The Carrier Dome Renaming Thread...

[Moontan]

When Channel 9 News contacted Carrier about this matter their representative stated they have a “lifetime” agreement with SU and they will be contacting SU about this matter.

Carrier may be playing (?) dumb, but they've known about this for a while.

Carrier may have thought that SU was bluffing and didn't expect it to go down like it did, but they knew that it could've happened. Maybe now they'll pony up with some AC hardware and some non-exuberant continued annual donations.

 

[RF2044]

SU responded to Channel 9 News.

The university spokesman did not answer the question and also did not refer to the dome as the Carrier Dome.

When Channel 9 News contacted Carrier about this matter their representative stated they have a “lifetime” agreement with SU and they will be contacting SU about this matter.

Gee... thanks, Channel 9 news.

 

[Qbobby]

I don't see a re-up with Carrier for some pittance. If SU has gone this far in the process to actually stop using the name in all circumstances, it seems to me they've decided that enough change is going to happen to invalidate the naming rights or take their chances in court. Going this far makes it seem to me that they're going for a substantial naming rights deal to generate whatever revenue they can.

 

[Moontan]

Even in the University's Dome renovation announcement back in May, there was no reference to "Carrier".
This isn't a surprise to anyone...

 

[xc84]

Even in the University's Dome renovation announcement back in May, there was no reference to "Carrier".
This isn't a surprise to anyone...

But they don't even mention "dome" in that one. They just refer to the "stadium".

That's a lot different than actually labeling it "Syracuse University Dome"

 

[Orijinal]

I'm getting my popcorn ready for this showdown

First, it sounded like it was all but a done deal on the "Carrier" removal, what with the non response by SU

Then, it sounded like Carrier was shocked and miffed. Oh, boy.

 

[OrangeDW]

I'm getting my popcorn ready for this showdown

First, it sounded like it was all but a done deal on the "Carrier" removal, what with the non response by SU

Then, it sounded like Carrier was shocked and miffed. Oh, boy.

Those Carrier sponsored signs that the NC State mouthbreathers were holding up back in 98 should’ve invalidated the whole thing.

 

[Moontan]

But they don't even mention "dome" in that one. They just refer to the "stadium".

That's a lot different than actually labeling it "Syracuse Univresity Dome"

Believe what you want...

Here is the June announcement of the Dome Box Office moving during construction. Plenty of references to "Dome", not one mention of "Carrier".

Again, this isn't a surprise. Carrier knew what could be happening...

 

[JeffCuse]

Written response to News9 (bolded is the part that I believe is key)

“We are excited about the new fan experience we are working to create at the Dome. Our $118 million investment will change the face and footprint of the Dome, providing a game-day environment unlike anything our campus community, student-athletes, fans and visitors have had before.”
SARAH SCALESE
SENIOR ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT FOR COMMUNICATIONS, SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY

Does a new roof mean a new name? SU’s season ticket packets leave off references to ‘Carrier’

 

[xc84]

Believe what you want...

Here is the June announcement of the Dome Box Office moving during construction. Plenty of references to "Dome", not one mention of "Carrier".

Again, this isn't a surprise. Carrier knew what could be happening...

And not one mention of the "Syracuse University Dome"

 

[Jake]

Yeah...looking more and more like a hardball tactic by SU who must believe it has some type if legal standing here.

I also think that changing the “footprint” of the dome is a pretty big deal in the eyes of the university.

 

[Toga]

Again people. Trojan condoms needs to be it. The Condome.

Perhaps if Dr. Gross was still here.

 

[JeffCuse]

Completely off the wall question but, has the university said anything about making pieces of the old roof available to fans? Not a big piece, but it would be extremely cool to have a small 1'x1' piece of the roof or something similar?

 

[OrangeDW]

Completely off the wall question but, has the university said anything about making pieces of the old roof available to fans? Not a big piece, but it would be extremely cool to have a small 1'x1' piece of the roof or something similar?

Love the idea. I want a piece big enough to cover the ceiling of my living room though...

 

[sufandu]

[

Completely off the wall question but, has the university said anything about making pieces of the old roof available to fans? Not a big piece, but it would be extremely cool to have a small 1'x1' piece of the roof or something similar?

I've always wanted a shade sail. I'll take a 10'x10' piece. I'll even point a fan up at it from underneath, so it's still air supported.

 

[FloridaFan]

What type of renovations would be required for the dome to be considered new?

 

[Cusefan69]

I have no legal backing to this opinion from a court decision standpoint but as an educated guess I would think you would need to make a case that you are changing 45% to 55% of the building to make a legitimate case. Carrier maybe would argue that by just only changing the roof and locker rooms that the changes are not “material enough “ to constitute a change of the dome to something completely different. For example if you paint your house, refurb your bathroom and build a new roof, is the house completely changed? As it correlates to the Dome, Carrier would say no your house (Dome) didn’t change enough,it’s still a 5 bedroom, 3 bath house.(Dome is same foundation, capacity and structure). I know it may not be a great example but it is intended for illustration. I don’t know if there is a magic number (percentage) or not from a courts standpoint.
Another data point. For Made in America, the Federal rules of Procurement require 50% of the parts to be made in America. Someone with FAR/DFAR keep me honest there. So maybe another way to think about the percentage of something.
Again just thinking out loud.

 

[javadoc]

Yeah...looking more and more like a hardball tactic by SU who must believe it has some type if legal standing here.

I also think that changing the “footprint” of the dome is a pretty big deal in the eyes of the university.

New hot take. The school contacted Carrier behind the scenes and Carrier told them to go away, LIFETIME AGREEMENT. School prepares legal strategy and proceeds.

See you in court!

Again, would it be citizens of Syracuse deciding guilt and potential damages here?

 

[orange79]

New hot take. The school contacted Carrier behind the scenes and Carrier told them to go away, LIFETIME AGREEMENT. School prepares legal strategy and proceeds.

See you in court!

Again, would it be citizens of Syracuse deciding guilt and potential damages here?

Depends on how the change of venue request goes.

 

[javadoc]

I have no legal backing to this opinion from a court decision standpoint but as an educated guess I would think you would need to make a case that you are changing 45% to 55% of the building to make a legitimate case. Carrier maybe would argue that by just only changing the roof and locker rooms that the changes are not “material enough “ to constitute a change of the dome to something completely different. For example if you paint your house, refurb your bathroom and build a new roof, is the house completely changed? As it correlates to the Dome, Carrier would say no your house (Dome) didn’t change enough,it’s still a 5 bedroom, 3 bath house.(Dome is same foundation, capacity and structure). I know it may not be a great example but it is intended for illustration. I don’t know if there is a magic number (percentage) or not from a courts standpoint.
Another data point. For Made in America, the Federal rules of Procurement require 50% of the parts to be made in America. Someone with FAR/DFAR keep me honest there. So maybe another way to think about the percentage of something.
Again just thinking out loud.

It probably varies. I’ve worked with state fire marshal agencies, and they have their own rules about what degree of renovations triggers a complete re-inspection as if it were all new construction.

Then there are CAGE classifications for government contracts and was told that you can trigger a complete reclassification and a new CAGE code if you just move your entry doorway down the hall in an office corridor.

 

[DoubleDee]

Completely off the wall question but, has the university said anything about making pieces of the old roof available to fans? Not a big piece, but it would be extremely cool to have a small 1'x1' piece of the roof or something similar?

Contacted Wildhack about the time of the new roof announcement and suggested that pieces get sold off as a way to fund raise. He like the idea and said he’d have to give that some thought.
I need a piece of that roof John.

 

[SUbear]

I have no legal backing to this opinion from a court decision standpoint but as an educated guess I would think you would need to make a case that you are changing 45% to 55% of the building to make a legitimate case. Carrier maybe would argue that by just only changing the roof and locker rooms that the changes are not “material enough “ to constitute a change of the dome to something completely different. For example if you paint your house, refurb your bathroom and build a new roof, is the house completely changed? As it correlates to the Dome, Carrier would say no your house (Dome) didn’t change enough,it’s still a 5 bedroom, 3 bath house.(Dome is same foundation, capacity and structure). I know it may not be a great example but it is intended for illustration. I don’t know if there is a magic number (percentage) or not from a courts standpoint.
Another data point. For Made in America, the Federal rules of Procurement require 50% of the parts to be made in America. Someone with FAR/DFAR keep me honest there. So maybe another way to think about the percentage of something.
Again just thinking out loud.

More than just a new roof here, the original Dome walls(pre cast concrete) were not built structurally to take compressive loading, which is required for the tension truss roof, therefore the walls have had to be reinforced with steel X bracing capable of supporting the weight load of the new roof itself, the steel crown truss and the tension cables that will ultimately support the new roof. Basically structurally rebuilding the exterior of the dome. Pretty close to a complete rebuid. Cost wise greater than the original construction. Other additions both internal and external reinforce this being a new structure.

 

[Cusefan69]

More than just a new roof here, the original Dome walls(pre cast concrete) were not built structurally to take compressive loading, which is required for the tension truss roof, therefore the walls have had to be reinforced with steel X bracing capable of supporting the weight load of the new roof itself. Basically structurally rebuilding the exterior of the dome

With you bear, when posting I didn’t have all the changes that are technically happening. Was operating off top of head. I am sure there is more to it.

 

[richmondcuse03]

New hot take. The school contacted Carrier behind the scenes and Carrier told them to go away, LIFETIME AGREEMENT. School prepares legal strategy and proceeds.

See you in court!

Again, would it be citizens of Syracuse deciding guilt and potential damages here?

Let Carrier sue the school. The fact that they used lifetime in their response was foolish. Every building has an acceptable age and lifetime usage. The dome was at the end of its usable life and they’re substantially changing it.

Plus, as I’ve said before, they’ve abandoned the region. I sincerely hope this goes to court - they will lose far more in PR and marketing / brand value than they get from the current arrangement.

We should start a boycott of Carrier and really them. Last few times I’ve bought new hvac systems I refused to consider Carrier.

 

[texacuse]

Also let the company who abandoned Syracuse and many other communities around the US sue the school. I don’t think it will be helpful for them.

With you bear, when posting I didn’t have all the changes that are technically happening. Was operating off top of head. I am sure there is more to it.

As another potential legal consideration, I can also lend this perspective as a son of a former executive of Crouse Hinds corporation My father was one of the principals involved in the decision to gift the $1M funds to Syracuse University in advance of the construction of the Carrier Dome. To my knowledge, there were no preconditions or quid pro quo commitments to Crouse Hinds from SU in exchange for the gift, not even prearranged seats for the company largesse.

As a further argument it would appear that the difference of gifts of $1M to $2.75M may not be consequential enough to say that one lifetime gift would be just like a “lifetime gift” while the other amount as a lifetime gift with naming arrangement should have been expected to retain the name of the substantially structurally modified building when the principle reasons for the $2.75M was as a gift and also naming rights. The difference as a corporate community friendly contribution to SU is not so substantially meritorious as to be exempted from being terminated once the structure changed even to a moderate if not more considerable degree. Surely the advertising value difference of a mere $1.75M has been eclipsed over 40 years of exposure.

Lastly, for a structure of its kind, it should also be argued that the alleged lifetime contract between SU & Carrier would necessarily be dependent on the lifetime expectancy of the Carrier Dome structure. Much like the I-81 overpass through downtown, It would seem to me a certainty that the Carrier Dome structure has eclipsed its lifetime expectancy and that this would be an easily argued defense with deficiencies noted by engineering experts for the necessity of the new dome structure to be defended by the legal team retained by the SU BOT for just such a time as this. For example as a comparable, I do not believe that the original Metrodome in Minneapolis lasted as long as the Carrier Dome even if only part of the reason for demolition was for structural integrity and deficiency issues. Therefore by my casual observer account, SU should have already prepared for the near certainty guaranteed result that even a contractually required lifetime arrangement of the original named structure has been met and that the new structure would necessarily be considered to be so substantially and structurally independent an entity from the engineering of the original as to be considered a new entity for any naming or other legal purpose.