orangecuse
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2011
- Messages
- 7,951
- Like
- 12,239
But, but Carrier's not a "household" name and not a consumer type product that people easily identify with, etc.
Agree there is clearly value in the naming right to the facility.If no one would buy the rights, SU would not care about getting Carrier to relinquish them. The name is valuable and there are people who would want to pay. Broadcasters and SU start using the new name and over time, people follow.
How a bromance between Jim Boeheim, Adam Weitsman created Syracuse’s most visible fan
He’s had discussions with the school regarding the Carrier Dome’s naming rights and the idea of getting his business attached in some way as part of a branding effort. He doesn’t think it’s likely that the school can get out of its contract with Carrier, which provides the air-conditioning company the naming rights “in perpetuity.”
So many ways to get out of it, whether you call it "naming rights" or philanthropy (it has aspects of both). For starters, you could change the building. You could sell a bunch of other names associated with the building, team or school that would obscure it. If they fight it, "perpetuity" is a tough sell in the Courts.I don't think it will be the Carrier Dome by 2022-23. I'd bet money.
Gotta be Wegmans. As they expand their footprint, having Wegmans said on TV over and over will helpIf feel like this conversation has happened to dead horse levels. But I’m of the belief that the way it was named is cut and dry. You wouldn’t change Carnegie Library, or any other building with a name on it.
That said, I’m with you. The Wegmans Carrier Dome. The Weitsman Carrier Dome. The United States Navy Aircraft Carrier Dome. See what I did there?
So many ways to get out of it, whether you call it "naming rights" or philanthropy (it has aspects of both). For starters, you could change the building. You could sell a bunch of other names associated with the building, team or school that would obscure it. If they fight it, "perpetuity" is a tough sell in the Courts.
Anything can be challenged if you can make a cogent argument. I have not seen the agreement, which of course would be controlling. SU's been in negotiations with UT. We've certainly been over it on this board with many contributing opinions. Most hope that a mutually agreeable solution can be worked out that provides more balanced value but still respects the spirit of the bargain.Ding, ding, ding.
Can it be challenged that the “new” building is a Dome?