Carrier Dome naming rights article

[Capt. Tuttle]

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.

You want to increase the number of empty seats.

 

[TheCusian]

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.

No. Because increasing the footprint, changing the capacity, and the roof all add up to significant changes to the facility that it would be prudent and smart to explore the terms of the deal and seek more revenue.

Nice use of the word whore to make it seem more nefarious than it actually is. How about since both sides are gaining something of value we call it a "partnership"... You know like how the bazillion of the type relationships are categorized now in the business world.

As for the outcry from alumni and bad press? You might be the only one. Big corporations don't get the same treatment as families that have donated money. They aren't people. No matter what Romney thinks .

 

[Townie72]

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.

Struggle as you might, this really is about ethics and "class".

I guess when people want something badly, they'll provide themselves with all sorts of reasons.

 

[Townie72]

No. Because increasing the footprint, changing the capacity, and the roof all add up to significant changes to the facility that it would be prudent and smart to explore the terms of the deal and seek more revenue.

Nice use of the word whore to make it seem more nefarious than it actually is. How about since both sides are gaining something of value we call it a "partnership"... You know like how the bazillion of the type relationships are categorized now in the business world.

As for the outcry from alumni and bad press? You might be the only one. Big corporations don't get the same treatment as families that have donated money. They aren't people. No matter what Romney thinks .

With a "partner" like SU --- who MAY be willing to skirt a contract --- you don't need enemies.

I'm hoping this is just supposition on the part of some reporters and that the University wouldn't do this.

And Corporations, under the law, have always been treated and described as "artificial persons". They pretty much do everything but vote (Enter into contracts, own property, pay taxes, etc,( fact that that term was used in a political campaign unfairly, doesn't change that fact. Ask a lawyer or someone who has taken law courses.

 

[Townie72]

You want to increase the number of empty seats.

Generally when you think of stadium renovations, you think of some expanded capacity, don't you?

 

[Cheriehoop]

Generally when you think of stadium renovations, you think of some expanded capacity, don't you?

No that's an addition or expansion. Just like when someone fully renovates, updates their home - expansion or an addition isn't a given.

 

[Townie72]

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.

Let's see if I have this right.

SU will spend $100 M to keep from replacing the roof every ten tears or so.

And, adding amenities --- to address what you call "minor" attendance inhibitors --- is so critical that if has to be done.

The whole project smacks of desperation to me. SU must be losing students to other schools because of "amenities".

 

[Townie72]

No that's an addition or expansion. Just like when someone fully renovates, updates their home - expansion or an addition isn't a given.

My point exactly. When you renovate your house, it's the same house, right?

 

[TheCusian]

With a "partner" like SU --- who MAY be willing to skirt a contract --- you don't need enemies. I'm hoping this is just supposition on the part of some reporters and that the University wouldn't do this. And Corporations, under the law, have always been treated and described as "artificial persons". They pretty much do everything but vote (Enter into contracts, own property, pay taxes, etc,( fact that that term was used in a political campaign unfairly, doesn't change that fact. Ask a lawyer or someone who has taken law courses.

You're implying that there isn't a legal way for Syracuse to be right. There is nothing unethical about looking into it and asking those questions AND if there is a way to end the agreement legally, the University should be doing just that.
--
The courts may see corporations that way - but people won't shed a single tear for Carrier should they lose their naming rights deal LEGALLY.

 

[TheCusian]

Let's see if I have this right. SU will spend $100 M to keep from replacing the roof every ten tears or so. And, adding amenities --- to address what you call "minor" attendance inhibitors --- is so critical that if has to be done. The whole project smacks of desperation to me. SU must be losing students to other schools because of "amenities".

The reason it was a question that the BoT pondered - was because it wasn't straight forward. Replacing the roof is costly and brings no added value - AND - it's status quo. It was an option. But that's ten more years of a facility that was already long in the tooth.

The forward thinking way would be to bring the facility up to date and solve the roof problem. Added amenities like wider concourses, better seating, etc - will help attendance, perception - and will help D1 sports remain viable and successful here for much longer.

Critical? No. The right thing for a member of a P5 conference (raking in conference money)? The right thing for a proud University with a proud history in competition? Yes.

Desperation? You're losing me. It's the job of the trustees to make sure we're ahead of the curve when it comes to making sure the buildings on campus are positioned for growth - not waiting until the things are crumbling.

If you don't like this project, I'd posit you might not be a fan of Syracuse sports.

 

[TheCusian]

My point exactly. When you renovate your house, it's the same house, right?

Don't think so - it's value went up, and renovation means changing what it was to be of more value.

So it's not that same house. It's a better version of your house.

 

[CousCuse]

Sell the sports franchise to Crossfit . The Crossfit Center could become a multiuse facility for team and nonteam training as well as the place for Crossfit games.

 

[retro44]

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.

Tops has first dibs long before Wegmans according to my sister in-law who holds a fairly high position with Wegmans. She said SU has ties to Tops first.

 

[reedny]

With a "partner" like SU --- who MAY be willing to skirt a contract --- you don't need enemies.

I'm hoping this is just supposition on the part of some reporters and that the University wouldn't do this.

And Corporations, under the law, have always been treated and described as "artificial persons". They pretty much do everything but vote (Enter into contracts, own property, pay taxes, etc,( fact that that term was used in a political campaign unfairly, doesn't change that fact. Ask a lawyer or someone who has taken law courses.

Kind of funny to hear you play the "moral compass" card on behalf of a slash-and-burn corporation that shipped its jobs to Mehico, Townie. This was SU's first naming rights venture. The Dome's going away .. and the name "Carrier" means chit in CNY. It's not a good fit anymore .. and it's certainly not SU's fault.

 

[sutomcat]

Let's see if I have this right.

SU will spend $100 M to keep from replacing the roof every ten tears or so.

And, adding amenities --- to address what you call "minor" attendance inhibitors --- is so critical that if has to be done.

The whole project smacks of desperation to me. SU must be losing students to other schools because of "amenities".

No, you are wrong on this too.

Spending $20 million to replace the roof every 15 years is problematic but there are other issues. The material for the roof is becoming harder to get because there are almost no air supported domes around any longer.

Worse still is the track record of air supported domes. Virtually every one of them has had at least one disastrous collapse that led to the facility being unavailable for use for months. None are located in a area that gets the snowfall that Syracuse gets. SU has been extraordinarily fortunate that we haven't had a major collapse, where multiple pieces of fabric are ripped and need to be replaced. Pete Sala and his crew have done a great job but they can't continue this run of luck forever. What would happen if the dome was destroyed in a collapse due to a major snow storm over say the Christmas holiday week one year? If the dome was not available for 4 or 5 months, where would the basketball team play? What would happen with the 20K season ticket holders who could not possibly have their tickets honored?

SU had to mitigate the risk. They had to implement a better solution to eliminate this doomsday scenario, just like Detroit, Minneapolis, Vancouver, Indianapolis all did over time, almost all with newer facilities than the Carrier Dome. The surprising thing is how long it took to address the situation.

 

[longtimefan]

Generally when you think of stadium renovations, you think of some expanded capacity, don't you?

No. The trend in new arenas and renovations is to go smaller and create more demand for tickets.

 

[Toga]

No. The trend in new arenas and renovations is to go smaller and create more demand for tickets.

Hell, I was in Hartford the day snow caved in the (hard fixed) roof of the Hartford Civic Center. We've been very lucky.

 

[CousCuse]

Sell the sports franchise to Crossfit . The Crossfit Center could become a multiuse facility for team and nonteam training as well as the place for Crossfit games.

Crossfit apparel could rival Under Armor and Nike and the University could have a stake in that with a naming/uniform deal . SU could be on equal footing with Oregon and Maryland , have some vision , this opportunity only comes once in a long time. There are no other domed facilities in the northeast , think of the potential .

 

[br801]

Generally when you think of stadium renovations, you think of some expanded capacity, don't you?

Not necessarily, particularly in recent times when many of the newer stadiums and arenas being built have less capacity than the ones they are replacing.

The idea is to provide an enhanced fan experience in a venue at or near capacity, and not to erect cavernous buildings that rarely sell out and usually have large expanses of empty seats.

 

[TheCusian]

Not necessarily, particularly in recent times when many of the newer stadiums and arenas being built have less capacity than the ones they are replacing.

Exactly. Attendance is down for a lot of sports, pro and college - due to a lot of things changing that are out of our control. Expanding seating would be foolish.

 

[Townie72]

Kind of funny to hear you play the "moral compass" card on behalf of a slash-and-burn corporation that shipped its jobs to Mehico, Townie. This was SU's first naming rights venture. The Dome's going away .. and the name "Carrier" means chit in CNY. It's not a good fit anymore .. and it's certainly not SU's fault.

"Slash and Burn corporation"?

Reed, not to be impolite, but do you have any concept whatsoever --- even a smidgen --- about how manufacturing works? Do you understand that these manufacturers are forced to relocate these facilities to stay in business?

And this doesn't have anything to do with the shape of the roof or whether Carrier manufactures anything in Onondaga County or any of that. And whether this is the first or last naming rights agreement doesn't matter.

This is about keeping one's word. This is about living up to the letter and the spirit of a contract.

Somehow this doesn't bother you, but a corporation attempting to stay in business is a "slash and burn" one?

 

[Townie72]

No. The trend in new arenas and renovations is to go smaller and create more demand for tickets.

You are right, longtimefan.

But you stopped short.

Create more demand for tickets and do what? Why would you want to restrict supply and increase demand for the seats you do have?

 

[Townie72]

No, you are wrong on this too.

Spending $20 million to replace the roof every 15 years is problematic but there are other issues. The material for the roof is becoming harder to get because there are almost no air supported domes around any longer.

Worse still is the track record of air supported domes. Virtually every one of them has had at least one disastrous collapse that led to the facility being unavailable for use for months. None are located in a area that gets the snowfall that Syracuse gets. SU has been extraordinarily fortunate that we haven't had a major collapse, where multiple pieces of fabric are ripped and need to be replaced. Pete Sala and his crew have done a great job but they can't continue this run of luck forever. What would happen if the dome was destroyed in a collapse due to a major snow storm over say the Christmas holiday week one year? If the dome was not available for 4 or 5 months, where would the basketball team play? What would happen with the 20K season ticket holders who could not possibly have their tickets honored?

SU had to mitigate the risk. They had to implement a better solution to eliminate this doomsday scenario, just like Detroit, Minneapolis, Vancouver, Indianapolis all did over time, almost all with newer facilities than the Carrier Dome. The surprising thing is how long it took to address the situation.

Well, let's see, the Dome has been open for 35 or so years without incident. And now the potential for a disaster is so great, so ominous, that they have to quick run out and spend $100M to prevent this disaster.

You sound very much like a Life Insurance salesperson.

So on one hand, we have the probability that there might be a collapse and on the other hand, we have $100M to change the roof (which could also collapse).

And if the roof did collapse, we could play basketball in Manley, a perfectly good facility that was designed for SU basketball to play in.

 

[Townie72]

The reason it was a question that the BoT pondered - was because it wasn't straight forward. Replacing the roof is costly and brings no added value - AND - it's status quo. It was an option. But that's ten more years of a facility that was already long in the tooth.

The forward thinking way would be to bring the facility up to date and solve the roof problem. Added amenities like wider concourses, better seating, etc - will help attendance, perception - and will help D1 sports remain viable and successful here for much longer.

Critical? No. The right thing for a member of a P5 conference (raking in conference money)? The right thing for a proud University with a proud history in competition? Yes.

Desperation? You're losing me. It's the job of the trustees to make sure we're ahead of the curve when it comes to making sure the buildings on campus are positioned for growth - not waiting until the things are crumbling.

If you don't like this project, I'd posit you might not be a fan of Syracuse sports.

You are on to something with that last comment.

As an alum (2x), I am both a fan of the sports programs and of the University itself. I want both to be successful. And I care a lot about the reputation and behavior of the University.

SU isn't only a sports program to me. How about you?

 

[Bayside44]

Well, let's see, the Dome has been open for 35 or so years without incident. And now the potential for a disaster is so great, so ominous, that they have to quick run out and spend $100M to prevent this disaster.

You sound very much like a Life Insurance salesperson.

So on one hand, we have the probability that there might be a collapse and on the other hand, we have $100M to change the roof (which could also collapse).

And if the roof did collapse, we could play basketball in Manley, a perfectly good facility that was designed for SU basketball to play in.