New uniform material and more? (official)

[Calinative]

Nike slipping with Miami was a combination of our litany of sub-par ADs (Kirby didn't care enough, the Shermanator was a disaster, and Beta Blake was a dishonest double-dealer) and our on-field product. Perhaps a rock-star coach like Richt/Mario would have had the gravitas to overrule the AD on some of these issues.

Nike gives a ****. But you need a good partner. But the Miami ADs at those times were not been good partners.

So it's ONLY our ADs fault (and had nothing to do with Nike whatsoever) that Adidas offered us more money, better uniforms, and generally has been better for us over the past 4 years than Nike was the last like 6-8 we were with them?

Like the entire argument rests on the idea that being associated with them is WORTH having less money and worse uniforms. Having Nike and Adidas actually compete to make us the best offer is the best case scenario, not showing unrequited loyalty to the swoosh. Sorry. But if Adidas blows Nikes offer out of the water again, I'm fine sticking with them. I can accept a small difference in pay to go back to Nike because I do like Nike far more, but not worse uniforms and a large difference in pay just so we can be used.

 

[kyle_schick]

Again? lol we get new ones every 2-3 years and nothing really sticks. Just go to these 3 with 1 alternate for something special. Shouldn't be this hard, f Adidas.

View attachment 294152
View attachment 294153
View attachment 294154

These are undeniably the best uniform design of all time.

It won't look good with the modern small shoulder pads.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

So it's ONLY our ADs fault (and had nothing to do with Nike whatsoever) that Adidas offered us more money, better uniforms, and generally has been better for us over the past 4 years than Nike was the last like 6-8 we were with them?

Like the entire argument rests on the idea that being associated with them is WORTH having less money and worse uniforms. Having Nike and Adidas actually compete to make us the best offer is the best case scenario, not showing unrequited loyalty to the swoosh. Sorry. But if Adidas blows Nikes offer out of the water again, I'm fine sticking with them. I can accept a small difference in pay to go back to Nike because I do like Nike far more, but not worse uniforms and a large difference in pay just so we can be used.

Holy ****.

I say that something was a COMBINATION of things, and you turn it into "ONLY".

WTF is wrong with your reading comprehension, and how did you get into UM?

The RELATIONSHIP went bad. If Nike is getting more and more creatively elaborate, and it goes farther than the school wants it to go, then the AD needs to be the one to communicate that. I can't speak to whether Kirby or Shawn "liked" the bra-strap jerseys or not, but they do not appear to have VETOED any of the designs that began to deteriorate, even as MANY OTHER Nike schools seemed to be happy with what they received.

As for Beta Blake, I have some fairly good information that he was converting Nike equipment/apparel into cash payments in order to improve the Athletic Department bottom line. How is that Nike's fault?

And as for the rest of your nonsense, I have merely expressed my PERSONAL OPINIONS that it would be better to take less GUARANTEED money and to bet on ourselves AS MIAMI via a higher royalty rate. To own our future, for better or worse. Because when I see the apparel offerings at OTHER SCHOOLS (including inferior schools like UCF), I know that the future can be better with a lower guarantee and a higher royalty, even if the math cannot be proven until it happens. Meanwhile, we have a ton of posters promising to drop LARGE sums of money when we switch back to Nike, as opposed to NOBODY (except yourself, I imagine) promising to buy large quantities of UM adidas gear. Including the magical "last 4 years" of stuff (out of 9 years).

But just keep sticking with the myth that "adidas blew Nike out of the water" the first time (or any other time). Beta Blake worked the whole thing out so that he could brag to Donna and/or secure his "legacy".

The "large difference in pay" is just something you've made up for argumentative purposes. You can't prove it or quantify it, you can only cite it as a fear factor.

 

[mcnaire2004]

 

[Calinative]

Holy ****.

I say that something was a COMBINATION of things, and you turn it into "ONLY".

WTF is wrong with your reading comprehension, and how did you get into UM?

The RELATIONSHIP went bad. If Nike is getting more and more creatively elaborate, and it goes farther than the school wants it to go, then the AD needs to be the one to communicate that. I can't speak to whether Kirby or Shawn "liked" the bra-strap jerseys or not, but they do not appear to have VETOED any of the designs that began to deteriorate, even as MANY OTHER Nike schools seemed to be happy with what they received.

As for Beta Blake, I have some fairly good information that he was converting Nike equipment/apparel into cash payments in order to improve the Athletic Department bottom line. How is that Nike's fault?

And as for the rest of your nonsense, I have merely expressed my PERSONAL OPINIONS that it would be better to take less GUARANTEED money and to bet on ourselves AS MIAMI via a higher royalty rate. To own our future, for better or worse. Because when I see the apparel offerings at OTHER SCHOOLS (including inferior schools like UCF), I know that the future can be better with a lower guarantee and a higher royalty, even if the math cannot be proven until it happens. Meanwhile, we have a ton of posters promising to drop LARGE sums of money when we switch back to Nike, as opposed to NOBODY (except yourself, I imagine) promising to buy large quantities of UM adidas gear. Including the magical "last 4 years" of stuff (out of 9 years).

But just keep sticking with the myth that "adidas blew Nike out of the water" the first time (or any other time). Beta Blake worked the whole thing out so that he could brag to Donna and/or secure his "legacy".

The "large difference in pay" is just something you've made up for argumentative purposes. You can't prove it or quantify it, you can only cite it as a fear factor.

I find it funny you ***** about my reading comprehension, when it is you that needs to go back and reread what the **** YOU wrote lol. Sure you said there were "multiple issues" - all of which you only mentioned Miami as the negative which is why I said in my comment ONLY Miamis fault for the breakdown in relationship....because that's what YOU said (or maybe didn't say - which is not my fault for just replying to what you did say). How about you quote exactly where you said Nike was also a problem since I'm such a bad reader...

How is Blake James converting Equipment to cash Nikes fault? Well it's their fault for giving us a **** design first. That is still a negative regardless what the cash+equipment value is monetarily. And in fact I'd say Nike having a **** helmet design cost us money unnecessarily due to that **** orange and green helmet. How do we know that wasn't a contributing factor. Imagine HAVING to buy 200+ helmets to rock that **** orange and green ornaments color (or pay to repaint a bunch) And secondly it's their fault for the Equipment+Cash total being less than the equipment+Cash total from Adidas. I mean this seems obvious. Regardless how you want to look at it one is going to be more or less than the other in total value.

I also find it laughable you claiming that the "large pay difference" is something I can't defend, when the only actual public information on the deal actually says we are receiving far more money with Adidas. How about you take your own criticism and understand y'all are the ones whos claim can't be proven with evidence, except just saying we COULD HAVE received more from Nike with excellent sales on the backend. Okay maybe it's possible even though objectively we are a small school and pretty **** on field results.

I agree it's better to focus on the future. And hopefully in that future Nike shows they actually value us and our brand, decides to make us a great offer monetarily and design wise. Otherwise I'm sure we will get a whole lot of crybabies in here upset we dare take the best offer on the table and better uniform designs...again... What a crime that'd be.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I find it funny you ***** about my reading comprehension, when it is you that needs to go back and reread what the **** YOU wrote lol. Sure you said there were "multiple issues" - all of which you only mentioned Miami as the negative which is why I said in my comment ONLY Miamis fault for the breakdown in relationship....because that's what YOU said (or maybe didn't say - which is not my fault for just replying to what you did say). How about you quote exactly where you said Nike was also a problem since I'm such a bad reader...

How is Blake James converting Equipment to cash Nikes fault? Well it's their fault for giving us a **** design first. That is still a negative regardless what the cash+equipment value is monetarily. And in fact I'd say Nike having a **** helmet design cost us money unnecessarily due to that **** orange and green helmet. How do we know that wasn't a contributing factor. Imagine HAVING to buy 200+ helmets to rock that **** orange and green ornaments color (or pay to repaint a bunch) And secondly it's their fault for the Equipment+Cash total being less than the equipment+Cash total from Adidas. I mean this seems obvious. Regardless how you want to look at it one is going to be more or less than the other in total value.

I also find it laughable you claiming that the "large pay difference" is something I can't defend, when the only actual public information on the deal actually says we are receiving far more money with Adidas. How about you take your own criticism and understand y'all are the ones whos claim can't be proven with evidence, except just saying we COULD HAVE received more from Nike with excellent sales on the backend. Okay maybe it's possible even though objectively we are a small school and pretty **** on field results.

I agree it's better to focus on the future. And hopefully in that future Nike shows they actually value us and our brand, decides to make us a great offer monetarily and design wise. Otherwise I'm sure we will get a whole lot of crybabies in here upset we dare take the best offer on the table and better uniform designs...again... What a crime that'd be.

God****, ************, it's in the first two words:

Nike slipping with Miami was a combination of our litany of sub-par ADs (Kirby didn't care enough, the Shermanator was a disaster, and Beta Blake was a dishonest double-dealer) and our on-field product.

I didn't say "Nike succeeeding". Or "Nike kicking ***". What is wrong with you? We became a lesser priority with Nike (I guess you think they will automatically love every partner equally, no matter what the partner does) because of a combination of things that we slipped on OURSELVES. WE BOTH SLIPPED.

And you are definitely clueless on the issue of Beta Blake converting equipment and apparel into cash. It's not because "it was a **** design first". That is just something you invented. You just don't get it, and you never will. The contract called for Nike to provide certain things every year. Now, let's say that a school chooses NOT to wear a contracted-for alternate third jersey, that doesn't mean you have to accept boxes full of jerseys you won't use. You CONVERT that into a cash payment.

But when an AD does that year over year, converting equipment and apparel into cash, then you have what we got at the end of the Nike relationship. Older equipment and not enough merch to make it look like Nike is trying hard enough, which was ENGINEERED by Beta Blake. What, you think that Nike was incapable of sending us a batch of "Just Do It" shirts in orange and green? Good lord, wake up.

As for the rest of your lies, they are easily rebutted.

First, there is NOTHING that says "we are receiving far more money with adidas". That simply IS NOT TRUE. Unless you are playing bull**** calinative games, by comparing the 2015-2027 adidas contract to the EXPIRED pre-2015 Nike contract. As @Rellyrell has pointed out repeatedly, new apparel contracts tend to "set the bar" and then everyone else surpasses the bar over time. At the beginning of an apparel contract, it is the "best ever", and by the end, it is "below market". Which is WHY YOU DON'T ACCEPT A TWELVE-YEAR DEAL. Because by the time the market surpasses your benchmark in Year 4, you are stuck with 8 more years of below-market payouts.

Second, you need to stop relitigating the 2015 deal with invented math. @Rellyrell has clearly stated that the Nike offer was smaller on the guarantee and larger on the royalty rate. Nobody disagrees. We can hypothesize on the impact of this until the end of time. BUT GIVEN WHAT THE MARKET HAS BECOME, PARTICULARLY IN THE FANATICS ERA, it is easy to build a sales model on which the higher royalty rate results in a larger OVERALL payout. That is not some fantasy game. @Rellyrell has already cited OTHER SCHOOLS that have benefited MORE from a higher royalty rate, and those schools don't have the same nationwide cachet that Miami has.

I get it, you are going to mope about how Miami "wouldn't have sold more because the team sucked". OK. Whatever. But as I've pointed out, the Fanatics SALES CHANNEL has raised the volume of sales (and profit) FOR ALL SCHOOLS, not just the ones that win 10 games. Thus, VANDERBILT is selling more merch (and making more profit). WAKE FOREST is selling more merch (and making more profit). And under THAT FACTUAL SCENARIO, it is not so crazy to conclude that Miami would have made MORE MONEY (and possibly a LOT more money) with a lower-guarantee/higher-royalty-rate deal. Also, keep in mind that my repeated reference to "more profit" comes from the changes in inventory management and online sales that do not force places like the UM Bookstore to eat huge quantities of "last-season's" merch every year.

This is what is so painful, trying to have a conversation with you. I've worked with publicly-traded companies where you have to MODEL the economic outcomes. Yes, you can't "prove it" before it happens. Which is why you use COMPARABLES. You say "if Vanderbilt can sell 10% more, is it reasonable to assume that Miami can sell 20% more?" This isn't shocking, it's what businesses do EVERY DAY.

Yet you are going on and on about how @Rellyrell and I can't "prove" that Miami would have made more money with Nike. Fair enough. But if EVERY OTHER SCHOOL is selling more merch these days, Miami would have to be pretty ****tarded to be the only one out of 100 Nike and/or adidas schools that can't sell more merch in the Fanatics era.

So keep yammering. Nothing will ever be good enough for you. You are that stubborn guy who is stuck on "guranteed money". You probably want all your salary in cash, no stock comp, no stock options. NOPE, just cash on the barrelhead.

Good for you. If it worked in the 1800s, I'm sure you should just stick with it.

 

[Calinative]

God****, ************, it's in the first two words:

Nike slipping with Miami was a combination of our litany of sub-par ADs (Kirby didn't care enough, the Shermanator was a disaster, and Beta Blake was a dishonest double-dealer) and our on-field product.

I didn't say "Nike succeeeding". Or "Nike kicking ***". What is wrong with you? We became a lesser priority with Nike (I guess you think they will automatically love every partner equally, no matter what the partner does) because of a combination of things that we slipped on OURSELVES. WE BOTH SLIPPED.

And you are definitely clueless on the issue of Beta Blake converting equipment and apparel into cash. It's not because "it was a **** design first". That is just something you invented. You just don't get it, and you never will. The contract called for Nike to provide certain things every year. Now, let's say that a school chooses NOT to wear a contracted-for alternate third jersey, that doesn't mean you have to accept boxes full of jerseys you won't use. You CONVERT that into a cash payment.

But when an AD does that year over year, converting equipment and apparel into cash, then you have what we got at the end of the Nike relationship. Older equipment and not enough merch to make it look like Nike is trying hard enough, which was ENGINEERED by Beta Blake. What, you think that Nike was incapable of sending us a batch of "Just Do It" shirts in orange and green? Good lord, wake up.

As for the rest of your lies, they are easily rebutted.

First, there is NOTHING that says "we are receiving far more money with adidas". That simply IS NOT TRUE. Unless you are playing bull**** calinative games, by comparing the 2015-2027 adidas contract to the EXPIRED pre-2015 Nike contract. As @Rellyrell has pointed out repeatedly, new apparel contracts tend to "set the bar" and then everyone else surpasses the bar over time. At the beginning of an apparel contract, it is the "best ever", and by the end, it is "below market". Which is WHY YOU DON'T ACCEPT A TWELVE-YEAR DEAL. Because by the time the market surpasses your benchmark in Year 4, you are stuck with 8 more years of below-market payouts.

Second, you need to stop relitigating the 2015 deal with invented math. @Rellyrell has clearly stated that the Nike offer was smaller on the guarantee and larger on the royalty rate. Nobody disagrees. We can hypothesize on the impact of this until the end of time. BUT GIVEN WHAT THE MARKET HAS BECOME, PARTICULARLY IN THE FANATICS ERA, it is easy to build a sales model on which the higher royalty rate results in a larger OVERALL payout. That is not some fantasy game. @Rellyrell has already cited OTHER SCHOOLS that have benefited MORE from a higher royalty rate, and those schools don't have the same nationwide cachet that Miami has.

I get it, you are going to mope about how Miami "wouldn't have sold more because the team sucked". OK. Whatever. But as I've pointed out, the Fanatics SALES CHANNEL has raised the volume of sales (and profit) FOR ALL SCHOOLS, not just the ones that win 10 games. Thus, VANDERBILT is selling more merch (and making more profit). WAKE FOREST is selling more merch (and making more profit). And under THAT FACTUAL SCENARIO, it is not so crazy to conclude that Miami would have made MORE MONEY (and possibly a LOT more money) with a lower-guarantee/higher-royalty-rate deal. Also, keep in mind that my repeated reference to "more profit" comes from the changes in inventory management and online sales that do not force places like the UM Bookstore to eat huge quantities of "last-season's" merch every year.

This is what is so painful, trying to have a conversation with you. I've worked with publicly-traded companies where you have to MODEL the economic outcomes. Yes, you can't "prove it" before it happens. Which is why you use COMPARABLES. You say "if Vanderbilt can sell 10% more, is it reasonable to assume that Miami can sell 20% more?" This isn't shocking, it's what businesses do EVERY DAY.

Yet you are going on and on about how @Rellyrell and I can't "prove" that Miami would have made more money with Nike. Fair enough. But if EVERY OTHER SCHOOL is selling more merch these days, Miami would have to be pretty ****tarded to be the only one out of 100 Nike and/or adidas schools that can't sell more merch in the Fanatics era.

So keep yammering. Nothing will ever be good enough for you. You are that stubborn guy who is stuck on "guranteed money". You probably want all your salary in cash, no stock comp, no stock options. NOPE, just cash on the barrelhead.

Good for you. If it worked in the 1800s, I'm sure you should just stick with it.

This has gotta be by far one of your weakest ever defenses in your 40k post history. Usually you actually make an argument that can make some semblance of sense, but this one is just clearly dumb. Are you legit saying that by you opening with "Nike Slipping with miaim", those words represented a criticism/portion of blame place on Nike, and that is what you are using to say I lacked reading comprehension? All I can do is laugh at that. Especially since after opening with those words you LITERALLY say "was a combination of our litany of sub-par ADs (Kirby didn't care enough, the Shermanator was a disaster, and Beta Blake was a dishonest double-dealer) and our on-field product." So I guess I'm just retarded for thinking "Our Sub-par ADS and OUR on field product wasn't actually ONLY Miami that was being blamed lol. Come on, just admit that is very clearly putting the BLAME solely on Miami - at least out of the specificly mentioned ones. I'll give you an out cause its almost a sad argument that you just didn't mention the other ones but they exist... Plus, I literally said "So it's ONLY our ADs fault (and had nothing to do with Nike whatsoever) that Adidas offered us more money, better uniforms, and generally has been better for us over the past 4 years than Nike was the last like 6-8 we were with them?" I literally even put inside the parenthesis the point I was making so that your misunderstanding-*** wouldn't misunderstand, and yet you either managed to, are are so upset at ever being wrong you are resorting to absurd arguments. lol. Like you go on to say, because you didn't say "Nike succeeding" or "Nike Kicking ***" It means you weren't praising them... and I guess actually implicitly (lord knows you didn't explicitly say that lol) means you were criticizing them too?

It's just weak man. And your response to the Blake James equipment for cash trade is nonsensical as well. YOu just said "Now, let's say that a school chooses NOT to wear a contracted-for alternate third jersey, that doesn't mean you have to accept boxes full of jerseys you won't use. You CONVERT that into a cash payment."... Okay, where is the argument from me on that lol. In fact it goes against what you said the sentence before with "It's not because "it was a **** design first"... Can you not comprehend a scenario where instead of wearing a **** design we just choose to get the cash instead? I mean you should since you literally said it too, just with different (aka less Nike blame) wording lol. To make it even better I literally said "And in fact I'd say Nike having a **** helmet design cost us money unnecessarily due to that **** orange and green helmet. How do we know that wasn't a contributing factor." What in your mind do I mean when I say "wasn't a contributing factor" when the point being discussed is literally converting equipment to cash. Man this was just a string of complete **** argument from you.

And no, I'm the kind of guy who can look at an analysis for one deal with more guaranteed up front and another with more on the backend and not just default to the one on the backend is better because "what if" lol. It's about probabilities, and yall have never explained how it is even close to likely to exceed the guarantees on the Adidas deal. Yall have made some examples using like Alabama lol. As if we were getting anywhere close to the offer Alabama gets from Nike, or selling on par with them. And you're using Vanderbilt selling 10% more and comparing it to us... okay and if we sell 20% more that means the backend deal from Nike WOULD HAVE been better? lol. Look back when I commented on @Rellyrell post I said I wasn't going to get in the details of the financial debate again, so I won't and will just leave that as We heavily disagree. But don't spew bs on here how I am the one that isn't giving actual evidence regarding the deal monetarily, when the crux of yalls argument is "it's possible". Yeah no ******* ****, but You are living in fantasyland regarding this Nike vs Adidas conversation imo.

 

[SWFLHurricane]

This has gotta be by far one of your weakest ever defenses in your 40k post history. Usually you actually make an argument that can make some semblance of sense, but this one is just clearly dumb. Are you legit saying that by you opening with "Nike Slipping with miaim", those words represented a criticism/portion of blame place on Nike, and that is what you are using to say I lacked reading comprehension? All I can do is laugh at that. Especially since after opening with those words you LITERALLY say "was a combination of our litany of sub-par ADs (Kirby didn't care enough, the Shermanator was a disaster, and Beta Blake was a dishonest double-dealer) and our on-field product." So I guess I'm just retarded for thinking "Our Sub-par ADS and OUR on field product wasn't actually ONLY Miami that was being blamed lol. Come on, just admit that is very clearly putting the BLAME solely on Miami - at least out of the specificly mentioned ones. I'll give you an out cause its almost a sad argument that you just didn't mention the other ones but they exist... Plus, I literally said "So it's ONLY our ADs fault (and had nothing to do with Nike whatsoever) that Adidas offered us more money, better uniforms, and generally has been better for us over the past 4 years than Nike was the last like 6-8 we were with them?" I literally even put inside the parenthesis the point I was making so that your misunderstanding-*** wouldn't misunderstand, and yet you either managed to, are are so upset at ever being wrong you are resorting to absurd arguments. lol. Like you go on to say, because you didn't say "Nike succeeding" or "Nike Kicking ***" It means you weren't praising them... and I guess actually implicitly (lord knows you didn't explicitly say that lol) means you were criticizing them too?

It's just weak man. And your response to the Blake James equipment for cash trade is nonsensical as well. YOu just said "Now, let's say that a school chooses NOT to wear a contracted-for alternate third jersey, that doesn't mean you have to accept boxes full of jerseys you won't use. You CONVERT that into a cash payment."... Okay, where is the argument from me on that lol. In fact it goes against what you said the sentence before with "It's not because "it was a **** design first"... Can you not comprehend a scenario where instead of wearing a **** design we just choose to get the cash instead? I mean you should since you literally said it too, just with different (aka less Nike blame) wording lol. To make it even better I literally said "And in fact I'd say Nike having a **** helmet design cost us money unnecessarily due to that **** orange and green helmet. How do we know that wasn't a contributing factor." What in your mind do I mean when I say "wasn't a contributing factor" when the point being discussed is literally converting equipment to cash. Man this was just a string of complete **** argument from you.

And no, I'm the kind of guy who can look at an analysis for one deal with more guaranteed up front and another with more on the backend and not just default to the one on the backend is better because "what if" lol. It's about probabilities, and yall have never explained how it is even close to likely to exceed the guarantees on the Adidas deal. Yall have made some examples using like Alabama lol. As if we were getting anywhere close to the offer Alabama gets from Nike, or selling on par with them. And you're using Vanderbilt selling 10% more and comparing it to us... okay and if we sell 20% more that means the backend deal from Nike WOULD HAVE been better? lol. Look back when I commented on @Rellyrell post I said I wasn't going to get in the details of the financial debate again, so I won't and will just leave that as We heavily disagree. But don't spew bs on here how I am the one that isn't giving actual evidence regarding the deal monetarily, when the crux of yalls argument is "it's possible". Yeah no ******* ****, but You are living in fantasyland regarding this Nike vs Adidas conversation imo.

Cot ****....that MFer was so Long I ran to a Bar.

 

[Rellyrell]

God****, ************, it's in the first two words:

Nike slipping with Miami was a combination of our litany of sub-par ADs (Kirby didn't care enough, the Shermanator was a disaster, and Beta Blake was a dishonest double-dealer) and our on-field product.

I didn't say "Nike succeeeding". Or "Nike kicking ***". What is wrong with you? We became a lesser priority with Nike (I guess you think they will automatically love every partner equally, no matter what the partner does) because of a combination of things that we slipped on OURSELVES. WE BOTH SLIPPED.

And you are definitely clueless on the issue of Beta Blake converting equipment and apparel into cash. It's not because "it was a **** design first". That is just something you invented. You just don't get it, and you never will. The contract called for Nike to provide certain things every year. Now, let's say that a school chooses NOT to wear a contracted-for alternate third jersey, that doesn't mean you have to accept boxes full of jerseys you won't use. You CONVERT that into a cash payment.

But when an AD does that year over year, converting equipment and apparel into cash, then you have what we got at the end of the Nike relationship. Older equipment and not enough merch to make it look like Nike is trying hard enough, which was ENGINEERED by Beta Blake. What, you think that Nike was incapable of sending us a batch of "Just Do It" shirts in orange and green? Good lord, wake up.

As for the rest of your lies, they are easily rebutted.

First, there is NOTHING that says "we are receiving far more money with adidas". That simply IS NOT TRUE. Unless you are playing bull**** calinative games, by comparing the 2015-2027 adidas contract to the EXPIRED pre-2015 Nike contract. As @Rellyrell has pointed out repeatedly, new apparel contracts tend to "set the bar" and then everyone else surpasses the bar over time. At the beginning of an apparel contract, it is the "best ever", and by the end, it is "below market". Which is WHY YOU DON'T ACCEPT A TWELVE-YEAR DEAL. Because by the time the market surpasses your benchmark in Year 4, you are stuck with 8 more years of below-market payouts.

Second, you need to stop relitigating the 2015 deal with invented math. @Rellyrell has clearly stated that the Nike offer was smaller on the guarantee and larger on the royalty rate. Nobody disagrees. We can hypothesize on the impact of this until the end of time. BUT GIVEN WHAT THE MARKET HAS BECOME, PARTICULARLY IN THE FANATICS ERA, it is easy to build a sales model on which the higher royalty rate results in a larger OVERALL payout. That is not some fantasy game. @Rellyrell has already cited OTHER SCHOOLS that have benefited MORE from a higher royalty rate, and those schools don't have the same nationwide cachet that Miami has.

I get it, you are going to mope about how Miami "wouldn't have sold more because the team sucked". OK. Whatever. But as I've pointed out, the Fanatics SALES CHANNEL has raised the volume of sales (and profit) FOR ALL SCHOOLS, not just the ones that win 10 games. Thus, VANDERBILT is selling more merch (and making more profit). WAKE FOREST is selling more merch (and making more profit). And under THAT FACTUAL SCENARIO, it is not so crazy to conclude that Miami would have made MORE MONEY (and possibly a LOT more money) with a lower-guarantee/higher-royalty-rate deal. Also, keep in mind that my repeated reference to "more profit" comes from the changes in inventory management and online sales that do not force places like the UM Bookstore to eat huge quantities of "last-season's" merch every year.

This is what is so painful, trying to have a conversation with you. I've worked with publicly-traded companies where you have to MODEL the economic outcomes. Yes, you can't "prove it" before it happens. Which is why you use COMPARABLES. You say "if Vanderbilt can sell 10% more, is it reasonable to assume that Miami can sell 20% more?" This isn't shocking, it's what businesses do EVERY DAY.

Yet you are going on and on about how @Rellyrell and I can't "prove" that Miami would have made more money with Nike. Fair enough. But if EVERY OTHER SCHOOL is selling more merch these days, Miami would have to be pretty ****tarded to be the only one out of 100 Nike and/or adidas schools that can't sell more merch in the Fanatics era.

So keep yammering. Nothing will ever be good enough for you. You are that stubborn guy who is stuck on "guranteed money". You probably want all your salary in cash, no stock comp, no stock options. NOPE, just cash on the barrelhead.

Good for you. If it worked in the 1800s, I'm sure you should just stick with it.

Do urself a favor & block them. It was the best decision I’ve made in the year 2024.

The fact is, I already provided the statistical breakdown from a financial agreement using UCLA’s direct contract language as a guideline. They, themselves, did the math based upon the season we had a couple of yrs ago to show it was competitive w/ the Adidas contract.

Another thing this individual doesn’t understand is that an apparel contract is not all $$. A lot of that $$ is dedicated to equipment & merchandise given to a program, which is why I highlighted that Nike has a feature in their contract that a school can convert physical equipment/merchandise into cash which means they’ll cash u out, but the equipment provided will be reduced.

I also recently provided an article featuring how UCLA made an add’l $3.5m on the year in royalties from their JB contract which superseded the annual amount reported. It doesn’t matter how many times u explain this, they’ll be a contrarian just b/c. That’s literally their m.o in **** near every thread, every subject.

Blake took the Adidas deal b/c the Nike deal would’ve put the onus on us being good, so I’m not mad at him taking the Adidas deal, but clearly he didn’t even know what he was signing b/c an outsider had to tell him Adidas was in violation of our agreement. Furthermore, my ONLY point of contention was us signing a 12 yr deal b/c it handcuffed to outdated info. I repeatedly said if we were going to switch, it should’ve been for 8 yrs, no longer than 10 yrs. 12 yrs is a bad contract, & that includes if we ever went back to Nike. U do 6, 8, 10…the only time u sign a 12 yr+ contract is when u have proven relationship w/ the apparel company & they r throwing a mega bag at u like $10+m/yr.

 

[Calinative]

Furthermore, my ONLY point of contention was us signing a 12 yr deal b/c it handcuffed to outdated info. I repeatedly said if we were going to switch, it should’ve been for 8 yrs, no longer than 10 yrs. 12 yrs is a bad contract, & that includes if we ever went back to Nike. U do 6, 8, 10…the only time u sign a 12 yr+ contract is when u have proven relationship w/ the apparel company & they r throwing a mega bag at u like $10+m/yr.

Hey look at that - the thing we’ve agreed on the entire time lol

Blake took the Adidas deal b/c the Nike deal would’ve put the onus on us being good, so I’m not mad at him taking the Adidas deal

And since we have hindsight we know we weren’t good lol.

I think we agree on 90% of this Nike Adidas conversation, even though you like to think other can’t comprehend what you’re saying cause it’s oh so complicated

 

[Calinative]

Cot ****....that MFer was so Long I ran to a Bar.View attachment 294425

I’m sure you get drunk every time @TheOriginalCane posts then haha

 

[TheOriginalCane]

This has gotta be by far one of your weakest ever defenses in your 40k post history. Usually you actually make an argument that can make some semblance of sense, but this one is just clearly dumb. Are you legit saying that by you opening with "Nike Slipping with miaim", those words represented a criticism/portion of blame place on Nike, and that is what you are using to say I lacked reading comprehension? All I can do is laugh at that. Especially since after opening with those words you LITERALLY say "was a combination of our litany of sub-par ADs (Kirby didn't care enough, the Shermanator was a disaster, and Beta Blake was a dishonest double-dealer) and our on-field product." So I guess I'm just retarded for thinking "Our Sub-par ADS and OUR on field product wasn't actually ONLY Miami that was being blamed lol. Come on, just admit that is very clearly putting the BLAME solely on Miami - at least out of the specificly mentioned ones. I'll give you an out cause its almost a sad argument that you just didn't mention the other ones but they exist... Plus, I literally said "So it's ONLY our ADs fault (and had nothing to do with Nike whatsoever) that Adidas offered us more money, better uniforms, and generally has been better for us over the past 4 years than Nike was the last like 6-8 we were with them?" I literally even put inside the parenthesis the point I was making so that your misunderstanding-*** wouldn't misunderstand, and yet you either managed to, are are so upset at ever being wrong you are resorting to absurd arguments. lol. Like you go on to say, because you didn't say "Nike succeeding" or "Nike Kicking ***" It means you weren't praising them... and I guess actually implicitly (lord knows you didn't explicitly say that lol) means you were criticizing them too?

It's just weak man. And your response to the Blake James equipment for cash trade is nonsensical as well. YOu just said "Now, let's say that a school chooses NOT to wear a contracted-for alternate third jersey, that doesn't mean you have to accept boxes full of jerseys you won't use. You CONVERT that into a cash payment."... Okay, where is the argument from me on that lol. In fact it goes against what you said the sentence before with "It's not because "it was a **** design first"... Can you not comprehend a scenario where instead of wearing a **** design we just choose to get the cash instead? I mean you should since you literally said it too, just with different (aka less Nike blame) wording lol. To make it even better I literally said "And in fact I'd say Nike having a **** helmet design cost us money unnecessarily due to that **** orange and green helmet. How do we know that wasn't a contributing factor." What in your mind do I mean when I say "wasn't a contributing factor" when the point being discussed is literally converting equipment to cash. Man this was just a string of complete **** argument from you.

And no, I'm the kind of guy who can look at an analysis for one deal with more guaranteed up front and another with more on the backend and not just default to the one on the backend is better because "what if" lol. It's about probabilities, and yall have never explained how it is even close to likely to exceed the guarantees on the Adidas deal. Yall have made some examples using like Alabama lol. As if we were getting anywhere close to the offer Alabama gets from Nike, or selling on par with them. And you're using Vanderbilt selling 10% more and comparing it to us... okay and if we sell 20% more that means the backend deal from Nike WOULD HAVE been better? lol. Look back when I commented on @Rellyrell post I said I wasn't going to get in the details of the financial debate again, so I won't and will just leave that as We heavily disagree. But don't spew bs on here how I am the one that isn't giving actual evidence regarding the deal monetarily, when the crux of yalls argument is "it's possible". Yeah no ******* ****, but You are living in fantasyland regarding this Nike vs Adidas conversation imo.

I'm making this simple.

You spent three paragraphs covering up for your terrible reading comprehension, your horrendously weak arguments (which you don't even try to defend), and your inexplicable white-knighting for a series of well-known AD failures.

I get that you hate Nike, but if you try to compare one of the most successful corporations on the planet to the actions of...Kirby, Shawn, and Beta Blake...well, buddy, that one's on YOU.

You would be an absolute failure in the business world. You don't understand what you are talking about, but you go on and on and on as if you do.

I'm not going to slog through your dense 3 paragraphs of garbage, point-by-point. You're just full of ****.

The Fanatics Era of sports merchandising is here, and we are stuck in a ****** overly-long 12-year deal that (a) was surpassed the minute that Louisville re-upped with adidas, and (b) is stunningly royalty-rate-poor. ****, we didn't even get a most-favored-nations clause with other conferences, and now we are getting lapped by random Team #10 in a 16/18 team superconference.

Pathetic. But you will keep harping on how we got some massive "guarantee", which was not massive for the time, and is certainly not massive now.

Unlike you, I've spoken to people who know our adidas sales numbers compared to our Nike sales numbers. I realize you want to plug your ears and ignore the truth, but I've done this kind of analysis many times in my career, and there is no way in **** that we would have made less overall money with Nike, between the clear customer preference for Nike over adidas and the way that the market has exploded in the Fanatics Era. You are clinging to "uncertain math" as if it's a life preserver, but you couldn't be more wrong.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Hey look at that - the thing we’ve agreed on the entire time lol

And since we have hindsight we know we weren’t good lol.

I think we agree on 90% of this Nike Adidas conversation, even though you like to think other can’t comprehend what you’re saying cause it’s oh so complicated

He BLOCKED YOU. Because you are a stubborn contrarian who "quotes" people and then changes what they said.

You are not in agreement AT ALL. You have always maintained that we made "more money" with adidas than we could have possibly made with Nike, which isn't true. And if you have EVER complained about the 12-year length of the contract (which you haven't), then you have to admit the reality that if we had done a 6-year deal with adidas THEY WOULD HAVE PAID US LESS PER YEAR.

Beta Blake got snookered. The **** "quoted annual guarantee amount" obscured the obscenely worse-than-market 12-year term and the low royalty rate.

And you misunderstand what @Rellyrell is saying. He is saying that Beta Blake took the adidas guarantee because AT THE TIME the onus would have been on Miami "to be good". But he also knows that the marketplace has expanded since 2014-15. In 2014-15, Fanatics didn't control nearly every pro sports team's merch sales. In 2014-15, Fanatics wasn't manufacturing pro uniforms under contract with major apparel makers like Nike. In 2014-15, Fanatics had not acquired all the companies they now have and had not started offering nearly as much apparel as they now do.

And the point that @Rellyrell keeps making about the 12-year length of the contract is the most important of all. By being locked into a (now) below-market deal with adidas that pays a very low royalty, we have MISSED OUT ON the one explosive period of time in the growth of college-licensed merchandise. It's like signing a long-term deal with Jefferson Pilot/Raycom right before...you know...every other P5 conference gets its own network...

Oh, wait, that happened too.

So Miami has been massively ****ed TWICE by being locked into LOOOOOONG-term below-market contracts which prevent us from marking-to-market with our merchandise and our TV rights....

Tell us again about this mythically great "adidas guarantee"...

For comparative purposes, Miami is being paid 6.5 million per year by adidas. In the same year of 2015, Auburn re-upped their deal with Under Armour for 9 more years. For $8.5 million per year. Outside of Alabama and west Georgia, how much Auburn merch do you actually see?

Stop arguing. You are wrong.

 

[Alex25]

This is what I’m waiting for

 

[TheOriginalCane]

This is what I’m waiting for View attachment 294449

Amen, brother.

Amen.

 

[Calinative]

He BLOCKED YOU. Because you are a stubborn contrarian who "quotes" people and then changes what they said.

You are not in agreement AT ALL. You have always maintained that we made "more money" with adidas than we could have possibly made with Nike, which isn't true. And if you have EVER complained about the 12-year length of the contract (which you haven't), then you have to admit the reality that if we had done a 6-year deal with adidas THEY WOULD HAVE PAID US LESS PER YEAR.

Beta Blake got snookered. The **** "quoted annual guarantee amount" obscured the obscenely worse-than-market 12-year term and the low royalty rate.

And you misunderstand what @Rellyrell is saying. He is saying that Beta Blake took the adidas guarantee because AT THE TIME the onus would have been on Miami "to be good". But he also knows that the marketplace has expanded since 2014-15. In 2014-15, Fanatics didn't control nearly every pro sports team's merch sales. In 2014-15, Fanatics wasn't manufacturing pro uniforms under contract with major apparel makers like Nike. In 2014-15, Fanatics had not acquired all the companies they now have and had not started offering nearly as much apparel as they now do.

And the point that @Rellyrell keeps making about the 12-year length of the contract is the most important of all. By being locked into a (now) below-market deal with adidas that pays a very low royalty, we have MISSED OUT ON the one explosive period of time in the growth of college-licensed merchandise. It's like signing a long-term deal with Jefferson Pilot/Raycom right before...you know...every other P5 conference gets its own network...

Oh, wait, that happened too.

So Miami has been massively ****ed TWICE by being locked into LOOOOOONG-term below-market contracts which prevent us from marking-to-market with our merchandise and our TV rights....

Tell us again about this mythically great "adidas guarantee"...

For comparative purposes, Miami is being paid 6.5 million per year by adidas. In the same year of 2015, Auburn re-upped their deal with Under Armour for 9 more years. For $8.5 million per year. Outside of Alabama and west Georgia, how much Auburn merch do you actually see?

Stop arguing. You are wrong.

Sigh, lets tell a little story through pictures:

Okay interesting. You also used to think Nike should have valued us more.

Sudden switch. This is when you start exclusively blaming miami. You go for the COULD HAVE made more money IF we started winning. ... okay well we know we didn't lol. But the kicker is you say Adidas made an offer based on what they HOPED we would be, and that we ddin't actually even merit the dollar amounts we received from Adidas. lol. So by your own admission back then it was a financially lucrative deal for us. Furthermore you actually go as far as to say "Today" (well back at the end of 2021) we wouldn't even get the same amount Adidas offered back then... **** that's sounding like a good deal financially to me!

Relly rell then confirms Adidas offered more than Nike and UA. He also explains in other comment that Nike 1000% hide right of first refusal and could have matched, but didn't want to (probably because of how high the guarantees were vs where they predicted our on-field and sales results would be). He even says nike couldn't (wouldn't) match what adidas offered - NOT JUST MONEY - but the language of the deal.

"Now I definitely agree on the 12 year thing. It would have been much better to do it for like 8 years max... I'm not saying the deal was perfect." Hmm interesting.

This was my initial summary for the discussion basically. Holds up. Oh and hey look at the last paragraph: "Financial + Uniforms ... results in favor of Adisas by a big margin still. So that's pretty hard to be ooffset by other factors. And maybe TERM LENGTH is one of those factors - I can see that being a big issue". Hmmm.

" I have already agreed on the 12 year aspect. But even after all this that is really the biggest negative you guys can actually point out. If the contract had been 8 years, which I agree should have been the max, it seems like its a pretty clear that is is a better deal than Nike."



And trust me there is a lot more than this

Post in thread 'Nike deal'

Jan 27, 2022

Look, stop pouting like a baby and embrace reality. I don't have "zero actual numbers". The numbers have been reported for years, Maybe...JUST MAYBE...you should try googling before you do your whole "ignorant" routine.

First, as @Rellyrell can tell you, there are two numbers that are included in the "contract price". There is a cash payout, and there is an "average annual product allotment", which is gear. The sum of the two numbers is the total payout. Thus, a school with more teams would (naturally) receive a higher product allotment, which in turn leads to a higher...

• Calinative

 

[Calinative]

Only a 2% cut. Probably should have cut deeper

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Only a 2% cut. Probably should have cut deeper

This dumb comment is how I know you know nothing about business.

Idiot newspaper writers quantify "global workforce reduction" in terms of headcount. Which is just stupid.

Real businesses that lay off 32 VPs, 112 Senior Directors and 174 Directors quantify the reduction in terms of SALARY. And with those job titles, I guaran-*******-tee you that this is larger than a 2% reduction in SALARY EXPENSE.

Keep sniping at Nike, though. You are so transparent. It's funny, I've never seen you post an article on the problems at adidas.

 

[Manfred_Cane]

 

[Tony4Canes]