Development in and Around Syracuse Discussion

[TexanMark]

It would be nice if Carrier came home.

 

[orange79]

United Technologies breaks up, making Carrier Corp. independent company

United Technologies, the parent company of Carrier Corp., is breaking up into three companies, making Carrier an independent entity.

United Technologies made the announcement Monday in tandem with the announcement that it has acquired aviation electronics maker Rockwell Collins.

The breakup will results in three companies:

• United Technologies, comprised of Collins Aerospace Systems and Pratt & Whitney;
• Otis, the world's leading manufacturer of elevators, escalators and moving walkways; and
• Carrier, a global provider of HVAC, refrigeration and other products.

Before the multitude of "Does this make it easier to get out of the naming rights deal?" posts start, remember this:

• Carrier was acquired by UTC in 1979
• Ground was broken for the Dome in 1978

The deal to grant naming rights in perpetuity happened well before the acquisition, which did not effect it. There is no reason to believe this divestiture will have any substantive effect on the deal.

Obviously, any lawyers here can chime in, but I don't believe this will effect the effort (if such an effort exists ) to get out of the deal in any major way.

 

[xc84]

Before the multitude of "Does this make it easier to get out of the naming rights deal?" posts start, remember this:

• Carrier was acquired by UTC in 1979
• Ground was broken for the Dome in 1978

The deal to grant naming rights in perpetuity happened well before the acquisition, which did not effect it. There is no reason to believe this divestiture will have any substantive effect on the deal.

Obviously, any lawyers here can chime in, but I don't believe this will effect the effort (if such an effort exists ) to get out of the deal in any major way.

The donation from Carrier was made in February 1979. Carrier was acquired by UTC in July that same year.

I agree it has no effect on the name of the dome either way.

 

[orange79]

The donation from Carrier was made in February 1979. Carrier was acquired by UTC in July that same year.

I agree it has no effect on the name of the dome either way.

Exactly my point. Ground would not have been broken unless the framework was in place for the deal.

 

[Jake]

The only potential impact this could have is that by separating the companies, it’s possible that it might weaken Carrier’s financial position...therefore making them less willing to put up a fight.

But I have no idea if that’s the case or not, just me spitballing.

 

[SmilinBob]

Would Snapple be a possible sponsor for a new Dome?

 

[xc84]

Exactly my point. Ground would not have been broken unless the framework was in place for the deal.

Possibly. The gift allowed for minimal debt but Jake did say he thought it could have been done without the gift...just with unwanted added debt.

A lot of people confuse this donation with naming rights. It was not a naming rights deal but a one-time gift.

 

[richmondcuse03]

The only potential impact this could have is that by separating the companies, it’s possible that it might weaken Carrier’s financial position...therefore making them less willing to put up a fight.

But I have no idea if that’s the case or not, just me spitballing.

Carrier on its own is a pretty large entity -- if they want to fight it, they'll still be able to. I personally think it's foolish for them to fight it because there could be a lot of bad PR for them in doing so given how much they've abandoned the area and the U.S. as a whole. But they'd probably have to determine what the value of the name is in terms of marketing spend per year vs. what the fallout from a little bad PR is. How many average Americans choose their own HVAC brand anyways?

 

[IthacaMatt]

It would be nice if Carrier came home.

The majority of the site has been leveled. They ain't coming back.

 

[xc84]

Carrier on its own is a pretty large entity -- if they want to fight it, they'll still be able to. I personally think it's foolish for them to fight it because there could be a lot of bad PR for them in doing so given how much they've abandoned the area and the U.S. as a whole. But they'd probably have to determine what the value of the name is in terms of marketing spend per year vs. what the fallout from a little bad PR is. How many average Americans choose their own HVAC brand anyways?

I don't know about the PR. Carrier has an asset they paid for. It has a value. I don't see why it is bad PR to protect their asset...whether or not they viewed it as an asset in the beginning. It is worth many millions now which is why SU wants to sell naming rights. If SU does not have a solid case, they won't fight Carrier.

I still think SU may be making a case that the reno will make it a different building... different than the one Carrier donated to and therefore the Carrier Dome is no more and the new building can have a new name.

I think it will be interesting to see what happens with the name.

PS: I chose my HVAC brand when I replaced my furnace/AC.

 

[Rocco]

Exactly my point. Ground would not have been broken unless the framework was in place for the deal.

What was the amount of the donation? I know it's insanely cheap for the amount of exposure they've gotten.

 

[xc84]

What was the amount of the donation? I know it's insanely cheap for the amount of exposure they've gotten.

$2.75M but hindsight is 20/20. Back then there was no one saying it was cheap. Most thought it was a great deal for SU.

 

[orangecuse]

Possibly. The gift allowed for minimal debt but Jake did say he thought it could have been done without the gift...just with unwanted added debt.

A lot of people confuse this donation with naming rights. It was not a naming rights deal but a one-time gift.

You're correct. There was no such thing as "naming rights" back when this was done. It was 100% a "gift." No body back then, or for sometime afterwards called in naming rights. It has evolved to be believed by some as one in the same, but it's not synonymous. It's convenient though for Carrier to make this argument now (if they are doing so) for obvious financial self interests.

In the end, it'll come down to "intent" as that will be the biggest factor if this were to go to court/trial and for a judge to rule. The intent of this Carrier donation was a gift donation, not naming rights as it's known it today, it did not exist back then and wasn't the "spirit of the agreement."

 

[HtownOrange]

Don't be surprised if the Dome is still the Carrier Dome when all is said and done. Don't be surprised if Carrier installs the new AC free of charge, either. The deal is probably already in the works. SU has a history of long relationships and doing "the right thing" by all parties.

Why would SU change its character now? For a few million dollars in the short term? Something that can actually cost millions more in the long term. (remember that SU is a multi billion dollar industry!, a few million dollars will not harm the university, especially with a longer payoff down the road) SU is more likely to stay the course, work the deal behind the scenes and reveal the full details in their time.

 

[721Comstock]

Don't be surprised if the Dome is still the Carrier Dome when all is said and done. Don't be surprised if Carrier installs the new AC free of charge, either. The deal is probably already in the works. SU has a history of long relationships and doing "the right thing" by all parties.

Why would SU change its character now? For a few million dollars in the short term? Something that can actually cost millions more in the long term. (remember that SU is a multi billion dollar industry!, a few million dollars will not harm the university, especially with a longer payoff down the road) SU is more likely to stay the course, work the deal behind the scenes and reveal the full details in their time.

There’s nearly a zero % chance this is correct.

It’s not just “a few million dollars”.
It could be a million or more dollars per year, every year, forever.

It’s not a coincidence that the word “Carrier” has been conspicuously absent from any and all communications regarding the Dome reno project, from the start.

 

[CuseOnly]

There’s nearly a zero % chance this is correct.

It’s not just “a few million dollars”.
It could be a million or more dollars per year, every year, forever.

It’s not a coincidence that the word “Carrier” has been conspicuously absent from any and all communications regarding the Dome reno project, from the start.

I agree, it is an iconic building and I would bet it is more.

 

[HtownOrange]

There’s nearly a zero % chance this is correct.

It’s not just “a few million dollars”.
It could be a million or more dollars per year, every year, forever.

It’s not a coincidence that the word “Carrier” has been conspicuously absent from any and all communications regarding the Dome reno project, from the start.

I respectfully disagree. You are looking at one revenue stream, like most people look at the alleged B1G payouts. The number is smoke and mirrors, no one discusses the fact that the B1G revenue is inflated by shared gate receipts. Likewise, naming rights are smoke and mirrors. Yes, there is a cash payout, but there are other obligations that cost the university money.

Furthermore, you claim there is nearly zero chance that I may be correct. Yet, the university has a history of planning very well and controlling spending. They have announced the building will have AC, they have a plan. Yes, they could go with another manufacturer. But as much as the name change would hurt Carrier, it would also hurt SU. Goodwill has an intrinsic value that is not readily measured by dollars.

Carrier is less likely to give up the name on the Dome without making an offer of something. Recall that when the Dome was originally built, Carrier offered to install AC for free. Payments may be in kind; SU has a few buildings with AC units. All in all, there is probably a much deeper relationship than you and I know.

You allege that "Carrier" has been conspicuously absent from any and all communications regarding the Dome reno project, from the start. However, this is not as accurate as you may think:

Carrier Dome Home - Carrier Dome - Syracuse University The logo stating Carrier Dome in on the home page, let alone in the name of the website.

University Takes Next Step on Campus Framework, Including West Campus Project This article identifies the Dome as the Carrier Dome, it focuses on the plans for West Campus.

Dome Locker Room Complex Makeover to Improve Student-Athlete Experience - Syracuse University Athletics This article is about the locker room renovation, yet it mentions the Carrier Dome.

There are many references to the Carrier Dome outside of the SU websites, too many to reproduce here. The fact that people refer to the Carrier Dome is as the "Dome" is meaningless. Dome is a shortening in of the official name - a nickname, like referring to Syracuse University as Syracuse, Cuse, SU.

Anyway, it is not worth fighting over too much as neither of us are decision makers in this process and if we were, neither of us would be able to reveal anything.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

The majority of the site has been leveled. They ain't coming back.

No company in it's right mind would willingly relocate to NY

 

[JOC44]

A couple of thoughts.

1. If you ask a lawyer for advice on a contract dispute and he doesn't want to see the contract before advising you, get a different lawyer. The point is, any opinions on SU's ability to unilaterally rename the "new" building offered by people who haven't seen the relevant contracts is not worthy of your reliance.

2. When a building has a name from the start for a number of years, the value of its naming rights go down considerably because a new company legitimately can doubt whether a new name will take hold in the public consciousness. When the Washington Nationals didn't find a naming partner right away for its new stadium, the value of naming rights went down because the public is now used to calling the park "Nats Park." When Arsenal Football Club's stadium naming rights deal with Emirates Airlines was ending, the naming rights were more valuable to Emirates Airlines than to other potential bidders for the same reason. So if SU tries to sell the naming rights, XYZ Corporation is going to wonder whether people will still refer to the facility as the Carrier Dome or just The Dome.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Archbold Gym was built in 1908 with money donated by John D. Archbold.

Since it's being gutted and totally renovated, is it fair game for SU to sell the naming rights to a new sponsor?

 

[orangecuse]

A couple of thoughts.

1. If you ask a lawyer for advice on a contract dispute and he doesn't want to see the contract before advising you, get a different lawyer. The point is, any opinions on SU's ability to unilaterally rename the "new" building offered by people who haven't seen the relevant contracts is not worthy of your reliance.

2. When a building has a name from the start for a number of years, the value of its naming rights go down considerably because a new company legitimately can doubt whether a new name will take hold in the public consciousness. When the Washington Nationals didn't find a naming partner right away for its new stadium, the value of naming rights went down because the public is now used to calling the park "Nats Park." When Arsenal Football Club's stadium naming rights deal with Emirates Airlines was ending, the naming rights were more valuable to Emirates Airlines than to other potential bidders for the same reason. So if SU tries to sell the naming rights, XYZ Corporation is going to wonder whether people will still refer to the facility as the Carrier Dome or just The Dome.

That's appears to be your opinion versus fact, especially one from a universal standpoint. Cleveland's Jacobs Field was known that for years, however, it's known today and for a while now as Progressive Field. I doubt your theory can be proven as Progressive Field is getting plenty PR, etc. Same for Cleveland Browns Stadium, that is now known as First Energy Stadium. Plenty bang for their buck there as well. Again, your theory of 'value going down considerably' is one difficult to measure with any degree of accuracy from a tangible stand point.

 

[JOC44]

That's appears to be your opinion versus fact, especially one from a universal standpoint. Cleveland's Jacobs Field was known that for years, however, it's known today and for a while now as Progressive Field. I doubt your theory can be proven as Progressive Field is getting plenty PR, etc. Same for Cleveland Browns Stadium, that is now known as First Energy Stadium. Plenty bang for their buck there as well. Again, your theory of 'value going down considerably' is one difficult to measure with any degree of accuracy from a tangible stand point.

If you had offered me $100 to tell you the name of the Cleveland Browns stadium, I couldn’t have done it. If you had asked me to name the Cleveland Indians stadium, I probably would have said Jacobs Field or even Municipal Stadium before guessing Progressive.

 

[kirbivore]

If you had offered me $100 to tell you the name of the Cleveland Browns stadium, I couldn’t have done it. If you had asked me to name the Cleveland Indians stadium, I probably would have said Jacobs Field or even Municipal Stadium before guessing Progressive.

I only know the Browns stadium as the factory of sadness

(from 2011)

 

[orangecuse]

If you had offered me $100 to tell you the name of the Cleveland Browns stadium, I couldn’t have done it. If you had asked me to name the Cleveland Indians stadium, I probably would have said Jacobs Field or even Municipal Stadium before guessing Progressive.

Well, that likely may have to do with Cleveland being a small market team vs. large, but doesn't prove your theory. I guess, according to this rationale, the Houston Texans or Astros for that matter, might as well still play in the 'ol Astrodome. I mean, how many people do you think know where NRG Stadium is? A new stadium at that mind you. Minute Maid Park used to be called The Ballpark at Union Station, Enron Field, and Astros Field, which appears to debunk your diminished value theory relative to previously named venues.

 

[Bayside44]

Well, that likely may have to do with Cleveland being a small market team vs. large, but doesn't prove your theory. I guess, according to this rationale, the Houston Texans or Astros for that matter, might as well still play in the 'ol Astrodome. I mean, how many people do you think know where NRG Stadium is? A new stadium at that mind you. Minute Maid Park used to be called The Ballpark at Union Station, Enron Field, and Astros Field, which appears to debunk your diminished value theory relative to previously named venues.

You're picking a fight with the wrong guy on this.