Ight I'll respond
@TheOriginalCane lol
I fully understand this lol. BUT just because something is bigger on the back end obviously doesn't mean you are guaranteed OR likely to surpass the significantly larger front-end figures. Again, this is all VERY basic math that I have no doubt the People at Nike and in our administration were more than capable of estimating. Given they knew what the sales figures were for the last 30 years, I'm sure they could make a very basic prediction. And I have never said ONCE that it isn't POSSIBLE to make more on the backend from the Nike structure. But should you bet on that? EX) Look at NFL player contracts. Do you think players would prefer to have low Front-end guarantees because they have high performance based incentives on the back end? Or do you think they just want the High guarantees? Sure they may be a star, but what if? QBs know full well they will be surpassed before their contract expires, yet they do it anyway.
That brings us to the 2nd point, if Athletic Success doesn't play any factor in how successful our Merch sales are, then why wouldn't Nike be willing to pay more up front? Why do they need their contracts to be so performance driven? Thats why I'm saying we have 8 years of hindsight to go on. And we have basically sucked in football, been meh in baseball, and now are pretty good in basketball. If you're argument is even with these results we are STILL a top selling merch school, AND if it was so obvious that this would be the case, then Nike should have jumped to match the Adidas offer and keep the 30 year partnership alive. The reality is, and I'm literally using Nike doing good business as my evidence, Nike thought Adidas was paying us more than we were worth. That is the OBVIOUS reality of the situation imo. Nike thought Adidas was overpaying us, and resetting the market, and they didn't want to match.
Now the aspect about how Adidas is weaselling their way out of paying us more (like how yall are saying we are supposed to be highest paid in ACC) - if that really is the case, I agree with yall. But that imo is a problem with our administration/lawyers being dumb - NOT by itself evidence that the switch from Nike was a bad move. Because you could simply say if our lawyers had done their job and we had the legal guarantee we'd be the highest paid in the ACC, we'd be making a **** load more and the Nike offer probably wouldn't have even come close for hopefully obvious reasons.
Right, Nike knew what we sold, and wanted to be in business with us. They just didn't want to pay us what Adidas was willing to because their assesment was if they paid us more than they offered they wouldn't profit. Sure they were willing to pay us a lot of money IF we sold a lot of merch, nobody is denying that possibility. And if we didn't have much success on the field and didn't sell much merch... you know like what ended up happening the last 8 years... We're just left with our **** in our hands while we could have been sitting with tens of millions up front.
Wait. Am I supposed to believe Nike didn't agree to match Adidas' deal, instead choosing to not have Miami at all in their portfolio, because they didn't want us converting equipment/gear into money as a way to "enrich" the deal? lmfao, to me that would be evidence of Nike not wanting to pay us. Why should Nike get any say in whether our AD - Whether Dumbass Blake James OR Brilliant Rad - chooses to take equipment/gear or Money? Lol That makes no ******* sense If our AD is an idiot, then Nike should let him be an idiot. It should be of no concern to Nike IF the value of equipment they are sending us is really 1:1 with the cash alternative in the contract. But saying that is a major reason why they were unwilling to pay us larger up front money - matching Adidas deal - makes no sense. Again, this has NOTHING to do with whether Blake was an idiot to do that or not. This is about The Contract with Adidas and Nike and which provided more money. So saying Nike didn't want us "enriching" the contract by converting equipment to Cash doesn't help the argument that the Nike deal would have paid more lol.
I think this is a good point. But I think this is actually the reason why the Contract length is the biggest issue with the switch to Adidas, which just so happens to be something I have REPEATEDLY agreed with
@Rellyrell on lol. That is CLEARLY imo the biggest mistake of the Adidas deal. I have zero issue - even after all these months of arguing about which deal would have paid more - with the payment structure. I don't care whether we are paid all on the front-end or all on the backend, as long as we get the most money possible - and in this case I think in the past 8 years the Adidas structure was actually smarter. The problem has always been the contract length and the actual management of the contract itself (talking about Adidas not holding their end of the deal or whatever). So when you say how the market for merch sales has changed (increased due to fanatics and general online increase), that would NOT have been an issue if our contract was up anytime from 2 years ago to now. Because we'd be entering the market again, and potentially resetting it again.
