to challenge a decades old deal as you were?

But it's all good xc I don't need any admission. I actually want to commend you for your evolution in thinking here even if you are being a little stubborn to admit it.

 

[xc84]

There you go again, defending Carrier's honor above the University.

In fact you specifially said renovations aren't enough to change the name and it would have to be a new building.

Ironically the university has done just what I said: Told Carrier the old deal is over and if they want to keep their name on the renovated (not new) building they will need to renegotiate.

This is EXACTLY what angered you so much when I originally raised the strategy and had you acting all high and mighty as if this scenario could never happen.

Yet here we are, and you fell right in step as soon as this "goofy thinking" became reality.

Where would we be if SU was as afraid to challenge a decades old deal as you were?

But it's all good xc I don't need any admission. I actually want to commend you for your evolution in thinking here even if you are being a little stubborn to admit it.

Nope and nope. I am not defending Carrier's "honor" nor have I even discussed it. Why ? Because it is irrelevant.

The university has done nothing yet that you know of except open up a conversation with Carrier. They have not said "the deal is over" for sure. You say I said renovations were not enough the allow for the contract to be null but in Feb. I said this:
"I have no sympathy for Carrier either...but it is irrelevant. I know that SU has said on multiple occasions that they have looked into it and there is nothing they can do. That's not a guess on my part. I have already said there is likely a threshold of renovations where the building becomes a different building."

On the other hand, you have offered these goofy arguments:

We can "hatch a plan" strategy:
"I won't be satisfied until Syverud and Coyle hatch a plan to dump the Carrier name and sell naming rights to another company. "

The agreement is from yesteryear strategy:

"You seem put a lot more stock in a 35 year old contract that was drawn up before the age of selling naming rights. My guess is if we hire a savvy lawyer we can get out of this ridiculous deal we're stuck with. If they paid 2.75M and we spend another 500M to reno I have to believe we can break that deal from yesteryear."

The alumni donors have more rights that corporate donors strategy:

"idk sure sounds like a lot of defending Carrier's interest to me - elevating them to the level of alumni donors and arguing in favor of maintaining the awful deal we made with them " "Surely you understand the difference between private family donations towards academic buildings and a corporate branding across our most valuable asset, no? "

Just notify Carrier we are putting the name up for bid because they've had it long enough argument:

"Hey Carrier it's a cold world. You got a helluva ride for 35 years but the stadium is under going a major facelift and we've decided the naming rights are up for bid again."

The Carrier has made "more than enough" argument:

"There has to be a way to sell new naming rights and get out of the Carrier deal. I mean 30+ years of Naming rights is more than enough of a return on 2.75M "

 

[Fly Rodder]

Between you two and townie, the last five pages of this thread is about 75% junk.

 

[OttoMets]

The only thing here we differ on is that "Carrier isn't getting all that much benefit out of the name"

The dome is unique to college sports in that it hosts a national powerhouse basketball team and a (ahem) high level football program. There are many football and basketball events there that get national and regional exposure. On every broadcast, Carrier gets "free" advertising when their name is mentioned over the course of an event. What type of buyout do you think Carrier would accept and then how much do you think SU could get on the open market for it?

The only time I would expect an entity to accept less than the market value is in a case like Enron Field where creditors would be willing to accept pennies on the dollar just to get something from a bankrupt corporation.

To me, the building's got as much name recognition as the corporate brand. It's like Wrigley Field - just a person's last name on a building.

Of course none of us can quantify what Carrier gets out of the gift, but it doesn't feel like much from my vantage point.

 

[xc84]

To me, the building's got as much name recognition as the corporate brand. It's like Wrigley Field - just a person's last name on a building.

Of course none of us can quantify what Carrier gets out of the gift, but it doesn't feel like much from my vantage point.

Could the be case. Let's see what happens with Carrier and what they agree upon.

 

[ssmorol]

Maybe Carrier gets a percentage of whatever we collect on a naming rights deal if they allow us to change the name?

 

[SU2NASA]

So, the idea is that Trane will donate a couple of million dollars of HVAC equipment to embarrass Carrier?

And people on here actually believe that is not only possible, but probable? (Amazing!)

Perhaps, they could show us some examples of similar things that have happened in American industry.

That whole industry is in-bred. They don't really want to piss one another off. People who are working for Carrier this year are working for Trane the next. People who are working for Square D this year are working for Siemens the next. People that are working for Russell are working for Eaton the next year. They compete on price and delivery. Advertising has little to do with it.

If there are new naming rights, the company that "ponies up" will either be starving for name recognition (e.g. 3Com) or be a consumer products company that actually gets some benefit from "frequent mentions" (e.g, Verizon).

Companies that make industrial products that are not bought by consumers and that typically have small advertising and PR budgets (e..g. Carrier) are not good prospects.

Toyota did it to embarrass the Big 3.

 

[JrodCuse]

This might have already been posted but I saw that annually Carrier's initial investment works out to roughly $87,500 per year for the naming rights.

Several firms that specialize in naming fees have stated that SU would get 1-2 million per year for the naming rights. They all said that 1 million was extremely conservartive. So yea you fight like hell to get the naming rights for the dome revoked and bring in a group that will pay close to that $2,000,000 per year fee.