If the building no longer has a useful life...they will tear it down. There won't be a Carrier Dome. I do think you are saying what I have been though... it is not likely the name will change.
Capt. Tuttle said:
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?
Actually a need to put a brick façade on the Dome would be incorrect... as I have been schooled by an excellent architect on here...for the same reason that the addition to Archbold is so drastically different from the original building. Because of the historical nature of Archbold any addition must be different from the historical portion. Think more along the lines of something like this...
I'm under the impression that the name it wasn't so much crafty legal maneuvering by Carrier management, as it was a lack of precedent at the time. The dome was one of the first sports venues to be built with corporate sponsorship, and at the time represented a creative way to fund the enterprise. I suspect Carrier wouldn't have ponied up $2.75 million (in 1980 dollars) for limited term naming rights.
Hindsight is 20/20. How could you possibly call the people back then dopes? On both sides, it was close to a first of its kind type of deal. Everyone benefitted. SU needed money, Carrier stepped in with it along with language associated with naming rights.
I didn't take "forever" literally but as long as the building exists. As I have mentioned in other posts, that will be a legal decision based on how much change to it results in the building being a different one. As for "buyouts", I am sure Carrier would allow it for he right price. It's just that it would not make sense for SU at that price.
Just an example .. I'm sure you get my point. Trane, I/R, whatever (if Carrier won't play nice). I don't live in Syracuse so I'm not familiar with the larger corporate bases there. GE's there, right? Help me out here.
That's definitely a good point ... If Carrier even hints at moving ... their bargaining position goes to zero.
Well we don't want Carrier to leave...but all that is left is the Engineering staff, training staff and customer Support areas from what I can tell. They still employ about 1500 folks and many of those are high paying jobs.
And I'm not suggesting that Carrier did anything "wrong". They made their deal with the U at the time. We needed the money.
Yah, I don't understand the numbers at all. Carrier got huge value for a very limited investment. And if they were able to slip "perpetual" in the document, then I have to question whether it was worth it. We got $15M from the state, and probably could have increased that a little and/or made up the rest from private donations ... and told Carrier either "no thanks" or "rights are good for 10 years" for that money. Maybe now the company (if its truly committed to the area) will step up in a larger way.
Or in other words crafty legal maneuvering. Don't you think SU, under the good doctor, explored 1000 ways to break the agreement?
Not much is left. gE is now Lockheed Martin, Hospitals and education. If it's not Carrier (which I think it will be), let's not think it has to be someone with a local presence.
As stated previously the portfolio of products carrier makes dovetails nicely with either a renovation or some sort of new construction. Hvac (which is on the table), automation, access control, fire and life safety, people moving. All of that has value.
Carrier has been in the discussion of naming rights with the proposed additions as well, to my understanding. To what extent, I do not know.
