The Carrier Dome Renaming Thread...

[ColoradoB]

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 would love this to be an option. I purchased part of the Silverdome turf and roof when they became available.

 

[FrancoPizza]

So if they expand the concourses to get out of the naming rights deal I’ll need the email address of the carrier strategists that decided to obfuscate so I can thank them.

 

[Toga]

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.

More to the point - did the original dome have a roller coaster on top of it? No it did not.

 

[rocklloyd]

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.

I wonder if the boycott should be expanded to GM products, Chrysler (now fiat) products, anything from General Electric, nestle products, Miller beer, porter cable tools, the list goes on. If you are doing a boycott this way, you should make sure to expand to anyone who has “abandoned” the region.

 

[sufandu]

I wonder if the boycott should be expanded to GM products, Chrysler (now fiat) products, anything from General Electric, nestle products, Miller beer, porter cable tools, the list goes on. If you are doing a boycott this way, you should make sure to expand to anyone who has “abandoned” the region.

I believe part of the thought behind the boycott, not that I'm suggesting we should do it, is that they insist on having their name prominantly displayed on the most famous building in the area. Those other companies do not.

 

[richmondcuse03]

I believe part of the thought behind the boycott, not that I'm suggesting we should do it, is that they insist on having their name prominantly displayed on the most famous building in the area. Those other companies do not.

Correct. Otherwise we would boycotting every company imaginable. It’s an optics issue. They know they have a sweetheart deal and the landscape long ago changed. A company like Carrier (and UTC) doesn’t hesitate to force their way out of deals when situations change. I like that the school is forcing the issue. They should.

 

[Orijinal]

It's actually shocking to me that SU would make a move like this without having a deal already in place with Carrier. Didn't think they would do business that way.

Maybe the person channel 9 spoke with was just misinformed? I guess we will find out.

 

[Arangeman]

Carrier also pays for the signage rights on the basketball court. I wonder what happens with that. It’s not an insignificant amount of $.

 

[All4SU]

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.

It’s more likely, as has been suggested, that SU is playing hardball with Carrier to donate the AC system and renew the naming rights. There is no way they want to have the name Carrier on a facility with competitive systems inside. There is some wrangling going on here.

 

[richmondcuse03]

It's actually shocking to me that SU would make a move like this without having a deal already in place with Carrier. Didn't think they would do business that way.

Maybe the person channel 9 spoke with was just misinformed? I guess we will find out.

It’s also possible the Carrier spokesperson isn’t in the know. But having experience with how these things work, my guess is the school is forcing the issue. Carrier is traditionally bad at handling PR too.

I don’t view it as bad business though. I’m sure Carrier was given an opportunity and they gave the school the finger. Then it was a matter of seeing who blinks first. I’d be surprised if Carrier ended up suing but as many have said, it depends what the original agreement and language stated.

I just have a hard time believing they win the court of public opinion if they sue to enforce a donation agreement from four decades ago given how naming rights deals have evolved, how much value they got over a “donation” and the fact that the building has lasted longer than equivalent buildings built around the same time have. The school is spending hundreds of millions to essentially build a new building. Carrier isn’t donating again so they can bid on the rights for the new building. Suing would make them look petty to a lot of football fans (who probably own HVAC businesses or make buying decisions on HVAC Systems). I’d be happy to help the school win the PR battle on this one.

 

[Qbobby]

It's actually shocking to me that SU would make a move like this without having a deal already in place with Carrier. Didn't think they would do business that way.

Maybe the person channel 9 spoke with was just misinformed? I guess we will find out.

They may well have approached them to work something out, and Carrier flat our rejected any modifications. If so, then that's the only recourse at SU would have.

 

[richmondcuse03]

It’s more likely, as has been suggested, that SU is playing hardball with Carrier to donate the AC system and renew the naming rights. There is no way they want to have the name Carrier on a facility with competitive systems inside. There is some wrangling going on here.

Especially if a competitor put their name on something else in the building as part of said deal. It’s not hard to imagine ways this could be done - The Lennox Club, The Trane Cooling Club, The Trane Touchdown Whistle etc. who knows - lots of ways to play hardball. I’m glad the school is treating this like a business decision and acting like any other corporation would.

 

[richmondcuse03]

They may well have approached them to work something out, and Carrier flat our rejected any modifications. If so, then that's the only recourse at SU would have.

I guess the real question is would another company sign on for a new naming rights deal without closure on the Carrier front. My guess is no but who knows.

I do like the simplicity of “The Dome” as it reinforces the fact we’re the only college football team playing in an indoor stadium. I wonder if the schools plan is no naming rights for a considerable period of time and letting this play out. We either stick with The Dome and do smaller naming rights around other aspects of the building or wait till time has passed before doing a new deal.

 

[Cusefan69]

In regards to strategy, there is no one size fits all approach. I actually like that Syracuse is presumably putting into motion a negotiation strategy that helps them drive towards an outcome they are looking for and a university culture playing "hardball " is nothing more than Syracuse bringing a gun to a gun fight because that's how companies operate all the time.

 

[OttoMets]

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


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

But of course SU's response is inaccurate - this $118-million phase of construction won't change the footprint of the Dome.

 

[OttoMets]

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?

They did this in 1999 with the original roof. Not sure how much institutional knowledge remains, given all the turnover since then, but it'd be a little surprising if they didn't sell pieces.

Caveat: the roof is filthy and the small pieces sold are a very different color than what we see on the skyline or on the ceiling.

 

[OttoMets]

...
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.

They've got 1,000 engineers and support staff in DeWitt. Let's not get carried away.

 

[reedny]

They've got 1,000 engineers and support staff in DeWitt. Let's not get carried away.

I see what you did there.

 

[OttoMets]

I wondered about that too. It may be the new footers that were excavated, or the bowl seating that is rumored to be on the list for gutting/replacement.

Nah, we've all seen the plans. She's being dishonest. It's a roof replacement and mechanicals upgrade.

I tend to agree with what someone else said above, SU's getting out in front with some aggressive PR to give them leverage in negotiations.

It bothers me that the company line is so dishonest, though. Higher ed ain't what it used to be.

 

[NKR1978]

Those online inflation calculators estimate 2.75m in 1979 is equivalent to close to 10m today. SU might have to eat a good chunk of the first naming rights deal, but the damages would be limited.

This isn't a legal opinion, but should Carrier argue that they're losing the advertisement/brand awareness because of the prominence of the Dome on TV then it kind of belies their argument that the "donation" was pure charity.

 

[NKR1978]

Nah, we've all seen the plans. She's being dishonest. It's a roof replacement and mechanicals upgrade.

I tend to agree with what someone else said above, SU's getting out in front with some aggressive PR to give them leverage in negotiations.

It bothers me that the company line is so dishonest, though. Higher ed ain't what it used to be.

I don't think higher ed was ever what it "used to be." But that's a discussion for a different thread.

 

[xc84]

.

Those online inflation calculators estimate 2.75m in 1979 is equivalent to close to 10m today. SU might have to eat a good chunk of the first naming rights deal, but the damages would be limited.

This isn't a legal opinion, but should Carrier argue that they're losing the advertisement/brand awareness because of the prominence of the Dome on TV then it kind of belies their argument that the "donation" was pure charity.

Not sure inflation matters. The name is worth what someone would pay for it.

 

[OttoMets]

I don't think higher ed was ever what it "used to be." But that's a discussion for a different thread.

Yes, I knew I'd get that reply, maybe not on the first reply but eventually. Fair enough.

 

[NKR1978]

.

Not sure inflation matters. The name is worth what someone would pay for it.

If it's a gift, then give the gift back. With interest. Then there no aggrieved party.

If it's naming rights for a stadium and lost free advertising in perpetuity, then it doesn't seem to be a gift.

 

[Moontan]

SU has put Carrier on the clock. Agree to a new deal before the end of basketball season or the Dome will be lacking all things “Carrier” by the start of the 2020 football season.