The Carrier Dome Renaming Thread...

[Stern]

That is the only place you can find “carrier” anywhere. You cant change a website name overnight that everyone is used to.

actually all they would have to do is buy a 2nd domian name for the new site and since they still own carrierdome.com have have carrierdome.com re-direct to the new website they were to set up. It would be pretty easy

 

[Stern]

The Turning Stone Dome brought to you by Caesars Sports

Fuccillo Dome

 

[dollarbill44]

actually all they would have to do is buy a 2nd domian name for the new site and since they still own carrierdome.com have have carrierdome.com re-direct to the new website they were to set up. It would be pretty easy

I was thinking the same thing. I see it often where a site will say something along the lines of, "Our website has changed to abcderg.com. You will be redirected there now."

 

[JeffCuse]

The Turning Stone Dome brought to you by Caesars Sports

Honestly I would just call it the Turning Stone in that case which makes little sense but sounds cool

 

[NKR1978]

So, contracts are void because someone got a good deal?

It’s been a very, very long time since I took contracts, but can’t they be voided if they’re extremely one sided? No one understood naming rights back then and Carrier has received well over $1b in advertising thanks to the prominence of the Dome on television for nearly 40 years.

I feel Syverud has a pretty good idea for how this will turn out.

 

[TexanMark]

Fuccillo Dome

That would be Huuuuge-ah

 

[JeffCuse]

The Hammer Dome sponsored by Jim “The Hammer” Shapiro.

I know he is long gone but maybe his estate can do it.

 

[Alsacs]

It’s been a very, very long time since I took contracts, but can’t they be voided if they’re extremely one sided? No one understood naming rights back then and Carrier has received well over $1b in advertising thanks to the prominence of the Dome on television for nearly 40 years.

I feel Syverud has a pretty good idea for how this will turn out.

The deal also is specifically related to the current Dome.
If we renovate the Dome and we are the dome techincally under the law becomes a different facility under a contract.
Thus all Syracuse needs to do is change something on the outside of the Dome and I bet we have plans to do so and the Dome is a new facility and the Carrier deal is over.

Syverud I am sure understands this.

 

[Jake]

actually all they would have to do is buy a 2nd domian name for the new site and since they still own carrierdome.com have have carrierdome.com re-direct to the new website they were to set up. It would be pretty easy

Been there done that. It’s not that smooth of a transition if many of your users have bookmarked back end pages.

I also think that since this site hosts all the online ticket accounts, it complicates the transition significantly.

 

[JeffCuse]

The deal also is specifically related to the current Dome.
If we renovate the Dome and we are the dome techincally under the law becomes a different facility under a contract.
Thus all Syracuse needs to do is change something on the outside of the Dome and I bet we have plans to do so and the Dome is a new facility and the Carrier deal is over.

Syverud I am sure understands this.

I thought that I read a while back though that the expectation was that there needed to be structural changes beyond merely the roof to get to that? Like, when we had that first very cool rendering that involved busting out walls and creating a new wing that would connect it to archbold, THAT would have done it. Maybe this does too but it feels like this is more of a gray area

 

[JeffCuse]

FWIW every single time Carrier is mentioned in and around the Dome and Syracuse the next two sentences are “yet they almost entirely pulled out of the city” and “yet they didn’t air condition the building”. I sometimes wonder what publicity the company is clinging to

 

[Suball10]

The only logical choice - William Mattar - hurt in the dome, call the firm w the 44's...44-44-44-4.....sarcasm

 

[FAL]

The deal also is specifically related to the current Dome.
If we renovate the Dome and we are the dome techincally under the law becomes a different facility under a contract.
Thus all Syracuse needs to do is change something on the outside of the Dome and I bet we have plans to do so and the Dome is a new facility and the Carrier deal is over.

Syverud I am sure understands this.

Well doesn’t the new roof and the roof supports qualify as a significant outside change?

 

[Faegan]

Any word on if the a/c system going in is being done by a different company, that would be an even bigger middle finger. Announcers have loved talking about how the dome has no a/c despite the name. Imagine now the announcers talk about the great a/c provided by __________ at the carrier dome.

I have been saying this for years. It's so obvious.

 

[wiseman3]

Any name would absolutely still have "Dome" in the name, not arena, stadium etc. The Dome is synonymous with Syracuse and they would not want to lose a big part of the Syracuse brand.

 

[Alsacs]

I thought that I read a while back though that the expectation was that there needed to be structural changes beyond merely the roof to get to that? Like, when we had that first very cool rendering that involved busting out walls and creating a new wing that would connect it to archbold, THAT would have done it. Maybe this does too but it feels like this is more of a gray area

I am sure we are making some structural changes beyond the new roof.
They may be minor but to get technical that would be the legal argument our team would have against Carrier.
Plus any lawsuit would be within Syracuse venue and good luck winning a lawsuit here.

 

[Alsacs]

Well doesn’t the new roof and the roof supports qualify as a significant outside change?

View attachment 168711View attachment 168712

I would argue yes and I am sure some portion of the current Dome is being knocked down to help the new roof come up and those changes would be enough for a lawsuit if Carrier wanted to try and enforce the name.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Also let the company who was driven out of NY and other communities around the US by high taxes and dilapidated infra-structure sue the school. I don’t think it will be helpful for them.

FIFY

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

I am sure we are making some structural changes beyond the new roof.
They may be minor but to get technical that would be the legal argument our team would have against Carrier.
Plus any lawsuit would be within Syracuse venue and good luck winning a lawsuit here.

Don't under estimate the number of people in Syracuse who do not like SU, strange as it may seem.

 

[Consigliere]

Not to get off topic but how does he have so much money from running a salvage business? Good for him but I thought the margins weren’t high in that work...

Enough so this would be a rounding error to Adam.

 

[Consigliere]

Think we’re over reacting a bit here. Extremely likely that negotiations are ongoing. Whether the wording was intentional or not, whether it was meant to convey to Carrier that they cannot assume eminent domain over the name is open to interpretation I assume but I think it’s relatively safe to assume we are not soliciting alternate naming rights sponsors at this point. It is also relatively safe to assume the resolution will much more accurately reflect current market value. Stay tuned.

 

[JeffCuse]

Think we’re over reacting a bit here. Extremely likely that negotiations are ongoing. Whether the wording was intentional or not, whether it was meant to convey to Carrier that they cannot assume eminent domain over the name is open to interpretation I assume but I think it’s relatively safe to assume we are not soliciting alternate naming rights sponsors at this point. It is also relatively safe to assume the resolution will much more accurately reflect current market value. Stay tuned.

No! Don’t kill my Danny Dome dreams lol

 

[SUskibum]

Well doesn’t the new roof and the roof supports qualify as a significant outside change?

View attachment 168711View attachment 168712

Yep, just the fact that the existing walls and support structure can are not sufficient to hold up the new roof is probably enough to argue the upgrades made the new building materially differently than the old

 

[reedny]

I am sure we are making some structural changes beyond the new roof.
They may be minor but to get technical that would be the legal argument our team would have against Carrier.
Plus any lawsuit would be within Syracuse venue and good luck winning a lawsuit here.

. . . they are, including an entirely new crown truss system, new footers and new steel x-bracing. Bowl seating will probably be gutted and replaced, new HVAC, concessions, audio-visual, the works. It's going to wind up being a top to bottom re-do at 3 to 5x the original price. Carrier will have a hard time arguing that it's the same facility as 1980, or trying to enforce a half-gift/half-naming rights arrangement that has become grossly one-sided and clings to the word "perpetual". While the exact language isn't public, from the outside the deal's got loser written all over it.

 

[orangecuse]

Don't under estimate the number of people in Syracuse who do not like SU, strange as it may seem.

Yeah. Probably that same 'number of people' that would bitch and moan about a new huge Google or Amazon facility coming to town and complaining how they are getting all of these tax breaks/incentives, etc.