forums

New uniform material and more? (official)

Advertisement
JayCane20 said:
New material technology.

Not supposed to come off the shoulder pad as easy/frequent as the old one and the stomach area stays down and covers better.

UM is the only program they have rolled these out for. Might be the only team getting them in 2024.
Click to expand...
so this is diff than the Texas tech stuff?

Also was that last dark clip a teaser for an alternate or something? Couldn’t make out what words behind the player were
 
Advertisement
Hufftwoseven said:
so this is diff than the Texas tech stuff?

Also was that last dark clip a teaser for an alternate or something? Couldn’t make out what words behind the player were
Click to expand...
It was the practice field wall - part of "Greentree Practice Field" but I did take that as a dark colored alternate uniform to come

And I assume it is different as that's what someone at UM told me that it is unique to us for this season. We complained enough about the product we've been given since Mario got here and not happy about the quality at all.
 
JayCane20 said:
New material technology.

Not supposed to come off the shoulder pad as easy/frequent as the old one and the stomach area stays down and covers better.

UM is the only program they have rolled these out for. Might be the only team getting them in 2024.
Click to expand...
Looks tighter. Adidas launched a new brand of soccer jerseys this year, where the material is lighter and more stretchable, allowing for more movement.

Wore the older tech on the jerseys for some time. They had less stretchability, but still sat tight. Was comfortable to some extent, but especially with sweat, it was getting annoying to deal with at times.
 
Advertisement
Can we bring back these alternates? These were easily the best black jerseys we've ever worn.

ghows-OH-6f7e21ca-8e0b-4396-9f7f-18465141dad2-43c0d310.jpeg
 
Who cares what brand uniform they wear...there was a time when we dominated with Champion brand jerseys (80's). They were garbage! As long as we win games and dominate, I could care less what brand of clothing we wear. NIKE simps in here need to chill. :ROFLMAO:
 
They look clean and nice! I have no issues with them as long as they get the name stitching correct. We've had some last name stitching that has looked like ****e the last few years. Will look even better if we win big!
 
Advertisement
JayCane20 said:
It was the practice field wall - part of "Greentree Practice Field" but I did take that as a dark colored alternate uniform to come

And I assume it is different as that's what someone at UM told me that it is unique to us for this season. We complained enough about the product we've been given since Mario got here and not happy about the quality at all.
Click to expand...
Texas Tech has them too. Adidas gave most of their tier one schools(not us) a different/new template last year. Miami and Tech(Patrick Mahomes connection) may be the only ones to get the new template shown in the video
 
Advertisement
calinative umstudent said:
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
Click to expand...


Look, I'm cutting out the pictures.

I think your flailingly desperate retorts are indicative of your inability to grasp the subject and all its complexities. You just don't understand how business is done. You don't.

First, I have ALWAYS felt that Nike should value Miami more. And I have ALWAYS felt that Miami (Beta Blake) should have valued Miami more. I understand that you are an overly simplistic and dense person who can't grab nuance.

Nike should have attached A VALUE of some sort for the "first" Nike school. For the same reason that people frame "the first dollar bill" they made after they start a business, Miami should have had a value to Nike that exceeds the mere bottom line. But, wow, you posted something I wrote YEARS AGO. Since that time, I have learned more about what really happened, particularly after Beta Blake was fired and people began to tell the true stories more openly. You'd like for me to assign 100% blame to one party or the other, but life is more complex.

Yes, I wish that Nike had chosen to overpay Miami and that the relationship was never broken. But, and I speak from professional experience, that is an INTANGIBLE asset. The TANGIBLE part of the deal, the money offered for the apparel contract, was fair. It was adidas that overpaid, similar to Nike overpaying to acquire the German national soccer team. ****, we just did an acquisition that is almost ALL intangible valuation. Over $50M of intangibles. It happens.

Second, you REALLY don't understand business. Like, AT ALL. To the point where you are shockingly ignorant, yet you keep shooting off your mouth. You make really dumb statements like "**** that's sounding like a good deal financially to me!". When you are clueless about what constitutes a good deal. I could try to teach you about fixed and variable costs. I could try to teach you about structuring a deal between guaranteed money and incentivized or contingent purchase price. But I believe that these efforts would be useless, you will still be the stubborn hard-headed dum-dum who keeps arguing that guaranteed money is better, even if it results in a lower total payout.

Sadly, you will never grasp that LESS guaranteed money and a HIGHER royalty is something that BOTH sides should see as a better deal. On Nike's part, they have every reason to like this deal structure. Because it covers both the upside and the downside. Now, for the last time, I'm going to try to use FAKE numbers as an illustration, knowing full well that you will probably try to argue against these numbers like a child distracted by a balloon. But here goes. If the "standard" royalty rate was 10% (example only) and Nike offered a lower guarantee in exchange for a 15% royalty rate (which is 50% higher than normal), then on the "upside" they should not care, because they are selling a TON of additional merchandise, and the added expense is only an additional 5% per item, which is minimal. On the downside, Nike has invested less in the "fixed cost" of the guarantee, and if the sales are the same as before or lower, then the extra royalty fee is just an added part of the variable cost of every sale.

And on Miami's part, it should be a win-win as well. Because the ultimate goal of the AD is to hire great coaches and win lots of games, which causes EVERY element of budgeted revenue to increase. Thus, if Miami wins more games and becomes more popular among non-UM-alums, then you sell a TON of addtiional merchandise while getting one of the best royalty rates in the industry. But, yeah, if you think that Beta Blake should be incentivized to go for the deal that guarantees him more money if we remain mediocre or worse, then SURE, "let's bet on Miami to suck again is sounding like a good deal financially to me!".

For the record, all of the above ignores the impact that Fanatics has had on the industry during the same time. I do not directly blame Beta Blake for this, I'm not asking him to be Nostradamus. I'm merely observing what has happened. And pointing out why it is GENERALLY a bad idea to lock into 12-year contracts (or longer, in the case of the overall ESPN TV deal).

I have resigned myself to the facts. That you are not bright. That you prefer binary choices. That you can't grasp nuance. That you can't understand how a person's viewpoints can change after they find out that Beta Blake has been lying about numerous things, and after you discover what the truth of the situation actually was.

But what is most infuriating is that you think you can make ONE concession (sure, we should have done an 8-year deal instead of a 12-year deal) and that EVERYTHNG ELSE would remain identical.

Again...that's not how business works. If someone wants a contract that is 2/3 the length of what has been offered, then the dollar guarantee WILL NOT be the same. Let me just ask you, for 6.5 million per year, at what point do you think the dollars would change?

Do you think adidas would have offered $26M guaranteed for 4 years?

Do you think adidas would have offered $13M guaranteed for 2 years?

This is where your lack of business acumen betrays you. You continue to act as if the "only problem" with the adidas deal was 12 years. And that is wrong. There were several problems with the contract. And I get it, Beta Blake wanted to give Donna (and later Julio) a nice rosy number to stick into the budget. And he wanted his own legacy.

When I was at UM, I had a friend with his own band. They had a song called "Thirty Pieces of Silver". The title is a reference to the Biblical story of Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus Christ for 30 pieces of silver. Shortly thereafter, he hung himself. So, yes, Beta Blake sold out Miami and Nike for the promise of an adidas guarantee, instead of betting on himself and Miami to turn around a decade of mediocrity.

If you think that was a good idea, that's on you. And you seem to be one of the only ones who truly believes that, even after being presented with the reality of how business deals are done and structured.

Go back. Pull all my posts. I don't care. Because unlike you, I'm not going to die on a hill just because I believed something (wrong) three years ago or ten years ago. Unlike you, I will learn, I will educate myself on the facts and details, and I will revise my opinions when the facts lead me to new conclusions.

You still stubbornly want to argue a mythological belief that you fell for 10 years ago. That's your choice.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top