Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="orangecuse, post: 3029798, member: 668"]
No worries.  I understand it's Canada, where hockey...and beer run supreme.  :)  The intent of my original post wasn't to imply that the Dome was on the same plane as Toronto's venue and all that that encompasses, as much as the point that an existing building being [I]"renamed" [/I]has significant value of sorts.  We've had quite a few discussions in several of these Dome threads regarding this matter...it will be interesting to see how it ultimately plays out.

In my opinion, Carrier's donation at the time was a [I]"gift"[/I] (not [I]"naming rights"[/I]) and a contribution to the local community/area in which they had a significant presence at the time. That was the derived [I]intent/spirit[/I] of their generosity, not one of advertising, marketing brand, increasing revenue, etc., which is the intent/spirit of today's [I]naming rights[/I].  Ideally, the parties will reach an agreement moving forward they can both live with and feel good about, as litigating the matter will be costly, with uncertainties.  However, the law is on the side of what was the original [I]intent[/I] and [I]spirit[/I] of the agreement, and I think in that case it favors SU, since [I]"naming rights"[/I] as we know it today, didn't exist then and wasn't the[I] true[/I] intent of Carrier's [I]"gift."[/I]
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?