We can't rename the Dome for money but how about...

[xc84]

I knew the main points of the deal, the details are what matter here. What you're doing here is making an assumption on the details of the deal. Never assume, you make as A$$ out of U and ME. SU's lawyers should be looking at the terms to find what leverage they have, if your assumption is correct then they need to find another avenue (other than the public shaming that another poster recommended) to gain some leverage with Carrier.

There have been articles written about it before. This is not new. SU has no options. There is no incentive for Carrier to make such a new deal...hence my fool-proof embarrassment strategy.

http://www.dailyorange.com/2.8655/n...d-more-lucrative-deals-1.1235435#.T3IlxMiRJI4

 

[CaliCuse]

They might want to create be

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/02/06/colleges-sell-naming-rights-bathrooms

tter disabled stalls for us crips. Not the gang variety either.:rolling:

 

[CaliCuse]

Yes, that's about the size of it... would have to replace it . Carrier gave a gift in exchange for an agreement to name the dome after Carrier. This was the common practice for naming rights back then and still is for most campus buildings. Charging for naming rights for a finite period of time didn't really come into vogue until later.

I have no idea what the language of the " Carrier" contract" specified regarding the name thing

 

[Cusefan95]

There have been articles written about it before. This is not new. SU has no options. There is no incentive for Carrier to make such a new deal...hence my fool-proof embarrassment strategy.

http://www.dailyorange.com/2.8655/n...d-more-lucrative-deals-1.1235435#.T3IlxMiRJI4

The problem with your "fool-proof" option is it means Syracuse University needs to find a way to enlist other organizations - like, well ESPN - to mention the fact that the Carrier Dome has no A/C. Which is unlikely to happen, because ESPN has no reason to consistently bring it up. Then you're hoping that someone that tuned in to watch a game in Arizona or Florida actually remembers that the Carrier Dome doesn't have A/C (again highly unlikely the information would be retained). Then further hoping that the retained information will leave said viewer with a negative impression of Carrier and influence future purchasing decisions. Why exactly would a lack of A/C in a football stadium make someone less likely to buy a particular companies merchandise for their own home? On top of that your desired outcome is that Carrier install a white elephant A\C system at the Dome so you don't get a little sweaty maybe twice a year. There is nothing fool proof about your plan, and even if it did work it would be a hell of a lot of effort for virtually no payoff.

 

[Cusefan95]

SU has no options.

I'm going to just hazard a guess that you have never had any dealings with a corporate lawyer. Companies (or Universities) ALWAYS have options.

 

[xc84]

I have no idea what the language of the " Carrier" contract" specified regarding the name thing

Manderin Chinese.

Seriously, see my link above.

 

[xc84]

The problem with your "fool-proof" option is it means Syracuse University needs to find a way to enlist other organizations - like, well ESPN - to mention the fact that the Carrier Dome has no A/C. Which is unlikely to happen, because ESPN has no reason to consistently bring it up. Then you're hoping that someone that tuned in to watch a game in Arizona or Florida actually remembers that the Carrier Dome doesn't have A/C (again highly unlikely the information would be retained). Then further hoping that the retained information will leave said viewer with a negative impression of Carrier and influence future purchasing decisions. Why exactly would a lack of A/C in a football stadium make someone less likely to buy a particular companies merchandise for their own home? On top of that your desired outcome is that Carrier install a white elephant A\C system at the Dome so you don't get a little sweaty maybe twice a year. There is nothing fool proof about your plan, and even if it did work it would be a hell of a lot of effort for virtually no payoff.

Great response but "fool-proof" was sarcastic.

 

[xc84]

I'm going to just hazard a guess that you have never had any dealings with a corporate lawyer. Companies (or Universities) ALWAYS have options.

Ok dude. Name (no pun intended) the good, feasible options?

 

[Cusefan95]

Ok dude. Name (no pun intended) the good, feasible options?

I'd need to see the actual contract. Not articles about the contact like you linked - the actual, spell it out in detail what each parties obligations are contract. I tossed out one possibility - stop referring to the building as the Carrier Dome - if that avenue has been definitively cut off in clear contractual terms, it would get a lot harder. But not impossible.

But I would be freakin' stunned if there was actual language in the contract requiring the building be named/spelled out on any TV broadcasts from the facility. If its actually there, I'd have to tip my cap to Carrier because that would have been some visionary planning 30 years ago. If its not there, calling the venue Ernie Davis Field/Jim Boeheim Court on air becomes a viable option. It's a nuclear option, you're committed to damaging a business relationship beyond repair if you act on it - but it would be good to have in my back pocket if I was trying to negotiate buy-back terms with Carrier.

 

[Moontan]

Buy back should at least be explored. It'll likely cost much more than the original donation.

One wonders if there's a way to put them on notice: "in 5 (3?) years we will stop referring to the stadium as the Carrier Dome. If you would like us to continue using the current name, please sign this $25m, 10yr extension. We are also open to reimbursing Carrier $5m any time between now and then to terminate the current agreement."

 

[shandeezy7]

I knew the main points of the deal, the details are what matter here. What you're doing here is making an assumption on the details of the deal. Never assume, you make as A$$ out of U and ME. SU's lawyers should be looking at the terms to find what leverage they have, if your assumption is correct then they need to find another avenue (other than the public shaming that another poster recommended) to gain some leverage with Carrier.

Being in higher-ed fundraising, I know that any naming agreements we sign with donors, there is always a clause that the proper name of the facility/program etc. must always be used in print and other media publications for as long as the terms of the contract are in place (usually in perpetuity). Now obviously, a lot has changed in fundraising in the last 30 years, especially as it relates to stadium naming rights, but it really is not a stretch, and in fact is high likely, that SU must always refer to the dome as the Carrier Dome, no matter how ty of a deal it might have turned out to be for us.

 

[xc84]

I'd need to see the actual contract. Not articles about the contact like you linked - the actual, spell it out in detail what each parties obligations are contract. I tossed out one possibility - stop referring to the building as the Carrier Dome - if that avenue has been definitively cut off in clear contractual terms, it would get a lot harder. But not impossible.

But I would be freakin' stunned if there was actual language in the contract requiring the building be named/spelled out on any TV broadcasts from the facility. If its actually there, I'd have to tip my cap to Carrier because that would have been some visionary planning 30 years ago. If its not there, calling the venue Ernie Davis Field/Jim Boeheim Court on air becomes a viable option. It's a nuclear option, you're committed to damaging a business relationship beyond repair if you act on it - but it would be good to have in my back pocket if I was trying to negotiate buy-back terms with Carrier.

I said a good feasible option with the emphasis on "good" and "feasible". Naming the venue "Ernie Davis Field/Jim Boeheim court" will give us enough revenue from Ernie and Jim to buy a cup of coffee. In addition, the court is already named after Boeheim so the change would only give us a 1/2 cup of coffee. A good option is one where they are able to make money again off of the name.

 

[Scooch]

Actually, I think this was the first time an athletic facility like this bore the name of a company. Selling of naming rights back then was a new idea.

Poor Carrier... there only connection with th Dome was that they had hired a lot of SU grads and were one of the major businesses in Syracuse at the time.

They are now in the near South, I believe. It was a hell of a deal at the time ... although I doubt that when people hear "Carrier Dome" these days many of them are able to connect it to Carrier Corporation.

Foxboro's Schaeffer Stadium says hi... from 1971...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxboro_Stadium#Naming_rights

Deal was signed 10 years before the Carrier Dome opened and expired after 12 years. Lifetime rights was crazy, people knew better back then.

 

[Toga]

Why couldn't SU split naming rights proceeds with Carrier?

 

[Townie72]

Foxboro's Schaeffer Stadium says hi... from 1971...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxboro_Stadium#Naming_rights

Deal was signed 10 years before the Carrier Dome opened and expired after 12 years. Lifetime rights was crazy, people knew better back then.

So what's your point? That SU was stupid? Amateurish? What? Or is this just more of the mindless, incessant criticism of the school, the coaches and the players that seems to characterize so much of the discussion on this forum. Or were you correcting my weak statement that this the first or one of the first stadiums to sell naming rights?

At the time, the University was scrambling for the money, as I recall, to close the gap between the cost of the project and the NY State money and what donations they felt they could raise or had raised. With their hands out, they weren't trying to drive any bargains. There wasn't any "auctioning" of the naming rights. And as far as I can tell, SU approached Carrier with the proposition and maybe they thought that a 12 year period or whatever wasn't attractive enough of a deal to get the money they were looking for. While maybe not the first naming rights deal it was far from a common practice at the time.

I thought it was a miracle they got the money from Carrier at the time. Now people are saying we should have cut a better bargain.

Remember the Dome project fell into SU's lap based upon politicians looking to spend money in Central NY so that CNY wouldn't scream about money spent Downstate. And there may have been some pressure to get this thing tied up before the political winds changed direction. Maybe somebody might have raised the question of why NY State taxpayers are building a stadium for a private university.

For the record, at the time I thought the selling of naming rights was "cheesy".

 

[Cusefan95]

I said a good feasible option with the emphasis on "good" and "feasible". Naming the venue "Ernie Davis Field/Jim Boeheim court" will give us enough revenue from Ernie and Jim to buy a cup of coffee. In addition, the court is already named after Boeheim so the change would only give us a 1/2 cup of coffee. A good option is one where they are able to make money again off of the name.

The point is that the free advertising to Carrier goes away if you start referring to it as Ernie Davis/Jim Boeheim Court. Then you can actually get Carrier to the table to talk about a naming rights buy-back...which Syracuse could then sell on a term limited basis to another company (or back to Carrier under a new agreement). If you can't get Carrier to the table, you can't start making any progress.

 

[SmilinBob]

I still wonder how much of the dome has to be torn apart before SU can get another sponsor? Lawyers...accountants anyone that knows how to dissect details and get out of bad contracts?

 

[Cusefan95]

Being in higher-ed fundraising, I know that any naming agreements we sign with donors, there is always a clause that the proper name of the facility/program etc. must always be used in print and other media publications for as long as the terms of the contract are in place (usually in perpetuity). Now obviously, a lot has changed in fundraising in the last 30 years, especially as it relates to stadium naming rights, but it really is not a stretch, and in fact is high likely, that SU must always refer to the dome as the Carrier Dome, no matter how ty of a deal it might have turned out to be for us.

The only thing that would give me a glimmer of hope that there would be a window of opportunity here is that it would have been a fantastically bad deal for Syracuse even back in 1980. It's possible (maybe even probable) that Carrier came into the negotiations with a good plan, while SU was desperate for quick cash to make sure the political winds didn't change and the window of opportunity to build the Dome closed. But its generally a horrible idea to sign a deal which obligates you to some course of action with no out clauses for eternity.

 

[xc84]

It's unlikely they (SU) can call the Carrier Dome another name. Otherwise, what did the gift agreement mean? Nothing. It's already the Jim Boeheim court and Ernie Davis Field but he building is called the Carrier Dome.

 

[SmilinBob]

It's unlikely they (SU) can call the Carrier Dome another name. Otherwise, what did the gift agreement mean? Nothing. It's already the Jim Boeheim court and Ernie Davis Field but he building is called the Carrier Dome.

If they tear off the top it isn't a dome. If they build a retractable roof is it possible that this might be enough to get out of this bad contract?

 

[xc84]

The only thing that would give me a glimmer of hope that there would be a window of opportunity here is that it would have been a fantastically bad deal for Syracuse even back in 1980. It's possible (maybe even probable) that Carrier came into the negotiations with a good plan, while SU was desperate for quick cash to make sure the political winds didn't change and the window of opportunity to build the Dome closed. But its generally a horrible idea to sign a deal which obligates you to some course of action with no out clauses for eternity.

You need to think of it relative to the time. There are thousands of campuses around the country. Many have buildings that were named (by agreement) after a significant donor. This was and still is common practice for naming campus buildings. The names are for perpetuity. At the time, the dome was thought of as just another campus building. Sure, with 20/20 hindsight, we know now it was a bad deal...but at the time, it was relatively standard practice on college campuses.

 

[Townie72]

The point is that the free advertising to Carrier goes away if you start referring to it as Ernie Davis/Jim Boeheim Court. Then you can actually get Carrier to the table to talk about a naming rights buy-back...which Syracuse could then sell on a term limited basis to another company (or back to Carrier under a new agreement). If you can't get Carrier to the table, you can't start making any progress.

What happen to "A deal is a deal"? SU entered into a contract with Carrier Corp. In exchange for a couple of million dollars, SU agreed to name the new athletic facility the Carrier Dome as long as the structure exists.

Now in order to get more money, you want SU to undermine that agreement by suppressing the use of the name so as to cheapen than value of the naming rights and encourage Carrier to enter a new agreement.

And this proposal of yours, does it cause you any sort of ethical twinge?

First of all, there's no way the University is going to do anything like this. Not only does it open itself up to a legal challenge from Carrier but it also would show the university to be absolutely ruthless in its dealings.

 

[xc84]

If they tear off the top it isn't a dome. If they build a retractable roof is it possible that this might be enough to get out of this bad contract?

Well, we're talking about ways to earn money. A retractable roof is extremely expensive (probably in hundreds of millions). It would be much cheaper for SU to just give Carrier e.g. $30M to get out of the deal... and not sure this would be cost-effective either. And Carrier will just price the "buy out" at what it's (naming right) worth and then a new sponsor would pay what it's (naming right) worth. It would be a wash.

 

[SmilinBob]

Ok then how about building a new stadium for football elsewhere and keep the dome pretty much as it is for all other sports?

 

[Cusefan95]

What happen to "A deal is a deal"? SU entered into a contract with Carrier Corp. In exchange for a couple of million dollars, SU agreed to name the new athletic facility the Carrier Dome as long as the structure exists.

Now in order to get more money, you want SU to undermine that agreement by suppressing the use of the name so as to cheapen than value of the naming rights and encourage Carrier to enter a new agreement.

And this proposal of yours, does it cause you any sort of ethical twinge?

There's a reason why contracts tend to be fairly detailed and lengthy. If I'm not specifically violating the terms of the contract, why would I feel guilty about it?