Future Campus Framework Presentation...

[orangecuse]

It's a transparent and sleazy grab for a few more bucks.

That's what his long-time contributing alum would think.

In a world where our political leaders are so obviously dishonest, it would be nice if at least the universities tried to conduct themselves in an ethical manner.

And Universities aren't very good at this law suit approach. Remember when UConn talked Pitt and others into suing the ACC? The suit failed completely and the universities were stuck with huge legal bills.

Universities need to stay out of court. They aren't land developers or Wall Street firms

 

[Townie72]

I think they will "settle out of court" and both Carrier and SU will portray it as a win/win. They will just announce that they negotiated an agreement that satisfied both sides.

Yup!

And I think a fair price is $7M. That's the inflation-adjusted $2.4M they gave the University.

And whoever supplies the next name for a fee is going to be very careful as to how the contract is written.

 

[xc84]

Yup!

And I think a fair price is $7M. That's the inflation-adjusted $2.4M they gave the University.

And whoever supplies the next name for a fee is going to be very careful as to how the contract is written.

Well...the next one is naming rights (not a gift)...so pretty standard stuff nowadays.

 

[Chip]

Well...the next one is naming rights (not a gift)...so pretty standard stuff nowadays.

Agree. I highly doubt that whoever gets their name on the building is going to spend some inordinate amount of time reading the contract because of a deal that happened 36 years ago, before naming rights deals were on every arena and stadium in America.

Heck, the sponsor will probably be the one that produces the contract. From a boiler plate of the hundreds of others.

 

[Townie72]

Agree. I highly doubt that whoever gets their name on the building is going to spend some inordinate amount of time reading the contract because of a deal that happened 36 years ago, before naming rights deals were on every arena and stadium in America.

Heck, the sponsor will probably be the one that produces the contract. From a boiler plate of the hundreds of others.

Well, when you are dealing with an entity that has demonstrated a willingness to ask for "re-negotiation" of contracts, then I think you might be extra careful.

But there have been enough of these deals done recently so this has been thought through many times. And while there have been lots of these deals done, how many have had one of the partners wanting to a different deal during the contract period? Companies don't ordinarily like to do business with litigious partners.

 

[Chip]

Well, when you are dealing with an entity that has demonstrated a willingness to ask for "re-negotiation" of contracts, then I think you might be extra careful.

But there have been enough of these deals done recently so this has been thought through many times. And while there have been lots of these deals done, how many have had one of the partners wanting to a different deal during the contract period? Companies don't ordinarily like to do business with litigious partners.

I wouldn't disagree with anything you're saying in the real world.

I just think this particular naming rights deal or gift that happened 36 years ago wouldn't scare off too many companies, should we end up in court working out a settlement with Carrier. I bet there would be companies saying what took you so long.

 

[xc84]

Companies don't ordinarily like to do business with litigious partners.

I hardly think that SU pointing out that modifying the dome, a building that cost $26M to build, to the tune of $250M with an entirely different roof architecture makes it a different building defines SU as a "litigious partner". But we will find out. I think they will have no trouble finding a willing partner...could even be Carrier again.

 

[DPCuse]

Yup!

And I think a fair price is $7M. That's the inflation-adjusted $2.4M they gave the University.

And whoever supplies the next name for a fee is going to be very careful as to how the contract is written.

I'd be surprised if they paid back any inflated amount. Afterall, Carrier has benefited to some degree. When the university I work for has returned a gift due to its inability to use it any longer, we have paid back the original sum, not an inflated amount. But who knows. If the contract terms are tight, then SU could be in a weak spot.

 

[HtownOrange]

Just my take: Carrier and SU will work out a deal. Carrier has the benefit that everyone hears their name every time the name is mentioned. Carrier sill merely shift some of its charity funds from one target to Syracuse. The deal will not be excessive but will not be overly modest. Syracuse will keep its prestige in naming rights and Carrier will still be announced every time the stadium is announced. It will still be the Loud House. And we will have AC.

Syracuse has a reputation of dealing honestly and they will preserve it. Carrier will still have a facility named after it and will donate money in some manner to the university. Personally, I would like it if they used the dough to establish more engineering, which would be within the overall goals of the University. The naming rights value is peanuts in comparison to the AD budget.

 

[Townie72]

I'd be surprised if they paid back any inflated amount. Afterall, Carrier has benefited to some degree. When the university I work for has returned a gift due to its inability to use it any longer, we have paid back the original sum, not an inflated amount. But who knows. If the contract terms are tight, then SU could be in a weak spot.

That's when the University decides it doesn't want the money any more.

This is different.

The University wants something from Carrier. Carrier has it (Naming Rights) and SU wants it.

They, SU, have entered into, or have attempted to enter into, what their spokesperson (Sala) called "negotiations". I translate that to mean, "We have called Carrier and asked them to sit down and discuss the naming rights.

SU motivation is crystal clear. They want to resell the naming rights to a higher bidder. Carrier has all the cards. Unless you believe that the University would claim that this new structure wasn't the old Carrier Dome.

Some SyracuseFan posters love the idea. After all, they want the new facility and they've seen 100 Hollywood movies that portray Corporations as evil and greedy and they believe it.

 

[chakka3421]

I have been told by Carrier execs that they did offer to put its air conditioning units in for free in the original Dome but it was SU that didn't want to bear the cost of operating, maintaining and upgrading those units and wanted Carrier to bear those costs for free. Negotiations broke down and that's why we have no air conditioning to this day.

 

[Townie72]

I'd be surprised if they paid back any inflated amount. Afterall, Carrier has benefited to some degree. When the university I work for has returned a gift due to its inability to use it any longer, we have paid back the original sum, not an inflated amount. But who knows. If the contract terms are tight, then SU could be in a weak spot.

Of course Carrier did get some benefit. But so did the University and I'd say these cancel one another out.

Leaving SU with the problem. They want Carrier to sell them something or to give it to them.

Carrier has no incentive to give it away. So what's SU's offer?

 

[xc84]

That's when the University decides it doesn't want the money any more.

This is different.

The University wants something from Carrier. Carrier has it (Naming Rights) and SU wants it.

They, SU, have entered into, or have attempted to enter into, what their spokesperson (Sala) called "negotiations". I translate that to mean, "We have called Carrier and asked them to sit down and discuss the naming rights.

SU motivation is crystal clear. They want to resell the naming rights to a higher bidder. Carrier has all the cards. Unless you believe that the University would claim that this new structure wasn't the old Carrier Dome.

Some SyracuseFan posters love the idea. After all, they want the new facility and they've seen 100 Hollywood movies that portray Corporations as evil and greedy and they believe it.

My position has nothing to do with whether Carrier is "evil" or "greedy" . I am thinking more legal and as a result, legally fair. I don't find it a stretch to say that the renovated building is "new" and if Carrier wants its name on the new building, it has to pay for naming rights. To me, if that legal argument can't be successfully made, I don't see Carrier taking any less than what it is really worth in a buyout...and that is more like $20M unless they want the goodwill of taking less.

 

[reedny]

My position has nothing to do with whether Carrier is "evil" or "greedy" . I am thinking more legal and as a result, legally fair. I don't find it a stretch to say that the renovated building is "new" and if Carrier wants its name on the new building, it has to pay for naming rights. To me, if that legal argument can't be successfully made, I don't see Carrier taking any less than what it is really worth in a buyout...and that is more like $20M unless they want the goodwill of taking less.

Opinions vary regarding the value of the naming rights to Carrier (although most experts seem to feel the rights have $1M - 2M in value per year). But in either case, I don't see why SU would offer a lucrative buyout: 1) if the naming rights aren't worth much (Carrier got little for its money), then why should Carrier expect a big exit payoff? Or 2) If Carrrier received lots of value (well beyond the $2.6M price), then they've already recovered handsomely so why pay them twice?

Either way, SU should low-ball this.

 

[TheCusian]

First of all no one is going to announce before every game what company manufactured the HVAC equipment in the building. Your point is ridiculous. It's never going to happen. And Carrier will know that.

And even if they did, no one would care. Because HVAC systems aren't a consumer good and if there are 35,000 people at a football game there might be five people involved in the procurement of HVAC systems.

On on the procurement process, although an owner can tell the Engineer what equipment to specify or can actually buy the equipment themselves, this rarely happens and is filled with potential problems when it does. Universities generally lack the expertise to do this.

The University doesn't have a leg to stand on in this. The best they can do is buy Carrier out. If Carrier doesn't want to sell, the University will have to pound sand.

But Carrier probably will agree to some sort of arrangement. After all, the Carrier name on that building isn't all that valuable to them. But I wouldn't give it away. Like I said, if I were them I'd ask for not a penny less than the current value of the $2.4M which is $7 M.

This line of argument makes no sense.

What about TV? Don't think it will be brought up at every game for the first year?

Does that up the ratio of eyeballs some?

Do these big HVAC companies bid and do presentations for clientele? "Carrier couldn't even handle the job that bears their name!" Drops mic.

The University does have a leg to stand on. New roof, new interior, new everything = new building. Carrier can try to argue the opposite, but honestly that's just as untenable. And I'm not sure they'd want the bad press of a fight either.

 

[DPCuse]

Of course Carrier did get some benefit. But so did the University and I'd say these cancel one another out.

Leaving SU with the problem. They want Carrier to sell them something or to give it to them.

Carrier has no incentive to give it away. So what's SU's offer?

SU can argue that they have lost out on potential naming rights revenue all these years so I don't see their benefit as being all that great. I think the current negotiations come down to, if you still want your name on this building, then meet us in the middle, maybe $1M a year. I'd be shocked if some court didn't allow SU out of this agreement if it got that far. After all, it was one of the first of it's kind back in the day. Things have changed and you could argue that SU is now being harmed by the original terms. If this was 1983, I'd say SU has no chance. Since it's 25+ years later, I think they stand a reasonable chance in court. IF it got that far. With that being said, I haven't seen the original deal so who knows. Maybe that would change my thinking.

 

[Townie72]

Opinions vary regarding the value of the naming rights to Carrier (although most experts seem to feel the rights have $1M - 2M in value per year). But in either case, I don't see why SU would offer a lucrative buyout: 1) if the naming rights aren't worth much (Carrier got little for its money), then why should Carrier expect a big exit payoff? Or 2) If Carrrier received lots of value (well beyond the $2.6M price), then they've already recovered handsomely so why pay them twice?

Either way, SU should low-ball this.

Ha!

The value of it to Carrier has nothing to do with it.

It's the value to SU in re-selling it that's the operative, important point here.

Carrier has got it. SU wants it. If I'm Carrier, I say "Make us an offer and we'll think about it. And unless you make us an attractive offer, we'll just sit here and get the small benefit the name recognition gives us.

This whole transaction is rooted in the fact that there are probably lots of companies that would get a lot more value out of having the Dome named for them than Carrier does.

But that's SU's problem (or opportunity) and not Carrier's. So SU has to guess at what it can sell the naming rights for and then make Carrier an offer that is sweet enough so that it makes sense to them.

 

[Townie72]

This line of argument makes no sense.

What about TV? Don't think it will be brought up at every game for the first year?

Does that up the ratio of eyeballs some?

Do these big HVAC companies bid and do presentations for clientele? "Carrier couldn't even handle the job that bears their name!" Drops mic.

The University does have a leg to stand on. New roof, new interior, new everything = new building. Carrier can try to argue the opposite, but honestly that's just as untenable. And I'm not sure they'd want the bad press of a fight either.

I think it would be good press for Carrier to fight this attempt to rip them off by pretending this is a different building. And I think SU would come across as greedy. Because that's reality. It's SU who is trying to cash in by getting the naming rights back

And no one is stupid enough to argue that Carrier couldn't handle a job as big as the retrofitted Carrier Dome. Their audiences aren't that dumb and it's insulting to the clientele to make an argument this sophmoric. They know that these kind of procurements are made based on price and meeting the spec and that what equipment is in the Carrier Dome has no bearing on anything.

 

[Townie72]

SU can argue that they have lost out on potential naming rights revenue all these years so I don't see their benefit as being all that great. I think the current negotiations come down to, if you still want your name on this building, then meet us in the middle, maybe $1M a year. I'd be shocked if some court didn't allow SU out of this agreement if it got that far. After all, it was one of the first of it's kind back in the day. Things have changed and you could argue that SU is now being harmed by the original terms. If this was 1983, I'd say SU has no chance. Since it's 25+ years later, I think they stand a reasonable chance in court. IF it got that far. With that being said, I haven't seen the original deal so who knows. Maybe that would change my thinking.

This is completely wrong : "if you still want your name on this building, then meet us in the middle, maybe $1M a year".

SU cannot --- and thankfully would not --- say this. Because they have no legal right to do so.

It'll say Carrier Dome on the side of the SU football facility until Carrier agrees it should not.

 

[jr4750]

Jumping in way late, so apologies, as I am sure you have covered this...

Doesn't this argument truly rest on whether the redo of the dome, constitutes enough of a change to deem the building "new." Altering the footprint, which I believe will be essential given the weight of the new roof, should allow SU out of the "lifetime," contract in my naive, novice opinion. Unless of course language in the contract stipulated that every facility on that location, with a domed roof, is forever connected to the name Carrier. Can't imagine that's true though. There must be some percentage of change (51%) that qualifies a facility as being new. Where are my NY contract lawyers.

Whether thats greedy, well I have no idea. Seems like the way of the world these days. The crazy example that comes to me, although not truly related: in todays world, people break contracts all the time. Every year we see athletes walk out on contracts that have many more years attached, because they aren't what the individual wants or thinks he/she is worth anymore. The same happens with teams who have players that are up to the value they were signed at when the contracts began. SU may come off as greedy here, but if they get more money, I doubt they will care. As someone I respect on here has been saying though, I wonder what else is even out there for SU.

 

[Townie72]

This line of argument makes no sense.

What about TV? Don't think it will be brought up at every game for the first year?

Does that up the ratio of eyeballs some?

Do these big HVAC companies bid and do presentations for clientele? "Carrier couldn't even handle the job that bears their name!" Drops mic.

The University does have a leg to stand on. New roof, new interior, new everything = new building. Carrier can try to argue the opposite, but honestly that's just as untenable. And I'm not sure they'd want the bad press of a fight either.

No, it won't be brought up because no one cares about it. And generally speaking, TV announcers and producers aren't interested in boring people with non-germane facts.

And we'll see if the court agrees that it's a new building. Or if calling it a new building is just a scam to wrest the naming rights from Carrier who was good enough to make the donation that made the Dome more affordable for SU.

 

[CuseLegacy]

chris carlsonVerified account‏@ccarlsononSU 2h2 hours ago
Am at the last #Syracuse campus framework session update for about a month. Told not to expect anything new on Carrier Dome.

Pete Sala says work on utilities outside Archbold Gym to prepare for that part of renovation has begun.

Syracuse intends to review feedback on master plan in November and December, release an updated master plan in January.

Construction timeline for National Veterans Resource Complex is starting in 2017. Hoping to be open late spring/summer 2019.

Arch Renovation plans to include indoor field for things like ultimate frisbee, an elevated track and a climbing wall.

Sala: No update on Dome improvements or a timeline for them. Syracuse still working with Populous on final design of roof. Focus is on Arch.

 

[TheCusian]

No, it won't be brought up because no one cares about it. And generally speaking, TV announcers and producers aren't interested in boring people with non-germane facts.

And we'll see if the court agrees that it's a new building. Or if calling it a new building is just a scam to wrest the naming rights from Carrier who was good enough to make the donation that made the Dome more affordable for SU.

1. Since when do announcers not bore people with non-germane facts?

2. AC in the dome will be talked about. Every broadcast. Why? Because they do now when it's hot in there. Throw in the twist of who provided it? Yeah, it will be mentioned.

3. Carrier has to prove that it's not changed enough.

4. They will settle because they will not the want the opposite of good marketing. Every single article written will be about what a deal they got and the Dome doesn't even have AC. As a marketing guy? Toxic stuff.

 

[xc84]

Ha!

The value of it to Carrier has nothing to do with it.

It's the value to SU in re-selling it that's the operative, important point here.

Hey, we agree!

 

[reedny]

Ha!

The value of it to Carrier has nothing to do with it.

It's the value to SU in re-selling it that's the operative, important point here.

Carrier has got it. SU wants it. If I'm Carrier, I say "Make us an offer and we'll think about it. And unless you make us an attractive offer, we'll just sit here and get the small benefit the name recognition gives us.

This whole transaction is rooted in the fact that there are probably lots of companies that would get a lot more value out of having the Dome named for them than Carrier does.

But that's SU's problem (or opportunity) and not Carrier's. So SU has to guess at what it can sell the naming rights for and then make Carrier an offer that is sweet enough so that it makes sense to them.

Well, in the buy-out negotiations, the value to Carrier is an important factor. In the re-naming rights negotiations with someone else, the current value will be at issue.

And as far as SU's bargaining position viz a vis Carrier in the buy-out talks, the way I see it is this: SU's re-constructing the facility. It'll be totally new, with 10 times the original investment, a new roof (that isn't even a "Dome"), new seats, new surroundings and in some cases new walls. So where's Carrier's leverage?

Maybe they can Fly Ken S. to Guadalahara and buy him a beer?