Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="texacuse, post: 3080067, member: 3478"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?