"The Dome roof"

[xc84]

If the University buys Carrier out, as you suggest, I have no problem with that.

I want the University to "stay classy".

I disagree with everything else you wrote.

Buying them out will be a wash if Carrier will only accept the market value. Time for Carrier to be a good corporate citizen and donate the name to SU.

 

[AZOrange]

If the University buys Carrier out, as you suggest, I have no problem with that.

I want the University to "stay classy".

I disagree with everything else you wrote.

What if it was Jim Boeheim making the call to remove “Carrier” from the facad. Then what say you?

 

[reedny]

If the University buys Carrier out, as you suggest, I have no problem with that.

I want the University to "stay classy".

I disagree with everything else you wrote.

And I would add that the Corporation has the same obligation to keep it classy. Notwithstanding the whole outsourcing debate - on which we disagree completely - why shouldn't Carrier/UT also have some social responsibility here? They're dealing with NFP educational institution -- why should maximizing profit under a one-sided (arguably unconscionable) deal be Carrier's only consideration? That can't be your position. If you want corporations to be treated like "people" (a joke), then why shouldn't Carrier reach out and admit that they've profited handsomely and will recast the agreement. Or is the moral imperative a one-way street?

 

[Townie72]

To everyone but you and the beancounters, a "move" like this means spitting in the face of American workers so you can buy bigger yachts and more expansive vacation properties. Be honest, Townie ... none of the "savings" you talk about actually reach the workers or the local community. They go to the top of the company and that's about it. Sympathy leve: ZeropointZero.

I am assuming that you are not living off the grid somewhere and that you actually buy products and services.

Do you realize that the price of most products we use today has fallen rapidly and that Amercans have more and better thing than they ever had. And it's because manufacturers can produce these things cheaper and cheaper.

How do you imagine that happens?

In the 70's when GE was producing TV sets in Syracuse you could get a 21" TV for $500 1973 dollars.

Today, you can get a vastly superior TV , not manufactured in Liverpool, NY, for 50 1973 dollars.

You like all the benefits, you just don't like what businesses (evil big corporations) have to to get them.

Trying to stay in business and producing better and cheaper products is not "spitting in the face of Amercan workers".

 

[Townie72]

What if it was Jim Boeheim making the call to remove “Carrier” from the facad. Then what say you?

In the realm of college basketball, JB is the credible expert.

In every other realm he's just John Q. Citizen to me.

 

[Townie72]

And I would add that the Corporation has the same obligation to keep it classy. Notwithstanding the whole outsourcing debate - on which we disagree completely - why shouldn't Carrier/UT also have some social responsibility here? They're dealing with NFP educational institution -- why should maximizing profit under a one-sided (arguably unconscionable) deal be Carrier's only consideration? That can't be your position. If you want corporations to be treated like "people" (a joke), then why shouldn't Carrier reach out and admit that they've profited handsomely and will recast the agreement. Or is the moral imperative a one-way street?

Carriers responsibilities are to its stakeholders (stockholders, employees, customers, creditors, and suppliers) I can't see how giving away money to SU for no reason benefits any of those people.

In fact, the initial gift was actually kind of shady from a Carrier perspective. It was some top execs taking corporate dollars and giving it to their favorite institution.

 

[reedny]

Carriers responsibilities are to its stakeholders (stockholders, employees, customers, creditors, and suppliers) I can't see how giving away money to SU for no reason benefits any of those people.

In fact, the initial gift was actually kind of shady from a Carrier perspective. It was some top execs taking corporate dollars and giving it to their favorite institution.

It's ALL shady, Townie. You want corporations to reap the benefits of being treated (legally) like "people". But you eschew the social responsibility that goes along with it. Can't have it both ways. Carrier should step up and do the right thing, after benefitting all this time with free advertising. Enough with the profiteering. This will get worked out if Carrier acts honorably, which I would expect they would. If not, we make some structural changes and get a new roof so it's no longer a "Dome".

 

[Townie72]

My parents had a Zenith growing up and we didn't go broke. At any rate, yes, some goods are cheaper, but there are significant costs that you're failing to mention: 1) the 10 year olds working in sweatshops in Asia; 2) the people injured by all the adulterated products (lead, arsenic, etc...); and 3) air and water quality -- 25% of the pollution in San Fransisco floats over from Asia. And there are other costs, even more significant. Have you heard of the DF21D? Here's a photo:


View attachment 122912


Comparing Aerial and Satellite Images of China's Spratly Outposts | Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative

Some goods are cheaper?

Name some.

How much of that pollution is from the agriculture, animals and power required to feed, closth and house all those billions of people and how much is caused by sneaker factories?

 

[xc84]

Carriers responsibilities are to its stakeholders (stockholders, employees, customers, creditors, and suppliers) I can't see how giving away money to SU for no reason benefits any of those people.

.

If they gift back the name to SU, they could probably write off a value of about $20M. Good for SU. Good for the Carrier shareholders. Good corporate citizenship.

 

[Townie72]

It's ALL shady, Townie. They should step up and do the right thing, after benefitting all this time with free advertising. Enough with the profiteering. This will get worked out if Carrier has any social responsibility whatsoever. If not, we make some structural changes and get a new roof so it's no longer a "Dome".

Your call for "social responsibility" sounds to me like "I want a better athletic facility and I want someone else to pay for it."

Corporations are socially responsible if they produce quality products that consumers want, provide employment, give shareholders a fair return, and operate in a legal and ethical way.

Your definition of social responsible seems to involves giving money so your favorite football team has a nicer place to play and you have wider aisles and nicer men's rooms. Quite a stretch of the term, I'd say

 

[Toga]

If they gift back the name to SU, they could probably write off a value of about $20M. Good for SU. Good for the Carrier shareholders. Good corporate citizenship.

Ba da bing

 

[Townie72]

If they gift back the name to SU, they could probably write off a value of about $20M. Good for SU. Good for the Carrier shareholders. Good corporate citizenship.

"Write off"?

Sure, let's have Carrier write it off.

Unless I'm mistaken, that is where Carrier reduces it's taxes by writing this off. Which of course shifts the burden to the rest of us that pay taxes.

 

[Townie72]

My parents had a Zenith growing up and we didn't go broke. At any rate, yes, some goods are cheaper, but there are significant costs that you're failing to mention: 1) the 10 year olds working in sweatshops in Asia; 2) the people injured by all the adulterated products (lead, arsenic, etc...); and 3) air and water quality -- 25% of the pollution in San Fransisco floats over from Asia. And there are other costs, even more significant. Have you heard of the DF21D? Here's a photo:


View attachment 122912


Comparing Aerial and Satellite Images of China's Spratly Outposts | Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative

How many TV's do you have now?

Where were they manufactured?

How does their performance match up with that Zenith you had with the mechanical tuner?

Where was the shirt you have on manufactured? Or you shoes?

 

[xc84]

Your call for "social responsibility" sounds to me like "I want a better athletic facility and I want someone else to pay for it."

Corporations are socially responsible if they produce quality products that consumers want, provide employment, give shareholders a fair return, and operate in a legal and ethical way.

Your definition of social responsible seems to involves giving money so your favorite football team has a nicer place to play and you have wider aisles and nicer men's rooms. Quite a stretch of the term, I'd say

The revenue from the name will not pay for the "new" facility but will help the cause. They gave the donation as a gesture of community support and social responsibility. You may not like that, but it did pay off for Carrier in the end from a goodwill and marketing (i.e. profits) standpoint. Now they can do a similarly responsible thing by gifting back the rights. It would be a goodwill gesture that would given them a write-off and benefit SU. Win:Win. Not sure why that bothers you so much.

 

[xc84]

"Write off"?

Sure, let's have Carrier write it off.

Unless I'm mistaken, that is where Carrier reduces it's taxes by writing this off. Which of course shifts the burden to the rest of us that pay taxes.

You must have hated Trump's unequal tax cuts

PS: Carrier wrote off the original $2.75M too.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

Let me see if I understand what you are saying.

Big time college athletics is a seemly business filled with lies and broken promises. Yup. I agree although the unrealistic ideas of the parents and kids also plays into this.

So because I am a fan of the sport, I have to buy into schools and corporations trying to rip one another off?

What that saying about "Two wrongs don't make a right"?

I don't see your letters to SU protesting the repugnant practice of running kids off.
Maybe next post?

 

[Townie72]

You must have hated Trump's unequal tax cuts

PS: Carrier wrote off the original $2.75M too.

I like the reduction in the corporate tax rates for a number of reasons including the fact that it encourages both job and wage growth.

But as importantly it puts some more honesty in the tax system.

You see, corporations don't actually pay any taxes. What they do it to collect taxes for the government.

The taxes they pay are just added into the price of what consumers pay for goods and services.

Guess who pays corporate taxes? You.

There is no free lunch. It's a closed loop system.

 

[Townie72]

I don't see your letters to SU protesting the repugnant practice of running kids off.
Maybe next post?

In my mind that's a completely different subject.

Much of this is driven by the NCAa limits.

But one year of a scholarship or two is better than a sharp stick in the eye (as they say in Texas)

 

[Townie72]

You must have hated Trump's unequal tax cuts

PS: Carrier wrote off the original $2.75M too.

Yeah, and if you fully depreciate an asset and then sell it for more than the zero book value, that money is taxable.

 

[Townie72]

The revenue from the name will not pay for the "new" facility but will help the cause. They gave the donation as a gesture of community support and social responsibility. You may not like that, but it did pay off for Carrier in the end from a goodwill and marketing (i.e. profits) standpoint. Now they can do a similarly responsible thing by gifting back the rights. It would be a goodwill gesture that would given them a write-off and benefit SU. Win:Win. Not sure why that bothers you so much.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to value the positive impact of advertising?

The positive value --- the impact of things like "goodwill gestures" are impossible to measure. They are largely theoretical.

Why can't you guys just come out and say, I want SU to have a better facility and I don't care who pays for it just so we get it"

That's much easier than wading into things like the value of PR spending and write-offs which some of you have little experience with.

Guess what a cut in the Corp tax rate means to the value of write-offs.

 

[xc84]

Do you have any idea how hard it is to value the positive impact of advertising?

The positive value --- the impact of things like "goodwill gestures" are impossible to measure. They are largely theoretical.

Why can't you guys just come out and say, I want SU to have a better facility and I don't care who pays for it just so we get it"

That's much easier than wading into things like the value of PR spending and write-offs which some of you have little experience with.

Guess what a cut in the Corp tax rate means to the value of write-offs.

It can be a win win. The valuation is really easy. It is what someone else will pay for the name. It is not complicated.

Yes, I want SU to have a better facility and I want Carrier to donate $ to help pay for it.

 

[orangecuse]

I like the reduction in the corporate tax rates for a number of reasons including the fact that it encourages both job and wage growth.

But as importantly it puts some more honesty in the tax system.

You see, corporations don't actually pay any taxes. What they do it to collect taxes for the government.

The taxes they pay are just added into the price of what consumers pay for goods and services.

Guess who pays corporate taxes? You.

There is no free lunch. It's a closed loop system.

The corporate tax rate of 35% wasn't what corporations actually pay, most after deductions pay around 21-22%. There was a great article (Washington Post I believe, others too like Kiplinger's, etc.) about this around the time the Trump tax cut became apparent it was going to pass. If corporations were actually paying that amount, they need to fire their accountant.

Moreover, in regards to the tax cut allegedly spurring up job and wage growth, it's somewhat misleading & inaccurate and just more political propaganda. A recent related interview of various CEO's regarding same said as much suggesting they'd do what the trend has been over the past couple of decades, which is buying back and repurchasing of stock. There are many articles about this fact.

On a related aside, don't you think it was bit ironic a couple of weeks back when the stock market dropped significantly after the jobs report came out showing that growth was better (slightly) than projected, with the critical trigger of the fall alleged to be due to wage growth a wee higher than expected? Interesting, don't you think that such positive news would have an ill-effect on the market? It supports the adage of what's good for Wall Street isn't necessarily good for Main Street...and vice versa.

Don't kid yourself, Carrier knows that they were the true benefactor here, and exponentially so, with this "gift." Otherwise, Carrier would have no issue whatsoever in simply returning it and saying 'thank you very much!'

 

[Townie72]

It can be a win win. The valuation is really easy. It is what someone else will pay for the name. It is not complicated.

You are going to have to explain this to me because I have no idea what you are talking about.

I get the concept of establishing current market value.

But tieing the PR value of giving the naming rights away to the current market value escapes me.

Carrier is not in a business with huge margins. So they would need a huge return in gross sales to break-even on that expense.

Maybe Carrier can sell the rights on the open market. Maybe Trump Hotels and Resorts would be interested.

 

[Townie72]

The corporate tax rate of 35% wasn't what corporations actually pay, most after deductions pay around 21-22%. There was a great article (Washington Post I believe, others too like Kiplinger's, etc.) about this around the time the Trump tax cut became apparent it was going to pass. If corporations were actually paying that amount, they need to fire their accountant.

Moreover, in regards to the tax cut allegedly spurring up job and wage growth, it's somewhat misleading & inaccurate and just more political propaganda. A recent related interview of various CEO's regarding same said as much suggesting they'd do what the trend has been over the past couple of decades, which is buying back and repurchasing of stock. There are many articles about this fact.

On a related aside, don't you think it was bit ironic a couple of weeks back when the stock market dropped significantly after the jobs report came out showing that growth was better (slightly) than projected, with the critical trigger of the fall alleged to be due to wage growth a wee higher than expected? Interesting, don't you think that such positive news would have an ill-effect on the market? It supports the adage of what's good for Wall Street isn't necessarily good for Main Street...and vice versa.

Don't kid yourself, Carrier knows that they were the true benefactor here, and exponentially so, with this "gift." Otherwise, Carrier would have no issue whatsoever in simply returning it and saying 'thank you very much!'

If I hadn't sat in many meetings where prices were set based on costs that included taxes, I might think differently.

And if you lower taxes it frees up money for Al sorts of other things including salaries. This isn't complicated for someone not viewing through an ideological prism.

I doubt you mean "exponentially". That would be $2.5 million times 2.5 million which is a very large amount of money.

Most of the people on here --- without a knowledge of the markets in which Carrier operates --- are greatly overvaluing the value this has had.

Never in life has an HVAC sub-contractor chose Carrier as a supplier because they were aware of the brand because they saw the Dome on TV.

 

[orangecuse]

You are going to have to explain this to me because I have no idea what you are talking about.

I get the concept of establishing current market value.

But tieing the PR value of giving the naming rights away to the current market value escapes me.

Carrier is not in a business with huge margins. So they would need a huge return in gross sales to break-even on that expense.

Maybe Carrier can sell the rights on the open market. Maybe Trump Hotels and Resorts would be interested.

What do you honestly think Carrier's true intent was back in 1978/79 when the offered the gift? Naming rights for stadiums (or the like) had never existed and there was absolutely zero precedent. Wasn't Carrier's "gift" just that, a gift of generosity as most "gifts" are offered, and additionally wanting to be part of the area, community support, growth, etc. at the time?

You yourself have stated and apparently believe that no one (other than vendors or subcontractors, etc.) in the larger scope have ever heard of Carrier and/or know what they even do. If that's is truly the case, why the heck does Carrier give a damn then if their name remains on the Dome, or anywhere inside for that matter? There's no benefit to Carrier, certainly not from a financial standpoint, right?