USMCOWL said

sigep77 said

The issue with the naming rights isn't for a lack of trying.

It's due to a flawed strategy.  We were balls out to build the stadium without a keystone sponsor, i.e. naming rights.  The stadium is there now, has been built, and the draw isn't there.

That's the reason most projects don't get announced until there is a major donor and they don't get started until a significant portion of the capital is raised to minimize the debt service.

Posted On: Aug 9th 2016, 10:38 PM #357595

but there has been plenty of events besides football being held there to at least draw interest. IMHO I think the department is a little scared to pull the trigger on getting more naming rights because of backlash. Just a couple examples come to mind

1.) Chick-fil-A: President of company has been stated on the record in favor of traditional marriage, though his statments can be taken as anti-LGBT. (though the restaurant on campus has been a huge success.)

2.) Sikorsky and Pratt and Whitney: Linked to cancer clusters in Jupiter.

3.) Sugar companies; pollution of the Indian River Lagoon, and coastal waterways.

But that is my opinion.

Posted On: Aug 10th 2016, 9:57 AM #357597

Unfortunately almost any company that is for-profit can be somehow blamed for something. Although P&W and sugar processing is legitimate.

Did Chick-fil-A ever enter into discussions over naming rights?

Bank names adorn many stadiums and they foreclose improperly (possibly illegally) all the time. no big backlash from the public on that one so far though.

David Slavic said

USMCOWL said

sigep77 said

The issue with the naming rights isn't for a lack of trying.

It's due to a flawed strategy.  We were balls out to build the stadium without a keystone sponsor, i.e. naming rights.  The stadium is there now, has been built, and the draw isn't there.

That's the reason most projects don't get announced until there is a major donor and they don't get started until a significant portion of the capital is raised to minimize the debt service.

Posted On: Aug 9th 2016, 10:38 PM #357595

but there has been plenty of events besides football being held there to at least draw interest. IMHO I think the department is a little scared to pull the trigger on getting more naming rights because of backlash. Just a couple examples come to mind

1.) Chick-fil-A: President of company has been stated on the record in favor of traditional marriage, though his statments can be taken as anti-LGBT. (though the restaurant on campus has been a huge success.)

2.) Sikorsky and Pratt and Whitney: Linked to cancer clusters in Jupiter.

3.) Sugar companies; pollution of the Indian River Lagoon, and coastal waterways.

But that is my opinion.

Posted On: Aug 10th 2016, 9:57 AM #357597

Unfortunately almost any company that is for-profit can be somehow blamed for something. Although P&W and sugar processing is legitimate.

Did Chick-fil-A ever enter into discussions over naming rights?

Posted On: Aug 10th 2016, 10:59 AM #357598

GeorgiaOwl said

Bank names adorn many stadiums and they foreclose improperly (possibly illegally) all the time. no big backlash from the public on that one so far though.

Posted On: Aug 10th 2016, 11:23 AM #357599

All good points that i was going for. The reason i picked Chick-Fil-A because its was a pretty big story. but I believe they never entered the naming rights discussion at all.

 I was told by a friend on the "inside" that we were in discussions with Apple, but we were asking for $1 Trillion over 5 years.  They wanted to do 6 and we said no because we didn't want to tied down for that long.

OC Irritant said

 I was told by a friend on the "inside" that we were in discussions with Apple, but we were asking for $1 Trillion over 5 years.  They wanted to do 6 and we said no because we didn't want to tied down for that long.

Posted On: Aug 10th 2016, 11:46 AM #357601

Funny! Great post!

Lol. Classic.

@OCI…excellent !!

It's possible the naming rights initiative has been put aside/on hold while they fundraise for the Athletic Center? I know there are concurrent projects seeking donors but judging by the press releases it seems like once a big project is on the table, most of the donations are geared toward that.

owl2Doc said

It's possible the naming rights initiative has been put aside/on hold while they fundraise for the Athletic Center? I know there are concurrent projects seeking donors but judging by the press releases it seems like once a big project is on the table, most of the donations are geared toward that.

Posted On: Aug 10th 2016, 6:06 PM #357611

That does make sense and THAT is needed more as THAT will help with drawing in bigger and better recruits!

owl2Doc said

It's possible the naming rights initiative has been put aside/on hold while they fundraise for the Athletic Center? I know there are concurrent projects seeking donors but judging by the press releases it seems like once a big project is on the table, most of the donations are geared toward that.

Posted On: Aug 10th 2016, 6:06 PM #357611

Naming rights or fundraising for the Athletic Center is all about relationship building. I cannot imagine a scenario where we put certain relationship building on hold for another relationship building opportunity. It's all important and takes a long time to develop.  

We are not asking someone to go to lunch for the first time on Tuesday and then asking them to donate $1M on Wednesday.

The hands Dr. Kelly shakes tomorrow may take 1 year, 3 years, 6 years, 10 years, 15 years to develop into a donation of substance. It's a process that has absolutely no time frame. You develop trust and that helps the process.

That's why we need to hire quality people. Pay for the quality so we stop being a stepping stone university so we can actually develop the relationships that it takes to get quality donors over time.  

That is simple to say, but not simple to accomplish.

Go Owls!!