Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="sutomcat, post: 3416160, member: 27"]
I don't really buy your claim that this renovation has 'destroyed the Carrier Dome'.  The roof has been replaced a couple of times.  The sound system has been upgraded at least once.  New scoreboards have been installed a couple of times.  The field has been replaced a couple of times as well.  No one pronounced the dome destroyed when all these things happened.

Don't see a major difference here.

To me, the fundamental issue here regards the agreement between Carrier and SU.  It has been reported to be a naming gift many times over many years and some sources consider it a hallmark agreement; the first naming gift ever.

This article from Matt Gutirrez, when he was still a student at SU writing for the DO, says it was a gift.

[URL unfurl="true"]http://dailyorange.com/2017/10/syracuse-remains-wed-carrier-college-naming-rights-industry-takes-off/[/URL]

Did Chancellor Eggers and Chairman Holm agree the purpose of the gift was to get Carrier's name on the dome?  I suspect Carrier wanted to ensure the building was built and Eggers may have suggested to him that in return for the gift, SU could name the building after Carrier.  It certainly doesn't sound like SU reached out to Carrier and asked for a naming gift.

I have to believe that there is a document somewhere that lies this out and if Carrier remains insistent that the gift requires the building to retain the name forever, it probably says something to that effect.

It would be a shame for this to go to the courts.  Hope something can be worked out.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?