The Carrier Dome Renaming Thread...

[sutomcat]

When you re-shingle your roof, or update your kitchen, it’s still your home.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t really care if they end up changing the name. What I don’t understand is this. It wasn’t like the deals of today. It was a gift that got them the name on the building. It is an on campus building. How is it any different than Carnegie Library, or Schine? Would it be right if I came up with money to takes those names off those buildings?

I hear you. I have issues with taking the Carrier name off the building. It turned out that $2.75 million dollars for a naming gift for a prominent building that appears on national TV dozens of times a year was a great investment and a big bargain but even today, $2.75 million dollars is a lot of money. It was needed desperately, Carrier knew it and came through at a key time in the history of the SU sports programs.

I think ideally, local companies should work with SU to help support it, and SU should help support local companies. There should be a partnership benefiting both parties.

That is why it was such a shame the Ephesus deal fall apart. We are fortunate Musco was there to step in and take over so ablely.

Anyway, back to the idea that these deals should benefit both parties. Carrier stuck its neck out and ponied up big bucks for a naming gift when this practice was pretty much unheard of. Props to them for that.

However, given how much things have changed since 1979, and how valuable naming rights are for one of the most prominent athletic facilities in college sports (argubly the most prominent), I think it is reasonable for SU to ask for help getting this massive and extremely expensive renovation done.

I think a fair compromise is for Carrier to donate all the AC equipment needed for the dome. Maybe make a donation on top of that to establish a fund to help defray the new on going costs AC will impose on SU.

Sign off on allowing SU to bring on another naming sponsor for the new athletic complex it is creating by renovating the dome, attaching it to the Arch and enhancing its capabilities.

Carrier is saved from the embarrassment of seeing a competitor install AC equipment in a facility named for them. SU gets some much needed equipment and support. The two names remain paired together in a new long term relationship. And SU is able to add a new revenue stream for the naming gift for the athletic complex.

Lots of schools have done similar things. There is ample precedent here. Let's find a middle ground where everyone can feel good about themselves and SU can retain one of their longest and best sponsors indefinitely.

 

[Alsacs]

I hear you. I have issues with taking the Carrier name off the building. It turned out that $2.75 million dollars for a naming gift for a prominent building that appears on national TV dozens of times a year was a great investment and a big bargain but even today, $2.75 million dollars is a lot of money. It was needed desperately, Carrier knew it and came through at a key time in the history of the SU sports programs.

I think ideally, local companies should work with SU to help support it, and SU should help support local companies. There should be a partnership benefiting both parties.

That is why it was such a shame the Ephesus deal fall apart. We are fortunate Musco was there to step in and take over so ablely.

Anyway, back to the idea that these deals should benefit both parties. Carrier stuck its neck out and ponied up big bucks for a naming gift when this practice was pretty much unheard of. Props to them for that.

However, given how much things have changed since 1979, and how valuable naming rights are for one of the most prominent athletic facilities in college sports (argubly the most prominent), I think it is reasonable for SU to ask for help getting this massive and extremely expensive renovation done.

I think a fair compromise is for Carrier to donate all the AC equipment needed for the dome. Maybe make a donation on top of that to establish a fund to help defray the new on going costs AC will impose on SU.

Sign off on allowing SU to bring on another naming sponsor for the new athletic complex it is creating by renovating the dome, attaching it to the Arch and enhancing its capabilities.

Carrier is saved from the embarrassment of seeing a competitor install AC equipment in a facility named for them. SU gets some much needed equipment and support. The two names remain paired together in a new long term relationship. And SU is able to add a new revenue stream for the naming gift for the athletic complex.

Lots of schools have done similar things. There is ample precedent here. Let's find a middle ground where everyone can feel good about themselves and SU can retain one of their longest and best sponsors indefinitely.

Carrier was eligible to get 50% of their 2.75 million naming gift as a tax write off based on the tax laws in 1979.

If it was today they would have gotten even more taxable write offs for the gift.

They got branding, and a good press for peanuts. While saving having to give that money to the US government for nothing.

The University is revonating the stadium so the perpetuity that Carrier got for peanuts is gone. Carrier could make a new donation but they haven’t.

Carrier doesn’t get saved any embarrassment the Carrier Dome is dead. Pony up or it’s whatever SU wants it to be named.

 

[kirbivore]

I put Carrier and Nike in the same category. them

 

[SUbear]

If that ever happens, it will quickly be nicknamed "The Rainforest"

LOL, and they could play "In the jungle" whenever the team enters the field.

 

[orangecuse]

Carrier was eligible to get 50% of their 2.75 million naming gift as a tax write off based on the tax laws in 1979.

If it was today they would have gotten even more taxable write offs for the gift.

They got branding, and a good press for peanuts. While saving having to give that money to the US government for nothing.

The University is revonating the stadium so the perpetuity that Carrier got for peanuts is gone. Carrier could make a new donation but they haven’t.

Carrier doesn’t get saved any embarrassment the Carrier Dome is dead. Pony up or it’s whatever SU wants it to be named.

Indeed, I couldn't agree more. As you mentioned, this was a gift, and a gift typical of just that in the era in which it took place 4 decades ago. That was the essence and intent of the donation, Syracuse University being a main presence in the community, so was Carrier at the time, with its corporate headquarters here, etc. Cable TV was in its infancy, as was ESPN, and the Big East Conference didn't exist yet. There's no way you will convince me that Carrier in 1979 had the foresight of what transpired in the years afterwards relative to same, nor the world of true "naming rights" deals that were borne in the future/new frontier landscape.

The gift transformed into something far more beneficial and unforeseen for Carrier. From a legal standpoint, I think overall intent/spirit carries some weight/substance. Therefore, I believe the courts would rule in SU's favor if it ever came to that as the true 'intent' of the gift donation was not one reasonably foreseen as a financial win fall for Carrier, certainly not the same spirit that these agreements are struck with today.

 

[Alsacs]

Indeed, I couldn't agree more. As you mentioned, this was a gift, and a gift typical of just that in the era in which it took place 4 decades ago. That was the essence and intent of the donation, Syracuse University being a main presence in the community, so was Carrier at the time, with its corporate headquarters here, etc. Cable TV was in its infancy, as was ESPN, and the Big East Conference didn't exist yet. There's no way you will convince me that Carrier in 1979 had the foresight of what transpired in the years afterwards relative to same, nor the world of true "naming rights" deals that were borne in the future/new frontier landscape.

The gift transformed into something far more beneficial and unforeseen for Carrier. From a legal standpoint, I believe intent/spirit matters, therefore, I think the courts would rule in SU's favor if it ever came to that as the true 'intent' of the gift donation was not one reasonably foreseen as a financial win fall for Carrier, certainly not the same spirit that these agreements are struck with today.

Agreed Carrier wasn’t signing a naming rights deal with Syracuse.
They were buying good press in the market and getting a tax write off while Syracuse as a thank you named the stadium Carrier Dome.

This renovation has destroyed the Carrier Dome. It’s now whatever Syracuse University wants to call the facility. They can name it after an individual or sell the naming rights. It’s their call. Carrier has no claim and they wouldn’t be stupid enough to sue. It would cost them decent money and the suit would take place in Syracuse backyard.

 

[sutomcat]

Agreed Carrier wasn’t signing a naming rights deal with Syracuse.
They were buying good press in the market and getting a tax write off while Syracuse as a thank you named the stadium Carrier Dome.

This renovation has destroyed the Carrier Dome. It’s now whatever Syracuse University wants to call the facility. They can name it after an individual or sell the naming rights. It’s their call. Carrier has no claim and they wouldn’t be stupid enough to sue. It would cost them decent money and the suit would take place in Syracuse backyard.

I don't really buy your claim that this renovation has 'destroyed the Carrier Dome'. The roof has been replaced a couple of times. The sound system has been upgraded at least once. New scoreboards have been installed a couple of times. The field has been replaced a couple of times as well. No one pronounced the dome destroyed when all these things happened.

Don't see a major difference here.

To me, the fundamental issue here regards the agreement between Carrier and SU. It has been reported to be a naming gift many times over many years and some sources consider it a hallmark agreement; the first naming gift ever.

This article from Matt Gutirrez, when he was still a student at SU writing for the DO, says it was a gift.

Syracuse remains wed to Carrier as college naming rights industry takes off

Nearly four decades after Carrier made a $2.75 million gift to SU, the university is still locked in its deal as other schools pursue lucrative deals.

dailyorange.com

Did Chancellor Eggers and Chairman Holm agree the purpose of the gift was to get Carrier's name on the dome? I suspect Carrier wanted to ensure the building was built and Eggers may have suggested to him that in return for the gift, SU could name the building after Carrier. It certainly doesn't sound like SU reached out to Carrier and asked for a naming gift.

I have to believe that there is a document somewhere that lies this out and if Carrier remains insistent that the gift requires the building to retain the name forever, it probably says something to that effect.

It would be a shame for this to go to the courts. Hope something can be worked out.

 

[OttoMets]

I don't really buy your claim that this renovation has 'destroyed the Carrier Dome'. ...

If you can walk into the Carrier Dome next fall or winter, lay your hands on the very same door rail that's been there since 1980, sit on the same aluminum bench you've always sat on, rest your elbows on the same concession counter, lean on the same orange railings, all within the same concrete structure...yeah, it's the same building. New roof, upgraded mechanicals. I don't even think this is a question.

 

[JeffCuse]

Can someone answer this for me

Do we know/believe there is language in the contract that would bar SU from selling naming rights to the football field? Not the building, the field.

 

[reedny]

I don't really buy your claim that this renovation has 'destroyed the Carrier Dome'. The roof has been replaced a couple of times. The sound system has been upgraded at least once. New scoreboards have been installed a couple of times. The field has been replaced a couple of times as well. No one pronounced the dome destroyed when all these things happened.

Don't see a major difference here.

To me, the fundamental issue here regards the agreement between Carrier and SU. It has been reported to be a naming gift many times over many years and some sources consider it a hallmark agreement; the first naming gift ever.

This article from Matt Gutirrez, when he was still a student at SU writing for the DO, says it was a gift.

Syracuse remains wed to Carrier as college naming rights industry takes off

Nearly four decades after Carrier made a $2.75 million gift to SU, the university is still locked in its deal as other schools pursue lucrative deals.

dailyorange.com

Did Chancellor Eggers and Chairman Holm agree the purpose of the gift was to get Carrier's name on the dome? I suspect Carrier wanted to ensure the building was built and Eggers may have suggested to him that in return for the gift, SU could name the building after Carrier. It certainly doesn't sound like SU reached out to Carrier and asked for a naming gift.

I have to believe that there is a document somewhere that lies this out and if Carrier remains insistent that the gift requires the building to retain the name forever, it probably says something to that effect.

It would be a shame for this to go to the courts. Hope something can be worked out.

But this isn't just a new scoreboard or some roof panels. It's a ground-up re-do ... from the footers to the top of the crown. Admittedly, "Destroyed" does not apply to every part of the facility. The entryways and concrete superstructure will remain, along with some of the concessions. But it's even more inaccurate - and premature - to call the project "kitchen cabinets" in the middle of Phase I. There is reason to believe that, when all phases are complete, the facility will be transformed: 3-4 times the cost of the original, with vertical structures doubled in height and the soft, air-supported "Dome" conspicuously absent. In place of the Dome's namesake - the roof - there will be a new prominence - a steel/PTFE truss system carving a dramatically new skyline. Many other alterations - almost as substantial - are underway or planned ... plumbing, electric, HVAC, sound, light, restrooms, the roof, and the seats ... all begging the question ... when does it become a substantially different facility?

If there is no movement in negotiations, your point about whether the Carrier-SU contract is a naming gift or a donation will take on more significance. Without the language, we don't know if Carrier offered a donation and the Chancellor threw in the naming rights or the other way around. The facts determine applicable legal precedents and other factors (per OrangeCuse's post) that would be considered during legal construction. At the end of the day, I have long felt that, despite the importance of Carrier's initial investment, it would encounter rough sledding trying to convince a court to enforce a one-sided "perpetual" agreement against a not-for-profit educational institution.

Short of a court fight (that no one wants), there are many options. SU could leave "Carrier" at the bottom of one panel but call it a different name, and start selling "naming" rights to every part of the interior. Or, as you stated, the parties could fashion a settlement that supports SU, adds to the project and accounts for the disproportionate benefits that have inured to Carrier over the past 40 years.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

Can someone answer this for me

Do we know/believe there is language in the contract that would bar SU from selling naming rights to the football field? Not the building, the field.

It's already been named "Ernie Davis Legends Field"

Do you really want to take Ernie's name off?

 

[OttoMets]

It's already been named "Ernie Davis Legends Field"

Do you really want to take Ernie's name off?

I'll gladly sign up to take that lame "Legends" off, but Ernie can stay.

 

[JeffCuse]

It's already been named "Ernie Davis Legends Field"

Do you really want to take Ernie's name off?

No.

But in fairness, that doesn't answer my question. Its not about what we do, its about what we have leverage to do. If Carrier thinks we can legally say "Wegman's Field at the Carrier Dome", and we mention we are inclined to to that, they may be inclined to make another donation to keep that from happening.

 

[texascpa]

"The Roofed Stadium"

The Domed Stadium

 

[FrancoPizza]

Can someone answer this for me

Do we know/believe there is language in the contract that would bar SU from selling naming rights to the football field? Not the building, the field.

Even better let’s wrap the exterior concrete with a field turf facade so advertising can be placed outside the building as well.

 

[brandokc]

Rename the place The Pearl and be done with.

 

[Ringostar57]

The Canyon

 

[All4SU]

SU themselves announced this as a “renovation”. They did not call it “replacing the Dome.” So their own language says what it is.

 

[kcsu]

The Gift got their name on the building. Period. Im sure that SU doesn't have to include the name anyplace other than that which is why they have dropped Carrier from all forms of media.
This is in SUs rights.
Going further and actually naming it something other than the generic descriptor " Stadium" is were it will become litigious.

 

[CuseLegacy]

It was the Stadium before it was the Dome. What was old is new again.
In Texas there is the University of the Incarnate Word. We could have the Stadium Reincarnate.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

It was the Stadium before it was the Dome. What was old is new again.
In Texas there is the University of the Incarnate Word. We could have the Stadium Reincarnate.

The Nestle Carnation Reincarnated Stadium.

 

[Alsacs]

The Gift got their name on the building. Period. Im sure that SU doesn't have to include the name anyplace other than that which is why they have dropped Carrier from all forms of media.
This is in SUs rights.
Going further and actually naming it something other than the generic descriptor " Stadium" is were it will become litigious.

What would Carrier’s lawsuit claim?What remedy would they seek from the court?
What contract did they sign?

Carrier doesn’t have a claim. Syracuse University isn’t in a hurry to slap a new name on the facility because they don’t know if a donor wants to make a donation and they decide to rename or if they want to sell naming rights.

Carrier would have to sue in Syracuse courts. Good luck.

 

[JOC44]

Agreed Carrier wasn’t signing a naming rights deal with Syracuse.
They were buying good press in the market and getting a tax write off while Syracuse as a thank you named the stadium Carrier Dome.

This renovation has destroyed the Carrier Dome. It’s now whatever Syracuse University wants to call the facility. They can name it after an individual or sell the naming rights. It’s their call. Carrier has no claim and they wouldn’t be stupid enough to sue. It would cost them decent money and the suit would take place in Syracuse backyard.

You might be right, but unless you’ve read the contract you don’t have any idea.

 

[Alsacs]

You might be right, but unless you’ve read the contract you don’t have any idea.

Someone posted the contract in the past I will try to find it.

It’s a gift for the lifetime perpetuity of the facility.

I have said once a piece of the foundation is adjusted it’s technically a new “facility” since the old stadium has been changed.

Carrier isn’t going to sue and Syverud is clearly aware of the contract and is way smarter than any of us so the fact we aren’t calling it Carrier Dome and are being this forceful publicly means he knows the lifetime has expired.

 

[OrangeXtreme]

If SU built a brand new stadium at Skytop, Carrier would have no claim to the name.

If the Dome was destroyed in a tornado and rebuilt from the ground up, is it still the Carrier Dome?

Since 1980, the inside of the Dome has been reconfigured a few times (handicapped seating has been added, luxury boxes were added, meeting rooms were converted to office space, etc...). Does that invalidate Carrier's claim?

Does a new roof invalidate the claim? How about new field turf, or a new scoreboard?

John D Archbold donated money in 1908 to build a gym. The building was practically destroyed by a fire in 1947, and was gutted and rebuilt recently. Yet it's still called "The Arch".