Carrier Dome naming rights article

[Toga]

Outside the box

 

[Cheriehoop]

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

It's not maintenance, it is renovation and improvement, changing the basic value of your home from what it was.

 

[reedny]

"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?

My sympathy level for Carrier is "zero point zero". Maybe those poor corporate executives you're apologizing for should have kept THEIR word to the company's American employees. As far as "manufacturing", I sincerely doubt there was a labor cost-structure crisis. I'm more inclined to believe that carrier exec's wanted bigger bonuses and more perks. I'm sure their CEO and management are pulling down tens (if not hundreds) of millions. They're the world's largest HVAC manufacturer, not some small business struggling in upstate NY. I'm not the only one who thinks this is a story about corporate greed ... even Donald Trump (as limited as he is) has identified Carrier as an example of corporate outsourcing and exploitation.

So the more pertinent survival question is: How do you think the families of the laid off workers are "surviving" after Carrier turned its back on them and left the area?

As far as the rights themselves, frankly I no longer want the name "Carrier" on SU's new arena. Under the old contract, the company has more than made bank on a paltry investment. Now the Dome's going away .. along with Carrier's jobs, its reputation in CNY and hopefully its name.

 

[OttoMets]

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.

I agree that the characterization of the Dome roof as a disaster waiting to happen (made by certain people at SU, too) is overblown. They've got a building with obsolete technology that's kind of expensive to maintain, will be at the end of its lifespan in a decade, and they're using this as a reason to keep up with the Joneses as our stadium looks more dated with every passing season. These are not upgrades needed to ward off a structural catastrophe, they're renovations to maximize revenue and give fans a more modern experience (read: take more money from them).

But no one's playing in Manley anytime soon.

 

[OttoMets]

It's not maintenance, it is renovation and improvement, changing the basic value of your home from what it was.

But changing the value doesn't change what it inherently is: the same house.

This is an interesting philosophical question, but kind of an easy one. Townie's not wrong on this one.

It's all academic, and it's presumptuous for all of us to speculate too much on this without (I'm guessing) knowing anything about the original gift agreement or any negotiations that have taken place since then.

But a renovated building is the same building. This renovated Dome would, from a legal standpoint, surely be considered the same building is was before the renovations.

Houston came off very badly in that renaming flap and lawsuit; it'd be a shame for SU to do the same. Everyone here would like SU to have the best possible renovation of the Dome, but I think it's silly for us to make these tortured arguments about how SU would be on ethically firm ground if a) Dome renovations take place roughly as proposed, b) Carrier wants its gift to stand, and c) SU seeks to renege on the gift agreement without buying out Carrier. That'd be ugly and wrong. We'd still have the nice new stadium; Carrier would still be the profit-seeking, union-busting corporation that some love to hate; and SU would (maybe...but I'm not seeing it) get some revenue from a new naming sponsor (in a term-agreement, not gift, form).

Anyway, it's all speculative.

 

[reedny]

But changing the value doesn't change what it inherently is: the same house.

This is an interesting philosophical question, but kind of an easy one. Townie's not wrong on this one.

It's all academic, and it's presumptuous for all of us to speculate too much on this without (I'm guessing) knowing anything about the original gift agreement or any negotiations that have taken place since then.

But a renovated building is the same building. This renovated Dome would, from a legal standpoint, surely be considered the same building is was before the renovations.

Houston came off very badly in that renaming flap and lawsuit; it'd be a shame for SU to do the same. Everyone here would like SU to have the best possible renovation of the Dome, but I think it's silly for us to make these tortured arguments about how SU would be on ethically firm ground if a) Dome renovations take place roughly as proposed, b) Carrier wants its gift to stand, and c) SU seeks to renege on the gift agreement without buying out Carrier. That'd be ugly and wrong. We'd still have the nice new stadium; Carrier would still be the profit-seeking, union-busting corporation that some love to hate; and SU would (maybe...but I'm not seeing it) get some revenue from a new naming sponsor (in a term-agreement, not gift, form).

Anyway, it's all speculative.

It's speculative, but if the renovations are as extensive as currently indicated, this isn't just new carpeting. The re-do is going to cost 9 times what the original building cost. The "Dome" itself .. the quintessential feature on which the corporate rights were based ... is being removed. Extensive structural work -- new work -- is planned, including pillars, modifications to the height of all the outer walls, clarestory windows, additions on both the East and West sides. There will still be a field, and some parts of the walls will remain. But the facility's going to be a new place, I hope with a new name. The company scored big on the rights 35 years ago for a (comparatively paltry investment). Now it (and the jobs) are history. We need a new sponsor for our new facility who's more committed to the area and the U.

 

[Toga]

It's speculative, but if the renovations are as extensive as currently indicated, this isn't just new carpeting. The re-do is going to cost 9 times what the original building cost. The "Dome" itself .. the quintessential feature on which the corporate rights were based ... is being removed. Extensive structural work -- new work -- is planned, including pillars, modifications to the height of all the outer walls, clarestory windows, additions on both the East and West sides. There will still be a field, and some parts of the walls will remain. But the facility's going to be a new place, I hope with a new name. The company scored big on the rights 35 years ago for a (comparatively paltry investment). Now it (and the jobs) are history. We need a new sponsor for our new facility who's more committed to the area and the U.

Kinda like replacing Keith Richards with Bruno Mars.

 

[Townie72]

My sympathy level for Carrier is "zero point zero". Maybe those poor corporate executives you're apologizing for should have kept THEIR word to the company's American employees. As far as "manufacturing", I sincerely doubt there was a labor cost-structure crisis. I'm more inclined to believe that carrier exec's wanted bigger bonuses and more perks. I'm sure their CEO and management are pulling down tens (if not hundreds) of millions. They're the world's largest HVAC manufacturer, not some small business struggling in upstate NY. I'm not the only one who thinks this is a story about corporate greed ... even Donald Trump (as limited as he is) has identified Carrier as an example of corporate outsourcing and exploitation.

So the more pertinent survival question is: How do you think the families of the laid off workers are "surviving" after Carrier turned its back on them and left the area?

As far as the rights themselves, frankly I no longer want the name "Carrier" on SU's new arena. Under the old contract, the company has more than made bank on a paltry investment. Now the Dome's going away .. along with Carrier's jobs, its reputation in CNY and hopefully its name.

Text book anti-corporation, greedy capitalist pap, if you ask me.

All these corporations fled NYS for the same reason. Taxes too high. Wage scales too high. Too many Unions and too many work rules. Too many regulations. Greedy governments and unions, I think. They killed the goose that laid the golden egg and now they are trying to shift the blame.

Nobody is guaranteed a job for life, unless they work (if you can call it that) for the Government.

Hollywood has convinced many that corporations are the problem. And those who buy into this drive around in cars, use appliances, take pharmaceuticals, etc. etc that were produced by these so-called evil, greedy corporations.

 

[Townie72]

I agree that the characterization of the Dome roof as a disaster waiting to happen (made by certain people at SU, too) is overblown. They've got a building with obsolete technology that's kind of expensive to maintain, will be at the end of its lifespan in a decade, and they're using this as a reason to keep up with the Joneses as our stadium looks more dated with every passing season. These are not upgrades needed to ward off a structural catastrophe, they're renovations to maximize revenue and give fans a more modern experience (read: take more money from them).

But no one's playing in Manley anytime soon.

Oh yeah, well if an asteroid crashed into the Dome, then they'd have to play at Manley. Or a tornado.

 

[Townie72]

Sorry, Townie. Nothing personal .. but that's pretty much how I feel (no sympathy). I'd rather live in a state that had proper regulations and a decent wages, than georgia or mississippi (or worse, Mehico) where companies can get away with paying their workers chit and dumping their toxic waste in the nearest river.

I'd be very happy to have a new name on SU's stadium that values CNY.

I worked for a corporation that had manufacturing facilities all through the Carolinas.

They were clean, well-managed and workers were paid a fair wage. I can assure you that the quality of life is at least as good as New York State. Are you aware of how many of these people there left NY to move South for the Quality of Life?

And no one is dumping toxic waste in rivers. You are operating in a dream world that doesn't exist. it's a Hollywood-developed myth.

There are some areas where industry did pollute lakes and rivers. Like Onondaga lake, for example. Or lots of streams in the Midwest. But bass live in these Southern Rivers and they cannot live in polluted waters.

 

[reedny]

I worked for a corporation that had manufacturing facilities all through the Carolinas.

They were clean, well-managed and workers were paid a fair wage. I can assure you that the quality of life is at least as good as New York State. Are you aware of how many of these people there left NY to move South for the Quality of Life?

And no one is dumping toxic waste in rivers. You are operating in a dream world that doesn't exist. it's a Hollywood-developed myth.

There are some areas where industry did pollute lakes and rivers. Like Onondaga lake, for example. Or lots of streams in the Midwest. But bass live in these Southern Rivers and they cannot live in polluted waters.

But Carrier didn't move to Raleigh/Durham, Townie. They moved the operation to Mexico ... it's a third world country with virtually no decent labor standards or (enforceable) environmental controls. There's so much violence, drugs and gangs that it's basically a failed state in many areas. And you want THAT name on SU's new arena?

Sorry, no thank you.

 

[orangefog]

Oh yeah, well if an asteroid crashed into the Dome, then they'd have to play at Manley. Or a tornado.

I don't think they could play in a tornado, but sounds pretty cool.

 

[Consigliere]

I think this whole debate is a bit premature. If the Carrier Dome were razed and a new facility built on the same site no one would have an issue with reopening naming rights. If the decision was made to simply replace the existing roof with no other major changes I don't think anyone would ethically support reopening naming rights. Fact of the matter is that the eventual solution will be somewhere between these two points on the spectrum and as of now we're not sure where it will land - minor renovation, major renovation or a de facto new facility built leveraging some portion of the existing structure.

As to capacity, I'm fine with maintaining or even slightly reducing current capacity but there should be some scalability in design to accommodate expansion if the football program takes off. Tough to do with a fixed roof, but capacity or near capacity crowds were not uncommon during the late 80's to mid 90's period when we had a Top 25 caliber team year in and year out. It is not unreasonable to think Coach Babers and the new administration can rise to those levels again. If capacity (supply) is capped long term and demand increases there will be no alternative but to raise prices and have the average fan bear the burden of any success.

Finally there is a lot of merit on both sides of the argument. The concept and value of naming rights was largely an unknown in the late 70's The market has changed. I'm not sure what exactly the contract with Carrier states, but a fundamental change in the market can be a legal tactic to reopen it. And the reputation of Carrier Corporation has certainly suffered due to offshoring both locally and nationally but economically it is not only a right, but a duty to its shareholders for UTC to react to an increasingly global market. Thus the political debates that are ongoing regarding protectionist tactics and isolationism that I won't get into here.

 

[OttoMets]

It's speculative, but if the renovations are as extensive as currently indicated, this isn't just new carpeting. The re-do is going to cost 9 times what the original building cost. The "Dome" itself .. the quintessential feature on which the corporate rights were based ... is being removed. Extensive structural work -- new work -- is planned, including pillars, modifications to the height of all the outer walls, clarestory windows, additions on both the East and West sides. There will still be a field, and some parts of the walls will remain. But the facility's going to be a new place, I hope with a new name. The company scored big on the rights 35 years ago for a (comparatively paltry investment). Now it (and the jobs) are history. We need a new sponsor for our new facility who's more committed to the area and the U.

A few thoughts:

Manley's 1978 and 2009 renovations (to say nothing of all the mechanicals they've upgraded, new track, new hardwood, several additions) cost way more than 9 times the 1962 construction cost. One could say the same for many old buildings on campus. Should George Manley's name be removed for the highest bidder? Would anyone argue that the field house is a 'different building' than it used to be?

I disagree that Carrier 'scored.' And I don't think 'rights' is even the correct word choice here. This was a naming gift, a philanthropic gesture, not a quid pro quo. It's been mentioned a number of times in previous threads, but this is common in naming academic buildings and shouldn't be treated differently (because it's not different in any substantive way).

Not that it's relevant to this discussion, but a point of accuracy: Carrier's still got a presence in Central New York, a presence that employs thousands (and probably supports that many households). I think the 'Carrier wronged CNY meme' is a little tired, whether or not we agree with outsourcing (and I'm with you on that one).

And that leads into the last point, without getting into an argument about who's committed to CNY and to what degree. There aren't many (if any) corporate sponsors who'd make it worth the university's while to put their name on a stadium. That sort of corporate largesse (sadly, the sort demonstrated by Carrier in 1979 that's being underappreciated right now) doesn't exist to that extent in this community anymore.

 

[OttoMets]

Oh yeah, well if an asteroid crashed into the Dome, then they'd have to play at Manley. Or a tornado.

Won't let us hijack the thread beyond this, but no, no way. They're not playing in the building with the turf floor and no wiring and no concessions and one lobby bathroom under any circumstance. If somehow the War Memorial, LeMoyne, and OCC were all unavailable, they'd lay a floor down and play in the Skytop hockey rink before they'd try to play a game in Manley in its current state.

 

[TheCusian]

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?

Don't think you read my comments very carefully.

I am an alumni, class of 2002. And I care deeply about both. And I'd be upset if there was a legal way to get out of a 30 year old agreement and we didn't explore it.

If it's in the hands of lawyers and it's deemed that enough has changed about the building, or the contract has a section that doesn't include terms for a renovation, etc - then I won't shed a tear for Carrier.

I think you're probably on a very lonely island here on this board - but among alumni as well.

 

[TheCusian]

Text book anti-corporation, greedy capitalist pap, if you ask me. All these corporations fled NYS for the same reason. Taxes too high. Wage scales too high. Too many Unions and too many work rules. Too many regulations. Greedy governments and unions, I think. They killed the goose that laid the golden egg and now they are trying to shift the blame. Nobody is guaranteed a job for life, unless they work (if you can call it that) for the Government. Hollywood has convinced many that corporations are the problem. And those who buy into this drive around in cars, use appliances, take pharmaceuticals, etc. etc that were produced by these so-called evil, greedy corporations.

So off topic. But yeah - I've decided to live an Amish-like lifestyle in boycotting all things produced by corporations.

How people feel about Carrier is more important than this political argument, NAFTA, etc. It's not a company that the locals are shedding a tear over nor is it one that the University will take heat over fighting something so small as naming rights.

 

[reedny]

A few thoughts:

Manley's 1978 and 2009 renovations (to say nothing of all the mechanicals they've upgraded, new track, new hardwood, several additions) cost way more than 9 times the 1962 construction cost. One could say the same for many old buildings on campus. Should George Manley's name be removed for the highest bidder? Would anyone argue that the field house is a 'different building' than it used to be?

I disagree that Carrier 'scored.' And I don't think 'rights' is even the correct word choice here. This was a naming gift, a philanthropic gesture, not a quid pro quo. It's been mentioned a number of times in previous threads, but this is common in naming academic buildings and shouldn't be treated differently (because it's not different in any substantive way).

Not that it's relevant to this discussion, but a point of accuracy: Carrier's still got a presence in Central New York, a presence that employs thousands (and probably supports that many households). I think the 'Carrier wronged CNY meme' is a little tired, whether or not we agree with outsourcing (and I'm with you on that one).

And that leads into the last point, without getting into an argument about who's committed to CNY and to what degree. There aren't many (if any) corporate sponsors who'd make it worth the university's while to put their name on a stadium. That sort of corporate largesse (sadly, the sort demonstrated by Carrier in 1979 that's being underappreciated right now) doesn't exist to that extent in this community anymore.

The rights deal was inked 35 years ago, a point in time (as you point out) where college naming rights were not as common. No doubt carrier made out, although I'm not criticizing them for contributing. It's just a new day.

The corporate outsourcing issue is relevant b/c there's some doubt that people still want Carrier's name on the facility (the Mexico stunt didn't go over very well). Even if they did, what are the rights worth and will an essentially new stadium (with no Dome) allow SU to get out of the old deal? My inclination is that they will be let out of the contract. Even if the same "Dome" existed (which it arguably won't), Courts abhor "perpetual" contracts.

I think the Yum (Dumb?) arena went for $13.5M a few years ago, and that's only for basketball (not FB, a bigger crowd). Some estimates are that the ANNUAL naming rights are $1M: Carrier Dome renovation: Can Syracuse University correct $1 million mistake?

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Donald is going to get our Dome back and Mexico is gona pay for it!

 

[Consigliere]

Donald is going to get our Dome back and Mexico is gona pay for it!

Careful. I posted the same thing in another thread as a joke and am still carrying the scars! :bat:

 

[Bayside44]

This was 35 years ago, a point in time (as you point out) where college naming rights were not as common. That was then and this is now.

Apart from all the corporate outsourcing issue (the Mexico stunt didn't go over very well), the issues are: what are the rights worth now and will an essentially new stadium (with no Dome) allow SU to get out of the old deal. Even if the same "Dome" existed (which it arguably won't), Courts abhore "perpetual" contracts.

I think the Yum (Dumb?) arena went for $13.5M a few years ago, and that's only for basketball (not FB, a bigger crowd). Some estimates are that the ANNUAL naming rights are $1M: Carrier Dome renovation: Can Syracuse University correct $1 million mistake?

Here's how Carrier let all the CNY workers know their jobs were gone:

This was in Indiana.

 

[reedny]

This was in Indiana.

Yep... I took it down. But it certainly gives a flavor, doesn't it.

 

[Bayside44]

Yep... I took it down. But it certainly gives a flavor, doesn't it.

Yeah but it has nothing to do with how different our sports stadium (see what I did there ) will be.

 

[sutomcat]

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.

You again do not know what you are talking about.

The roof of the Carrier Dome has been deflated a number of times to prevent a catastrophic failure during severe snow storms. There have been a number of near misses. The inherent long term problems with air supported domes have been discussed on this board in the past. I urge you to use the search function there or just google the topic and educate yourself.

Basketball cannot be played at Manley. Capacity is about 800. The movable stands were removed by Dr Gross years ago to make it a football practice facility. Even if basketball games could be played there, what do you do with the 11K of season ticket holders who no longer have seats to games? What do you do with the thousands of tickets already bought by non season ticket holders? Where do you play lacrosse games (men and women)? Where do you hold graduation ceremonies? Where do you hold scheduled events like Monster Trucks and concerts?

Mitigating real risk isn't a bunch of baloney raised by a blowhard salesperson. This is a real problem for SU and to their credit, they have confronted it and are dealing with it.

 

[OttoMets]

The rights deal was inked 35 years ago, a point in time (as you point out) where college naming rights were not as common. No doubt carrier made out, although I'm not criticizing them for contributing. It's just a new day.

The corporate outsourcing issue is relevant b/c there's some doubt that people still want Carrier's name on the facility (the Mexico stunt didn't go over very well). Even if they did, what are the rights worth and will an essentially new stadium (with no Dome) allow SU to get out of the old deal? My inclination is that they will be let out of the contract. Even if the same "Dome" existed (which it arguably won't), Courts abhor "perpetual" contracts.

I think the Yum (Dumb?) arena went for $13.5M a few years ago, and that's only for basketball (not FB, a bigger crowd). Some estimates are that the ANNUAL naming rights are $1M: Carrier Dome renovation: Can Syracuse University correct $1 million mistake?

But those weren't real estimates - they were off-the-cuff remarks made to a Syracuse.com writer by a couple people who have no knowledge of the particulars of the situation. Louisville's a fairly large city with a number of Fortune 500 companies and a corporate culture. No such thing here anymore.

Courts' treatment of perpetual contracts and their stance on gifts are two distinct things (and popular sentiment can't drive university decisions like this). Just because Carrier's a corporate entity doesn't make the arrangement any different than that with Carnegie or Newhouse.