"The Dome roof"

[SUbear]

Seems like a convenient, if not contorted, dodge because you want the money for a new facility.

Build a new stadium somewhere else and I have no problem. Put a new roof on the Carrier Dome and it's still the Carrier Dome.

You would be correct if they only replace the roof panels as they did in 2000, but if major construction of new supporting structure and a different roof system is entailed it is no longer the same structure and the name could, would, and should be changed.

 

[orangecuse]

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.

Yes, I do. 2.5 x 2.5 = 5, though I'm not great at math. I would even times that value by another 5 in regards to future revenue that would be generated from an entity that seem willingly to put up that amount of coin in today's market/climate. Or, maybe these corps today are so heavy in the pocket that they just piss money away.

You have moved the goal posts in regards to your previous comments about Carrier and the general public's awareness of such a brand. Which coincides with your position that Carrier's name on the Dome isn't anything of real consequence for them when it comes to exposure, financial significance, etc.

 

[orange79]

2.5 x 2.5 = 6.25

2 x 2.5 = 5

 

[orangecuse]

2.5 x 2.5 = 6.25

2 x 2.5 = 5

Ha, I said I wasn't good in math...should've gotten out my calculator before posting that hastily.

 

[Townie72]

Yes, I do. 2.5 x 2.5 = 5, though I'm not great at math. I would even times that value by another 5 in regards to future revenue that would be generated from an entity that seem willingly to put up that amount of coin in today's market/climate. Or, maybe these corps today are so heavy in the pocket that they just piss money away.

You have moved the goal posts in regards to your previous comments about Carrier and the general public's awareness of such a brand. Which coincides with your position that Carrier's name on the Dome isn't anything of real consequence when it comes to exposure, financial significance, etc.

2.5 x 2.5 does not equal 5 for starters.

And 2,500,000 times 2,500,000 is a very, very big number.

But like I said, you guys want a new stadium and don't really cares who pays for it.

And will scream bloody murder if they raise the ticket price for the college version of the Taj Mahal that will somehow sway the athletes are currently going to Clemson to instead come to SU.

 

[Townie72]

Ha, I said I wasn't good in math...should've gotten out my calculator before posting that.

I don't think you should need a calculator for 2.5 squared. But that's OK.

But you are going to need a very powerful one for 2500000 squared.

 

[Townie72]

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?

In those days there was a close relationship between Carrier and it's execs and SU. Particularly with the schools of engineering and business. Many Carrier employees were SU grads and there was a lot of information interchange.

When the gift was announced, the Carrier president commented on this close relationship and long history. It was really Carrier trying to pay the University back and maybe to curry a little favor with its SU grad employees, the local citizenry and even the politicians.

With the reduction in the size of the local Carrier presence, that relationship no longer exists.

I can remember thinking this was a ballsy move by the Carrier president because his logic was pretty thin gruel. But these were different days.

 

[orangecuse]

In those days there was a close relationship between Carrier and it's execs and SU. Particularly with the schools of engineering and business. Many Carrier employees were SU grads and there was a lot of information interchange.

When the gift was announced, the Carrier president commented on this close relationship and long history. It was really Carrier trying to pay the University back and maybe to curry a little favor with its SU grad employees, the local citizenry and even the politicians.

With the reduction in the size of the local Carrier presence, that relationship no longer exists.

I can remember thinking this was a ballsy move by the Carrier president because his logic was pretty thin gruel. But these were different days.

So that being the case, Carrier's true intent wasn't for "naming rights" not to mention anything relatively customary present day, but primarily for what you allude to. If Carrier's true intent of its gift, at its core, wasn't for their financial benefit/gain, but again for what you suggest, why does it matter to them if their name remains on the building? Their presence no longer exists in the community, and their reputation in the area isn't favorable. It appears that they obviously see the financial benefit of their gift having legs extend well beyond the scope of their intent and wanting this free stream and unforeseen win fall to continue. Of course, not exponentially, but certainly well beyond the 2.5 mil.

 

[Crusty]

Seems like a convenient, if not contorted, dodge because you want the money for a new facility.

Build a new stadium somewhere else and I have no problem. Put a new roof on the Carrier Dome and it's still the Carrier Dome.

I would like to see the original paperwork before coming to a definitive position on the matter.

That said, it seems that a different location solves the issue. One can also argue that demolishing the original structure does the same. So, the only issue is what percentage of reconstruction qualifies as a new structure. I don't think 100% is the right answer. Courts would probably view some large percentage as "substantially" a new structure and that would probably be determinative.

In all likelihood Carrier would probably agree that a "substantially" new structure permits a new naming deal.

I would guess this could all get negotiated into a new deal.

Once the dome is substantially reconstructed, the footprint is irrelevant. Putting $100 million into s structure makes it a new building does it not.

 

[xc84]

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.

SU can float the idea of naming rights to determine the market value. I didn't say anything about tying in "PR value". It is worth what someone would pay. That's the value. Whatever that is , is what Carrier would "donate".

 

[xc84]

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.

Please tell is then why Carrier won't just give the name away if it has no PR, marketing or other value for them.

 

[orangecuse]

I would like to see the original paperwork before coming to a definitive position on the matter.

That said, it seems that a different location solves the issue. One can also argue that demolishing the original structure does the same. So, the only issue is what percentage of reconstruction qualifies as a new structure. I don't think 100% is the right answer. Courts would probably view some large percentage as "substantially" a new structure and that would probably be determinative.

In all likelihood Carrier would probably agree that a "substantially" new structure permits a new naming deal.

I would guess this could all get negotiated into a new deal.

Once the dome is substantially reconstructed, the footprint is irrelevant. Putting $100 million into s structure makes it a new building does it not.

Actually, from a legal standpoint, this would be an interesting case to play out as there would appear to be more layers than one here. Besides the "substantial" argument and what may constitute that legally (though it's unclear if that's the primary matter of significance in play) I think the larger issue that may apply here is intent. Courts have viewed and ruled intent as a primary deciding factor when determining or making various rulings. Since it appears that Carrier's intent was not based upon increasing brand/marketing exposure, profiting, etc. (the true essence of "naming rights" today) it would be interesting to see a court's ruling. Any ambiguity in the contract language generally is ruled against the party who drafted the contract, not granting them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[CuseOnly]

Just cause it's legal doesn't make it right.

And Universities are held to a higher standard.

I'm just telling you what my reaction to SU even suggesting this would be. How it would affect this double alum's view of the Universiy. And I'll bet I'm not alone.

Are Universities held to a higher standard?

You should read the newspapers as to what universities standards really are.

SU trying to get out of or renegotiate a bad naming rights deal makes us pikers compared to the rest of what universities do.

I would request you start writing letters now so you can get a head start for when this deal is renegotiated, oh and get that garbage can ready for those degrees...just in case.

 

[Shaggy1]

So my friend and I are drunk and the kids were bored. I ran a blueprint for this, what kind of bid do you think the University will throw my way .

 

[IthacaMatt]

Somehow I am reminded of the saying, "If it walks like a duck, ..."
A domed stadium between the Heroy Building and the Forestry school is the Carrier Dome.
Suggesting otherwise to me depends on a contorted logic that few will understand.

"Syracuse University - Where history, tradition and old agreements never hold us back." Another possibility would be, "Syracuse University - What have you done for us lately?"

This is why God invented lawyers!

 

[IthacaMatt]

We're spending hundreds of billions of dollars every year to keep up with China's military expansion,

Fake news!
China has a bigger army in terms of soldiers, because that's what they have - over a billion people.
But in terms of nukes, ships, etc., we are far ahead.
The only people who say anything contrary work in the defense industry.

 

[Townie72]

Please tell is then why Carrier won't just give the name away if it has no PR, marketing or other value for them.

Well, it has to do with the spirit of the gift. It's like giving a dog a pork chop and then have them come back and bite you.

I don't think it is all that valuable to the, but it has some value.

 

[xc84]

Well, it has to do with the spirit of the gift. It's like giving a dog a pork chop and then have them come back and bite you.

I don't think it is all that valuable to the, but it has some value.

How much?
Also, just becaus Carrier didn’t think it was worth much then does not mean it is not valuable now.

 

[Townie72]

Are Universities held to a higher standard?

You should read the newspapers as to what universities standards really are.

SU trying to get out of or renegotiate a bad naming rights deal makes us pikers compared to the rest of what universities do.

I would request you start writing letters now so you can get a head start for when this deal is renegotiated, oh and get that garbage can ready for those degrees...just in case.

Because I am pretty convinced this won't happen, I will wait until it comes.

This is just an idea floated by people who want a grand new facility and are trying to brainstorm ideas on how to get the money.

This is a pipe dream.

 

[reedny]

Because I am pretty convinced this won't happen, I will wait until it comes.

This is just an idea floated by people who want a grand new facility and are trying to brainstorm ideas on how to get the money.

This is a pipe dream.

Syracuse is negotiating for new naming rights deal on Carrier Dome (report)

 

[Townie72]

How much?
Also, just becaus Carrier didn’t think it was worth much then does not mean it is not valuable now.

Oh, I think Carrier would gladly sell for the right number. It would be a windfall for them.

And it would be less than what some other corporation might pay. But it couldn't seem like a give-away that the stockholders and business press would howl about. Corporate managers do not like criticism.

(I can hear the internal Carrier grousing now, "Top management cut our bonuses but gave a university a sweetheart deal")

I have not heard of a single suggested purchaser for the Name rights that is close to plausible.

 

[xc84]

Oh, I think Carrier would gladly sell for the right number. It would be a windfall for them.

And it would be less than what some other corporation might pay. But it couldn't seem like a give-away that the stockholders and business press would howl about. Corporate managers do not like criticism.

(I can hear the internal Carrier grousing now, "Top management cut our bonuses but gave a university a sweetheart deal")

I have not heard of a single suggested purchaser for the Name rights that is close to plausible.

How much is it worth to Carrier? You said not much so just give us a number.

 

[Townie72]

There are symbiotic relationship between universities and corporations. Xerox and Kodak had one with the U of Rochester.

But beyond these, corporate managers are very wary about Universities. And that's because experience has shown them that these entities always have their hands out. They are supremely ignorant of the Corporate world and see corporations as just another source of money. Where that money comes from, how hard it is to make and what other competing places it might be spent is of little interest to them.

We used to joke about the "Education Industry handshake" That's the one in which the arm is extended with the hand at the end with it's palm up. They wanted money, free equipment, price breaks, jobs for their graduates, internships, research contracts.

We handled that by setting up a separate entity, a Foundation, that could give grants, etc, and prohibiting the operating groups from doing this.

 

[Townie72]

How much is it worth to Carrier? You said not much so just give us a number.

The number you need to worry about is how much they'll take for it, not what it is worth to them.

I doubt if they have anything but a foggy idea what is worth to them. If I were them I'd take a guess on what SU could sell it for and ask for half of that number. Seems Fair. SU makes money and Carrier makes money.

Another approach would be to inflate the 2.5 million 1980 dollars into 2018 dollars. Or to assume it was a loan and add the interest SU would have had to pay.

 

[Townie72]

This is why God invented lawyers!

Lawyers and Universities?

Yeah, that's a great idea.

Ask Yukon about how suing the ACC turned out for them

And Rutgers and Pitt paid through the nose in legal fees and got nothing.

Law firms fleece universities like shepherds fleece lambs.

Good idea.