The Carrier Dome Renaming Thread...

[Orangejet]

Get Anheuser-Busch InBev to pony up for sponsorship and name it the Bud Light Orange Dome or the Stella Dome.

 

[OrangeMojo]

Get Anheuser-Busch InBev to pony up for sponsorship and name it the Bud Light Orange Dome or the Stella Dome.

'Anheuser-Busch InBev - Proud sponsor of the #1 ranked party school in the USA!'

it's perfect

 

[Chip]

'Anheuser-Busch InBev - Proud sponsor of the #1 ranked party school in the USA!'

it's perfect

And since everyone copies us now and finally sells beer at their college stadium, it stands to reason that we should be rewarded for our many years of service and sales.

 

[SU68]

I was in a juice bar the other day. The hottest rumor was that Dole or Tropicana was going to be the new sponsor and call it the Tropicana (Dole) ORANGE Dome.

 

[FasterCuse]

If we're going national beer brands, let's keep it local and attract the Rochester crowd and get Constellation to sponsor the dome...

 

[SUbear]

I think another viable option that Carrier might consider is receiving annual money from SU in return for SU selling naming rights to someone else. Say, SU receives $1 mil a year from Wegmans, and gives $500,000 of that to Carrier

That will never happen, if for no other reason it would be a tax nightmare.

 

[Shark58]

Con Edison should sponsor

we would have the Con Dome

 

[Orangejet]

If we're going national beer brands, let's keep it local and attract the Rochester crowd and get Constellation to sponsor the dome...

AB has a big brewery in Baldwinsville NY and that is close enough...7 miles I think!

 

[Scooch]

Personally, I like that we chose a sponsor who won't skip town (I should hope).

The people of Lima, New York would like to have a word with you.

The institution's roots can be traced to the Genesee Wesleyan Seminary, founded in 1831 by the Methodist Episcopal Church in Lima, New York. After several years of debate over relocating the college to Syracuse, the university was established in 1870, independent of the college.

 

[qdawgg]

I think another viable option that Carrier might consider is receiving annual money from SU in return for SU selling naming rights to someone else. Say, SU receives $1 mil a year from Wegmans, and gives $500,000 of that to Carrier

So Carrier would essentially be our pimp. That sounds like a horrible deal just on principle.

 

[qdawgg]

I mean it really depends on how far both sides want to go. if Carrier truly believes it has legal footing to stay exactly where they are, they probably will push it into a courtroom rather than go to million + dollars. Similarly, if SU thinks it has legal footing, they will do the same.

If the goal here is to find a solution that keeps everyone out of the courtroom, i think its more like give us AC now, give us $500K a year for 10 years, and then let us become a free agent. If Carrier insists on what is amounting to $70K a year and falling, or SU insists on millions, I just dont see that being resolved out of court.

But again, I have no clue I am absolutely spitballing.

I don't see the last part happening, that's a lose/lose/lose for Carrier. Carrier isn't going to want to throw money at SU that it doesn't feel is necessary since there is already a contract AND then allow SU to go do its own thing in 10 years when it has no contractual obligation to do that.

I think people are overestimating the bargaining power SU has. There is no precedence for SU to just get out of this contract. Unless Carrier and SU can reach some agreement, which I can't think of an agreement that is favorable to Carrier, unless SU legally being able to not include "Carrier" on most/all of the promotional stuff forces Carrier to change the agreement. But in order to get out of this contract completely it's going to require some court time, which will cost significant money b/c as far as I can tell SU will be asking a court to set some level of precedence on contracts like this. I highly doubt SU is going to want to ante up the money for that, especially since I don't think there's a guarantee at all of success.

I also have two friends who are CEO/CFO of a local NYS company that's a regional company but with a national presence. They had a marketing deal with the NY Islanders a number of years ago, compared to a stadium deal it wasn't a lot of money but it wasn't cheap either per year. I was told as soon as the contract was up, which was within months, they would not be renewing it. There was no benefit they could see from having the deal at all and ultimately saw it as a waste of money.

Now, it's the NY Islanders. So there's that. It was also a little different circumstances and not apples to apples. But in talking with them in general about marketing, etc. it sounded like more companies were not seeing the benefits of spending money on being in stadiums, or similar types of things. Obviously companies are still throwing money around for these things but my point is, in the Syracuse area, I don't think SU is going to see the type of money some people think it can, if it can get out of the Carrier deal.

 

[richmondcuse03]

All

I don't see the last part happening, that's a lose/lose/lose for Carrier. Carrier isn't going to want to throw money at SU that it doesn't feel is necessary since there is already a contract AND then allow SU to go do its own thing in 10 years when it has no contractual obligation to do that.

I think people are overestimating the bargaining power SU has. There is no precedence for SU to just get out of this contract. Unless Carrier and SU can reach some agreement, which I can't think of an agreement that is favorable to Carrier, unless SU legally being able to not include "Carrier" on most/all of the promotional stuff forces Carrier to change the agreement. But in order to get out of this contract completely it's going to require some court time, which will cost significant money b/c as far as I can tell SU will be asking a court to set some level of precedence on contracts like this. I highly doubt SU is going to want to ante up the money for that, especially since I don't think there's a guarantee at all of success.

I also have two friends who are CEO/CFO of a local NYS company that's a regional company but with a national presence. They had a marketing deal with the NY Islanders a number of years ago, compared to a stadium deal it wasn't a lot of money but it wasn't cheap either per year. I was told as soon as the contract was up, which was within months, they would not be renewing it. There was no benefit they could see from having the deal at all and ultimately saw it as a waste of money.

Now, it's the NY Islanders. So there's that. It was also a little different circumstances and not apples to apples. But in talking with them in general about marketing, etc. it sounded like more companies were not seeing the benefits of spending money on being in stadiums, or similar types of things. Obviously companies are still throwing money around for these things but my point is, in the Syracuse area, I don't think SU is going to see the type of money some people think it can, if it can get out of the Carrier deal.

Also if the worst thing we do is just call it The Dome and don’t do a deal with someone else, we’re likely in the same place we are today - receiving no money.

The part I’m more curious about is the reference to whatever 2018 marketing arrangement we upped with them. Obviously that was from Carriers statement so hard to know what if any impact it has on the naming for the overall building vs other aspects. But if we just stop calling it Carrier, we have to risk Carrier retaliating in other arrangements. So I presume those deals aren’t worth that much, we have someone else lined up and/or we want them to retaliate in that sort of way as it helps legally with the overall naming deal.

 

[Madbiker]

As long as it's not the AT&T Dome. They already have like a dozen stadiums.

 

[Sudano]

I don't see the last part happening, that's a lose/lose/lose for Carrier. Carrier isn't going to want to throw money at SU that it doesn't feel is necessary since there is already a contract AND then allow SU to go do its own thing in 10 years when it has no contractual obligation to do that.

I think people are overestimating the bargaining power SU has. There is no precedence for SU to just get out of this contract. Unless Carrier and SU can reach some agreement, which I can't think of an agreement that is favorable to Carrier, unless SU legally being able to not include "Carrier" on most/all of the promotional stuff forces Carrier to change the agreement. But in order to get out of this contract completely it's going to require some court time, which will cost significant money b/c as far as I can tell SU will be asking a court to set some level of precedence on contracts like this. I highly doubt SU is going to want to ante up the money for that, especially since I don't think there's a guarantee at all of success.

I also have two friends who are CEO/CFO of a local NYS company that's a regional company but with a national presence. They had a marketing deal with the NY Islanders a number of years ago, compared to a stadium deal it wasn't a lot of money but it wasn't cheap either per year. I was told as soon as the contract was up, which was within months, they would not be renewing it. There was no benefit they could see from having the deal at all and ultimately saw it as a waste of money.

Now, it's the NY Islanders. So there's that. It was also a little different circumstances and not apples to apples. But in talking with them in general about marketing, etc. it sounded like more companies were not seeing the benefits of spending money on being in stadiums, or similar types of things. Obviously companies are still throwing money around for these things but my point is, in the Syracuse area, I don't think SU is going to see the type of money some people think it can, if it can get out of the Carrier deal.

I think you underestimate the negotiating strength of SU. They will argue it is essentially a different stadium that is no longer air supported. A lengthy and expensive court battle looms. SU would have to agree to any changes but its in the best interest for both parties to renegotiate something fair and equitable. Carrier/UTC's revenues will not rise or fall due to The Dome being called Carrier or not and would ask for some sort of 'buyout' if they no longer want to participate but SU I don't think would ask for some outrageous yearly amount either. Buy them out for 3-4 million which essentially pays Carrier for all those free years or ask for 500K-750K for 5-10 yrs which would be a win win for both parties going forward.

 

[qdawgg]

I think you underestimate the negotiating strength of SU. They will argue it is essentially a different stadium that is no longer air supported. A lengthy and expensive court battle looms. SU would have to agree to any changes but its in the best interest for both parties to renegotiate something fair and equitable. Carrier/UTC's revenues will not rise or fall due to The Dome being called Carrier or not and would ask for some sort of 'buyout' if they no longer want to participate but SU I don't think would ask for some outrageous yearly amount either. Buy them out for 3-4 million which essentially pays Carrier for all those free years or ask for 500K-750K for 5-10 yrs which would be a win win for both parties going forward.

What’s the negotiating strength of SU? Just the change in the dome itself. Maybe, but since none of us know how the contract reads itself it might be a moot point. There are going to be changes, who knows if they’re anywhere near drastic enough for whatever the contract language is.

You think the SU board is going to give the Carrier company a check for 3-4 million? You’re thinking like a fan who’s checkbook isn’t impacted by writing the check.

Also, as you said, if Carrier revenue isn’t impacted at all by being marketed by SU. That doesn’t bode well for SU trying to get some great deal on the free market if they find themselves completely free of being tied to Carrier.

We’ll see.

 

[JeffCuse]

As an aside I got an email back from Wildhack today where he connected me with SU's CMO about the possibility of selling off the roof as memorabilia. He intimated there is definite interest but they havent advanced that discussion at all. I'll let you all know if I hear anything else.

 

[CuseOnly]

Theres something called an unconscionable contract. It typically applies when the terms are unfair (substantive unconscionability) and one party had significant more bargaining power (procedural unconscionability). The typical situation is a big company trying to rip off a poor person, so unlikely su could vitiate the contract on that grounds.

I think the people wanting carrier to pay for a/c are being shortsighted. That would only kick the can down the road. What i am most interested in are what the terms of the contract say syracuse must do. Since this was a first of its kind deal, maybe syracuse really isnt obligated to refer to the dome as the carrier dome, so it actually hasnt breached its deal.

If syracuse had a strong play to get out of the contract, i have no doubt it wouldve filed suit years ago.

I think the point here is that in the past they might not have had the legal footing or it would have happened.

Now they are spending 118 million, roughly 4 times what it cost to build it and they feel they now have the legal footing.

I did some research and it appears that the things I noticed were below.

1. The expected "LIFE" of the building
2. Most courts dont seen to like perpetual contracts - meaning that they better be extremely specific and not ambiguous at all or they usually get voided
3. SU is making significant changes to the Dome that make it a new structure. If they aren't, then what is enough short of knocking it down and starting over?
4. Does Carrier really want their name on a building when the school for all practical purposes doesn't

I am amazed that the terms of the original agreement havent come to light yet.

 

[CuseOnly]

What’s the negotiating strength of SU? Just the change in the dome itself. Maybe, but since none of us know how the contract reads itself it might be a moot point. There are going to be changes, who knows if they’re anywhere near drastic enough for whatever the contract language is.

You think the SU board is going to give the Carrier company a check for 3-4 million? You’re thinking like a fan who’s checkbook isn’t impacted by writing the check.

Also, as you said, if Carrier revenue isn’t impacted at all by being marketed by SU. That doesn’t bode well for SU trying to get some great deal on the free market if they find themselves completely free of being tied to Carrier.

We’ll see.

I think SU would happily write a check for 4 mil if it had a sponsor in the bag for $12-14 mil over the next ten years. They could also add a few years to the deal and include the buyout cost for Carrier.

Also, anyone thinking that the Dome's naming rights arent super valuable is insane. We have the only arena that hosts football, basketball and lacrosse which is 2-3x more exposure than any other stadium in the country.

It is all about TV and advertising, not necessarily the local fan, it's about eyeballs for 4 hours on national TV on a Saturday. Number of impressions is huge.

Companies do it for name recognition, not to necessarily generate revenue.

Half of top 10 most lucrative college stadium naming rights deals aren’t with Power 5 schools

Conventional wisdom says that schools in Power 5 conferences — the ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC — should be getting the richest deals for every...

www.google.com

 

[Sudano]

What’s the negotiating strength of SU? Just the change in the dome itself. Maybe, but since none of us know how the contract reads itself it might be a moot point. There are going to be changes, who knows if they’re anywhere near drastic enough for whatever the contract language is.

You think the SU board is going to give the Carrier company a check for 3-4 million? You’re thinking like a fan who’s checkbook isn’t impacted by writing the check.

Also, as you said, if Carrier revenue isn’t impacted at all by being marketed by SU. That doesn’t bode well for SU trying to get some great deal on the free market if they find themselves completely free of being tied to Carrier.

We’ll see.

Good Points. 3-4m is nothing when you will ultimately be making 10-12m. Its ROI.
Its 3-4m when the alternative is court costs in the millions and possibly losing. Of course the language is important but having Holm on the board signing a sweetheart deal with Eggers with minimal debate and signing a contract in perpetuity sounds like possible conflict of interest if you ask me. Syracuse remains wed to Carrier as college naming rights industry takes off

 

[Moontan]

Good Points. 3-4m is nothing when you will ultimately be making 10-12m. Its ROI.
Its 3-4m when the alternative is court costs in the millions and possibly losing. Of course the language is important but having Holm on the board signing a sweetheart deal with Eggers with minimal debate and signing a contract in perpetuity sounds like possible conflict of interest if you ask me. Syracuse remains wed to Carrier as college naming rights industry takes off

“The donation was better than nothing and nothing was what we were dealing with,” Crouthamel said. “In retrospect from a purely financial standpoint it was not a good deal, but it was the only deal out there and that to us was sure better than nothing.”

Yikes...

 

[kcsu]

SU has decided to rename the stadium. Period.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

SU has decided to rename the stadium. Period.

The Period Dome?

 

[mustacheovich]

The Period Dome?

The new roof will be one of the most absorbent in the country.

 

[OrangeDW]

The Period Dome?

Inspired by Syracusefan game threads whenever we’re losing.

 

[SUFan44]

“The donation was better than nothing and nothing was what we were dealing with,” Crouthamel said. “In retrospect from a purely financial standpoint it was not a good deal, but it was the only deal out there and that to us was sure better than nothing.”

Yikes...

Yikes is right. Economics 101.