Dome Renovation

[reedny]

This is not "naming rights". The building is named in honor of a gift...like almost all buildings up there. e.g.
Carnegie library
Bird Library
Crouse-Hinds Hall
Hendricks Chapel

The people who donated said, "if I give you this money, you need to name the building ________." and SU agreed. If they upgrade on of those buildings and it costs a lot more than the donation...I don't think that nullifies the agreement. We could have "Pepsi Chapel"!

Of course it's naming rights .. the gift is made in exchange for the name. In any event, if the deal (as you state) is open-ended, then anytime a U accepted a gift-for-a-name, it would be stuck with that in perpetuity. If the CD is substantially renovated, at what point (physically or financially) does it become a different place?

Or, the U could argue that the gift didn't specify a time-period, and 35 years is long enough.

Or, we get another corporate sponsor and buy out any rights carrier has under the agreement.

Or, we could leave the Carrier Dome logo on there, and create:

- Wegmans concourse;
- Fucillo field;
...etc

 

[RoysRunts]

It's still naming rights .. the name is exchanged for the gift. However, if the deal (as you state) is open-ended, then anytime a U accepted a gift-for-a-name, it would be stuck with that in perpetuity. If the CD is substantially renovated, at what point (physically or financially) does it become a different place?

Or, we could leave the Carrier Dome logo on there, and create:

- Wegmans concourse;
- Fucillo field;
...etc

Hoffman Dome Dogs

 

[orangecuse]

This is not "naming rights". The building is named in honor of a gift...like almost all buildings up there. e.g.
Carnegie library
Bird Library
Crouse-Hinds Hall
Hendricks Chapel

The people who donated said, "if I give you this money, you need to name the building ________." and SU agreed. If they upgrade on of those buildings and it costs a lot more than the donation...I don't think that nullifies the agreement. We could have "Pepsi Chapel"!

I'd would imagine, since this agreement took place in the late 70's, that there isn't a slew of (if any) iron clad type language in it as the world wasn't nearly as litigious then, and, "good faith" agreements meant something. I'd also imagine because of same, there isn't distinct "definitions" set forth in the agreement clearly and categorically distinguishing that specific relationship, therefore, allowing wiggle room for interpretation.

An argument could be made that SU honored the gift and named the building as agreed. However, if SU takes on this huge renovation, changing the footprint of the building, stature, looks, etc., one could certainly argue that it no longer is the same building which derived and commenced the agreement...making it void and unenforceable.

Due to the Dome's iconic nature, I'd think that Carrier (or its parent company) would recognize that if SU wanted to keep its building overhaul with the same Carrier name, that ponying up some cash in order for SU to economically retain it, would be a relative no brainer, especially with the immense nationally/global exposure it gives to Carrier.

 

[xc84]

Of course it's naming rights .. the gift is made in exchange for the name. In any event, if the deal (as you state) is open-ended, then anytime a U accepted a gift-for-a-name, it would be stuck with that in perpetuity. If the CD is substantially renovated, at what point (physically or financially) does it become a different place?

Or, we get another corporate sponsor and buy out any rights carrier has under the agreement.

Or, we could leave the Carrier Dome logo on there, and create:

- Wegmans concourse;
- Fucillo field;
...etc

Well yes, that is the question. I think we can all agree that if the building is torn down and replaced, the agreement is done. It would be a legal matter to determine at what point the building is no longer the same building if renovated. Getting another donor to buy out the rights would be borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. Carrier would want what the name is worth in perpetuity. I don't think you could get anyone to pay that amount for a name that would only last for a few years. Financially it does not work.

 

[xc84]

I'd would imagine, since this agreement took place in the late 70's, that there isn't a slew of (if any) iron clad type language in it as the world wasn't nearly as litigious then, and, "good faith" agreements meant something. I'd also imagine because of same, there isn't distinct "definitions" set forth in the agreement clearly and categorically distinguishing that specific relationship, therefore, allowing wiggle room for interpretation.

An argument could be made that SU honored the gift and named the building as agreed. However, if SU takes on this huge renovation, changing the footprint of the building, stature, looks, etc., one could certainly argue that it no longer is the same building which derived and commenced the agreement...making it void and unenforceable.

Due to the Dome's iconic nature, I'd think that Carrier (or its parent company) would recognize that if SU wanted to keep its building overhaul with the same Carrier name, that ponying up some cash in order for SU to economically retain it, would be a relative no brainer, especially with the immense nationally/global exposure it gives to Carrier.

It depends on a legal matter involving the point at which the building is no longer the same building that was gifted. I have no idea what would be decided in court or what the legal definitions are. Sure, they could "argue" at a point that it is not the same building but that does not mean they would legally prevail. My guess would be that it is no longer recognizable as the same...and I don't know how substantial the renovations would need to be for that to be true. I don't think any of us know and that is why it likely won't be answered here. Maybe there is a precedent?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Of course it's naming rights .. the gift is made in exchange for the name. In any event, if the deal (as you state) is open-ended, then anytime a U accepted a gift-for-a-name, it would be stuck with that in perpetuity. If the CD is substantially renovated, at what point (physically or financially) does it become a different place?

Has a major university ever accepted a "naming gift" from a benefactor, and taken the name off the building years later?

There's a reason why every building at SU is still named Crouse or Hinds or Link or Carnegie.

 

[reedny]

Has a major university ever accepted a "naming gift" from a benefactor, and taken the name off the building years later?

There's a reason why every building at SU is still named Crouse or Hinds or Link or Carnegie.

I'm weak on the law of Philanthropy, but I believe that this does happen (name removed or renegotiated). "Perpetuity" is the issue .. how long does the name last, through what kinds of changes?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/n...rpetuity-doesnt-always-mean-forever.html?_r=0
https://philanthropy.com/article/Family-to-Get-15-Million-to/224083
https://philanthropy.com/article/With-Naming-Gifts/224201

 

[Bayside44]

Has a major university ever accepted a "naming gift" from a benefactor, and taken the name off the building years later?

There's a reason why every building at SU is still named Crouse or Hinds or Link or Carnegie.

Maryland took the name Byrd off but he ran the place a long time ago, wasn't a naming gift.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

They have if its a new building, or essentially a new building.

I'm weak on the law of Philanthropy, but I believe that this does happen (name removed or renegotiated). "Perpetuity" is the issue .. how long does the name last, through what kinds of changes?

https://philanthropy.com/article/With-Naming-Gifts/224201

I'm not expecting the new law building "Dineen Hall" to be renamed "Taco Bell Hall" any time soon.

 

[reedny]

I'm not expecting the new law building "Dineen Hall" to be renamed "Taco Bell Hall" any time soon.

Agreed. But after 30-40 years ... if the building has to be gutted or changed significantly and a new donor is required, the U might go to the family and renegotiate the naming rights. This happens (see my links).

Nothing last's forever .. especially a gift/naming right that doesn't state: this lasts forever.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Agreed. But after 30-40 years ... if the building has to be gutted or changed significantly and a new donor is required, the U might go to the family and renegotiate the naming rights.

Nothing last's forever .. especially a gift/naming right that doesn't state: this lasts forever.

Carnegie Library just underwent a major renovation.

Andrew Carnegie is dead. US Steel has closed many plants in Pennsylvania. Yet the name remains.

When a naming gift is made "in perpetuity" ... it's forever.

 

[reedny]

Carnegie Library just underwent a major renovation.

Andrew Carnegie is dead. US Steel has closed many plants in Pennsylvania. Yet the name remains.
When a naming gift is made "in perpetuity" ... it's forever.

And I think most naming gifts remain. A few don't, as I linked above.

One possibility: what if the naming gift document doesn't say, "in perpetuity"? Is 35 years enough?

Or if it does purport to be "perpetual", what if the building the "name" went on is removed or changed dramatically?

All this is speculation b/c we haven't (or at least I haven't) seen the gift document. Even if it was perpetual, I would imagine the U would re-negotiate with CC, as happened in the 'de-naming' examples I linked.

 

[xc84]

Well, what if it doesn't say, "in perpetuity"?

What if the building the "name" went on is removed or changed dramatically?

We're speculating here b/c we haven't (or at least I haven't) seen the gift document. And even if it was perpetual, I would imagine the U would re-negotiate with CC, as happened in the 'de-naming' examples I linked.

Carrier would need what it is worth in perpetuity. That means it would be a wash. Carrier would be paid e.g. $50M and we would sell rights for $1-2M per year.

The building is named the Carrier Dome. That is the name. Of course it is in perpetuity.

http://dailyorange.com/2006/12/name...the-dome-as-others-find-more-lucrative-deals/

Crouthamel said there is little Syracuse can do to take advantage of the Dome’s popularity by re-selling its naming rights to the highest bidder. He said there have been discussions with senior management at Carrier, but sees no reason for Carrier to acquiesce. And he doesn’t blame them because ‘it’s a business’ and Carrier originally took a risk to fund the Dome.

Right now, the name (and its exposure) is a valuable asset to Carrier. You would have to pay them what that marketing is worth to remove the name. If you do that, it's a wash financially. Carrier is a business...not a philanthropist family who will acquiesce to help the university make more money.

 

[DPCuse]

I work at a university and get this question posed to me from time to time. We have been advised by our attorneys to structure our new gift agreements in a fashion that says if a future renovation is completed and that renovation exceeds the value of the original gift for which the space was named, then we have the right to rename the space. I doubt the Carrier agreement had that wording. The other thought on this is, if the useful life has run out on the original renovation, then you might have a leg to stand on if you want to rename it. 36 years is probably getting close to the dome's useful life running out.

 

[reedny]

Carrier would need what it is worth in perpetuity. That means it would be a wash. Carrier would be paid e.g. $50M and we would sell rights for $1-2M per year.

The building is named the Carrier Dome. That is the name. Of course is in perpetuity.

http://dailyorange.com/2006/12/name...the-dome-as-others-find-more-lucrative-deals/

Crouthamel said there is little Syracuse can do to take advantage of the Dome’s popularity by re-selling its naming rights to the highest bidder. He said there have been discussions with senior management at Carrier, but sees no reason for Carrier to acquiesce. And he doesn’t blame them because ‘it’s a business’ and Carrier originally took a risk to fund the Dome.

Right now, the name (and its exposure) is a valuable asset to Carrier. You would have to pay them what that marketing is worth to remove the name. If you do that, it's a wash financially. Carrier is a business...not a philanthropist family who will acquiesce to help the university make more money.

Again, I haven't seen the document. It might say "perpetual"; it might not. If it doesn't, I don't know how CC could expect to pay 2.75M forever.

If it does, I'm sure there are points of negotiation. For example, where does the name "Carrier" appear on the newly renovated building? If they're going to play corporate stonewalling games, make the name 6" tall and sell the naming rights to every concourse, hall, bar and hotdog and use bigger letters.

 

[Ernj]

Carrier would need what it is worth in perpetuity. That means it would be a wash. Carrier would be paid e.g. $50M and we would sell rights for $1-2M per year.

The building is named the Carrier Dome. That is the name. Of course is in perpetuity.

http://dailyorange.com/2006/12/name...the-dome-as-others-find-more-lucrative-deals/

Crouthamel said there is little Syracuse can do to take advantage of the Dome’s popularity by re-selling its naming rights to the highest bidder. He said there have been discussions with senior management at Carrier, but sees no reason for Carrier to acquiesce. And he doesn’t blame them because ‘it’s a business’ and Carrier originally took a risk to fund the Dome.

Right now, the name (and its exposure) is a valuable asset to Carrier. You would have to pay them what that marketing is worth to remove the name. If you do that, it's a wash financially. Carrier is a business...not a philanthropist family who will acquiesce to help the university make more money.

How much is that in Pesos??

 

[xc84]

Again, I haven't seen the document. It might say "perpetual"; it might not. If it doesn't, I don't know how CC could expect to pay 2.75M forever.

If it does, I'm sure there are points of negotiation. For example, where does the name "Carrier" appear on the newly renovated building? If they're going to play corporate stonewalling games, make the name 6" tall and sell the naming rights to every concourse, hall, bar and hotdog and use bigger letters.

No one is playing any corporate stonewalling games. SU needed money. Carrier gave it in exchange for naming the Building the Carrier Dome. Both parties were happy with the arrangement.

SU has looked into legal options. There are none that make sense for both parties.

And it's not just signage. The name "Carrier Dome" is used by broadcasters over and over before and during an event. News outlets use it. People talk about it. etc. It's a very valuable asset that Carrier will protect until they get a worthwhile offer.

 

[reedny]

No one is playing any corporate stonewalling games. SU needed money. Carrier gave it in exchange for naming the Building the Carrier Dome. Both parties were happy with the arrangement.

SU has looked into legal options. There are none that make sense for both parties.

And it's not just signage. The name "Carrier Dome" is used by broadcasters over and over before and during an event. News outlets use it. People talk about it. etc. It's a very valuable asset that Carrier will protect until they get a worthwhile offer.

Yes the building name is important. What I was referring to with "stonewalling" wasn't meant to suggest that CC did something wrong circa 1980. They came up with some money, and SU needed it.

It's now 35 years later, and there's a strong chance the building's going to be completely redone. To interpret what happens in this scenario to CC's "rights", we would have to know what the gift agreement said. We don't.

Short of that, my sense is that CC paid, essentially, a bargain price for the rights. And I would expect them to negotiate a new arrangement in good faith, given that the renovation will probably be large-scale and may change the building significantly. If CC refuses to negotiate (i.e., they stonewall). then I think the U should look at alternatives.

 

[Mr Peabody]

No one is playing any corporate stonewalling games. SU needed money. Carrier gave it in exchange for naming the Building the Carrier Dome. Both parties were happy with the arrangement.

SU has looked into legal options. There are none that make sense for both parties.

And it's not just signage. The name "Carrier Dome" is used by broadcasters over and over before and during an event. News outlets use it. People talk about it. etc. It's a very valuable asset that Carrier will protect until they get a worthwhile offer.

Dino used "Carrier Dome" twice in his interview published today regarding moving the chains. Even so far as to say "I love the Carrier Dome". That's a lot of equity to give up. I have no idea what's in the contract but a few posts insinuating that lawyers likely weren't that clever in the late 1970's (to make a tight contract) have me somewhat amused. I think the Carrier name would have been removed long ago for a higher bid if that's the case.

 

[reedny]

Dino used "Carrier Dome" twice in his interview published today regarding moving the chains. Even so far as to say "I love the Carrier Dome". That's a lot of equity to give up. I have no idea what's in the contract but a few posts insinuating that lawyers likely weren't that clever in the late 1970's (to make a tight contract) have me somewhat amused. I think the Carrier name would have been removed long ago for a higher bid if that's the case.

And why not, the Dome is well-known and (for other reasons I've explained up-thread), I'm pretty sure fans and HCDB hope we keep a covered stadium on campus, no matter what it's called. As far as the CC naming deal, I question what exactly the deal (even if it said, "perpetual") was intended to cover? The Dome (roof)? That's going to be changed, probably into a fixed cover (isn't that a new "Dome")? The turf? Already changed. The seats? Probably will be changed. The walls, the floor? Both will likely be radically altered or replaced. On X84's theory, even if we bull-doze it, carrier would own rights to the dirt. I mean ... there's a limit here, somewhere, to what Carrier owns, and for how long, despite all this argumentation.

As you point out, lawyers were probably not dumb int he '70's. And neither are they daft in 2016. As mentioned above, I'm sure there are ways to address this issue, even if the original gift doc' said "perpetual".

“Perpetuity is usually a matter of negotiation now,” said William D. Zabel, a lawyer representing the Fisher family, who had threatened to sue on their behalf 12 years ago when Lincoln Center considered changing the name at that time without its permission.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/28/n...rpetuity-doesnt-always-mean-forever.html?_r=0

 

[xc84]

Dino used "Carrier Dome" twice in his interview published today regarding moving the chains. Even so far as to say "I love the Carrier Dome". That's a lot of equity to give up. I have no idea what's in the contract but a few posts insinuating that lawyers likely weren't that clever in the late 1970's (to make a tight contract) have me somewhat amused. I think the Carrier name would have been removed long ago for a higher bid if that's the case.

Are you trying to tell me that this legal tactic won't work?

The "long enough rule":

"Or, the U could argue that the gift didn't specify a time-period, and 35 years is long enough."

 

[Mr Peabody]

Are you trying to tell me that this legal tactic won't work?

The "long enough rule":

"Or, the U could argue that the gift didn't specify a time-period, and 35 years is long enough."

You could always try the "we thought you were moving out of Syracuse and wouldn't notice" tactic.

 

[rocklloyd]

Dino used "Carrier Dome" twice in his interview published today regarding moving the chains. Even so far as to say "I love the Carrier Dome". That's a lot of equity to give up. I have no idea what's in the contract but a few posts insinuating that lawyers likely weren't that clever in the late 1970's (to make a tight contract) have me somewhat amused. I think the Carrier name would have been removed long ago for a higher bid if that's the case.

Exactly right, credit goes out to the Carrier management team at the time who had the smarts to put perpetuity in the agreement. I suspect there are discussions going on relative to HVAC equipment, elevators and escalators, fire and life safety as well as access control to support the renovation. All of which a division of Untied Technologies owns and all of which have value to the university during the renovation.

 

[orangecuse]

Carrier would need what it is worth in perpetuity. That means it would be a wash. Carrier would be paid e.g. $50M and we would sell rights for $1-2M per year.

The building is named the Carrier Dome. That is the name. Of course it is in perpetuity.

http://dailyorange.com/2006/12/name...the-dome-as-others-find-more-lucrative-deals/

Crouthamel said there is little Syracuse can do to take advantage of the Dome’s popularity by re-selling its naming rights to the highest bidder. He said there have been discussions with senior management at Carrier, but sees no reason for Carrier to acquiesce. And he doesn’t blame them because ‘it’s a business’ and Carrier originally took a risk to fund the Dome.

Right now, the name (and its exposure) is a valuable asset to Carrier. You would have to pay them what that marketing is worth to remove the name. If you do that, it's a wash financially. Carrier is a business...not a philanthropist family who will acquiesce to help the university make more money.

Is that the same Crouthamel that publicly stated that they 'looked into' getting field turf into the Dome, but that there wasn't anyway it could work due to the multifaceted way in which the Dome is utilized...that one?

 

[xc84]

Is that the same Crouthamel that publicly stated that they 'looked into' getting field turf into the Dome, but that there wasn't anyway it could work due to the multifaceted way in which the Dome is utilized...that one?

No...it's a different one.