Nike deal

[TheOriginalCane]

The comment I responded to literally said Blake didn’t read the fine print… that would literally imply our lawyers missed something.

We didn’t get in trouble for the Adidas-NCAA conflict.
You don’t like the uniforms and claim they are the worse we’be ever had…imo they are CLEARLY the best we’ve had since the early 2000’s, and it’s not particularly close at all. … that’s all just personal opinion. You think I’m wrong I think your wrong.

What isn’t opinion is how much money we have received. So again how much money has Adidas paid us? If it is above $7M/yr on average this far, the entire idea that Adidas has screwed us on the contract or that we would have gotten more from Nike is basically BS. If we got less than that then sure maybe it’s possible we could have been making more with Nike - but we also know the results are that we haven’t been national title competitors like we were when you were saying we were top 10 in merch sales….

So unless you guys actually have the numbers that explicitly show adidas gave us less than Nike offered, all I have to go on is what was actually reported and that that we get around $9m/yr while Nike was $2M/y and about zero chance we make an additional $7m/yr off merch if that’s what Bama brings in…

Btw I like Nike way better than Adidas, so miss me with all that bs too.

Blake did read the fine print. He knew exactly what was in the contract. Do you know what "fine print" actually is? It's when you sign something like a work order, and then on the back there is really small writing which details all the exceptions and limitations. That is NOT what happened here, regardless of Relly's fine work to try to put things into layman's terms that people like you could understand. The reality is that BETA BLAKE was too stupid to understand how a company like adidas could follow the letter of the contract without honoring the spirit of the contract.

Anyhow, I'm not going to belabor that point, except to say that the contract is EXACTLY what Relly and I have talked about, a document that fluffed a big "up-front guarantee" number (without enough upside potential) and one that did not specify enough of the details and merely assumed that adidas wanted to treat us like a flagship as they promised to do.

As for the rest of your nonsense..."we didn't get in trouble for the adidas-NCAA conflict"? Oh, sure, we didn't go on probation, but we were dead in the recruiting waters for multiple years and had to (not-quite) fill our basketball roster with transfers.

The uniforms? Like Beta Blake, you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension. I am talking about the original uniforms that adidas provided. The ones that were so bad that the NAMES on the jerseys had to be fixed after a couple of games, and we had some god-awful feather-sleeves, and numbers that were screen-printed instead of embroidered. Absolute garbage. Yes, things have gotten better SINCE, but others have continued to point out the problems with the fit, not to mention the U on the front of the jersey. And make no mistake, I very loudly and clearly criticized the Nike "bra-strap" jersey, so let's not pretend that I am one-sided about this stuff.

Finally, I'm just going to sum up the "money" garbage. As has been made clear, we signed a TWELVE-YEAR DEAL. Twelve years. That is insane when you switch companies. I mean, if we re-upped with Nike for 12 years, after being with Nike for TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS, you could understand the shared history and trust between the parties. But 12 years is at the top of the range for ANY all-apparel deal. I don't even know if Oregon has a 12 year deal with Nike (but if they did, I would understand it).

The reason I reference the 12 years is because a lot can change in 12 years (while being stuck in a below-market contract, just waiting for it to expire). For instance, just in the past 12 years, Fanatics has significantly changed how the sports apparel retail business operates. So, maybe, JUST MAYBE, we can dispense with the whole antiquated notion that UM will sell less apparel than state schools because because because fewer students, UM Bookstore, AllCanes, CanesWear...the world has changed, and we are stuck with less adidas merch to sell on ANY retail platform, not because people don't want UM gear, but because they can't get enough quality UM gear.

Wake up. Comprehend what you read. Respect the fact that some people know way more about this than you do (and I'm clearly referring to @Rellyrell here).

Four hundred years ago, the Lenape Indians sold Manhattan to the Dutch for about $25 worth of beads and trinkets. Which is exactly what happened with Beta Blake. He thought he was going to impress people with a bigger "guaranteed" number, but he sold off the FIRST and longest university all-sports shoe-and-apparel relationship (with Nike) for a whole lot of nothing (from adidas). And then he failed to monitor the "most-favored-nation" clause of the contract as Louisville swooped in and got a lot more than beads and trinkets.

Facts. Not feelings.

 

[TexasCane90]

I would assume that Phil Knight is either very anxious for Nike to sponsor Miami with Mario, or has forbidden Nike from doing it. No in-between.

Have we heard any post-hire sour grapes from him?

I mean I would say Phil knight doesn’t care… but it has been weird to see every photo of Mario he’s never wearing any adidas sneakers.. always loafers of different kinds…

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I mean I would say Phil knight doesn’t care… but it has been weird to see every photo of Mario he’s never wearing any adidas sneakers.. always loafers of different kinds…

Non-compete until the end of the school year?

 

[SouthsideAtl]

Not reading all this …Nike > Adidas ..make it happen Mario

 

[Rellyrell]

Why exactly do you think we signed a contract without our own lawyers reviewing it and ensuring it was all good? I would be shocked if there was any language we weren’t aware of going in.

Now if you are saying we didn’t meet certain criteria regarding W/L and as a result the money we received was affected as per the terms of the contract, that doesn’t really seem like adidas ******** is. This is literally what we have lawyers for.

Secondly we aren’t going to sell as much merch as a major public university. So you say Bama makes $5M upfront and another $7 on the back end (totaling around $12M/yr). Well that’s as perrenial national champs. Adidas was offering us what $9M+/yr? Meanwhile Nike was offering ~$2M? So even if we sold as much merch as Bama, we’d still only be getting the same money adidas offered? Doesn’t seem as cut and dry that the Nike deal would have resulted in more money, in fact it seems like the exact opposite really. Unless you can tell us exactly how much money we have received per year from Adidas…?

Whoa whoa there. Lol. There’s a whole lot of assumptions & misquotes thrown in this. Wow! Furthermore, our compensation by Adidas is on various platforms, so don’t patronize the board w/ that ?

1. Neither the Yahoo article posted here, nor I have said or mentioned “if” our lawyers looked over anything. Typically, remember I’m using the word “typically”, an AD is given autonomy on sports related proposals. I’m going to assume, again, “ASSUME”, Blake heard Adidas’, & UA’s pitch. I’m going to “assume” he made some concessions in which Adidas’ verbally agreed to, in which he presented it to members of the BOT. Nike, having first right to refuse (this I know factually) was given the ‘implied’ terms & agreement by Adidas in which Nike said “best to you.” Upon Nike’s & UA’s refusal to match the upfront financial terms, he was given the green light to proceed.

2. CLEARLY we weren’t aware of the ambiguous, escape language found in Adidas contract, b/c AN OUTSIDE SOURCE HAD TO TELL BLAKE THE CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT. I’ve provided tangible proof of the ambiguous language of Adidas contract that allows them hella leeway to change such terms like a landlord can change rent if rent control is not in force. That opening part is not an assumption, that’s a fact.

3. You have zero idea as to how much merchandise Miami moves b/c that’s not public information due to us being a private institution. Are you most likely correct, probably, but as stated, & I’m not sure u conscientiously glossed over this tidbit to be argumentative or if u just failed to completely read, but I said royalties + “bowls”. Which means, we were incentivized to be “good!” Would u look at that. Lol

4. Which brings me to this: The problem w/ this narrative of Nike “low balling us” is predicated on the proposal by Adidas. Hence, I gave context on how much Bama was making, w/ Bama being a tier 1 school. The problem w/ Blake, & have always been w/ Blake, is that he wanted financial commitment w/o sports commitment. That’s y the Nike deal was no good, b/c it took ‘commitment’ on our part to be compensated. Do u know y Clemson, & Bama don’t mind not seeing 8 figure up front deals? B/c their commitment allows them to make 8 figures on the backend from royalties & bowl games. Blake has looked to be pacified for being mediocre. Well, sorry, neither Nike nor UA was willing to overpay for mediocrity & that’s just the real.

 

[Calinative]

Blake did read the fine print. He knew exactly what was in the contract. Do you know what "fine print" actually is? It's when you sign something like a work order, and then on the back there is really small writing which details all the exceptions and limitations. That is NOT what happened here, regardless of Relly's fine work to try to put things into layman's terms that people like you could understand. The reality is that BETA BLAKE was too stupid to understand how a company like adidas could follow the letter of the contract without honoring the spirit of the contract.

Anyhow, I'm not going to belabor that point, except to say that the contract is EXACTLY what Relly and I have talked about, a document that fluffed a big "up-front guarantee" number (without enough upside potential) and one that did not specify enough of the details and merely assumed that adidas wanted to treat us like a flagship as they promised to do.

As for the rest of your nonsense..."we didn't get in trouble for the adidas-NCAA conflict"? Oh, sure, we didn't go on probation, but we were dead in the recruiting waters for multiple years and had to (not-quite) fill our basketball roster with transfers.

The uniforms? Like Beta Blake, you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension. I am talking about the original uniforms that adidas provided. The ones that were so bad that the NAMES on the jerseys had to be fixed after a couple of games, and we had some god-awful feather-sleeves, and numbers that were screen-printed instead of embroidered. Absolute garbage. Yes, things have gotten better SINCE, but others have continued to point out the problems with the fit, not to mention the U on the front of the jersey. And make no mistake, I very loudly and clearly criticized the Nike "bra-strap" jersey, so let's not pretend that I am one-sided about this stuff.

Finally, I'm just going to sum up the "money" garbage. As has been made clear, we signed a TWELVE-YEAR DEAL. Twelve years. That is insane when you switch companies. I mean, if we re-upped with Nike for 12 years, after being with Nike for TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS, you could understand the shared history and trust between the parties. But 12 years is at the top of the range for ANY all-apparel deal. I don't even know if Oregon has a 12 year deal with Nike (but if they did, I would understand it).

The reason I reference the 12 years is because a lot can change in 12 years (while being stuck in a below-market contract, just waiting for it to expire). For instance, just in the past 12 years, Fanatics has significantly changed how the sports apparel retail business operates. So, maybe, JUST MAYBE, we can dispense with the whole antiquated notion that UM will sell less apparel than state schools because because because fewer students, UM Bookstore, AllCanes, CanesWear...the world has changed, and we are stuck with less adidas merch to sell on ANY retail platform, not because people don't want UM gear, but because they can't get enough quality UM gear.

Wake up. Comprehend what you read. Respect the fact that some people know way more about this than you do (and I'm clearly referring to @Rellyrell here).

Four hundred years ago, the Lenape Indians sold Manhattan to the Dutch for about $25 worth of beads and trinkets. Which is exactly what happened with Beta Blake. He thought he was going to impress people with a bigger "guaranteed" number, but he sold off the FIRST and longest university all-sports shoe-and-apparel relationship (with Nike) for a whole lot of nothing (from adidas). And then he failed to monitor the "most-favored-nation" clause of the contract as Louisville swooped in and got a lot more than beads and trinkets.

Facts. Not feelings.

So absolutely zero actual numbers to back any of this up. If you know the contract and that it was bad and that adidas used the fine print to pay us less shouldn’t you know the number if you are claiminjng with such certainty that it was worse than Nikes deal? Was it closer to $3M/yr? was it closer to $5M/yr? Or maybe just $7M/yr? Regardless even if it is way less than the PR amount Blake was touting, it can still be more than we would have received from Nike by quite a lot. 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 lol. I just don’t think it’s nearly as bad as y’all wanna make it out to be and unless you tell me what the numbers are, you’re not going to convince me it’s worse based on the uniforms or whatever else. Simple as that.

You said uniforms WERE bad…okay well they aren’t now, and even the original uniforms were better than the last two uniforms Nike gave us… I mean those ****** *** Christmas helmets that Nike gave us were literally the worst thing anyone has ever done to our uniform… zero sarcasm. So again you wanna complain about the uniforms adidas has given us and use that as the reason the adidas is deal is bad - go ahead, I’ll disagree completely.

Secondly once again you’re saying we COULD sell a **** load of merch but our fans just don’t have the ability to buy quality ones… okay well RellyRell literally said Bama makes around $7M here as the top merch sales. Let’s not act like we would outsell them or like we have had nearly the athletic success to even get close even if there was quality merch to buy… that’s all to say we would certainly be making less than $7M/yr in the backend of the Nike deal, and it is generally accepted they offered something like $2M/yr…. So again we know that the “upside” of the Nike deal is clearly under $9M… which is basically what the contract for Adidas was if we met whatever details were set out.

 

[Rellyrell]

Blake did read the fine print. He knew exactly what was in the contract. Do you know what "fine print" actually is? It's when you sign something like a work order, and then on the back there is really small writing which details all the exceptions and limitations. That is NOT what happened here, regardless of Relly's fine work to try to put things into layman's terms that people like you could understand. The reality is that BETA BLAKE was too stupid to understand how a company like adidas could follow the letter of the contract without honoring the spirit of the contract.

Anyhow, I'm not going to belabor that point, except to say that the contract is EXACTLY what Relly and I have talked about, a document that fluffed a big "up-front guarantee" number (without enough upside potential) and one that did not specify enough of the details and merely assumed that adidas wanted to treat us like a flagship as they promised to do.

As for the rest of your nonsense..."we didn't get in trouble for the adidas-NCAA conflict"? Oh, sure, we didn't go on probation, but we were dead in the recruiting waters for multiple years and had to (not-quite) fill our basketball roster with transfers.

The uniforms? Like Beta Blake, you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension. I am talking about the original uniforms that adidas provided. The ones that were so bad that the NAMES on the jerseys had to be fixed after a couple of games, and we had some god-awful feather-sleeves, and numbers that were screen-printed instead of embroidered. Absolute garbage. Yes, things have gotten better SINCE, but others have continued to point out the problems with the fit, not to mention the U on the front of the jersey. And make no mistake, I very loudly and clearly criticized the Nike "bra-strap" jersey, so let's not pretend that I am one-sided about this stuff.

Finally, I'm just going to sum up the "money" garbage. As has been made clear, we signed a TWELVE-YEAR DEAL. Twelve years. That is insane when you switch companies. I mean, if we re-upped with Nike for 12 years, after being with Nike for TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS, you could understand the shared history and trust between the parties. But 12 years is at the top of the range for ANY all-apparel deal. I don't even know if Oregon has a 12 year deal with Nike (but if they did, I would understand it).

The reason I reference the 12 years is because a lot can change in 12 years (while being stuck in a below-market contract, just waiting for it to expire). For instance, just in the past 12 years, Fanatics has significantly changed how the sports apparel retail business operates. So, maybe, JUST MAYBE, we can dispense with the whole antiquated notion that UM will sell less apparel than state schools because because because fewer students, UM Bookstore, AllCanes, CanesWear...the world has changed, and we are stuck with less adidas merch to sell on ANY retail platform, not because people don't want UM gear, but because they can't get enough quality UM gear.

Wake up. Comprehend what you read. Respect the fact that some people know way more about this than you do (and I'm clearly referring to @Rellyrell here).

Four hundred years ago, the Lenape Indians sold Manhattan to the Dutch for about $25 worth of beads and trinkets. Which is exactly what happened with Beta Blake. He thought he was going to impress people with a bigger "guaranteed" number, but he sold off the FIRST and longest university all-sports shoe-and-apparel relationship (with Nike) for a whole lot of nothing (from adidas). And then he failed to monitor the "most-favored-nation" clause of the contract as Louisville swooped in and got a lot more than beads and trinkets.

Facts. Not feelings.

Which is y I said you NEVER sign a 12 yr contract. The fact is, it was 12 yrs & it didn’t hit 9 figures, either. Lol. When u switch apparel companies, u always do a 5-8 yr deal to feel them out. At the very most, u do 10 w/ a possible escape clause after 8. U don’t handcuff urself to 12 yrs, b/c like u said, things can & will change. What has happened in the time since we signed our contract (speaking strictly on Adidas sponsored schools)

1. UL renewed for 9 figures
2. KU renewed for 9 figures
3. UDub signed a new 9 figure contract

Again, there was a lot wrong w/ our deal from a schematic & language standpoint. And I’m glad u highlighted how u’ve been vocal about Nike designs on here, b/c I can attest & vouch 100% on this front. But, listen, ppl can believe what they want, even when they read from tangible evidence. Lol. It’s called cognitive dissonance. If our deal was so sweetheart, it wouldn’t have rubbed ppl the wrong way. Lol.

I mean the amount of excuses used for a pencil pusher who made the genius call to pay $4m to Temple in less than a day to hire a guy w/ no coaching experience should be enough, I WOULD THINK, for ppl to be like…”heyyyyy, Maybe Blake wasn’t as astute in decision making as we thought.” Lol

 

[Biscayne Buckets 8]

Fam they not going get it until we leave Adidas and they see the trash we been dealing with

Trash is an understatement. Adidas is a sports brand whose only success has been a washed rapper.

Look at all the merch the Nike schools put out for the fans and look at the trash we get from Adidas. Unreal how much better they have it.

 

[Virginia_Cane]

Blake did read the fine print. He knew exactly what was in the contract. Do you know what "fine print" actually is? It's when you sign something like a work order, and then on the back there is really small writing which details all the exceptions and limitations. That is NOT what happened here, regardless of Relly's fine work to try to put things into layman's terms that people like you could understand. The reality is that BETA BLAKE was too stupid to understand how a company like adidas could follow the letter of the contract without honoring the spirit of the contract.

Anyhow, I'm not going to belabor that point, except to say that the contract is EXACTLY what Relly and I have talked about, a document that fluffed a big "up-front guarantee" number (without enough upside potential) and one that did not specify enough of the details and merely assumed that adidas wanted to treat us like a flagship as they promised to do.

As for the rest of your nonsense..."we didn't get in trouble for the adidas-NCAA conflict"? Oh, sure, we didn't go on probation, but we were dead in the recruiting waters for multiple years and had to (not-quite) fill our basketball roster with transfers.

The uniforms? Like Beta Blake, you clearly need to work on your reading comprehension. I am talking about the original uniforms that adidas provided. The ones that were so bad that the NAMES on the jerseys had to be fixed after a couple of games, and we had some god-awful feather-sleeves, and numbers that were screen-printed instead of embroidered. Absolute garbage. Yes, things have gotten better SINCE, but others have continued to point out the problems with the fit, not to mention the U on the front of the jersey. And make no mistake, I very loudly and clearly criticized the Nike "bra-strap" jersey, so let's not pretend that I am one-sided about this stuff.

Finally, I'm just going to sum up the "money" garbage. As has been made clear, we signed a TWELVE-YEAR DEAL. Twelve years. That is insane when you switch companies. I mean, if we re-upped with Nike for 12 years, after being with Nike for TWENTY-SEVEN YEARS, you could understand the shared history and trust between the parties. But 12 years is at the top of the range for ANY all-apparel deal. I don't even know if Oregon has a 12 year deal with Nike (but if they did, I would understand it).

The reason I reference the 12 years is because a lot can change in 12 years (while being stuck in a below-market contract, just waiting for it to expire). For instance, just in the past 12 years, Fanatics has significantly changed how the sports apparel retail business operates. So, maybe, JUST MAYBE, we can dispense with the whole antiquated notion that UM will sell less apparel than state schools because because because fewer students, UM Bookstore, AllCanes, CanesWear...the world has changed, and we are stuck with less adidas merch to sell on ANY retail platform, not because people don't want UM gear, but because they can't get enough quality UM gear.

Wake up. Comprehend what you read. Respect the fact that some people know way more about this than you do (and I'm clearly referring to @Rellyrell here).

Four hundred years ago, the Lenape Indians sold Manhattan to the Dutch for about $25 worth of beads and trinkets. Which is exactly what happened with Beta Blake. He thought he was going to impress people with a bigger "guaranteed" number, but he sold off the FIRST and longest university all-sports shoe-and-apparel relationship (with Nike) for a whole lot of nothing (from adidas). And then he failed to monitor the "most-favored-nation" clause of the contract as Louisville swooped in and got a lot more than beads and trinkets.

Facts. Not feelings.

Should have been fired with cause

 

[Calinative]

Whoa whoa there. Lol. There’s a whole lot of assumptions & misquotes thrown in this. Wow! Furthermore, our compensation by Adidas is on various platforms, so don’t patronize the board w/ that ?

1. Neither the Yahoo article posted here, nor I have said or mentioned “if” our lawyers looked over anything. Typically, remember I’m using the word “typically”, an AD is given autonomy on sports related proposals. I’m going to assume, again, “ASSUME”, Blake heard Adidas’, & UA’s pitch. I’m going to “assume” he made some concessions in which Adidas’ verbally agreed to, in which he presented it to members of the BOT. Nike, having first right to refuse (this I know factually) was given the ‘implied’ terms & agreement by Adidas in which Nike said “best to you.” Upon Nike’s & UA’s refusal to match the upfront financial terms, he was given the green light to proceed.

2. CLEARLY we weren’t aware of the ambiguous, escape language found in Adidas contract, b/c AN OUTSIDE SOURCE HAD TO TELL BLAKE THE CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT. I’ve provided tangible proof of the ambiguous language of Adidas contract that allows them hella leeway to change such terms like a landlord can change rent if rent control is not in force. That opening part is not an assumption, that’s a fact.

3. You have zero idea as to how much merchandise Miami moves b/c that’s not public information due to us being a private institution. Are you most likely correct, probably, but as stated, & I’m not sure u conscientiously glossed over this tidbit to be argumentative or if u just failed to completely read, but I said royalties + “bowls”. Which means, we were incentivized to be “good!” Would u look at that. Lol

4. Which brings me to this: The problem w/ this narrative of Nike “low balling us” is predicated on the proposal by Adidas. Hence, I gave context on how much Bama was making, w/ Bama being a tier 1 school. The problem w/ Blake, & have always been w/ Blake, is that he wanted financial commitment w/o sports commitment. That’s y the Nike deal was no good, b/c it took ‘commitment’ on our part to be compensated. Do u know y Clemson, & Bama don’t mind not seeing 8 figure up front deals? B/c their commitment allows them to make 8 figures on the backend from royalties & bowl games. Blake has looked to be pacified for being mediocre. Well, sorry, neither Nike nor UA was willing to overpay for mediocrity & that’s just the real.

Okay so your entire argument seems to be Nike didn’t lowball us… okay but that’s not at all what I have been talking about. Which deal has or would have gotten us more money up to this point today? If it is adidas then how the **** can y’all be saying the adidas deal was terrible… that’s what I’m saying. Whether or not Adidas has weaseled their way out of paying more than they should is one thing. Whether even with that it has been better or worse than Nike is entirely different… especially factoring in that IF we are ranked highly and perform it’s still more likely we will make more from adidas than Nike… is it not? If we make the CFP, it’s pretty likely that Adidas will not be weaseling their way out of paying us right? And like you just agreed to, it is very unlikely we would make as much as Bama does on the backend… so again this all circles back around to we are making more money off adidas. So now it leaves the question of Is the non-financial aspects of being signed to Adidas offsetting making more money or not? This seems to really be your argument for Nike being better.

We’ve already debated pages and pages on which has provided better uniforms - you think Nike by far, I think Adidas by far (even though I much prefer Nike as a company). So I’m completely taking that aspect out of this deal. So yeah if you want to use that as the reason for why the adidas deal is terrible, go ahead it makes sense, but it is not fact it is opinion.

So financial + Uniforms from my perspective after reading all your responses results in favor of Adidas by a big margin still. So that’s pretty hard to be offset by “other” factors. And maybe term length is one of those factors - I can see that being a big issue. Again I’d absolutely prefer Nike even if it was only slightly less money BUT if the uniforms were equal. I just think. Ike has absolutely given us crap.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

So absolutely zero actual numbers to back any of this up. If you know the contract and that it was bad and that adidas used the fine print to pay us less shouldn’t you know the number if you are claiminjng with such certainty that it was worse than Nikes deal? Was it closer to $3M/yr? was it closer to $5M/yr? Or maybe just $7M/yr? Regardless even if it is way less than the PR amount Blake was touting, it can still be more than we would have received from Nike by quite a lot. 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 lol. I just don’t think it’s nearly as bad as y’all wanna make it out to be and unless you tell me what the numbers are, you’re not going to convince me it’s worse based on the uniforms or whatever else. Simple as that.

You said uniforms WERE bad…okay well they aren’t now, and even the original uniforms were better than the last two uniforms Nike gave us… I mean those ****** *** Christmas helmets that Nike gave us were literally the worst thing anyone has ever done to our uniform… zero sarcasm. So again you wanna complain about the uniforms adidas has given us and use that as the reason the adidas is deal is bad - go ahead, I’ll disagree completely.

Secondly once again you’re saying we COULD sell a **** load of merch but our fans just don’t have the ability to buy quality ones… okay well RellyRell literally said Bama makes around $7M here as the top merch sales. Let’s not act like we would outsell them or like we have had nearly the athletic success to even get close even if there was quality merch to buy… that’s all to say we would certainly be making less than $7M/yr in the backend of the Nike deal, and it is generally accepted they offered something like $2M/yr…. So again we know that the “upside” of the Nike deal is clearly under $9M… which is basically what the contract for Adidas was if we met whatever details were set out.

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 "average annual value". Thus if Jumpman paid the Gaytors $5M in cash and adidas paid UM $5M in cash, it is entirely possible that the Gaytors total contract could be higher than Miami's, due to the Gaytors having more sports teams.

Second, there is reporting (from years ago) from Forbes that put UM at 9th at the time (and 3rd in the ACC behind North Carolina and Louisville). And I know, I know, you're going to jump all over that and act like it's quite the deal that Blake got for us. But that's where the 12-year lockup comes into play, as a number of schools have since negotiated larger (per annum) deals than what Miami had at the time.

Anyhow, it was reported that Miami's CASH payout from adidas is about $6.5M per year. And you can say "hey, that's **** good money for 2015". Sure, except here's a curious little factoid...Louisville struck its deal with adidas in 2010 and was getting a cash payout of $7.9M (plus a product allotment of about $3.1M, for a total value of $11M per year). And then we know Jurich had struck an EVEN BETTER DEAL at around the time that Louisville got ensnared in the adidas FBI scandal. Hmmmm, puzzling...

The bottom line is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges to bananas. Was Miami's NEW deal with adidas greater than the PRIOR deal with Nike? Absolutely. But has been pointed out previously, Nike chose not to MATCH what adidas offered. Relly has explained that Nike's original offer was for a lower guarantee and a higher royalty. So you ACTUALLY cannot compare the situations. The relevant issue is that if Miami had PLAYED WELL and sold more merch, we had the POTENTIAL to make as much, if not more, than the adidas CASH guarantee. Plus, if you read between the lines of what Relly said (or even do a search on Flight Club or other shoe reseller sites), you will see that the ALLOTMENT of gear increases with success, such as the special "bowl edition" AlphaBounce that was made when we FINALLY made it back to a NY6 bowl game.

Anyhow, I'm going to end this now, Relly has done a great job of laying stuff out, I'm just here to provide the support.

 

[Calinative]

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 "average annual value". Thus if Jumpman paid the Gaytors $5M in cash and adidas paid UM $5M in cash, it is entirely possible that the Gaytors total contract could be higher than Miami's, due to the Gaytors having more sports teams.

Second, there is reporting (from years ago) from Forbes that put UM at 9th at the time (and 3rd in the ACC behind North Carolina and Louisville). And I know, I know, you're going to jump all over that and act like it's quite the deal that Blake got for us. But that's where the 12-year lockup comes into play, as a number of schools have since negotiated larger (per annum) deals than what Miami had at the time.

Anyhow, it was reported that Miami's CASH payout from adidas is about $6.5M per year. And you can say "hey, that's **** good money for 2015". Sure, except here's a curious little factoid...Louisville struck its deal with adidas in 2010 and was getting a cash payout of $7.9M (plus a product allotment of about $3.1M, for a total value of $11M per year). And then we know Jurich had struck an EVEN BETTER DEAL at around the time that Louisville got ensnared in the adidas FBI scandal. Hmmmm, puzzling...

The bottom line is that you are trying to compare apples to oranges to bananas. Was Miami's NEW deal with adidas greater than the PRIOR deal with Nike? Absolutely. But has been pointed out previously, Nike chose not to MATCH what adidas offered. Relly has explained that Nike's original offer was for a lower guarantee and a higher royalty. So you ACTUALLY cannot compare the situations. The relevant issue is that if Miami had PLAYED WELL and sold more merch, we had the POTENTIAL to make as much, if not more, than the adidas CASH guarantee. Plus, if you read between the lines of what Relly said (or even do a search on Flight Club or other shoe reseller sites), you will see that the ALLOTMENT of gear increases with success, such as the special "bowl edition" AlphaBounce that was made when we FINALLY made it back to a NY6 bowl game.

Anyhow, I'm going to end this now, Relly has done a great job of laying stuff out, I'm just here to provide the support.

but we can compare apples to oranges and we DO have hindsight…. So with that hindsight can you or RellyRell actually say that we got Less Cash + Equipment from Adidas than we would have gotten from Nike If we resigned? If the answer is no, then the point is correct that the Adidas deal was not complete trash like you two have been saying. 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 pretty clear that it is a better deal than Nike…

Now maybe these last 4 year are bad enough that with hindsight the Nike deal would have been superior. But to this point today, you guys haven’t actually shown good enough evidence to say the Adidas deal was bad or even worse than Nike imo.

Also just cause someone dares disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re pouting like a baby which is just dumb as **** to say… anyways I’ll get out of this thread and let your guys’ circlejerk of the swoosh carry on.

 

[BigDikCane]

Guys we need to follow Drake...

 

[Rellyrell]

but we can compare apples to oranges and we DO have hindsight…. So with that hindsight can you or RellyRell actually say that we got Less Cash + Equipment from Adidas than we would have gotten from Nike If we resigned? If the answer is no, then the point is correct that the Adidas deal was not complete trash like you two have been saying. 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 pretty clear that it is a better deal than Nike…

Now maybe these last 4 year are bad enough that with hindsight the Nike deal would have been superior. But to this point today, you guys haven’t actually shown good enough evidence to say the Adidas deal was bad or even worse than Nike imo.

Also just cause someone dares disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re pouting like a baby which is just dumb as **** to say… anyways I’ll get out of this thread and let your guys’ circlejerk of the swoosh carry on.

O-M-F-G. Folk, I literally can’t.

1. U inserted urself in to this discussion & brought up a topic I didn’t even mention; so this “circle jerk” is by you.

2. The POINT is Adidas signed a contract w/ LANGUAGE stating that we will be the highest compensated school in the ACC, which is considered a “sweetheart” deal. THE POINT IS, Adidas, as a BRAND NEW BUSINESS PARTNER showed either incompetency to follow through on its own language or deception. Either way it goes, it took an OUTSIDE SOURCE to highlight how we were getting screwed on our deal.

3. THE POINT IS, Adidas created a cloud over our basketball team, in which Coach L spoke about b/c we were investigated by the FBI for Adidas’ involvement to push the lines on recruiting.

4. The POINT is, as @TheOriginalCane pointed out, there’s separate compensation components regarding contract which goes into the value which is amount of gear + upfront $. My ONLY argument which had CHIT to do w/ u was the narrative found on page 28 in this thread that Nike low balled us. I gave Bama as an example to show the compensation difference, b/c some ppl r looking at strictly upfront $ vs. the totality of the language found.

5. Pls stop saying u prefer Nike, when all U’ve done post after post after post after post is trash them. That’s like the white guy saying he’s not racist b/c he has black friends, yet hurls racial epithets like horse shoes. We don’t need u throw that in so u’re argument seems unbiased. Just state what u have state b/c actions or post speak louder than the other chit.

6. The reason y ppl, not just here, but f’ing former players r clamoring to go back to Nike is b/c the fan gear suck, the off gear suck, & the uniforms suck. U’re look at a design, while we’re talking about fit, aesthetics, cohesion. Every got **** Adidas uniforms is crooked & droopy. Go look at TVD’s pic in I believe the Heisman mention thread, & see how f’ing crooked it is. Furthermore, ALLLLLLLLL of Adidas sponsored schools sucks ***! Why in the fck would u want to be grouped in or associated w/ that?

7. The whole point was to highlight how Blake James didn’t like the terms of Nike’s offer b/c the backend $ meant he had to get off his lazy *** & field a competitive team. Just like Richt had to push for a IPF, or Golden having to push for some f’ing training tables, Blake sought financial compensation w/o work. That’s not a myth, go ask donors. Adidas obliged b/c they were desperate in trying to go head up against Nike, including moving their American HQ to Oregon. And it’s back fired, which is y they turned their attention to UDub, UL, & KU…soon, they’ll be in a bidding war to keep TAMU in 5 more months.

Anyways, feel how u feel.

 

[Canedude08]

but we can compare apples to oranges and we DO have hindsight…. So with that hindsight can you or RellyRell actually say that we got Less Cash + Equipment from Adidas than we would have gotten from Nike If we resigned? If the answer is no, then the point is correct that the Adidas deal was not complete trash like you two have been saying. 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 pretty clear that it is a better deal than Nike…

Now maybe these last 4 year are bad enough that with hindsight the Nike deal would have been superior. But to this point today, you guys haven’t actually shown good enough evidence to say the Adidas deal was bad or even worse than Nike imo.

Also just cause someone dares disagree with you doesn’t mean they’re pouting like a baby which is just dumb as **** to say… anyways I’ll get out of this thread and let your guys’ circlejerk of the swoosh carry on.

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 contract to begin with, it's shameful that these attorneys weren't on the ball in regards to enforcing terms of the contract), the contract is very unlikely to be outmoded.

Keep in mind, at the time Miami signed, Nike was trying to hold the line on deals, the ONLY reason that Nike finally started paying was that Under Armour and Adidas was starting to make inroads. Keep in mind that when Miami signed their deal with Adidas, Alabama was only getting 2.5 million in cash and a similar amount of merch. Same with Clemson, same with a lot of other schools. The mega deals started happening when Miami moved on from the swoosh , and schools like Notre Dame, UCLA and others signed huge deals with UA. Nike struck back by poaching Michigan and Tennessee, by offering significantly more than they had offered any other school, and were then forced to match as schools like Bama and Clemson came up for renewal. That said, they weren't making those deals back when Miami was up for renewal. They lowballed Miami, point blank period and Miami made the rational move. I can talk for hours about other ways Nike treated Miami like dog crap, but the swoosh fanbois couldn't care less. I'm convinced that a lot of these people love a shoe company more than the University itself.

 

[TexasCane90]

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 contract to begin with, it's shameful that these attorneys weren't on the ball in regards to enforcing terms of the contract), the contract is very unlikely to be outmoded.

Keep in mind, at the time Miami signed, Nike was trying to hold the line on deals, the ONLY reason that Nike finally started paying was that Under Armour and Adidas was starting to make inroads. Keep in mind that when Miami signed their deal with Adidas, Alabama was only getting 2.5 million in cash and a similar amount of merch. Same with Clemson, same with a lot of other schools. The mega deals started happening when Miami moved on from the swoosh , and schools like Notre Dame, UCLA and others signed huge deals with UA. Nike struck back by poaching Michigan and Tennessee, by offering significantly more than they had offered any other school, and were then forced to match as schools like Bama and Clemson came up for renewal. That said, they weren't making those deals back when Miami was up for renewal. They lowballed Miami, point blank period and Miami made the rational move. I can talk for hours about other ways Nike treated Miami like dog crap, but the swoosh fanbois couldn't care less. I'm convinced that a lot of these people love a shoe company more than the University itself.

Sooooo when let’s assume when the Adidas deal is done and we get a better offer from Nike are you gonna still be miserable about the past or accept that they gave the school the better deal (this time) and move on?

 

[Canedude08]

Sooooo when let’s assume when the Adidas deal is done and we get a better offer from Nike are you gonna still be miserable about the past or accept that they gave the school the better deal (this time) and move on?

Nike meets or exceeds Adidas offer, then so be it. This is about revenue, whomever pays more, we should roll with. I'm not the one jocking an organization that treated Miami like trash for 20 years.

 

[AUcane]

Nike meets or exceeds Adidas offer, then so be it. This is about revenue, whomever pays more, we should roll with. I'm not the one jocking an organization that treated Miami like trash for 20 years.

Yes but it’s also about image. If we are to go back to Nike; we’d need to go back to some sort of elevated status given how sh1tty Nike treated us the last time around. And by elevated make us a jumpman program or give us a real sweet deal.

 

[Robbymoto]

Yes but it’s also about image. If we are to go back to Nike; we’d need to go back to some sort of elevated status given how sh1tty Nike treated us the last time around. And by elevated make us a jumpman program or give us a real sweet deal.

Jumpman or GTFOH.

 

[Canedude08]

Yes but it’s also about image. If we are to go back to Nike; we’d need to go back to some sort of elevated status given how sh1tty Nike treated us the last time around. And by elevated make us a jumpman program or give us a real sweet deal.

Image is secondary to revenue, this is a business decision. If Nike isn't treating us right both in regards to support and revenue, then who cares about what the streets think? Same for Adidas. I'm conditionally loyal to everything and everyone outside of immediate family and close friends and even those groups can be jettisoned in select circumstances. That's how Miami should view these apparel deals. Nike steps up and exceeds what Adidas is doing, then let's go. If not, then Adidas is the choice.

The people that care more about appearances, than about making a fiscally responsible decision are usually the ones that fail. Go with the apparel supplier that provides the best for the student athletes and staff, and provides the most revenue. It's an arms race out here, Miami needs to maximize the revenue that comes in.