The Carrier Dome Renaming Thread... | Page 27 | Syracusefan.com

The Carrier Dome Renaming Thread...

What John W conveniently left unsaid is that while Carrier's name is still on the Dome, they won't be using Carrier's name in any promotional material until they can come to a better agreement
I suspect this is true. He said it’s on the building. The contract probably said it would be named, and that the name will be on the building. It probably doesn’t say that they have to refer to it. From this point forward, it is The Dome Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken.
 
I suspect this is true. He said it’s on the building. The contract probably said it would be named, and that the name will be on the building. It probably doesn’t say that they have to refer to it. From this point forward, it is The Dome Whose Name Must Not Be Spoken.
I posted this earlier. They dont have to publicize it at all. That is the leverage. Carrier on the other hand can make life very difficult for SU to obtain a new sponsor as no company will enter into a sponsorship agreement while the Carrier situation is in question.
 
I posted this earlier. They dont have to publicize it at all. That is the leverage. Carrier on the other hand can make life very difficult for SU to obtain a new sponsor as no company will enter into a sponsorship agreement while the Carrier situation is in question.

Difficult, but perhaps not impossible. Some teams sell the stadium naming rights to one company but the field is named for another (although I think your field is already named?)

Depending on the contract, they can sell the rights to everything except the dome itself...
 
The Trane is Better than Carrier Dome has a nice ring to it. Same with "Lennox is Better than Carrier Dome"

Lot of potential down this route...
My vote goes to the "Trane Athletic Complex," which could include the Archbold Gymnasium and the Dome-Gym walkway as well as the Dome. As someone else suggested, they could blow the Trane whistle after each touchdown. Maybe when the next phases of renovations are implemented, Trane equipment could actually air condition the Dome Complex.

Trane.jpg
 
In today’s dollars Carrier’s 2.75 M naming rights is worth 8,500,000.00, which is not pocket change. In the naming market today that would be a great deal for a “forever”deal, which is not done today. I will not fault them for making a good, smart business decision in 1980.
My hope SU and Carrier can work this out amicably and not waste money on attorneys and bad press.
 
My vote goes to the "Trane Athletic Complex," which could include the Archbold Gymnasium and the Dome-Gym walkway as well as the Dome. As someone else suggested, they could blow the Trane whistle after each touchdown. Maybe when the next phases of renovations are implemented, Trane equipment could actually air condition the Dome Complex.

View attachment 182583

Pull a Trane !!
 
lots of campus buildings have more than one name too.. sometimes the name on the building signage doesnt match official stuff. the carrier dome had a look that is now gone.
 
In today’s dollars Carrier’s 2.75 M naming rights is worth 8,500,000.00, which is not pocket change. In the naming market today that would be a great deal for a “forever”deal, which is not done today. I will not fault them for making a good, smart business decision in 1980.
My hope SU and Carrier can work this out amicably and not waste money on attorneys and bad press.
Context: The average S&P 500 closing price for the year 1980 was 118.71. As I write this comment, the S&P 500's current price is 3,041.31. Put another way, it's now 24.62x higher than it was. If SU had taken $2,750,000 and put it into the S&P 500 (not even 1500, 400, or 600 - the 500), SU would have a stadium naming rights portfolio of $67,704,068.74 (ignoring dividends). The S&P 500 CAGR over that time was 8.23% (ignoring dividends). Assume an average investment rate less 2% to account for inflation, the $67,704,068.74 would yield $4,219,277.85 per year (inflation-protected, with a 2% inflation assumption) in capital appreciation (again, ignoring dividends).

Assuming dividends were NOT reinvested (i.e. they were pulled out to pay for operations), then the school would have received about $500k/yr over that 41 years. The $500K sounds low, but the payments are back-loaded (which makes sense because of inflation, especially as it relates to collegiate athletics). Putting things in today's dollars, the most recent year would have been $1.35 MM in dividends.

It's probably not the best deal in the world, but it isn't anywhere close to as bad as many make it sound, and I'm using the S&P 500 as a benchmark. Anybody with half a brain would see the money as windfall money and SU as an institution with a long horizon and put the cash into a far more aggressive benchmark, like the S&P 600, which would have had a much better yield.*

Since the dividend and capital appreciation number is on par (or better) than the number that many suggest, I have a hard time criticizing the initial agreement. If SU wasted the money, then that's on the school, not Carrier.

The school should leverage its academic arm to find some mutually beneficial project that it can engage in with Carrier, use that value + a nominal fee to "buy back" the naming rights, and then lease them back to Carrier in a a ~10 year lease. Finding some cheap workaround or letting this situation turn into a public dispute is a mistake, especially if lawyers are involved in anything other that writing the above-referenced contracts.

*Don't take my word for it. David Swensen and the Yale endowment model are famous for taking this exact approach and chasing higher yields by over-weighting in illiquid (and therefore riskier) alternative assets - starting in the 1980's.

 
Last edited:
That is very interesting. The possibility for something like this wasn't on my radar, what an interesting branding/greenwashing idea.
Would Amazon want to do something similar in the Northeast? Where say their biggest warehouse is located?
 
Would Amazon want to do something similar in the Northeast? Where say their biggest warehouse is located?

I doubt it, but up until an hour ago I would've doubted that any corporation anywhere would pony up millions of dollars for naming rights that don't include their name.

I would love to read the background on that decision, hear the discussion on just what exposure they expect to get out of this unorthodox arrangement and what their ROI on this might be compared to on a traditional agreement. It's pretty cool (especially because it involves an arena with a neat history of environmental consciousness and thrift).
 
I doubt it, but up until an hour ago I would've doubted that any corporation anywhere would pony up millions of dollars for naming rights that don't include their name.

I would love to read the background on that decision, hear the discussion on just what exposure they expect to get out of this unorthodox arrangement and what their ROI on this might be compared to on a traditional agreement. It's pretty cool (especially because it involves an arena with a neat history of environmental consciousness and thrift).
Do you mean "arena", or did an "n" sneak in when you weren't looking?
 
Do you mean "arena", or did an "n" sneak in when you weren't looking?

Oh yeah, sorry, lot of ambiguous pronouns in there. I was talking about KeyArena/Amazon's Pretending To Be Green Arena.
 
I doubt it, but up until an hour ago I would've doubted that any corporation anywhere would pony up millions of dollars for naming rights that don't include their name.

I would love to read the background on that decision, hear the discussion on just what exposure they expect to get out of this unorthodox arrangement and what their ROI on this might be compared to on a traditional agreement. It's pretty cool (especially because it involves an arena with a neat history of environmental consciousness and thrift).
This is a drop in the bucket for a corporation like Amazon.
 
or two right? Another facility going up in Kirkville?
Correct! Amazon is investing in CNY in a major way. Could they take it to the next level?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
167,468
Messages
4,705,704
Members
5,909
Latest member
Cuseman17

Online statistics

Members online
358
Guests online
2,475
Total visitors
2,833


Top Bottom