Future Campus Framework Presentation...

[xc84]

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?

but "the value" is related to the value of the future cashflows when SU sells the rights. If SU can get e.g. $1M for the next 20 years, the value is about $12M (PV). Value to Carrier is not really part of it. They can jack up whatever number they want...they can say it is only worth $50 to them (don't know why they would) or could say it is worth $50,000,000 to them . Really does not matter. It is worth what SU can get from someone else.

Carrier's leverage only comes in depending on how strong the "different structure" argument is against precedent and the law. To me it is logical that it is changed enough that the building is not the same one as what Carrier helped fund...but I don't know what the law says. If SU has a strong legal case (i.e. they will easily win), the argument is over... SU just sells the rights and no buyout needed. The buyout comes into play only if that argument is dicey and Carrier wants out.

If I own a lakefront camp in the Adirondacks that I hate, it may be worthless to me but worth a million $$s on the market. I can ask that someone may me a Millions $$s.

 

[Townie72]

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?

If Carrier had no leverage, SU (Sala) wouldn't be contacting them about negotiating.

I agree that plenty of companies would get a lot more value than Carrier does from the name. And that's the whole logic here.

Carrier now has little presence in Syracuse and little reason to want to do the school any special favors.

 

[TheCusian]

If Carrier had no leverage, SU (Sala) wouldn't be contacting them about negotiating.

I agree that plenty of companies would get a lot more value than Carrier does from the name. And that's the whole logic here.

Carrier now has little presence in Syracuse and little reason to want to do the school any special favors.

Unless he's trying to go about it in an ethical way. Most of the leverage is with the University, IMO.

 

[Townie72]

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.

When it's hot in the Dome it's talked about? Well, that certainly affects the miniscule number of people that are watching SU play Colgate on TV. That is, if they bother to pay any attention to this random fact that the announcers throw out amongst all the other blather.

And Carrier doesn't have to prove anything. All they need to show is a copy of he agreement and a copy of the cancelled check for $2.4M.

 

[orangecuse]

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.

Is it as 'completely wrong' as your emphatic position of how there was no way in hell that the Maryland powers that be would ever agree to leaving the ACC for the B1G? Your opinion is just that, your opinion...not a matter of fact. Of course, as with the Maryland move, time will tell here as well.

 

[Townie72]

Is it as 'completely wrong' as your emphatic position of how there was no way in hell that the Maryland powers that be would ever agree to leaving the ACC for the B1G? Your opinion is just that, your opinion...not a matter of fact. Of course, as with the Maryland move, time will tell here as well.

I'm not right all the time. I don't specialize in wishy-washy, weasel-worded non-predictions.

But I'm right about this and will be proven so by events ... again.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Without seeing the contract, everything is speculation.

 

[StanCuse44]

Without seeing the contract, everything is speculation.

Yes.

I'm very familiar with sports sponsorships and these contracts (yes, vague) and know that you must see/read the EXACT language to know what's up.

I've been chompin' at the bit to see this contract and explore all options. I'll bet that there's an opening - or 5 - in the "Terms and Conditions" of this agreement (IF SU wants to go this route).

 

[TexanMark]

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.

This...and UTC will want to showcase Carrier, Kidde and Otis. I see UTC working out a deal with the school using their products.

 

[HtownOrange]

This...and UTC will want to showcase Carrier, Kidde and Otis. I see UTC working out a deal with the school using their products.

Spot on, Mark. UTC works a deal to keep the name and gains a hefty portion of the business t the Dome and future business on the Hill. Most likely, UTC works the deal for an annual fee with a long term preferential contract for future work on the Hill. Small "marketing" investment with long term sales.

I simply don't see Syracuse being greedy nor do I see Carrier making a lot of noise. Both have their goals and both have been around too long to be ignorant. They will work together, both sides will be happy and the Carrier Dome with the new roof, wider concourses, people movers/escalators, and a new facade will have AC.

 

[jr4750]

State U's play a different ball game. Wonder how much say the tax payers got on this renovation. The arms race is real and dirty. There's a reason small private schools, don't compete for championships in D1 football.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[jr4750]

Large student apartment building proposed near Syracuse University

 

[Crusty]

Is there any precedent for a case like this? I doubt it.
If we are going to continue to use the building without interruption, how is it not the same building?
Would be an interesting case. Probably will strike a deal.

 

[Brooky03]

I'm no expert in contract law, but don't most contracts have a provision for what happens if/when the contract is breached? What is Carrier's argument if Syracuse gives the original contract amount back adjusted for inflation? That means Carrier essentially didn't pay d**k for the naming rights and is returned to whole as it was prior to the contract. If you return one party of a contract to their position prior to the contract, isn't the contract done?

 

[HtownOrange]

I'm no expert in contract law, but don't most contracts have a provision for what happens if/when the contract is breached? What is Carrier's argument if Syracuse gives the original contract amount back adjusted for inflation? That means Carrier essentially didn't pay d**k for the naming rights and is returned to whole as it was prior to the contract. If you return one party of a contract to their position prior to the contract, isn't the contract done?

Based on your theory, the naming rights have no value as you have made Carrier "whole". In truth, Carrier can claim the naming rights are permanent. Syracuse can say no, they aren't and this is a new building. Carrier can retort that it is not a new building. Etc., etc., etc.

Or the two can simply strike a bargain that is fair to both sides without losing face and being of mutual benefit, which is most likely to happen as Syracuse has character, a reputation to uphold, and Carrier will want to look good coming out of this. The deal may not be as lucrative as we may wish, or even appear, but it will be satisfactory to both.

 

[AZOrange]

State U's play a different ball game. Wonder how much say the tax payers got on this renovation. The arms race is real and dirty. There's a reason small private schools, don't compete for championships in D1 football.

View attachment 77803

Miami, ND and USC all compete.

 

[jr4750]

Miami, ND and USC all compete.

I'll concede you're right with some caveats. Miami hasn't competed in a while, at least since they stopped cheating with impunity, despite being in one of the most fertile recruiting cities in the country. ND is the epicenter of football, and although they are technically a private school, their reach I would argue is greater than every other major program. ND can walk into any state and pull a player, not something the Cuse, Dukes, NW, etc. can do. USC also benefits from being in a recruiting hotbed, and plays the Hollywood card. I realize this is a stupid argument for them, but they feel like a big state school, more so than a private. Great branding has done them well, not to mention 11 national titles. USC and ND are certainly the outliers of the private schools.

 

[Brooky03]

Based on your theory, the naming rights have no value as you have made Carrier "whole". In truth, Carrier can claim the naming rights are permanent. Syracuse can say no, they aren't and this is a new building. Carrier can retort that it is not a new building. Etc., etc., etc.

Or the two can simply strike a bargain that is fair to both sides without losing face and being of mutual benefit, which is most likely to happen as Syracuse has character, a reputation to uphold, and Carrier will want to look good coming out of this. The deal may not be as lucrative as we may wish, or even appear, but it will be satisfactory to both.

I'm not saying the rights have no value. I'm saying that it would make sense that the rights have equal value to what Carrier paid (roughly). Carrier wouldn't be entitled to 'market value' for the naming rights... right? That wouldn't be equitable. For instance, some other company might be willing to come in and pay $30M per year for the rights (or whatever a typical amount is), but that doesn't mean Carrier is currently getting $30M per year in value from the rights. How does Carrier prove how valuable the rights are?

I agree with you that they'll come to a settlement, more likely than not.

 

[pattycuse]

Apologies if this is already posted in this thread somewhere but there is already some type of work going on in Archbold. I stopped in there during our tailgate before the Tech game on Saturday- plywood up surrounding the stairwell with primary focus seeming to be the Dome side of the building.

Not sure if this is a standalone project or prep for the broader framework...

 

[xc84]

I'm not saying the rights have no value. I'm saying that it would make sense that the rights have equal value to what Carrier paid (roughly). Carrier wouldn't be entitled to 'market value' for the naming rights... right? That wouldn't be equitable. For instance, some other company might be willing to come in and pay $30M per year for the rights (or whatever a typical amount is), but that doesn't mean Carrier is currently getting $30M per year in value from the rights. How does Carrier prove how valuable the rights are?

I agree with you that they'll come to a settlement, more likely than not.

Why wouldn't Carrier be entitled to the market value? Though they didn't know it at the time, Carrier made a wise investment. Its value has grown. If you invested in something and its value grew a lot, would you be willing to take what you invested plus interest or would you want what it was actually worth?

 

[xc84]

Is there any precedent for a case like this? I doubt it.
If we are going to continue to use the building without interruption, how is it not the same building?
Would be an interesting case. Probably will strike a deal.

I don't know of a precedent. However, if you replace the roof with an entirely different one with an different support system and raise its height considerably...as well as make major investments in other parts...which is what they will do...I am hoping they can claim it is essentially a different building than the one Carrier helped with.

 

[sutomcat]

There was an article in the DO today that touches base on future plans for the campus.

Concrete timeline lacking for housing changes proposed in Campus Framework draft

Thought the map was the most interesting part of the article. The plan is just a plan right now and we have already seen some changes to it, but I think it is worth discussing the latest ideas it embraces. FYI, if you click on it, it should expand a lot, so you can really see what is going on...

It includes proposed buildings on the western side of I81 (probably with the expectation that I81 will be gone in that area by then).

That proposed land swap OttoMets said that SU and SUNY ESF were talking about where the Standart Lot would go to ESF and SU would get that one block south of the Dome owned by ESF, conspicuously white right now, looks like it might no longer be planned.

No hotel planned any longer for west of the Dome. The outline of the Sheraton is completely gone, replaced by another building that with that distinctive diagonal design feature looks to me to be another hotel.

There are new buildings just south of Archbold Gym and just southwest of the Dome.

They have existing buildings located in the Standart and Fine Lots. Not sure what to make of that. Assume they just made a mistake with the colors and those buildings were supposed to be dark green.

The new dorms and dorm expansions look to be located on the eastern side of campus, as discussed previously. The view of Onondaga Valley from Thornden Park is going to be blocked almost completely, but at least the students will be able to enjoy it from their rooms.

And no University Ave. Period.

Interesting.

 

[Brooky03]

Why wouldn't Carrier be entitled to the market value? Though they didn't know it at the time, Carrier made a wise investment. Its value has grown. If you invested in something and its value grew a lot, would you be willing to take what you invested plus interest or would you want what it was actually worth?

It's not an investment, though. Carrier is renting/leasing the right. An investment is typically something you own.

 

[OttoMets]

...

That proposed land swap OttoMets said that SU and SUNY ESF were talking about where the Standart Lot would go to ESF and SU would get that one block south of the Dome owned by ESF, conspicuously white right now, looks like it might no longer be planned.

...
View attachment 79238

Yeah, I think the final nail has been driven into that coffin, no land swap.

I'd be surprised if University Avenue is abandoned, especially in light of the 81 project. Wonder if that was an oversight or if this is an incomplete map.