MEGA New Miami Adidas Ultraboost🔥 - The Shoe and Nike/Adidas Thread.

[Calinative]

So u want me to answer from 1987 - 2014 have Miami made more money w/ Nike than Adidas? Lol. Yes, we did.

All that other chit u talking bout, including that post link u included, I’m not even sure y u think u’re making a point.

What u parrot is not what was argued. U may “think” branding doesn’t play a role in recruiting, yet I provided an unbiased link that agreed w/ something I’ve said on a podcast before that article even came out. U may “think” we lost one recruit b/c of branding, & I can tell u that’s a lie. I only spoke of a personal one I knew, that had chit to do w/ other conversations I’ve had w/ others.

Again, small picture vs. big picture. I see big picture, I see that in all that I do b/c my profession doesn’t allow for small picture or I lose credibility & clientele.

But there’s a rule I have; I don’t go back & forths on matters I’m certain of. For the last time, yes Adidas gave us the most up front money in our history…bravo, but that didn’t mean it was a better deal simply b/c the lack of POTENTIAL back end $. As I stated in that post u provided, that meant Blake James actually had to get off his lazy *** to push excellence, yet he did what he always did, stayed Beta & retained the same guy who AWOL’d on him b/c he didn’t get the PSU job & proceeded to stink it up in 2014.

Well I'm glad Nike paid us more in 27 years than Adidas did in 8. That is very valuable information which wasn't even in the same galaxy as the question. This just further show how ******* stupid your guys' responses have been though IMO... But I'll ask for like the 20th time, In the last 8 years that we have been with Adidas, would the Nike offer that we didn't take have resulted in more TOTAL money.... At this point we're just beating a dead horse. IDK why yall are acting like I'm the crazy one for thinking in Total we still have made more with Adidas than we would have with Nike when you just won't say otherwise given the 100 chances you've had to do so.

Here is the thing, you're saying big picture Nike would have been better. Okay, lets say you are right. Where do you draw the line with that? Seriously we can talk all day long about the branding+recruiting effects, but at some point the Monetary value just has to be there. Is this superior branding+merch Quality+recruiting value worth $1M less to you? $3M less? What is the number where it stops being worth it to stick with Nike? And for the millionth time, I'm not talking just up-front money, I'm talking in TOTAL. This is the thing that imo is just plain Nike fanboy ****. At some point you have to be willing to walk away and take the higher payout. The way YOU talk about it, that number is basically non-existant. i mean You can use the argument that sticking with Nike at 0% the total payouts is worth it as long as they are supplying us with all the equipment we need and the merch quality is good because of the secondary effects. I just disagree.

 

[Rellyrell]

Well I'm glad Nike paid us more in 27 years than Adidas did in 8. That is very valuable information which wasn't even in the same galaxy as the question. This just further show how ******* stupid your guys' responses have been though IMO... But I'll ask for like the 20th time, In the last 8 years that we have been with Adidas, would the Nike offer that we didn't take have resulted in more TOTAL money.... At this point we're just beating a dead horse. IDK why yall are acting like I'm the crazy one for thinking in Total we still have made more with Adidas than we would have with Nike when you just won't say otherwise given the 100 chances you've had to do so.

Here is the thing, you're saying big picture Nike would have been better. Okay, lets say you are right. Where do you draw the line with that? Seriously we can talk all day long about the branding+recruiting effects, but at some point the Monetary value just has to be there. Is this superior branding+merch Quality+recruiting value worth $1M less to you? $3M less? What is the number where it stops being worth it to stick with Nike? And for the millionth time, I'm not talking just up-front money, I'm talking in TOTAL. This is the thing that imo is just plain Nike fanboy ****. At some point you have to be willing to walk away and take the higher payout. The way YOU talk about it, that number is basically non-existant. i mean You can use the argument that sticking with Nike at 0% the total payouts is worth it as long as they are supplying us with all the equipment we need and the merch quality is good because of the secondary effects. I just disagree.

1. U’re asking a variable that’s UNKNOWN B/C WE DIDN’T SIGN THE DEAL, DID WE?

Like u keep asking an asinine ? that has ZERO merit b/c it doesn’t exist! So for the 20th time since u have the hardest time of comprehending simple English, I said “potential & can” which was based upon the structure of the Nike offer.

Lemme help u out:
potential (adj): having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in THE FUTURE.

can (verb): be able to or be permitted to

Can u or are u able to see that I’m using forecast vs. definite? Hence, I used Alabama as a tangible exhibit to give context to what I alluded to.

You’re the type of person where I can show u why getting a policy from Company A looks better on paper and saves u money, but here’s why Company A looks like this. I’ll show u all the pros & cons, & u’ll say: “Nope, Company A is better b/c it’s cheaper than Company B b/c saving money = better.” Then u’ll get in to an accident & all those cons I mentioned screwed u over, yet u’ll still defend the decision b/c it was cheaper.

I’m not here to educate u; u tend to stay stubborn & believe what u want. In some ways I respect that; stand ur ground. If u believe getting more $$ up front was what was best in Miami’s interest, have at it.

 

[Canedude08]

Well I'm glad Nike paid us more in 27 years than Adidas did in 8. That is very valuable information which wasn't even in the same galaxy as the question. This just further show how ******* stupid your guys' responses have been though IMO... But I'll ask for like the 20th time, In the last 8 years that we have been with Adidas, would the Nike offer that we didn't take have resulted in more TOTAL money.... At this point we're just beating a dead horse. IDK why yall are acting like I'm the crazy one for thinking in Total we still have made more with Adidas than we would have with Nike when you just won't say otherwise given the 100 chances you've had to do so.

Here is the thing, you're saying big picture Nike would have been better. Okay, lets say you are right. Where do you draw the line with that? Seriously we can talk all day long about the branding+recruiting effects, but at some point the Monetary value just has to be there. Is this superior branding+merch Quality+recruiting value worth $1M less to you? $3M less? What is the number where it stops being worth it to stick with Nike? And for the millionth time, I'm not talking just up-front money, I'm talking in TOTAL. This is the thing that imo is just plain Nike fanboy ****. At some point you have to be willing to walk away and take the higher payout. The way YOU talk about it, that number is basically non-existant. i mean You can use the argument that sticking with Nike at 0% the total payouts is worth it as long as they are supplying us with all the equipment we need and the merch quality is good because of the secondary effects. I just disagree.

Let's be honest here, the fans whining the most about "I miss Nike, why did we leave Nike" are the same fans that think that leaving money on the table, in the HOPE of getting more later is some kind of sage business advice. In other words, it's tough to take someone seriously that thinks that is a sound business strategy. Nike was trying to do everything possible to F us over, but our "fans" most of whom give the bare minimum and buy merch once a **** decade expected the school to tolerate an obviously toxic relationship. Think about the following: Miami won a basketball ACC regular season and tournament title wearing Nike, did Nike do anything for the program? NOPE. They didn't even bother making special ACC Champion shirts. They didn't treat our student athletes well in the least, equipment staff got tired of not only not getting enough stuff, getting stuff in the right sizes was an iffy proposition. Adidas actually treats our University with respect, and outside of our legal team completely dropping the ball on the favored nations clause(It's on legal to recognize and enforce clauses in the contract), has built a solid working relationship with the school.

The old heads that rub one out to pictures of Jordan retros need to understand, this is about REVENUE. If Nike comes correct next time, then so be it. Until then, rock with the brand that is paying you the money you deserve UP FRONT. Leaving money on the table, in the hopes of getting more later is how you end up at a decided disadvantage. We need every single dime we can get, especially in a world where we can't count on our fanbase to pony up. Maximize revenue, period.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I honest to God think you're making up your own argument for what I'm saying and then debating that. Yeah man I'm spinning up a web of lies lol. I know **** well you're just one of them always right people. Don't even care what the other people actually says, you just Insult+say whatever the **** you were gunna say anyways+and then just continue on being a **** who acts like just because you said something it makes it right lol.

Nike deal

Most schools sign apparel deals for anywhere from 8-12 years. Miami signed on the longer end of that span, and even then, with the money Adidas was offering at the time, along with the escalator clauses and the like(Which Miami legal should have known about, seeing that they helped draw up the...

www.canesinsight.com

Notice I've been saying literally the exact same thing for a year.

Now, I'll ask the same ******* question I asked a year ago that you avoided like the ******* plague:

After 8 years of being signed with Adidas, after you account for Up-Front payments, Equipment, Royalties, and whatever the **** else you want to count, Have we made more MONEY from Adidas than we would have with Nike? This has been the one ******* question I asked a year ago that yall never wanted to answer (which is an answer by itself). Since you are such and insider and know so many people, answer that question. Yall wanna keep saying "apples to oranges" acting like you can't estimate what it would take in merch sales (top 5? top 10? top 25? top 100?) to earn enough from royalties on the backend to offset the substantially higher up front money from Adidas. I've never seen such a simple and easy to understand question get spun so ******* hard acting like it's as complicated as the moon landing to figure out. Go look through that thread again and see if I was open to believing yall as insiders if you were to say that the total money would have been higher from Nike lol. I was 100% willing to accept that, yet yall have repeatedly refused to say so. Lol, doesn't take a ******* rocket surgeon to assume why.

Secondly, I've already made abundantly clear I really don't give a **** what argument yall make regarding merch quality or uniform quality. If yall want to say THAT is the reason Nikes contract was better than Adidas, go right the **** ahead. But that doesn't make it a fact, that makes it an opinion regarding what is more important. And for over a year now I have been saying the contract length was bad - and the proof is right there in those comments from a year ago. ... but I'm the one lying, right? lol.

Anyways I'll just keep wishing for the best outcome for the school and that we'll get as much money as possible, whether that be from Nike or Adidas. I personally hope it's Jordan.

Stop lying.

Nobody has "insulted" you. I have mocked your terrible arguments because you refuse to acknowledge the truth of what others have presented and you continue to repeat the false claims that Beta Blake made 8 years ago. Plus you continue to lie by claiming that @Rellyrell and I said things that we never actually said.

I'm sorry that I find so much humor in the style in which you tell your lies. Such as your newfound religion with "but the adidas contract is too long". Suuuuure. For seven years you had NO PROBLEM with the length of the adidas contract, and then as soon as I start posting what Alonzo Highsmith said about "Miami is a Nike school" and as soon as Miami fires Beta Blake/Manny and hires Dan/Mario...you suddenly see the inevitability of our switch back to Nike and you become a born-again "contract too long" evangelical.

Now you act like you've been asking some profound and elusive question for years, a question that @Rellyrell and I are somehow too timid to answer. So you want an answer? NO. We have NOT made more money with adidas than we would have made with Nike.

Let me repeat. NO. No no no no no no no no no. We have made LESS money with adidas than we would have made with Nike.

Now, I know the two calinative betablakestan objections that will come next. Because you are such a predictable Beta Blake apologist.

First, the "but how can you prove that" objection. And unlike you, @Rellyrell and I have ALWAYS been honest, we have ALWAYS said that it is hard to compare an apple (eight years of actual adidas payments) to an orange (eight years of hypothetical Nike payments). So, for this part of the discussion, I am going to rely on someone I've known for decades (I will not tell you his name) who has been in the business of selling UM merchandise for decades. And with what I have been told about Nike sales "when Miami football was bad" (2005-2015) and adidas sales (2015-now), I have no doubts that Miami would have made more money based on NIKE-LEVEL SALES under the Nike royalty model. And, of course, it seems great to get a big annual guarantee when you sell ADIDAS-LEVEL SALES (which are far less than Nike-level sales). But you need to be consistent, and if we still were selling Nike apparel, we would be selling a lot more of it compared to adidas apparel.

Second, there's the whole "but but but an annual guarantee" objection. And, again, I'll make this simple, but maybe using a different directional example. NFL contracts have shifted from the "annual salary" to the "huge signing bonuses and tiny annual salary" structure. And without belaboring all of the reasons why, let's just acknowledge that it is a CHANGE. So if some guy signed a 12 year contract with "annual salary" and no signing bonus, and the market around him started to change, then it's very likely that in Year 8 or 9, that contract would have been a problematic outlier. You have spent a lot of your hot air pontificating about how Nike's offer of a royalty-heavy contract was a "show of disrespect" to Miami, but you fail to acknowledge that this is the model that Nike has moved to FOR MOST UNIVERSITIES. And you fail to acknowledge that a powerful brand like Miami will continue to sell apparel regardless of the CURRENT RECORD of the football team. Even when Miami moved to adidas, we were a Top 20 college merchandise brand. That was a VALID REASON for adidas trying to build its collegiate brand around Miami as an "anchor tenant". Beta Blake wanted to make a splash at UM. Beta Blake wanted to have his "signature move" for the program, and he was too late to take credit for the ACC, he didn't hire any great coaches, and he was never going to build a stadium (and BARELY managed to build the IPF), so the adidas deal was his "legacy". And he wanted to tie Miami up for as long as possible and for as much "guaranteed" money as possible, instead of betting on himself and UM to do FAR BETTER in a royalty-heavy payout.

Finally, I just want to register the hilarity of your backtracking on the issue of jersey quality. Just a couple of posts ago, you were BRAGGING on how much better the quality was for adidas jerseys, but now, suddenly, "you don't really give a ****". Priceless. Chef's kiss.

And, look, I get it. You have spent the last year trying to defend, minimize, and/or undo your prior seven years of boasting about how great the adidas deal was for Miami. All I'm doing is pointing out your long history of maximizing the last couple of years of Nike (oh, the HORROR of those last two jerseys, oh my god, BURN DOWN BEAVERTON!) and minimizing all of the bad things about adidas (the "feathers sleeve" jersey, the underpayment after Louisville re-upped, the FBI investigation, the horrible shoes, the poor sales figures, the constant discount-markdowns while the secondary market is comatose, etc.). You want to have an opinion, nobody is stopping you from worshipping adidas. But I will absolutely mock your predictable pro-adidas arguments, I will definitely call you out for playing fast-and-loose with the facts, and I will most assuredly give you **** for lying about what I said or what @Rellyrell said.

Look, it's not much for us to ask of you. Just stop lying. Stop claiming that we said things that we didn't say, and stop arguing that we are making more money with adidas than we ever would have made with Nike.

It's just not true. And your repeating of falsehoods will not convert your opinions into truth.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

My response to the one recruit you say we lost for football is - Who cares? Seriously idk why it is that complicated. If us being Adidas in football is the sole reason we aren't getting a recruit, I really don't care. Unlike Basketball, one recruit doesn't make or break a football team. And again, if you really read what I wrote I said I think that having garbage uniforms is worse than some perception problem that could eliminate us from a handful of football recruits, we probably weren't getting anyways. I never said you were lying or that I didn't believe you. I just don't care.

Please stop lying.

He said we ALREADY lost one recruit AND WE ARE ABOUT TO LOSE two additional recruits. So that's three. This is what you do. You minimize. You take someone's words and convert them into something that person never said.

Thank you for being so generous and magnanimous that you can trash three recruits. "Who cares?" Those are YOUR words. You have to live with those words. "Who cares?"

Well, I can tell you that the recruits care. It's why adidas was making all kinds of illicit payments that the FBI picked up on. Because the recruits actually cared about the apparel provider.

I don't claim to know everything, but I know one thing with certainty...if Miami is able to announce that we will be switching back to Nike by August 2024, the recruiting will pick up considerably.

"Who cares?" Obviously, YOU don't care. Other smarter people do care, however.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

But I'll ask for like the 20th time, In the last 8 years that we have been with Adidas, would the Nike offer that we didn't take have resulted in more TOTAL money....

YES.

Now shut up.

 

[Papa_Cane]

So we getting a new colorway or nah?

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Let's be honest here, the fans whining the most about "I miss Nike, why did we leave Nike" are the same fans that think that leaving money on the table, in the HOPE of getting more later is some kind of sage business advice. In other words, it's tough to take someone seriously that thinks that is a sound business strategy. Nike was trying to do everything possible to F us over, but our "fans" most of whom give the bare minimum and buy merch once a **** decade expected the school to tolerate an obviously toxic relationship. Think about the following: Miami won a basketball ACC regular season and tournament title wearing Nike, did Nike do anything for the program? NOPE. They didn't even bother making special ACC Champion shirts. They didn't treat our student athletes well in the least, equipment staff got tired of not only not getting enough stuff, getting stuff in the right sizes was an iffy proposition. Adidas actually treats our University with respect, and outside of our legal team completely dropping the ball on the favored nations clause(It's on legal to recognize and enforce clauses in the contract), has built a solid working relationship with the school.

The old heads that rub one out to pictures of Jordan retros need to understand, this is about REVENUE. If Nike comes correct next time, then so be it. Until then, rock with the brand that is paying you the money you deserve UP FRONT. Leaving money on the table, in the hopes of getting more later is how you end up at a decided disadvantage. We need every single dime we can get, especially in a world where we can't count on our fanbase to pony up. Maximize revenue, period.

You are the other one. You and calinative are the two Blake James fanboys who just keep telling us sweet little lies about how bad Nike was and how great adidas is.

No money was left on the table. We had 25 years of sales figures under Nike, but Blake James didn't care. He wanted a number that he could brag about for 12 years, not a number that would not be known with certainty until the end of each fiscal year.

Please don't lecture on "sound business strategy". I've worked for publicly-traded corporations for 20 years. "Betting on yourself" and taking sales-volume-based deals with high upside are very common strategies. I'm not sure why you would try to lie to people by acting like the ONLY "sage" business strategy in existence is to take a higher annual-guarantee-with-no-royalties deal.

And for the love of god, don't try to act like people buy merch "once a **** decade". It's sad that you aren't a real fan who has ever seen AllCanes and CanesWear bring huge boxes of merchandise to away games. It's sad that you didn't see the long lines out the front of AllCanes during the Covid years (and, yes, people patiently waited in line to buy stuff). It's sad that you have never been inside a crowded UM bookstore on a game day. But it's especially pathetic that you ignore the volume of sales on Fanatics (and I'm friendly with a number of people who work in the Fanatics corporate headquarters in Jacksonville, so I know how well the UM merch sells online).

As for your tall-tale about how badly Nike treated Miami basketball in 2013...at least I know the real story. And in those days, when sales were still predominantly brick-and-mortar and Fanatics and Nike Online had not taken center-stage, Nike needed ORDER COMMITMENTS to run off a huge batch of dated special-event merch...and do I need to remind you what our AD situation was at the time? Stop blaming Nike for NOT doing something with UM that Nike literally does with EVERY OTHER SCHOOL with a smart AD who wants to sell Nike-branded merch...Beta Blake was deep into his 1-2 year plan to sabotage the Nike-UM relationship so that he could make his mark with adidas.

But thank you, once again, for trying to blame UM for "not monitoring" the legal obligations that adidas should have lived up to WITHOUT BEING THREATENED WITH LEGAL ACTION. Yep, when someone offers to pay you money, and then they don't pay you money, we should victim-blame the party that didn't get paid their proper money.

Makes sense.

 

[IncaneInTheBrain]

I hate that I'm about to watch this

 

[HurricanePhilly]

I hate that I'm about to watch this

Its not quite as bad on mute.

 

[Calinative]

Stop lying.

Nobody has "insulted" you. I have mocked your terrible arguments because you refuse to acknowledge the truth of what others have presented and you continue to repeat the false claims that Beta Blake made 8 years ago. Plus you continue to lie by claiming that @Rellyrell and I said things that we never actually said.

I'm sorry that I find so much humor in the style in which you tell your lies. Such as your newfound religion with "but the adidas contract is too long". Suuuuure. For seven years you had NO PROBLEM with the length of the adidas contract, and then as soon as I start posting what Alonzo Highsmith said about "Miami is a Nike school" and as soon as Miami fires Beta Blake/Manny and hires Dan/Mario...you suddenly see the inevitability of our switch back to Nike and you become a born-again "contract too long" evangelical.

Now you act like you've been asking some profound and elusive question for years, a question that @Rellyrell and I are somehow too timid to answer. So you want an answer? NO. We have NOT made more money with adidas than we would have made with Nike.

Let me repeat. NO. No no no no no no no no no. We have made LESS money with adidas than we would have made with Nike.

Now, I know the two calinative betablakestan objections that will come next. Because you are such a predictable Beta Blake apologist.

First, the "but how can you prove that" objection. And unlike you, @Rellyrell and I have ALWAYS been honest, we have ALWAYS said that it is hard to compare an apple (eight years of actual adidas payments) to an orange (eight years of hypothetical Nike payments). So, for this part of the discussion, I am going to rely on someone I've known for decades (I will not tell you his name) who has been in the business of selling UM merchandise for decades. And with what I have been told about Nike sales "when Miami football was bad" (2005-2015) and adidas sales (2015-now), I have no doubts that Miami would have made more money based on NIKE-LEVEL SALES under the Nike royalty model. And, of course, it seems great to get a big annual guarantee when you sell ADIDAS-LEVEL SALES (which are far less than Nike-level sales). But you need to be consistent, and if we still were selling Nike apparel, we would be selling a lot more of it compared to adidas apparel.

Second, there's the whole "but but but an annual guarantee" objection. And, again, I'll make this simple, but maybe using a different directional example. NFL contracts have shifted from the "annual salary" to the "huge signing bonuses and tiny annual salary" structure. And without belaboring all of the reasons why, let's just acknowledge that it is a CHANGE. So if some guy signed a 12 year contract with "annual salary" and no signing bonus, and the market around him started to change, then it's very likely that in Year 8 or 9, that contract would have been a problematic outlier. You have spent a lot of your hot air pontificating about how Nike's offer of a royalty-heavy contract was a "show of disrespect" to Miami, but you fail to acknowledge that this is the model that Nike has moved to FOR MOST UNIVERSITIES. And you fail to acknowledge that a powerful brand like Miami will continue to sell apparel regardless of the CURRENT RECORD of the football team. Even when Miami moved to adidas, we were a Top 20 college merchandise brand. That was a VALID REASON for adidas trying to build its collegiate brand around Miami as an "anchor tenant". Beta Blake wanted to make a splash at UM. Beta Blake wanted to have his "signature move" for the program, and he was too late to take credit for the ACC, he didn't hire any great coaches, and he was never going to build a stadium (and BARELY managed to build the IPF), so the adidas deal was his "legacy". And he wanted to tie Miami up for as long as possible and for as much "guaranteed" money as possible, instead of betting on himself and UM to do FAR BETTER in a royalty-heavy payout.

Finally, I just want to register the hilarity of your backtracking on the issue of jersey quality. Just a couple of posts ago, you were BRAGGING on how much better the quality was for adidas jerseys, but now, suddenly, "you don't really give a ****". Priceless. Chef's kiss.

And, look, I get it. You have spent the last year trying to defend, minimize, and/or undo your prior seven years of boasting about how great the adidas deal was for Miami. All I'm doing is pointing out your long history of maximizing the last couple of years of Nike (oh, the HORROR of those last two jerseys, oh my god, BURN DOWN BEAVERTON!) and minimizing all of the bad things about adidas (the "feathers sleeve" jersey, the underpayment after Louisville re-upped, the FBI investigation, the horrible shoes, the poor sales figures, the constant discount-markdowns while the secondary market is comatose, etc.). You want to have an opinion, nobody is stopping you from worshipping adidas. But I will absolutely mock your predictable pro-adidas arguments, I will definitely call you out for playing fast-and-loose with the facts, and I will most assuredly give you **** for lying about what I said or what @Rellyrell said.

Look, it's not much for us to ask of you. Just stop lying. Stop claiming that we said things that we didn't say, and stop arguing that we are making more money with adidas than we ever would have made with Nike.

It's just not true. And your repeating of falsehoods will not convert your opinions into truth.

Oh wow finally an answer!!! This is LITERALLY the first time you or Relly have said that We would have made more money under Nike than under Adidas (over the length of the contract thus far) and not no bs “well we could possibly have made up for it in royalties” (no ******* **** it’s possible - would we have is the question). You keep saying I’m lying (which is retarded), yet you were the one that has refused to make a definitive statement on the subject of actual ******* money until right now. I have consistently said I took your guys (the claimed insiders) lack of answer as an answer. In fact all this discussion/arguing could have been avoided a year ago if you had said that from the getgo - you know like I asked from the very beginning lol. Maybe if your old *** misremembering brain needs a refresher, why don’t you go back to the original post a year ago and see if I said I’m open to trusting either of you if you said we would have made more … yet all you had were dumb *** excuses….’well see here sport, there are apples and over here are bananas’…lol. Like it’s hilarious you don’t know how dumb that sounds that you can’t do simple math. Total = Initial payment + Xequipment + Yroyalties * sales. If our expected sales (based on inside info or historical sales rankings) under Nike were enough to make the total money received more, then we would have received more money. Yet the ONLY statement that has every been shared is ‘Bama is 2nd in sales and makes about $7M…’ and just cause I know you only feel attacked and like to say I’m lying about everything, that’s not a direct quote.

Also I said I don’t care about the quality, not the ******* design dip**** lol. Yet again it appears you’re lying and using your lie to accuse me of lying. You are the one *****ing about the quality. As best as I can remember I have never once said smjack **** about any of that really, just that I didn’t care. . I’m saying I think the design for Adidas has been FAR better than the previous two Nike offered, and how much that impacts which contract is subjective. My statements have been clear and consistent. But apparently you can’t comprehend them. It’s also hilarious that you can’t possibly understand that I (and others) can possibly think stuff like the feather shoulders weren’t even 5% as bad as those orange and green helmets and general uniforms Nike tried to have us wear. This is exactly why I have said that I don’t give a **** what argument you guys make regarding this aspect, because it’s subjective. I also said if that was one of your major factors in deciding Nike is better, go right ahead. Whether that be the quality, the U, the nameplate, any of it, merch quality cause the collar doesn’t fit right… any of it, I didn’t care. Because your opinion was different than mine. How much we weigh those factors in forming our opinion in which deal is better is also entirely subjective opinion. Idk why that was ever so complicated.

Also you keep trying to alter history, it’s honestly a joke. Show me what I said about Adidas ******** us in our contract and whether I accepted y’all statement about that lol. Go ahead provide the receipts. regarding the NCAA investigation, all I said was we didn’t get in trouble for it. So am I lying there? Lol.

Maybe you also need to check your timelines on when I said 12 years is too long, and when you said rumors are Alonzo wants us to move to Nike lol. Cause it seems like you forgot to take your Alzheimer’s meds again cause your timeline are 100% false. Very funny the one continuously calling me a liar is the one doing the lying.

 

[SWFLHurricane]

Oh wow finally an answer!!! This is LITERALLY the first time you or Relly have said that We would have made more money under Nike than under Adidas (over the length of the contract thus far) and not no bs “well we could possibly have made up for it in royalties” (no ******* **** it’s possible - would we have is the question). You keep saying I’m lying (which is retarded), yet you were the one that has refused to make a definitive statement on the subject of actual ******* money until right now. I have consistently said I took your guys (the claimed insiders) lack of answer as an answer. In fact all this discussion/arguing could have been avoided a year ago if you had said that from the getgo - you know like I asked from the very beginning lol. Maybe if your old *** misremembering brain needs a refresher, why don’t you go back to the original post a year ago and see if I said I’m open to trusting either of you if you said we would have made more … yet all you had were dumb *** excuses….’well see here sport, there are apples and over here are bananas’…lol. Like it’s hilarious you don’t know how dumb that sounds that you can’t do simple math. Total = Initial payment + Xequipment + Yroyalties * sales. If our expected sales (based on inside info or historical sales rankings) under Nike were enough to make the total money received more, then we would have received more money. Yet the ONLY statement that has every been shared is ‘Bama is 2nd in sales and makes about $7M…’ and just cause I know you only feel attacked and like to say I’m lying about everything, that’s not a direct quote.

Also I said I don’t care about the quality, not the ******* design dip**** lol. Yet again it appears you’re lying and using your lie to accuse me of lying. You are the one *****ing about the quality. As best as I can remember I have never once said smjack **** about any of that really, just that I didn’t care. . I’m saying I think the design for Adidas has been FAR better than the previous two Nike offered, and how much that impacts which contract is subjective. My statements have been clear and consistent. But apparently you can’t comprehend them. It’s also hilarious that you can’t possibly understand that I (and others) can possibly think stuff like the feather shoulders weren’t even 5% as bad as those orange and green helmets and general uniforms Nike tried to have us wear. This is exactly why I have said that I don’t give a **** what argument you guys make regarding this aspect, because it’s subjective. I also said if that was one of your major factors in deciding Nike is better, go right ahead. Whether that be the quality, the U, the nameplate, any of it, merch quality cause the collar doesn’t fit right… any of it, I didn’t care. Because your opinion was different than mine. How much we weigh those factors in forming our opinion in which deal is better is also entirely subjective opinion. Idk why that was ever so complicated.

Also you keep trying to alter history, it’s honestly a joke. Show me what I said about Adidas ******** us in our contract and whether I accepted y’all statement about that lol. Go ahead provide the receipts. regarding the NCAA investigation, all I said was we didn’t get in trouble for it. So am I lying there? Lol.

Maybe you also need to check your timelines on when I said 12 years is too long, and when you said rumors are Alonzo wants us to move to Nike lol. Cause it seems like you forgot to take your Alzheimer’s meds again cause your timeline are 100% false. Very funny the one continuously calling me a liar is the one doing the lying.

.......I friggin Love Cannoli's....

 

[Calinative]

1. U’re asking a variable that’s UNKNOWN B/C WE DIDN’T SIGN THE DEAL, DID WE?

Like u keep asking an asinine ? that has ZERO merit b/c it doesn’t exist! So for the 20th time since u have the hardest time of comprehending simple English, I said “potential & can” which was based upon the structure of the Nike offer.

Lemme help u out:
potential (adj): having or showing the capacity to become or develop into something in THE FUTURE.

can (verb): be able to or be permitted to

Can u or are u able to see that I’m using forecast vs. definite? Hence, I used Alabama as a tangible exhibit to give context to what I alluded to.

You’re the type of person where I can show u why getting a policy from Company A looks better on paper and saves u money, but here’s why Company A looks like this. I’ll show u all the pros & cons, & u’ll say: “Nope, Company A is better b/c it’s cheaper than Company B b/c saving money = better.” Then u’ll get in to an accident & all those cons I mentioned screwed u over, yet u’ll still defend the decision b/c it was cheaper.

I’m not here to educate u; u tend to stay stubborn & believe what u want. In some ways I respect that; stand ur ground. If u believe getting more $$ up front was what was best in Miami’s interest, have at it.

Bro

Idk why this is so complicated. You claim to know the royalties, the initial payment, and have a general idea of what our sales figures are/were/could have been expected to be, right? So you VERY ******* EASILY can come up with an answer to the question of which contract would have paid more.

Here I’ll give an example with totally made up numbers:

Company A pays $10M yearly, and 4% royalties. With Company A, merch sales are $50M

Company B pays $2M yearly, and 8% royalties. With Company B, sales are $100M

So then the basic equation is
Total Payments=InitialPayment+Royalty*Sales

For company A that is Total=$10M+0.04*50M

For company B that is Total =2M+0.08*100M

So in this scenario Company A pays $12M while company B also pays $10M.

See how simple that is?

 

[dookie blaylock]

this thread took a hard turn for the retarded.

 

[USNAVYCANE]

 

[Rellyrell]

Bro

Idk why this is so complicated. You claim to know the royalties, the initial payment, and have a general idea of what our sales figures are/were/could have been expected to be, right? So you VERY ******* EASILY can come up with an answer to the question of which contract would have paid more.

Here I’ll give an example with totally made up numbers:

Company A pays $10M yearly, and 4% royalties. With Company A, merch sales are $50M

Company B pays $2M yearly, and 8% royalties. With Company B, sales are $100M

So then the basic equation is
Total Payments=InitialPayment+Royalty*Sales

For company A that is Total=$10M+0.04*50M

For company B that is Total =2M+0.08*100M

So in this scenario Company A pays $12M while company B also pays $10M.

See how simple that is?

What in the Lindsey Lohan r u talking about?

Do I know how much Miami Hurricane branded merchandise was sold under Nike from 2015-2023? Let me help u out; it doesn’t f’ing exist! U’re asking me to project a number that doesn’t exist!

Like dude, for the last time, I said potential & can. But using Bama’s royalty as a baseline, they receive a 12-13% royalty on all Bama products, plus potential additional cash bonuses for the football & basketball teams regarding how they fare during the season.

Now, unless u can magically give me sales from Miami for the 2015 - 2022 seasons under Nike, while simultaneously under Adidas & show me what the royalty rate is under our fictitious current Nike contract, stop asking dumb ?’s.

 

[westcoastcanes]

What in the Lindsey Lohan r u talking about?

Do I know how much Miami Hurricane branded merchandise was sold under Nike from 2015-2023? Let me help u out; it doesn’t f’ing exist! U’re asking me to project a number that doesn’t exist!

Like dude, for the last time, I said potential & can. But using Bama’s royalty as a baseline, they receive a 12-13% royalty on all Bama products, plus potential additional cash bonuses for the football & basketball teams regarding how they fare during the season.

Now, unless u can magically give me sales from Miami for the 2015 - 2022 seasons under Nike, while simultaneously under Adidas & show me what the royalty rate is under our fictitious current Nike contract, stop asking dumb ?’s.

For the record I prefer Nike and would rather be buying Nike stuff.

I’m not really trying to get into this back and forth, more just curious, why use Alabama as a base line? There is no way we are moving the volume of merchandise between how bad we have been and how small this fan base is, it seems unlikely we would get a comparable deal. Is that wrong?

 

[Rellyrell]

For the record I prefer Nike and would rather be buying Nike stuff.

I’m not really trying to get into this back and forth, more just curious, why use Alabama as a base line? There is no way we are moving the volume of merchandise between how bad we have been and how small this fan base is, it seems unlikely we would get a comparable deal. Is that wrong?

I was using them for an example of royalty % since I’m familiar w/ their terms.

 

[Calinative]

What in the Lindsey Lohan r u talking about?

Do I know how much Miami Hurricane branded merchandise was sold under Nike from 2015-2023? Let me help u out; it doesn’t f’ing exist! U’re asking me to project a number that doesn’t exist!

Like dude, for the last time, I said potential & can. But using Bama’s royalty as a baseline, they receive a 12-13% royalty on all Bama products, plus potential additional cash bonuses for the football & basketball teams regarding how they fare during the season.

Now, unless u can magically give me sales from Miami for the 2015 - 2022 seasons under Nike, while simultaneously under Adidas & show me what the royalty rate is under our fictitious current Nike contract, stop asking dumb ?’s.

You should easily be able to project numbers if you knew what Nikes offer to us was. You can make VERY simple assumptions. Either you knew the details of what Nikes offer was to us enough to say so definitively that we would have been paid more by Nike than Adidas - like TOC just did, and to the point you're basically acting like anyone with differing thoughts are idiots, OR you don't know the details of the offer and this entire discussion has been ******* ridiculous.

Again you want to use Bama as an example to say they make like $7M (I vaguely remember you saying something like that) on the backend and just said they basically received a 12.5% royalty. Okay, what was the Royalty Nike would have given us in our potential deal? More or less than Bama has in their deal with them? ... Where do we rank in sales compared to Bama (who I also vaguely remember you saying was #2 in merch sales?)? Lower? Higher? Substantially lower? You can use historical numbers, You can use best case scenario, you can use whatever you want - lets call this your PROJECTION of what our sales would rank lol. **** you can take where we currently rank with Adidas, then just add a multiplier to project where we'd be with Nike....From there there is only one more piece to the puzzle - how much was Nike offering us yearly upfront including equipment and whatever else? Now you add those numbers together and you have a total projected Nike payout. Then you compare that number to what you know we are receiving from Adidas which is reportedly like $9M/yr up-front (and idk what if any on backend or if that $9M includes equipment/whatever).

So lets assume we would have received a lower royalty than Bama (if you know the details of the deal we could have had with Nike, you should be able to insert that right here directly), and likely would have sold quite a decent bit less given they rank top 3 in sales, and what at best we'd be top 10? So if Bama is making $7M at a higher Royalty and larger sales, we'd clearly make what 15-20% less on the backend than they do? Lets call it $5.5M. Now I'm assuming you knew what Bama was receiving up front yearly as well, what was it like $4M? So lets say Nike was offering us less, something like $2.5M/yr up front... Well in total that would be $8M/yr front-end and back-end. See how easily I projected that with Basically ZERO information other than you saying Bama makes $7M on the back end. ... So you and TOC having the insider information you have, should be able to do a much more accurate job of projecting what the payout would have/ could have been. This really was extremely easy. And If I knew the royalty and what miami does merch wise or what our peers do, or even what we did historically with Nike, I'd easily be able to project how much we'd get. ... Maybe the actual deal would pay us a 13% royalty too. Maybe historically we actually outsell bama? All that is knowledge you basically claim to have on the situation, which should aid you in making your projection.

I really don't know why this is so difficult dude. This isn't differential equations. Its literally basic 8th grade algebra.

 

[Rellyrell]

.......I friggin Love Cannoli's....

Bro, I have a fire recipe. Do u prefer chocolate chip or pistachio?