Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="orangecuse, post: 4244381, member: 668"]
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.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?