Dome

[snowycuse]

Any insight on the Carrier sponsorship with the University in the event the existing structure is updated with a new roof as is being suggested?

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

An all glass roof would be awesome! Probably highly inefficient! But awesome!

Just saw a show that featured clear solar windows. Currently only about 20% efficient. That would be cool.

 

[cusefan88]

The difficulty of any Dome renovation is the location. It's penned in by other buildings on every side. The only space seems be on Irving Ave. I hope they do fixed roof. Not sure what else they can do other than maybe individual seating.

Another area of improvement would be changing the Dome from football to basketball and vice versa. I've done it. The blue floor is laid down manually by student and Dome workers. It's a long process. Something to speed that up is essential.

 

[BKCuse]

There has to be a way to sell new naming rights and get out of the Carrier deal. I mean 30+ years of Naming rights is more than enough of a return on 2.75M

Any idea what the Naming rights would be worth on the open market these days ?

 

[xc84]

There has to be a way to sell new naming rights and get out of the Carrier deal. I mean 30+ years of Naming rights is more than enough of a return on 2.75M

Any idea what the Naming rights would be worth on the open market these days ?

Doesn't really matter. If they pay what it is worth (present value of future cashflow), they breakeven if Carrier would even go for it. $2.75M was not for "naming rights". The Carrier dome was named in honor of a gift. It's like saying that about every building on the hill named after a donor. Should we payoff the Crouse family so we can rename Crouse College?

"I mean 30+ years of Naming rights is more than enough of a return on 2.75M "

We don't break agreements in this country because of some subjective view that says "Oh, they made enough money on their investment so it should now be null and void."

 

[KellySyracuse]

Doesn't really matter. If they pay what it is worth (present value of future cashflow), they breakeven if Carrier would even go for it. $2.75M was not for "naming rights". The Carrier dome was named in honor of a gift. It's like saying that about every building on the hill named after a donor. Should we payoff the Crouse family so we can rename Crouse College?

"I mean 30+ years of Naming rights is more than enough of a return on 2.75M "

We don't break agreements in this country because of some subjective view that says "Oh, they made enough money on their investment so it should now be null and void."

I agree with this. My beef with it being named the Carrier Dome is that when they made their donation they were one of the biggest employers in the county manufacturing air conditioners here. Now they'v e moved everything out of town and to Mexico with the exception of a skeleton crew that is still employed here. While I'm thankful for the 2.75 million 35 years ago I'd like to see it named something else like Jim Brown Stadium. Not that it would happen but I'd still like to see it.

 

[cpatrocks]

We don't break agreements in this country because of some subjective view that says "Oh, they made enough money on their investment so it should now be null and void."

Maybe not, but we do buy out of unfavorable agreements all the time. The solution is simple, IMO. Give Carrier a % of the future naming rights $$$$.

 

[SU2NASA]

Maybe not, but we do buy out of unfavorable agreements all the time. The solution is simple, IMO. Give Carrier a % of the future naming rights $$$$.

Let's say the value of the naming rights for the next 20 years is $20 million. Then why would Carrier take pennies on the dime? If it's worth $20 million, then that's the value of what Carrier already owns. Why would they take $5 million, or so?

 

[cpatrocks]

Let's say the value of the naming rights for the next 20 years is $20 million. Then why would Carrier take pennies on the dime? If it's worth $20 million, then that's the value of what Carrier already owns. Why would they take $5 million, or so?

If the naming rights are worth $20M over the next 20 years, perhaps Carrier would be willing to take $10M in cash today...or as a I suggested, a % of the naming rights $$$ going forward (50%)...because sometimes Companies like to get paid.

 

[GoSU96]

I agree with this. My beef with it being named the Carrier Dome is that when they made their donation they were one of the biggest employers in the county manufacturing air conditioners here. Now they'v e moved everything out of town and to Mexico with the exception of a skeleton crew that is still employed here. While I'm thankful for the 2.75 million 35 years ago I'd like to see it named something else like Jim Brown Stadium. Not that it would happen but I'd still like to see it.

Wouldn't hold your breath about anything being named "Jim Brown (fill in the blank)".

And not without reason.

 

[xc84]

If the naming rights are worth $20M over the next 20 years, perhaps Carrier would be willing to take $10M in cash today...or as a I suggested, a % of the naming rights $$$ going forward (50%)...because sometimes Companies like to get paid.

Carrier gets "paid" now every time the dome is mentioned on national TV or in print. That's why the name has value. That is their "payment".

If the rights are worth e.g. $20M (PV), that is what Carrier might take. Taking less would be stupid. And if it is worth $20M and SU buys it out, yes, they can name it something different but get no benefit. At best they can sell the rights for $20M , get a new name, and break even on the deal.

 

[cpatrocks]

Carrier gets "paid" now every time the dome is mentioned on national TV or in print. That's why the name has value. That is their "payment".

If the rights are worth e.g. $20M (PV), that is what Carrier might take. Taking less would be stupid. And if it is worth $20M and SU buys it out, yes, they can name it something different but get no benefit. At best they can sell the rights for $20M , get a new name, and break even on the deal.

I understand all that...and I stand by original assertion that, if negotiated properly, Carrier could be persuaded to take a % of future naming rights revenues.

 

[SU2NASA]

I understand all that...and I stand by original assertion that, if negotiated properly, Carrier could be persuaded to take a % of future naming rights revenues.

Call them up. Ask them what percentage they'd take. I'm sure they'd be happy to take 50% or less of what the value of their asset is.

 

[javadoc]

Call them up. Ask them what percentage they'd take. I'm sure they'd be happy to take 50% or less of what the value of their asset is.

Is the building contractually obligated to be called the "Carrier Dome?" What if they replace the dome with a peaked fixed roof? (Unrelated to changing the contract, curious only.)

 

[Halfmooncuse]

Have the current AD spellers just spell the name on the roof? We'll get our $$$$

 

[SU2NASA]

Is the building contractually obligated to be called the "Carrier Dome?" What if they replace the dome with a peaked fixed roof? (Unrelated to changing the contract, curious only.)

This is what I was able to find:
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."

and this is interesting
"Carrier Corporation spokesman Jon Shaw said when Holm first agreed to contribute to the funding of the stadium it was not known Carrier would have its name become a part of the Dome’s title. Only after Holm announced his donation was the deal for the Dome naming right negotiated."

Personally, I think it was a mistake to name the field "Ernie Davis Legends Field". That had naming right potential right there. Similar to "Capital One Field at Byrd Stadium". I think between Ernie Davis Hall, the statue, the movie, and everything else, Ernie Davis has been properly honored without the field.

 

[orangeinjersey]

This is what I was able to find:
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."

and this is interesting
"Carrier Corporation spokesman Jon Shaw said when Holm first agreed to contribute to the funding of the stadium it was not known Carrier would have its name become a part of the Dome’s title. Only after Holm announced his donation was the deal for the Dome naming right negotiated."

Personally, I think it was a mistake to name the field "Ernie Davis Legends Field". That had naming right potential right there. Similar to "Capital One Field at Byrd Stadium". I think between Ernie Davis Hall, the statue, the movie, and everything else, Ernie Davis has been properly honored without the field.

that. Then we do whatever we technically need to prove its a different structure. New roof, new facade, new annex whatever. Its a fight worth having. Is there any precedent out there in regards to this? ie taking the name off a building?

 

[KellySyracuse]

Wouldn't hold your breath about anything being named "Jim Brown (fill in the blank)".

And not without reason.

oh do tell

Wouldn't hold your breath about anything being named "Jim Brown (fill in the blank)".

And not without reason.

I like a good drama, oh do tell.

 

[MadisonCuse]

It wasn't a "naming rights deal". The dome was named in honor of the donor like other buildings up there (perpetuity) e.g. Manley Field House, Bird Library, Crouse Hall.

The only way Carrier would allow a change is to have incentive to do so. Right now, there is none. I doubt there are any specifics on how much of a change would be needed before it is no longer considered the same building Carrier donated to. That would be a legal issue to determine.

I say retrofit the roof and make the planned improvements then announce that the naming rights are up for bid. Is a fight Carrier would want to have? My strategy would be to drag them through the mud in regards to off-shoring American jobs that they would be willing to give up the naming rights.

 

[CuseOnly]

Is the building contractually obligated to be called the "Carrier Dome?" What if they replace the dome with a peaked fixed roof? (Unrelated to changing the contract, curious only.)

This is my question.

If SU is not contractually obligated to call it the Carrier Dome then they can change the name whenever they want to. Was it a gift that guaranteed naming rights as a stipulation as part of the gift? Then they can't do squat most likely, kind of like the Ensley Center IPF they can't just take your name off the building if it was agreed upon as a naming gift.

 

[GoSU96]

oh do tell

I like a good drama, oh do tell.

Really?

 

[upperdeck]

I know several bldgs that had gifts at cornell that had names changed after the fact.. some due to gifts not being fulfilled completely. some due to bldg being renovated.

how did the sears tower get its name changed?

 

[OrangeXtreme]

I know several bldgs that had gifts at cornell that had names changed after the fact.. some due to gifts not being fulfilled completely. some due to bldg being renovated.

how did the sears tower get its name changed?

Sears' naming rights expired in 2003.

 

[BKCuse]

Doesn't really matter. If they pay what it is worth (present value of future cashflow), they breakeven if Carrier would even go for it. $2.75M was not for "naming rights". The Carrier dome was named in honor of a gift. It's like saying that about every building on the hill named after a donor. Should we payoff the Crouse family so we can rename Crouse College?

"I mean 30+ years of Naming rights is more than enough of a return on 2.75M "

We don't break agreements in this country because of some subjective view that says "Oh, they made enough money on their investment so it should now be null and void."

LOL!!!!! That really made me laugh.

What country are you talking about? America??? The land of the corporate swine who are looking to screw anyone and everyone to make a couple extra bucks?

If Carrier was still a pillar of the Syracuse community I might feel different but we're talking about a corporation that decided it's loyalty was to the almighty dollar over the good people of Syracuse who helped build that company. Losing all those jobs because they could source cheap labor elsewhere was incredibly damaging for the once great city of Syracuse.

So let me ask you, why the loyalty to these guys who got more than they ever imagined for their money when they made that deal?

Why would you stay loyal to Carrier when they showed minimal loyalty to us?

Why stay loyal to Carrier when these clowns never even saw fit to put some friggin' AC in the building with their name on it?

SU is in an arms race with Big $ schools in the ACC yet we're not supposed to utilize an incredibly unique revenue stream ? Naming rights for the only on campus Dome of its sort that houses an elite hoops team and (we hope) a soon to be ranked football team... and an elite lax team also.

Hey Carrier it's a cold world. You got a helluva ride for 35 years but the stadium is under going a major facelift and we've decided the naming rights are up for bid again. We would love you to stay, we'll give you the courtesy of first negotiation and perhaps even a modest discount because it serves our purposes to keep the name the same for recognition value ... But if you want to stay you gotta pay.

This is big time college athletics folks. If we want to be a top program we need every available resource to compete and we can't let some contract entered into 35 years ago, in an era before anyone sold naming rights stand in the way of progress.

To me that's not loyalty, it's being a sucker clinging to some false sense of loyalty to a corporation who left town.

Now if it's an iron clad contract that we can't possibly break so be it but if it's merely named in honor of a gift w/o any legally binding contract as you say in your above comment then why are we even having this conversation?

Let's just open the bidding!

 

[xc84]

LOL!!!!! That really made me laugh.

What country are you talking about? America??? The land of the corporate swine who are looking to screw anyone and everyone to make a couple extra bucks?

If Carrier was still a pillar of the Syracuse community I might feel different but we're talking about a corporation that decided it's loyalty was to the almighty dollar over the good people of Syracuse who helped build that company. Losing all those jobs because they could source cheap labor elsewhere was incredibly damaging for the once great city of Syracuse.

So let me ask you, why the loyalty to these guys who got more than they ever imagined for their money when they made that deal?

Why would you stay loyal to Carrier when they showed minimal loyalty to us?

Why stay loyal to Carrier when these clowns never even saw fit to put some friggin' AC in the building with their name on it?

SU is in an arms race with Big $ schools in the ACC yet we're not supposed to utilize an incredibly unique revenue stream ? Naming rights for the only on campus Dome of its sort that houses an elite hoops team and (we hope) a soon to be ranked football team... and an elite lax team also.

Hey Carrier it's a cold world. You got a helluva ride for 35 years but the stadium is under going a major facelift and we've decided the naming rights are up for bid again. We would love you to stay, we'll give you the courtesy of first negotiation and perhaps even a modest discount because it serves our purposes to keep the name the same for recognition value ... But if you want to stay you gotta pay.

This is big time college athletics folks. If we want to be a top program we need every available resource to compete and we can't let some contract entered into 35 years ago, in an era before anyone sold naming rights stand in the way of progress.

To me that's not loyalty, it's being a sucker clinging to some false sense of loyalty to a corporation who left town.

Now if it's an iron clad contract that we can't possibly break so be it but if it's merely named in honor of a gift w/o any legally binding contract as you say in your above comment then why are we even having this conversation?

Let's just open the bidding!

The building is not still named the "Carrier Dome" because of "loyalty". You really went off on tangent that is a non-factor. Of course the name is legally binding ...that is how these gifts work. That is part of why many gifts are given...to have buildings named in perpetuity. It is not "naming rights". Carrier does not have the right to rename the building.