The worst sports naming rights deal of all time? It would be hard to beat the deal that Syracuse University struck with Carrier Corp. (an air conditioning company), which contributed $2.75M towards the construction of the Carrier Dome and received naming rights in perpetuity.
To add insult to (negotiating) injury, Carrier is now headquartered in Palm Beach County, Florida. And it’s not like it’s going to be easy to buy them out of the deal. Carrier’s annual revenues topped $17 billion in 2020.
What is Syracuse missing out on?
@UofWA gets $4.1 million per season from Alaska Airlines for the name Alaska Airlines Field at Husky Stadium.
University of Illinois receives $2 million annually from State Farm..
Syracuse receives the equivalent of $78,000 per season.
Syracuse tried to renegotiate the deal 5 years ago in order to help fund upgrades (including a new roof) for the Carrier Dome. Apparently, said negotiations did not go anywhere. syracuse.com/orangesports/2…
👎🏻👎🏻👎🏻
“The school could also go to court to make the argument that the original deal should be scrapped, because when the dome is renovated, it will be radically different from the venue (former Carrier cheif executive officer (Melvin) Holm sponsored."
“Syracuse and Carrier agreed in 1979 that the building would be named for the company in exchange for a one-time donation of $2.75 million. Neither side has publicized the exact wording of the agreement, through it has frequently been referred to as a ‘lifetime’ agreement.”
More today with legalized online sports betting:
“The Bloomberg article cited naming rights expert, Jeff Knapple, chief executive officer of Van Wagner Sports & Entertainment, as saying the naming rights to the building would be worth at least $2 million annually.”
Syracuse scrubs all 64 ‘Carrier’ mentions from its annual football guide; it’s just the Dome now.
Before and After:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The 1st in-stadium sports book in the Northeast will be at Hartford's XL Center, the home of the New York Rangers minor-league affiliate. The 1st sports book in a sports bar in the NE will be Bobby V's, co-owned by former NY Mets manager @BobbyValentine. theday.com/business/20210…
Connecticut immediately leapfrogs New York as an early online sports betting revenue opportunity for NY’s pro sports team owners. The customer database of Madison Square Garden (the owner of the Hartford Wolf Pack) becomes an attractive target for CT operators.
The customer assets of all New York area professional sports teams become valuable targets for Connecticut sports betting operators, which will launch several months before NY online sports betting. NY to Stamford, CT via Grand Central Station is only 43 minutes.
Who’s up for a thread on the IRS Memo regarding daily fantasy sports contests and whether #DFS entry fees should be treated as “wagers” subject to a federal excise tax? Or should I save it for the next episode of @ConDetrimental? Either way, I’ll explain why the IRS got it wrong.
Thread on IRS Memo re: daily fantasy sports
The core issues are two-fold: (1) are DFS entry fees "wagers"? and (2) are DFS contest operators engaged in "the business of accepting wagers" through their acceptance of entry fees to compete in contests? The answer to both questions is "no" (IMO), and I will explain why below.
The XFL's unsecured creditors are objecting to the proposed $15M sale to The Rock because it includes the assignment of all claims belonging to the XFL. There are over $61M in potentially voidable transfers, such as payments made to insiders (including $1.2M to Vince McMahon).
Other potentially voidable transfers include a $5M payment to Raine Advisors LLC during the preference period (90-day period prior to bankruptcy) to satisfy an obligation on which Vince McMahon was jointly liable. If the sale is approved, McMahon would be released from this debt.
"The Committee has identified substantial potential causes of action against insiders, including millions of dollars in payments made within the 1-year insider preference period, and questionable loan transactions within the days and weeks leading up to the bankruptcy."
BREAKING: In new federal court filing, Zion Williamson pushes back against Gina Ford’s claim that he was paid to play at Duke. Calls accusation “baseless” and “irrelevant,” and points to her prior admissions that he was a “student-athlete” until declaring for the NBA Draft.
Zion Williamson has now denied the pay-to-pay allegations, although he was not required to do so at this stage of the case.
“Rather than defend their conduct, Defendants seek to shift the focus with salacious and false rumors from unreliable ‘sources’ outside the pleadings.”
Williamson’s lawyers point out that Ford relies on “Wikipedia articles, Zillow estimates, and hearsay ruled inadmissible by other federal judges” and embraces “rank speculation” that Duke intentionally violated NCAA rules. Calls such allegations “baseless” and “irrelevant.”
BREAKING: Gina Ford ramps up claim that Zion Williamson received money to attend Duke and was “permanently ineligible” to be a student-athlete; in new court filing, she opposes granting judgment to Zion, and says discovery is needed from Duke and Coach K on ‘pay-to-play’ issue.
On why testimony from Coach K is warranted:
Gina Ford says that “information in public records” about Zion Williamson and/or his parents “receiving monies, benefits and/or other prohibited benefits” should be considered by the NC federal court in negating his status as a “student-athlete” under the UAAA.
BREAKING: Zion Williamson files emergency motion with Third District Court of Appeal seeking to stay the entire Florida court action against him, citing prior lawsuit in North Carolina involving same parties and claims. If granted, would stop all discovery in the Florida case.
“Here, a stay pending appeal is warranted to prevent the Circuit Court from exercising jurisdiction over Williamson while this appeal is pending as to whether there is jurisdiction over Williamson & where there is a first-filed action pending in federal court in North Carolina.”
“Indeed, that would defeat the very purpose of this appeal, and this Court has held that it is an abuse of discretion to deny a request for a stay when a first-filed action is pending in another State.”