JMA Wireless to take over Carrier Dome Naming Rights

[SUFan44]

Here’s the only point I made. For example, if they were to give us $2m/yr for 10 years that would be $20m. If the cost to install 5G in the dome is $5m, the net would be $15m plus the work. If they do the full campus and it would cost $20m, we’d likely get no money. Of course these are all made up numbers because I have no idea what they should be. But the 5G work whatever it is will offset part of what they would give us in naming rights.

Thank you for the clarification. Your reply was a counterpoint to my initial claim. If you weren’t differing in opinion, you can be more clear about your position and point rather than leaving it to interpretation.

Also, your claim is not what happens in practice. The naming rights deal is completely separate to the vendor contract of the 5G upgrade. It is usually an addendum. Are they related? They could be but it’s not a dollar for dollar discount. That devalues the value of the naming rights in a major way.

 

[upperdeck]

the cost to do the 5G upgrade also includes the money they would get from various cell companies to use the upgrades too wouldnt it?

You have a place with 20-70K of people wondering around in a very small area.. It wouldnt take a huge infrastructure deal to help that location but you would make a good chunk of change in charge back on the use.

 

[rrlbees]

Thank you for the clarification. Your reply was a counterpoint to my initial claim. If you weren’t differing in opinion, you can be more clear about your position and point rather than leaving it to interpretation.

Also, your claim is not what happens in practice. The naming rights deal is completely separate to the vendor contract of the 5G upgrade. It is usually an addendum. Are they related? They could be but it’s not a dollar for dollar discount. That devalues the value of the naming rights in a major way.

I never disagreed with anything you said. But I said offset some. You dropped the word some. As to contracts, yes it could be two separate things. Or maybe not. But either way the net will be the net in regards to JMA.

 

[BillSU]

This deal seems great for SU. I just hope this deal is not “in perpetuity”.

It will be called The JMA Wireless Dome. $5 Million per year. For JMA it's not just the naming rights for the Syracuse BB and FB venue but for all the concerts that have and will be held at the Dome.

The time structure of the deal may be ten years - or longer.

 

[Iony44ny]

So is it going to be like the Carrier Dome? Is it going to be JMA Dome with no wireless service? Lol

 

[IthacaMatt]

If a company is incorporated with stockholders, is the filing still private?

If they are not traded on a public market, then yes, their taxes are private.

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[OrangeTarheel]

I was embarrassed to read how the Dome naming rights came about - in essence the Dome was shepherded through by someone who wasn’t terribly aware of what they were doing or the long term consequences of their decisions. Short sighted decisions. And then they wrote an opinion piece on the dumb luck that resulted in us getting a domed stadium. Stunning.

 

[upperdeck]

kinda admitted in the piece they had no idea what was going on.. and it also seems no one else at the school vetted the process either.

it would be like having a painting worth 1 million and someone offers me $2500 and not even thinking about looking into what the actual value might be..

 

[DoubleDee]

I've often questioned this whole thing. While I am happy about the deal, consider this... Being that it is an on-campus facility, I do wonder if the Carrier namesake should be treated much like the "Carnegie" Library, or the "Carmelo K Anthony" basketball center. If I throw money at the school, can it be the "DoubleDee" library?

 

[GoSU96]

I was embarrassed to read how the Dome naming rights came about - in essence the Dome was shepherded through by someone who wasn’t terribly aware of what they were doing or the long term consequences of their decisions. Short sighted decisions. And then they wrote an opinion piece on the dumb luck that resulted in us getting a domed stadium. Stunning.

They hit the easy button to close on financing 44 years ago. It was a different world.

instead of criticizing how they did it, we should all be thankful that a community this size was able to have a 50k capacity domed stadium.

 

[Bayside44]

I was embarrassed to read how the Dome naming rights came about - in essence the Dome was shepherded through by someone who wasn’t terribly aware of what they were doing or the long term consequences of their decisions. Short sighted decisions. And then they wrote an opinion piece on the dumb luck that resulted in us getting a domed stadium. Stunning.

They had no blueprint to follow and pulled it off. Heck they probably could've gotten 20 mil from the state.

Comparing the name of a stadium to other on campus buildings made sense at the time.

 

[sutomcat]

In retrospect, it is really easy to question why people like Roger Hull (a lawyer) and Chancellor Eggers could have been so shortsighted when the documents were drawn up.

I agree that Carrier/UTC played a huge role in getting the deal done.

If they didn't come up with the money, would the deal have fallen apart and Syracuse have either given up football or dropped down a level?

We will never know. I tend to think SU would have found a way to come up with the rest but who knows for sure.

I feel badly about the change.

Was the 'gift' a final present from Melvin Holm before UTC took over Carrier and sent it down a path that would soon dramatically reduce it's footprint and impact on CNY? That is how I have always seen this portrayed.

Roger (had never heard of him before his letter) says the money was a UTC bribe meant to quiet a community outraged at the hostile takeover they were in the midst of. If this was the case, it makes me less sympathetic to UTC/Carrier on this.

If Carrier stuck to its guns and refused to come to an agreement that allowed Syracuse to change the name of the building, I would not be supportive of SU taking Carrier to court to get this done.

Glad that Carrier management (more likely Raytheon management) was willing to work with SU to get a deal done.

At this point, I am ready to put the great debate about a name change behind us and move on to the future.

I will always be thankful to Carrier for the gift and I choose to think it was driven more by Melvin Holm and CNY based Carrier executives than boneheaded UTC executives from Connecticut. No way anyone from that awful Connecticut company would do something nice for CNY, even if it was only to avoid a riot or shootings.

Thanks again Melvin.

 

[orangecuse]

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. There wasn't a precedent set prior to the naming of the Dome stadium, it was the first of its kind. So, with that being the case, SU and the powers that be erroneously defaulted to the structure not being any different than its educational buildings (even though it wasn't anything of the sort) receiving such 'gifts,' therefore, treated it the same, etc. with its "perpetuity" tag.

No doubt, looking back, it was leadership without any degree of foresight prowess capacity whatsoever. However, even if no one could've reasonably predicted how these actual "naming rights" agreements for stadiums and the like, etc. were going to blow up to what they are today, it wasn't difficult to realize (at least in my opinion) that the Dome wasn't anything like those other education type buildings that received 'gifts' from donors and afterwards rewarded with their names on them in perpetuity.

That's what's the most stunning to me, is that the author, and the SU powers that be viewed the Dome in the same light as its other educational buildings on campus. Moreover, it doesn't appear as if the Carrier brass demanded the perpetuity in exchange for the gift, etc. It's as if they were like great, you won't get any argument out of us for thinking along those lines and deciding that's how you want to treat this.

Consequentially, unforeseen, and probably much to Carrier's surprise, as the years went on, they likely never had a better return on its investment.

SU leadership's flawed line of thinking and ensuing action is what ultimately laid the foundation.

 

[0.2 YNdeeR]

Thank you for the clarification. Your reply was a counterpoint to my initial claim. If you weren’t differing in opinion, you can be more clear about your position and point rather than leaving it to interpretation.

Also, your claim is not what happens in practice. The naming rights deal is completely separate to the vendor contract of the 5G upgrade. It is usually an addendum. Are they related? They could be but it’s not a dollar for dollar discount. That devalues the value of the naming rights in a major way.

This has the tone of a lecture but with ambiguity and inconsistency instead of insight. First you say, "[t]he naming rights deal is completely separate to the vendor contract ...". Then you say, "[i}t is usually an addendum". An addendum is a document added to (and usually modifying) the original contract ... by definition, not "completely separate". We don't know what documents comprise the SU/JMA deal, but either way those terms are incongruent.

Then you ask, "Are they related?" [the 5g and naming deals]. This is self-evident, since they would involve, at a minimum, the same facility and the same parties. It is also likely that the two deals will run concurrently, i.e., that their terms will overlap for some period of time. Concurrency is likely because the naming rights announcement suggests a deal has been consummated, and the 5g work has been funded (NYS - 20M$) in this year's (2022-23) budget.

Precision on any of the contract details is impossible, as we don't have the documents. We don't know the value or term of the naming rights deal. And we don't know the value or term of the 5g deal. We're also in the dark about whether they were executed as one contract with two parts, one contract with an addendum, or two separate contracts. So Bees predictions are as good as yours or anyone else's.

Lastly, the point you made about "dollar for dollar" (credit) makes no sense given that: 1) we all use a common currency; 2) we have a new naming rights purchaser; and 3) that naming rights purchaser is also supplying technical services. So it's quite plausible, if not likely, that SU and JMA agreed to a partial offset of the naming rights fees to account for the value of the 5g services. A partial offset is still an equivalency ... to the extent of the credit ("dollar for dollar"); it's just not all of the dollars.

 

[David321]

I've often questioned this whole thing. While I am happy about the deal, consider this... Being that it is an on-campus facility, I do wonder if the Carrier namesake should be treated much like the "Carnegie" Library, or the "Carmelo K Anthony" basketball center. If I throw money at the school, can it be the "DoubleDee" library?

I work at a local college and couldn’t agree more. Though the extra income is nice, assuming it stays in the athletics dept, I see your point.

 

[GoSU96]

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. There wasn't a precedent set prior to the naming of the Dome stadium, it was the first of its kind. So, with that being the case, SU and the powers that be erroneously defaulted to the structure not being any different than its educational buildings (even though it wasn't anything of the sort) receiving such 'gifts,' therefore, treated it the same, etc. with its "perpetuity" tag.

No doubt, looking back, it was leadership without any degree of foresight prowess capacity whatsoever. However, even if no one could've reasonably predicted how these actual "naming rights" agreements for stadiums and the like, etc. were going to blow up to what they are today, it wasn't difficult to realize (at least in my opinion) that the Dome wasn't anything like those other education type buildings that received 'gifts' from donors and afterwards rewarded with their names on them in perpetuity.

That's what's the most stunning to me, is that the author, and the SU powers that be viewed the Dome in the same light as its other educational buildings on campus. Moreover, it doesn't appear as if the Carrier brass demanded the perpetuity in exchange for the gift, etc. It's as if they were like great, you won't get any argument out of us for thinking along those lines and deciding that's how you want to treat this.

Consequentially, unforeseen, and probably much to Carrier's surprise, as the years went on, they likely never had a better return on its investment.

SU leadership's flawed line of thinking and ensuing action is what ultimately laid the foundation.

Lack of foresight? They built a convertible domed stadium in 1979 on a college campus. That‘s plenty of foresight and closing the financing and getting the building built quickly has paid for itself many times over.

 

[CuseLegacy]

In retrospect, it is really easy to question why people like Roger Hull (a lawyer) and Chancellor Eggers could have been so shortsighted when the documents were drawn up.

I agree that Carrier/UTC played a huge role in getting the deal done.

If they didn't come up with the money, would the deal have fallen apart and Syracuse have either given up football or dropped down a level?

We will never know. I tend to think SU would have found a way to come up with the rest but who knows for sure.

I feel badly about the change.

Was the 'gift' a final present from Melvin Holm before UTC took over Carrier and sent it down a path that would soon dramatically reduce it's footprint and impact on CNY? That is how I have always seen this portrayed.

Roger (had never heard of him before his letter) says the money was a UTC bribe meant to quiet a community outraged at the hostile takeover they were in the midst of. If this was the case, it makes me less sympathetic to UTC/Carrier on this.

If Carrier stuck to its guns and refused to come to an agreement that allowed Syracuse to change the name of the building, I would not be supportive of SU taking Carrier to court to get this done.

Glad that Carrier management (more likely Raytheon management) was willing to work with SU to get a deal done.

At this point, I am ready to put the great debate about a name change behind us and move on to the future.

I will always be thankful to Carrier for the gift and I choose to think it was driven more by Melvin Holm and CNY based Carrier executives than boneheaded UTC executives from Connecticut. No way anyone from that awful Connecticut company would do something nice for CNY, even if it was only to avoid a riot or shootings.

Thanks again Melvin.

Rogers' timeline is a little suspect.

MSN

www.msn.com

On Feb. 15, 1979, the Carrier Dome was named as part of a gift of $2.75 million from Carrier, which helped finance the creation of the $26.5 million building.

UTC didn't acquire Carrier until July 1979.

 

[orangecuse]

Lack of foresight? They built a convertible domed stadium in 1979 on a college campus. That‘s plenty of foresight and closing the financing and getting the building built quickly has paid for itself many times over.

Surprise, it's you coming from the typical angle you do when responding to my posts.

I started my post with hindsight is 20/20. I also started that paragraph with "looking back" (again in hindsight) relative to foresight as it pertains to the specific topic at hand, the infamous naming rights agreement and treating it as its other education buildings, etc.

However, if you read the article, it appears how the dome roof came about was more along the lines of a whim than anything else, or as another poster alluded, "dumb luck." Although, that notion can be challenged I presume.

 

[OttoMets]

It will be called The JMA Wireless Dome. $5 Million per year. For JMA it's not just the naming rights for the Syracuse BB and FB venue but for all the concerts that have and will be held at the Dome.

The time structure of the deal may be ten years - or longer.

Until SU gets pissy and puts out press releases calling it "The Stadium."

 

[SuFTW]

Rogers' timeline is a little suspect.

MSN

www.msn.com

On Feb. 15, 1979, the Carrier Dome was named as part of a gift of $2.75 million from Carrier, which helped finance the creation of the $26.5 million building.

UTC didn't acquire Carrier until July 1979.

The takeover/acquisition started in 1978.

COMPANY NEWS (Published 1979)

Life dirs agree to help Nationale-Nederlanden in its planned tender offer for 6 million co shares at $60 a share (S)

www.nytimes.com

SYRACUSE, March 30 (AP) — The final details of the takeover by the United Technologies Corporation of the Carrier Corporation have been worked out, it was announced today. The transaction, however, still faces an antitrust zest in Federal court.

U.T.C., a $5 billion conglomerate based in Hartford, has been working on the takeover of Carrier, a $2 billion manufacturer of air‐conditioning and heating equipment, since last September. But the takeover was first resisted by Carrier, which lost two court fights on antitrust grounds before the Justice Department announced it would challenge the merger in an antitrust trial.

U.T.C. has already purchased 49 percent of Carrier's stock.

 

[OttoMets]

In retrospect, it is really easy to question why people like Roger Hull (a lawyer) and Chancellor Eggers could have been so shortsighted when the documents were drawn up.

I agree that Carrier/UTC played a huge role in getting the deal done.

If they didn't come up with the money, would the deal have fallen apart and Syracuse have either given up football or dropped down a level?

We will never know. I tend to think SU would have found a way to come up with the rest but who knows for sure.

I feel badly about the change.

Was the 'gift' a final present from Melvin Holm before UTC took over Carrier and sent it down a path that would soon dramatically reduce it's footprint and impact on CNY? That is how I have always seen this portrayed.

Roger (had never heard of him before his letter) says the money was a UTC bribe meant to quiet a community outraged at the hostile takeover they were in the midst of. If this was the case, it makes me less sympathetic to UTC/Carrier on this.

If Carrier stuck to its guns and refused to come to an agreement that allowed Syracuse to change the name of the building, I would not be supportive of SU taking Carrier to court to get this done.

Glad that Carrier management (more likely Raytheon management) was willing to work with SU to get a deal done.

At this point, I am ready to put the great debate about a name change behind us and move on to the future.

I will always be thankful to Carrier for the gift and I choose to think it was driven more by Melvin Holm and CNY based Carrier executives than boneheaded UTC executives from Connecticut. No way anyone from that awful Connecticut company would do something nice for CNY, even if it was only to avoid a riot or shootings.

Thanks again Melvin.

Agreed. And thanks to Roger - nice to see what constructive things come from a cooperative spirit.

Not a popular take around here, but (no surprise to anyone else) I'll always remember the contrast between that community-minded spirit of 1978 and the Syverud administration's heavy-handed use of leverage (to put it mildly) with its "The Stadium" business in recent months.

 

[CuseLegacy]

The takeover/acquisition started in 1978.

COMPANY NEWS (Published 1979)

Life dirs agree to help Nationale-Nederlanden in its planned tender offer for 6 million co shares at $60 a share (S)

www.nytimes.com

Yes. I know.

 

[SU68]

With the advantage of 40 years hindsight, the flaws in the original agreement are easy to see; however, I don't agree with the sentiment to keep the Carrier name on the building. I do think that it would be appropriate to put a large plaque on the outside of the building facing the Quad, acknowledging Carrier's significant role in the construction of the Dome.

 

[Scooch]

One thing does need clarification...

"Only years later were corporate names attached to facilities, names which were granted for specified periods of time."

That's not true. In 1971 the then-Boston Patriots built a stadium in my hometown of Foxboro, Mass. They entered into a licensing agreement with the Schaefer Brewing Company to name the stadium after their beer for a length of time.

Obviously that was 8 years prior to the Carrier deal.

Naming rights were in their infancy in the late 1970s, but they weren't unheard of.