Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Antiprodigy, post: 1791690, member: 582"]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?