Carrier Dome naming rights article

[reedny]

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.

Well the article says that prices differ depending on the market. But I don't think $1M per year is far off (U of Washington's getting $4M per year; U Illinois $2+M, etc). Either way, current prices are a big clue as to how good a deal Carrier got initially - $78,000 per year.

As far as the whole "donation" concept (red), I beg to differ. Carrier is not a philanthropic entity and I don't see this as a "gift" to the University's endowment for educational purposes. Carrier's a for-profit corporation and they wanted the name for branding purposes. Nothing wrong with that, but they left a sour taste in many people's mouths when they closed up in Dewitt and moved the jobs to mexico. So absolutely, the "name" has meaning and corporate behavior has consequences.

As far as the legalities .. they are what they are. You and I agree on the issues .. perhaps not on how they'll be resolved. But let's just say I don't like Carrier's chances. And (personally) I don't really want their corporate name on the University's new facility. JMO.

 

[Townie72]

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.

Reed, it apears that in your head there are so many fantasies floating around that I am amazed.

Have you ever been to Mexico? Or are you depending on what you see on TV?

For the past few years I have spent Jan-Feb in Mexico (Yucatan) getting away from Winter in a house in a city, not in some tourist hotel. The country you describe isn't the one I have seen. It's a peaceful, friendly, sunny place. They have an upper, middle and lower class, although the great majority of the population are on the lower rungs. It's a mixture of 2nd world and 1st world. There is a problem with thievery, but not violent crime. I feel safer there than I do in SE DC. There are more police than you can shake a stick at. Instead of having people unemployed and on the dole they create jobs for them like police officers. (Using money from tourism and petroleum).

The food is excellent (not Tex-Mex) and fruit and vegetables are much, much fresher than what you will get in Wegman's.

I have also been through manufacturing facilities in Cuidad Juarez (Xerox and Eaton Corp.) Labor rates are much lower. They are super-clean, well-managed and produce quality products.

Border towns may be rougher and even unsafe. But guess why that is? (US demand for drugs?)

The illegals you see here in the US? few of them are from Mexico these days. They are much more likely to be Central and South Americans.

 

[Townie72]

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.

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

And you would know this how?

I may be. I would hope not. But that's a possibility.

But you saying so, doesn't make it true.

 

[reedny]

Reed, it apears that in your head there are so many fantasies floating around that I am amazed.

Have you ever been to Mexico? Or are you depending on what you see on TV?

For the past few years I have spent Jan-Feb in Mexico (Yucatan) getting away from Winter in a house in a city, not in some tourist hotel. The country you describe isn't the one I have seen. It's a peaceful, friendly, sunny place. They have an upper, middle and lower class, although the great majority of the population are on the lower rungs. It's a mixture of 2nd world and 1st world. There is a problem with thievery, but not violent crime. I feel safer there than I do in SE DC. There are more police than you can shake a stick at. Instead of having people unemployed and on the dole they create jobs for them like police officers. (Using money from tourism and petroleum).

The food is excellent (not Tex-Mex) and fruit and vegetables are much, much fresher than what you will get in Wegman's.

I have also been through manufacturing facilities in Cuidad Juarez (Xerox and Eaton Corp.) Labor rates are much lower. They are super-clean, well-managed and produce quality products.

Border towns may be rougher and even unsafe. But guess why that is? (US demand for drugs?)

The illegals you see here in the US? few of them are from Mexico these days. They are much more likely to be Central and South Americans.

No doubt you can find a few places that aren't violent. I'm sure there are nice beaches far away from the urban centers. Many of the cities are lawless hell holes and yes, I watch the news and wouldn't go there if you paid me. It's a third world country with a wage scale/standard of living and environmental regulations you'd expect (zip). The government is ineffectual on regulatory issues and doesn't have a prayer of enforcement against a big US corporation -- exactly why they're down there.

 

[DoubleDee]

Apologies if this has been mentioned before, hell I might have already mentioned...

as a naming gift, people feel it shouldn't be renamed. But why couldn't we sell naming rights to someone still and keep the carrier gift rights in tact?
Examples:
The Wegmans Carrier Dome
The Empower Federal Credit Union Carrier Dome.
Etc etc.

??

 

[Orijinal]

Townie, you have GOT to be Carrier's CEO, right?

Give up your naming rights deal and bring back our jobs!

 

[TheCusian]

You wrote: "I think you're probably on a very lonely island here on this board - but among alumni as well." And you would know this how? I may be. I would hope not. But that's a possibility. But you saying so, doesn't make it true.

The board has been that way already - not a lot of support for your position.

I included "I think" because I don't know for sure. Call it an educated guess. I don't have the means or desire to poll alumni. And I'd guess the university won't either.

 

[Townie72]

No doubt you can find a few places that aren't violent. I'm sure there are nice beaches far away from the urban centers. Many of the cities are lawless hell holes and yes, I watch the news and wouldn't go there if you paid me. It's a third world country with a wage scale/standard of living and environmental regulations you'd expect (zip). The government is ineffectual on regulatory issues and doesn't have a prayer of enforcement against a big US corporation -- exactly why they're down there.

A word of advice.

Don't believe what you see on TV news on in the movies. It's sensationalized and even based on fiction designed to draw viewers and sell ads.

I chuckle to think about the Texan's view of New York and New York City I have heard. To them its a horrible place unfit for human habitation. Lawless and godless people. If NY were to be separated from the US and float out into the Atlantic, they would believe sincerely that it was for the good and that the nation would be better off because of it.

Have they ever been to NY? No. Do they know the difference between NYC and any other place? Nope. Do they know any NY'ers? Nope.

I once told a Texan that Texas and Upstate, NY were actually pretty similar with small towns in counties and agriculture. And that the people were pretty similar both exhibiting a degree of stoicism, and an interest in outdoor sports like fishing and hunting, high school and college sports.

They were incredulous. I had no hope of cutting through layers and layers of TV drama and news reports.

 

[dollarbill44]

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.

I think you're making some gross generalizations about Mexico that are unfair and incorrect. It's about as accurate as the foreign view that Americans are all loud, obese, gun-toting sycophants.
Mexico is in the midst of an economic boom that is drawing hundreds of billions of dollars from foreign investors.

 

[dollarbill44]

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.

If Carrier did in fact donate out of the goodness of their heart, they wouldn't care what the building is named. I don't believe it to be true, however.
The threat of filing a lawsuit may serve purely as a way to get Carrier to negotiate a buy-out in earnest. Without that threat, they can basically hold out for whatever price they want, knowing that they basically are getting a massive amount of free marketing as long as the Carrier name is on the building.

 

[rocklloyd]

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

And you would know this how?

I may be. I would hope not. But that's a possibility.

But you saying so, doesn't make it true.

You are not on a lonely island. I get tired of responding to people who have no idea what they are talking about. So I've stopped and now just read and laugh.

 

[kirbivore]

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.

This sounds hilarious coming from the biggest BC fan on the board.

 

[kirbivore]

Townie, you have GOT to be Carrier's CEO, right?

Give up your naming rights deal and bring back our jobs!

 

[Toga]

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

 

[Antiprodigy]

Townie,

You stated about 5 pages ago on this thread, that you, yourself think an agreement will be reached between Carrier & the University. Why are you carrying on this discussion? Just to stir people up?

Also, since you have such a great concern about the ethical side of this argument, do you see it as unethical for the University to sit down with Carrier and ask them what it would take to give up their naming rights? As I said above, this is what you stated that you expected will happen, it seems that your continued argument must then be that you think it is unethical.

And if that is your viewpoint, then I have to say that you are clearly and truly wrong. If two parties enter into an agreement, as long as nothing illegal occurs, there is nothing wrong with the two parties sitting down to discuss the agreement, and then deciding to make changes to it.

So which is it? Are you just trying to stir people up? Or do you really think that once an agreement is made, it can never be changed? Shed some light on your motive for a continuation of this discussion?

 

[Townie72]

This sounds hilarious coming from the biggest BC fan on the board.

I have been known to defend BC, sure.

I have never understood how their leaving the BE is any different from anyone else leaving. Certainly SU had their bags packed in 2003. And we eventually did leave. Ask SJU and Georgetown fans how they feel about that.

One would think that anyone so sensitive to BC's mythical transgressions would so easily fall behind this scuzzy suggestion that SU skirt the terms of an agreement to garner some short term cash.

 

[Townie72]

Townie,

You stated about 5 pages ago on this thread, that you, yourself think an agreement will be reached between Carrier & the University. Why are you carrying on this discussion? Just to stir people up?

Also, since you have such a great concern about the ethical side of this argument, do you see it as unethical for the University to sit down with Carrier and ask them what it would take to give up their naming rights? As I said above, this is what you stated that you expected will happen, it seems that your continued argument must then be that you think it is unethical.

And if that is your viewpoint, then I have to say that you are clearly and truly wrong. If two parties enter into an agreement, as long as nothing illegal occurs, there is nothing wrong with the two parties sitting down to discuss the agreement, and then deciding to make changes to it.

So which is it? Are you just trying to stir people up? Or do you really think that once an agreement is made, it can never be changed? Shed some light on your motive for a continuation of this discussion?

I'm fine with what you said. No harm in talking to Carrier and working out an agreement. I'm all for that.

And of course I am trying to stir things up. That's what discussions are all about. Unlike some, I am not worried about conflict. I actually like it.

But at the same time I am offended by some of the suggestions on here. And the anti-Corporation emotions/mind-sets that underlie them.

I spent a career in large corporations, and I can remember no efforts to pollute the environment, screw the customers or -over the employees. We were far to busy trying to make products that customers wanted and build them and deliver them and service them.

 

[TheCusian]

I'm fine with what you said. No harm in talking to Carrier and working out an agreement. I'm all for that. And of course I am trying to stir things up. That's what discussions are all about. Unlike some, I am not worried about conflict. I actually like it. But at the same time I am offended by some of the suggestions on here. And the anti-Corporation emotions/mind-sets that underlie them. I spent a career in large corporations, and I can remember no efforts to pollute the environment, screw the customers or -over the employees. We were far to busy trying to make products that customers wanted and build them and deliver them and service them.

Then we basically agree. Thanks.


OT:
Just because you don't remember, doesn't mean there are no bad actors or that a mistrust is misplaced. Lots of bad things get done to maximize profit. Greed is greed. But I don't doubt that some corporations are playing by the rules and doing what's right.

Similar to people who rail against government as evil. Some are incompetent, some are selfish, and some actually believe that what they are doing is public service and making a difference.

 

[kirbivore]

I have been known to defend BC, sure.

I have never understood how their leaving the BE is any different from anyone else leaving. Certainly SU had their bags packed in 2003. And we eventually did leave. Ask SJU and Georgetown fans how they feel about that.

One would think that anyone so sensitive to BC's mythical transgressions would so easily fall behind this scuzzy suggestion that SU skirt the terms of an agreement to garner some short term cash.

I don't care about the naming rights. I just wanted to call you a BC fan. Also Jake never promised to remain in the Big East while talking with the ACC. I blame Jake's reluctance for not getting the job done in 2003. BC was sleazy but I'll give them credit for getting the job done.

 

[pfister1]

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

Put a winning team on the field and you'll have your enjoyable fan experience. The basketball team draws well. The football program would too if they even resembled a competitive team.