forums

Nike deal

st21wa said:
I’m assuming he’s somewhat interested if they’re trying to find loopholes for all of this? @TheOriginalCane
Click to expand...


Lots of angles. Again, some of these people who keep yelling about "take the highest bid" for the shoe deal have no idea how much anger there is within the UM community over what Blake did in signing with adidas, and the desire to switch back to Nike regardless of Mario.

Now we have uninformed people yapping about how adidas offered "triple" what Nike offered. The end result is that the adidas deal was about a million more (the Nike deal was sales/incentive driven, and the comparison can be done on the basis of what Nike would have paid with the actual level of sales from 2015-now). The adidas money has increased recently due to the Louisville deal, and enough has been written about how Blake did not even exercise the most-favored-nation clause until later.

The reality is that there isn't a lot of competition out there, whether it is TV contracts (dominated by ABC-ESPN) or shoe contracts (dominated by Nike). We are stuck with a super-long ACC deal with ESPN, and we are stuck with a super-long UM deal with adidas. This concept of "highest bidder" is a joke, and we just need to get a fair market deal for apparel/shoes.

Just look around at the "flagship" adidas schools that get special shoes. The best is Texas A&M. After that? Washington. Nebraska. Indiana. NC State. Arizona State. Georgia Tech. Kansas. Mississippi State. Louisville. What a collection of mid-pack schools...

Just get back to Nike and let the money sort itself out.
 
Advertisement
Salt said:
He’s in the city of brown lakes. Can you blame him?
Click to expand...
He's never had to. He was born into plenty of comfort. That's not a criticism, either. I'm just pointing out that Kiffin isn't a guy who's ever had to care about scrapping for that next promotion, better job, etc.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Lots of angles. Again, some of these people who keep yelling about "take the highest bid" for the shoe deal have no idea how much anger there is within the UM community over what Blake did in signing with adidas, and the desire to switch back to Nike regardless of Mario.

Now we have uninformed people yapping about how adidas offered "triple" what Nike offered. The end result is that the adidas deal was about a million more (the Nike deal was sales/incentive driven, and the comparison can be done on the basis of what Nike would have paid with the actual level of sales from 2015-now). The adidas money has increased recently due to the Louisville deal, and enough has been written about how Blake did not even exercise the most-favored-nation clause until later.

The reality is that there isn't a lot of competition out there, whether it is TV contracts (dominated by ABC-ESPN) or shoe contracts (dominated by Nike). We are stuck with a super-long ACC deal with ESPN, and we are stuck with a super-long UM deal with adidas. This concept of "highest bidder" is a joke, and we just need to get a fair market deal for apparel/shoes.

Just look around at the "flagship" adidas schools that get special shoes. The best is Texas A&M. After that? Washington. Nebraska. Indiana. NC State. Arizona State. Georgia Tech. Kansas. Mississippi State. Louisville. What a collection of mid-pack schools...

Just get back to Nike and let the money sort itself out.
Click to expand...

I’m all for this. Hopeful our legal guys found something legit and we can get out of our deal ASAP
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Lots of angles. Again, some of these people who keep yelling about "take the highest bid" for the shoe deal have no idea how much anger there is within the UM community over what Blake did in signing with adidas, and the desire to switch back to Nike regardless of Mario.

Now we have uninformed people yapping about how adidas offered "triple" what Nike offered. The end result is that the adidas deal was about a million more (the Nike deal was sales/incentive driven, and the comparison can be done on the basis of what Nike would have paid with the actual level of sales from 2015-now). The adidas money has increased recently due to the Louisville deal, and enough has been written about how Blake did not even exercise the most-favored-nation clause until later.

The reality is that there isn't a lot of competition out there, whether it is TV contracts (dominated by ABC-ESPN) or shoe contracts (dominated by Nike). We are stuck with a super-long ACC deal with ESPN, and we are stuck with a super-long UM deal with adidas. This concept of "highest bidder" is a joke, and we just need to get a fair market deal for apparel/shoes.

Just look around at the "flagship" adidas schools that get special shoes. The best is Texas A&M. After that? Washington. Nebraska. Indiana. NC State. Arizona State. Georgia Tech. Kansas. Mississippi State. Louisville. What a collection of mid-pack schools...

Just get back to Nike and let the money sort itself out.
Click to expand...
So take less money just to wear Nike? I don't get it, but okay....
 
section9 said:
Heh… point well made.

His Pornstar Friends probably have to be paid to visit Ole Miss…
Click to expand...
That is my worry with Lane . He’d be late to the coaches meeting because he was invited to watch a **** shoot and stayed a little late.
 
Advertisement
RightSaidFred said:
Joking obviously.

But there’s a lot of truth to it. Why would you spend $200 for shoes that actually cost $2 a pair to make in China? Sneakers are cheaply made plastic junk.

And yeah, they are for kids.

I wear actual SHOES. Made by hand, of leather and wood.

Shoes tell you a lot about a man.
Click to expand...
Have to admit don’t see many leather and wood shoes at the gym.
 
Advertisement
Hurracanes said:
Nike treated us like ****. That’s a fact. Nike was a lower bidder than Adidas. That’s a fact. It’s simple business. Miami did the right thing here. Blake James was a horrific AD (another fact) but he did the right thing in this case.
Click to expand...


Miami played like dogsh!te for 10 years. That's a fact. Miami's merchandise sales had plummeted from what they were 10 years earlier. That's a fact. Miami's offer from Nike was sales/incentive laden and COULD HAVE resulted in a higher payout than the adidas deal IF WE HAD STARTED TO WIN GAMES AGAIN. That's a fact.

I don't know what business world you live in that requires a company to offer an exceedingly high contract to a partner that has underperformed for 10 years. But, sure.

The truth is, adidas made an offer based on what they HOPED Miami would become, which also has not come to pass. So let's not act like adidas is celebrating the Miami deal in every shareholder meeting.

There is an inherent and intangible value to maintaining a "first-ever-all-apparel-deal" relationship with the market leader. On a purely mathematical basis, Miami did not merit or deserve the dollar amounts in the adidas contract. We were being paid in order to steal away a high-profile Nike school, in the hopes we would return to having a top football and/or basketball team. If Miami had NOT signed the LONGEST EVER apparel/shoe deal with adidas, we would be up for renegotiation right about now, and neither Nike nor adidas would offer us what adidas offered us 7 years ago.

And I'm fine with that. Miami has ****e the bed for the better part of 17 years in a row. We SHOULD be getting paid less by our shoe/apparel company.

But, yeah, some dipsh!tes are going to argue that we should desperately hang onto an over-priced contract for the next 5 years, while ignoring the fact that we will be getting below-average bids in 5 years if we don't start winning immediately.

Not to mention that certain people are acting as if Nike forced all the weird designs and colorways on us. Funny thing, good ADs at Ped State and Michigan and Alabama and Clemson don't get pushed around by Nike, they don't get forced to wear bra-straps and off-colors. Both Eichorst and James were TERRIBLE ADs who didn't stand up for better uniforms. ****, as soon as we hired Richt, we were MYSTERIOUSLY able to ditch the weird crap that adidas was pushing on us.

Maybe the shoe companies are not to blame, and the weak-a$$ ADs are...
 
MPCane17 said:
Makes sense. I mean im kind of loving this supposed big reset by the admin and just spending what they need to get it right
Click to expand...
Me too. If the amount is true it would put us in the same vicinity of the big boys.
 
Salt said:
Me too. If the amount is true it would put us in the same vicinity of the big boys.
Click to expand...
Yup. I mean both the one time injection and then the annual increase is mind blowing compared to what we have done over the last 20 years. I’m still not believing until we see it but man this is exciting again
 
Advertisement
dirtyred786 said:
So take less money just to wear Nike? I don't get it, but okay....
Click to expand...


Again, go consult @Rellyrell . Bigger company, better marketing, provides schools (and student-athletes) with more merch, generally more desirable in the marketplace. Even the "special edition" Miami shoes end up at markdown prices. We just ARE NOT moving a lot of adidas merch. Sucks, but true.
 
Advertisement
Salt said:
Can’t say I have seen much of that either at the gym. LOL
Click to expand...

I have my own gym. But for weightlifting sneakers are the worst thing you can wear because there’s too much give in the sole.

They make actual shoes for lifting that are hard on the bottom, that’s what I would wear in a public gym cause I wouldn’t want my feet touching other peoples nasty toe fungus. But in my own gym, I go barefoot
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Again, go consult @Rellyrell . Bigger company, better marketing, provides schools (and student-athletes) with more merch, generally more desirable in the marketplace. Even the "special edition" Miami shoes end up at markdown prices. We just ARE NOT moving a lot of adidas merch. Sucks, but true.
Click to expand...
I don’t buy near the merch as I did when it was Nike. I just don’t like most of their designs and their shoes. Tbh I’ve bought more adidas since we made the jump and it’s not a lot.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top