forums

Radakovich official



comedy central GIF by The Jim Jefferies Show
 
Advertisement
WaterburyCane said:
Going from 11% to 14% This guy approves

Season 3 Money GIF by ABC Network
Click to expand...

Notice the upfront & backend $, and the revenue it generated. HENCE, I clowned Blake James Adidas deal. When u get an endorsement deal, u want cash + royalties. That’s how musicians become super rich; it’s the royalties off sales.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
Notice the upfront & backend $, and the revenue it generated. HENCE, I clowned Blake James Adidas deal. When u get an endorsement deal, u want cash + royalties. That’s how musicians become super rich; it’s the royalties off sales.
Click to expand...


Wait a second, that 22-year-old porster who lives and dies by "guaranteed money" is going to come in here soon to yell at you...

The one who insists that there is way more adidas merch today than what Nike sold 10 years ago...
 
Rellyrell said:
Notice the upfront & backend $, and the revenue it generated. HENCE, I clowned Blake James Adidas deal. When u get an endorsement deal, u want cash + royalties. That’s how musicians become super rich; it’s the royalties off sales.
Click to expand...
Wait Wait Wait a darn minute. Ive never spent any time reading up on that deal. Please tell me you arent saying we get no royalties from anything Adidas sells with the U on it. Its just a preset locked in amount yearly?
 
WaterburyCane said:
Wait Wait Wait a darn minute. Ive never spent any time reading up on that deal. Please tell me you arent saying we get no royalties from anything Adidas sells with the U on it. Its just a preset locked in amount yearly?
Click to expand...


Not saying that we get NO royalties...but it's not 11%...and it's not 14%...

Nike was offering less up-front money and a higher royalty...and Beta Blake said "fvck that, I'm taking the bigger up-front number from adidas"...

NOW people can see why some of us have been angry about this for a while.

Enjoy the next five years, folks, because we already know how much money we are getting. And we won't be getting a bump from the sale of all those new "Money Mario" t-shirts...
 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Not saying that we get NO royalties...but it's not 11%...and it's not 14%...

Nike was offering less up-front money and a higher royalty...and Beta Blake said "fvck that, I'm taking the bigger up-front number from adidas"...

NOW people can see why some of us have been angry about this for a while.

Enjoy the next five years, folks, because we already know how much money we are getting. And we won't be getting a bump from the sale of all those new "Money Mario" t-shirts...
Click to expand...
Appreciate you giving me the cliff note so I didnt have to go down the google rabbit hole while Im working. While we arent exactly setting the college world on fire right now, The U is still a major brand. Im sure Adidas didnt have all of the negotiating leverage.

That said, what a sweet deal........for Adidas. That numnuts really screwed us again. He wanted to get that upfront bump and show his bosses how much money he was generating, with no long term thinking/considerations. He probably also saw his program was a constant $hitshow and wasnt about to bank on future sales of our brand. But either way, he could have negotiated for both. Didnt have to be either/or.

Just like you said, if we have 5 more years on that deal, we have to sit there now with our thumbs up our butts and watch Adidas rake in the benefits as merchandise sales naturally are going to get a big bump with this infusion of cash, recommitment to sports, Mario, and reinvigorated excitement from our fanbase.

Now flash ahead in 4/5 years when its time to discuss a renewal. Are we going to have any leverage to go to Nike and get them both to fight for rights on a new deal? Or is Phil Knight going to be salty about Mario, then having Adidas take advantage of us knowing that?
 
WaterburyCane said:
Appreciate you giving me the cliff note so I didnt have to go down the google rabbit hole while Im working. While we arent exactly setting the college world on fire right now, The U is still a major brand. Im sure Adidas didnt have all of the negotiating leverage.

That said, what a sweet deal........for Adidas. That numnuts really screwed us again. He wanted to get that upfront bump and show his bosses how much money he was generating, with no long term thinking/considerations. He probably also saw his program was a constant $hitshow and wasnt about to bank on future sales of our brand. But either way, he could have negotiated for both. Didnt have to be either/or.

Just like you said, if we have 5 more years on that deal, we have to sit there now with our thumbs up our butts and watch Adidas rake in the benefits as merchandise sales naturally are going to get a big bump with this infusion of cash, recommitment to sports, Mario, and reinvigorated excitement from our fanbase.

Now flash ahead in 4/5 years when its time to discuss a renewal. Are we going to have any leverage to go to Nike and get them both to fight for rights on a new deal? Or is Phil Knight going to be salty about Mario, then having Adidas take advantage of us knowing that?
Click to expand...


I've said it on other threads, I'll say it again.

I don't think Phil Knight is a petty man. He didn't terminate the F$U contract because they signed Taggart. And I think he has always known that Mario might someday leave for Miami. I really do not believe that ANY of this was a surprise to Phil Knight. Random Oregon fans? Sure. They think that "facilities" or "money" or "fan support" was so magical that it would overcome everything else with Mario. Go back and watch that man's introductory press conference at UM. He loves Miami.

Now, let's also take this into account. Phil Knight will not live forever. But let's say that he is still running the show 5 years from now. And let's say that Miami is on top of the world again, kicking ***, taking names, and expanding the trophy case at Hecht. WHY WOULDN'T PHIL KNIGHT WANT TO STEAL THE NEW ADIDAS CASH COW? Come on, guys, you think this guy is going to be so salty at losing a coach FIVE YEARS AGO that he wouldn't want to put a dagger into the heart of adidas by stealing Miami back?

Not worried. Win games, everyone's gonna want us to wear their shoes, even Zips.


 
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
Not saying that we get NO royalties...but it's not 11%...and it's not 14%...

Nike was offering less up-front money and a higher royalty...and Beta Blake said "fvck that, I'm taking the bigger up-front number from adidas"...

NOW people can see why some of us have been angry about this for a while.

Enjoy the next five years, folks, because we already know how much money we are getting. And we won't be getting a bump from the sale of all those new "Money Mario" t-shirts...
Click to expand...

This @Waterbury Cane

This is y I kept saying “for all the ‘up front $’ Blake has brought in, I can’t tell u the amount of $ lost on the back end.” Plus, the Adidas merch from us is not moving, hence all the marked down prices from all partnership detail like ****’s, Fanatics, etc.

Ppl focus sooooo much on up front money, which is fine, I get it, but u have to see the entire picture of a contact. As an example, UCLA’s contract is less than UA’s deal, but it’s projected by year 2 they’ll make up that difference, & by yr 3, they’ll have a more lucrative contact; why? B/c Nike ate 41% of the debt from UA, + the merchandise royalty % UCLA will be getting. The bookstore sold out immediately, & b/c UCLA is an international brand, Nike’s reach internationally is far greater than Adidas. So any Nike/Jordan Brand UCLA T-shirt sold, even if it’s just a B on it, UCLA gets bank off of it whether it’s sold domestically or internationally. B/c UCLA has a high population of foreign students, let’s just say it’s a good deal for them. Plus, it helps w/ b-ball recruiting & perception (per their AD’s words)
 
WaterburyCane said:
Appreciate you giving me the cliff note so I didnt have to go down the google rabbit hole while Im working. While we arent exactly setting the college world on fire right now, The U is still a major brand. Im sure Adidas didnt have all of the negotiating leverage.

That said, what a sweet deal........for Adidas. That numnuts really screwed us again. He wanted to get that upfront bump and show his bosses how much money he was generating, with no long term thinking/considerations. He probably also saw his program was a constant $hitshow and wasnt about to bank on future sales of our brand. But either way, he could have negotiated for both. Didnt have to be either/or.

Just like you said, if we have 5 more years on that deal, we have to sit there now with our thumbs up our butts and watch Adidas rake in the benefits as merchandise sales naturally are going to get a big bump with this infusion of cash, recommitment to sports, Mario, and reinvigorated excitement from our fanbase.

Now flash ahead in 4/5 years when its time to discuss a renewal. Are we going to have any leverage to go to Nike and get them both to fight for rights on a new deal? Or is Phil Knight going to be salty about Mario, then having Adidas take advantage of us knowing that?
Click to expand...

Our deal should’ve been 8. Why? B/c the market changes roughly every 5 yrs. I wasn’t so much upset of the switch vs. the terms of the switch & length of time. U never lock urself into a 12 yr deal unless it’s just unfreggin believable (See UT & OSU’s Nike deals). But getting $6-7m will change in 5-7 yrs. Furthermore, the language of the contract made Blake feel like we were a flagship, and Adidas clearly showed in 2017 who their flagship was by their UL deal, which made our deal look even more foolish, and highlighted (as I said from what I heard from Michigan) the type of business partner Adidas is.

Anyways, I digress.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
This @Waterbury Cane

This is y I kept saying “for all the ‘up front $’ Blake has brought in, I can’t tell u the amount of $ lost on the back end.” Plus, the Adidas merch from us is not moving, hence all the marked down prices from all partnership detail like ****’s, Fanatics, etc.

Ppl focus sooooo much on up front money, which is fine, I get it, but u have to see the entire picture of a contact. As an example, UCLA’s contract is less than UA’s deal, but it’s projected by year 2 they’ll make up that difference, & by yr 3, they’ll have a more lucrative contact; why? B/c Nike ate 41% of the debt from UA, + the merchandise royalty % UCLA will be getting. The bookstore sold out immediately, & b/c UCLA is an international brand, Nike’s reach internationally is far greater than Adidas. So any Nike/Jordan Brand UCLA T-shirt sold, even if it’s just a B on it, UCLA gets bank off of it whether it’s sold domestically or internationally. B/c UCLA has a high population of foreign students, let’s just say it’s a good deal for them. Plus, it helps w/ b-ball recruiting & perception (per their AD’s words)
Click to expand...
Rell when does ******* fanatics mark down anything?? I hate those ********. That site used to be so good.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Wait a second, that 22-year-old porster who lives and dies by "guaranteed money" is going to come in here soon to yell at you...

The one who insists that there is way more adidas merch today than what Nike sold 10 years ago...
Click to expand...
Hey.

I am 23, for ***** sake. Dont you dare shame my age or I am getting you cancelled.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top