Nike deal

[Rellyrell]

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

Bro honestly, take the Nike vs Adidas argument out of this; on my mama, the fact that Adidas literally screwed us on our own deal w/in 2 yrs in to the contract….bro, how do ANYONE who loves this school justify & defend this? Like these fools put us directly in the cross hairs of the FBI! Forget the fact that their fan apparel absolutely sucks, just those two aforementioned facts alone be having me like, huh??

 

[Mr. Dynasty1]

Bro honestly, take the Nike vs Adidas argument out of this; on my mama, the fact that Adidas literally screwed us on our own deal w/in 2 yrs in to the contract….bro, how do ANYONE who loves this school justify & defend this? Like these fools put us directly in the cross hairs of the FBI! Forget the fact that their fan apparel absolutely sucks, just those two aforementioned facts alone be having me like, huh??

 

[Canedude08]

My brother, I understand your perspective. I attended school here under the Adidas tenure so I would be lying if im “anti” adidas. The only Adidas gear in my closet are UM branded.

However, i want to believe nike WILL cut the check. And the first Nike School comes home and take our seat at the top

Checks > Stripes.

The problem is that Nike refused to cut the check LAST TIME. They low balled Miami and basically dared the school to leave. Miami called their bluff.

 

[Canedude08]

So by that logic you don’t want Adidas either since they intentionally short changed the **** out of The U right??

Miami legal shortchanged Miami. Its on us to enforce the terms of a contract we signed. Never mind the fact that when it was enforced, Adidas didn't give any pushback. But hey, keep sucking from that Nike teat, as they low balled us by tens of millions.

 

[Rellyrell]

The problem is that Nike refused to cut the check LAST TIME. They low balled Miami and basically dared the school to leave. Miami called their bluff.

Siiiiiiiigh; they low balled us, huh?

OK; imma squash this.

1. Nike, Adidas, UA alllllllll have tier ratings based upon on-field production, merch sales, etc. As a matter of fact, and I’m not privy to our contract w/ Adidas, but from 6 of the public Adidas contracts I’ve read, they can reduce pay for “just cause” during their contracts.

2. The upfront $ Nike offered us was substantially less than Adidas upfront $, however there were royalties & incentives offered like they offer all of their schools which would’ve made up for the upfront $ (An example of this is UCLA’s deal w/ Jumpman. Although UA’s deal look good on paper w/ UCLA, b/c of UCLA’s world brand, they will be making more $ in the long run b/c of royalties & incentives)

3. Alabama has been way more dominant than us, yet our Nike contract offer was a shade under $3m less/yr in up front $. Bama’s $5m/yr (which will substantially increase by next contract) is still earning more $ than our contract b/c Bama is the 2nd highest Merchandise selling school, & anything Nike on it is garnishing them 15% profit. (So if Bama is selling $50m worth of merch, they are getting $7.5m in add’l revenue)
We were given a similar outlined proposal + other bowl game incentives from what I understand, but Blake went for the upfront $ & got screwed on the language Adidas put in to “woo” us, giving us the impression we were their “flagship.”

4. Right now, the Adidas ACC flagship school is UL, & we were supposed to be the only flagship school in the ACC. Well, that’s no coincidence b/c UL’s former AD, Jurich’s daughter work for Adidas’ marketing. Lol. So not only did we get screwed out of language put in our contract, nepotism played a role. Lol

 

[MPCane17]

Siiiiiiiigh; they low balled us, huh?

OK; imma squash this.

1. Nike, Adidas, UA alllllllll have tier ratings based upon on-field production, merch sales, etc. As a matter of fact, and I’m not privy to our contract w/ Adidas, but from 6 of the public Adidas contracts I’ve read, they can reduce pay for “just cause” during their contracts.

2. The upfront $ Nike offered us was substantially less than Adidas upfront $, however there were royalties & incentives offered like they offer all of their schools which would’ve made up for the upfront $ (An example of this is UCLA’s deal w/ Jumpman. Although UA’s deal look good on paper w/ UCLA, b/c of UCLA’s world brand, they will be making more $ in the long run b/c of royalties & incentives)

3. Alabama has been way more dominant than us, yet our Nike contract offer was a shade under $3m less/yr in up front $. Bama’s $5m/yr (which will substantially increase by next contract) is still earning more $ than our contract b/c Bama is the 2nd highest Merchandise selling school, & anything Nike on it is garnishing them 15% profit. (So if Bama is selling $50m worth of merch, they are getting $7.5m in add’l revenue)
We were given a similar outlined proposal + other bowl game incentives from what I understand, but Blake went for the upfront $ & got screwed on the language Adidas put in to “woo” us, giving us the impression we were their “flagship.”

4. Right now, the Adidas ACC flagship school is UL, & we were supposed to be the only flagship school in the ACC. Well, that’s no coincidence b/c UL’s former AD, Jurich’s daughter work for Adidas’ marketing. Lol. So not only did we get screwed out of language put in our contract, nepotism played a role. Lol

Mic drop. Thanks Rell

 

[Rellyrell]

Mic drop. Thanks Rell

Bro, it’s so much false narratives that’s spit. From the jump, I said Blake signed a dumb contract. It wasn’t until last yr when all of his incompetencies came to fruition that the vague language was revealed, & how Adidas snuck us on their own language. The problem w/ Blake was he wanted tier 1 pricing w/o tier 1 production. Adidas was desperate during this time to make a splash & said anything to make the deal happen. Blake, not looking at the fine print, didn’t see ambiguous language in the contract, nor did this fool even remotely think like “Heyyyyyy! How is UL making double the amount of $ as us, if we’re supposed to be ur ACC flagship??”

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful for that upfront $ as it allowed us to terminate Golden, but as a branding partner for what we represent or trying to represent once again, they are not it. There’s a reason ND, Wisconsin, UCLA, & UTK all dropped Adidas. There’s also a reason y we don’t see Adidas sponsored schools vying for Nat’l titles. I posted in a PM why Tennessee, a long time Adidas partner, took substantially less “up front” $ from Nike & they talked about image (+ royalties)

Anyways, let me get off my soap box. Lol.

 

[PIPO]

Siiiiiiiigh; they low balled us, huh?

OK; imma squash this.

1. Nike, Adidas, UA alllllllll have tier ratings based upon on-field production, merch sales, etc. As a matter of fact, and I’m not privy to our contract w/ Adidas, but from 6 of the public Adidas contracts I’ve read, they can reduce pay for “just cause” during their contracts.

2. The upfront $ Nike offered us was substantially less than Adidas upfront $, however there were royalties & incentives offered like they offer all of their schools which would’ve made up for the upfront $ (An example of this is UCLA’s deal w/ Jumpman. Although UA’s deal look good on paper w/ UCLA, b/c of UCLA’s world brand, they will be making more $ in the long run b/c of royalties & incentives)

3. Alabama has been way more dominant than us, yet our Nike contract offer was a shade under $3m less/yr in up front $. Bama’s $5m/yr (which will substantially increase by next contract) is still earning more $ than our contract b/c Bama is the 2nd highest Merchandise selling school, & anything Nike on it is garnishing them 15% profit. (So if Bama is selling $50m worth of merch, they are getting $7.5m in add’l revenue)
We were given a similar outlined proposal + other bowl game incentives from what I understand, but Blake went for the upfront $ & got screwed on the language Adidas put in to “woo” us, giving us the impression we were their “flagship.”

4. Right now, the Adidas ACC flagship school is UL, & we were supposed to be the only flagship school in the ACC. Well, that’s no coincidence b/c UL’s former AD, Jurich’s daughter work for Adidas’ marketing. Lol. So not only did we get screwed out of language put in our contract, nepotism played a role. Lol

 

[MPCane17]

Bro, it’s so much false narratives that’s spit. From the jump, I said Blake signed a dumb contract. It wasn’t until last yr when all of his incompetencies came to fruition that the vague language was revealed, & how Adidas snuck us on their own language. The problem w/ Blake was he wanted tier 1 pricing w/o tier 1 production. Adidas was desperate during this time to make a splash & said anything to make the deal happen. Blake, not looking at the fine print, didn’t see ambiguous language in the contract, nor did this fool even remotely think like “Heyyyyyy! How is UL making double the amount of $ as us, if we’re supposed to be ur ACC flagship??”

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful for that upfront $ as it allowed us to terminate Golden, but as a branding partner for what we represent or trying to represent once again, they are not it. There’s a reason ND, Wisconsin, UCLA, & UTK all dropped Adidas. There’s also a reason y we don’t see Adidas sponsored schools vying for Nat’l titles. I posted in a PM why Tennessee, a long time Adidas partner, took substantially less “up front” $ from Nike & they talked about image (+ royalties)

Anyways, let me get off my soap box. Lol.

Hopefully we can move on in 2 years like you mentioned and get back to the check. The three stripe fan gear is absolute garbage. Material keeps getting thinner, has the weirdest fit in shoulders and arms, and just sucks

 

[Rellyrell]

Hopefully we can move on in 2 years like you mentioned and get back to the check. The three stripe fan gear is absolute garbage. Material keeps getting thinner, has the weirdest fit in shoulders and arms, and just sucks

That’s what I mean; u’re spot on. I’m not sure if it’s their version of breathable, but it fits weird, & is thin af. I noticed our unis fits weird, too, which is y it’s always crooked around the shoulder pads arm area.

But that’s the rumor, that the early exit is more palatable by 2024. Hopefully it comes to fruition.

 

[GhostRecon_Cane]

I respect you as a poster but I think this is a bad take. They are as large as they are because of how popular they are with soccer.

Adidas sales surge on strength of World Cup sponsorship

Soccer merchandise proved particularly popular in Q2, though rival Nike had its swoosh on the winning French national team's jersey.

www.marketingdive.com

Yes. This is what keeps them in the game. Their brand is Yuge with soccer.

 

[Rellyrell]

Yes. This is what keeps them in the game. Their brand is Yuge with soccer.

That avatar. Lol

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

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?

 

[Rellyrell]

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?

The closest sour grapes was their AD saying Miami not giving them a courtesy call. Lol.

 

[Rellyrell]

Mine are not DS…got them new in 2015/16…and are canes colors only. I didn’t even realize they made them with the U and Ibis. $350 is high but **** lol

If I can cop the Huarache Zoom Hurricanes, I’ll post them.

 

[calinative umstudent]

Bro, it’s so much false narratives that’s spit. From the jump, I said Blake signed a dumb contract. It wasn’t until last yr when all of his incompetencies came to fruition that the vague language was revealed, & how Adidas snuck us on their own language. The problem w/ Blake was he wanted tier 1 pricing w/o tier 1 production. Adidas was desperate during this time to make a splash & said anything to make the deal happen. Blake, not looking at the fine print, didn’t see ambiguous language in the contract, nor did this fool even remotely think like “Heyyyyyy! How is UL making double the amount of $ as us, if we’re supposed to be ur ACC flagship??”

Now don’t get me wrong, I’m grateful for that upfront $ as it allowed us to terminate Golden, but as a branding partner for what we represent or trying to represent once again, they are not it. There’s a reason ND, Wisconsin, UCLA, & UTK all dropped Adidas. There’s also a reason y we don’t see Adidas sponsored schools vying for Nat’l titles. I posted in a PM why Tennessee, a long time Adidas partner, took substantially less “up front” $ from Nike & they talked about image (+ royalties)

Anyways, let me get off my soap box. Lol.

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…?

 

[Bender]

what do we learn?

never sign a contract with a german.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

The problem is that Nike refused to cut the check LAST TIME. They low balled Miami and basically dared the school to leave. Miami called their bluff.

They did not refuse to cut the check. That is just a lie that people like you tell. @Rellyrell has debunked this myth every time you try to tell it again.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

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…?

Oh good lord, now another backdoor effort by the "adidas-rules/Nike-drools" crowd.

Who said our lawyers didn't review it and/or approve it? I think you are missing the point here. First, the monetary projections are not a "lawyer review" issue, they were subject to Beta Blake and his bogus analysis.

As for issues such as "Miami will be the flagship" and "adidas will give you great product", those are issues of behavior and performance, not contractual language. It's like when you put a term like "best efforts" into a contract. There's nothing wrong with the contractual language itself, but there's certainly a lot of leeway within that language for a party to behave and perform either very well, or very poorly.

The primary "Nike screwed us" crowd is predominantly UM alums who graduated from about 2007 onward. They never saw us win a title. They've only experienced UM's decline. And they have no idea that UM used to be a Top 10 selling merch school from the late 80s to the early 00s.

And I'm always honest and transparent on this issue (I've discussed this multiple times with @Rellyrell too), I was initially misled by the Beta Blake Myth Machine. I was told that Nike was uninterested and didn't offer us any money. I was told that the Nike support was soooo bad that the football team was reduced to wearing old SportsFest t-shirts to practice. I was told that adidas was going to be ultra-competitive in the college game.

Then I saw the results. The rollout of Miami's worst football uniforms since (at least) the 1970s. The basketball scandal. The Louisville fellatio. The Supernova. The ProBounce. The ZX.

Bottom line, Beta Blake screwed up. He thought he was smarter than everyone else, and he was wrong. And don't give us the "Miami is not a major public university" crap. When Miami is doing well, we sell disproportionately to most public schools. It's not just alums that buy, it's everyone else in the country (and world) who love The U.

Just stop this. Neither company is perfect, but Nike/Jumpman are a better fit for Miami than adidas has been.

 

[calinative umstudent]

Oh good lord, now another backdoor effort by the "adidas-rules/Nike-drools" crowd.

Who said our lawyers didn't review it and/or approve it? I think you are missing the point here. First, the monetary projections are not a "lawyer review" issue, they were subject to Beta Blake and his bogus analysis.

As for issues such as "Miami will be the flagship" and "adidas will give you great product", those are issues of behavior and performance, not contractual language. It's like when you put a term like "best efforts" into a contract. There's nothing wrong with the contractual language itself, but there's certainly a lot of leeway within that language for a party to behave and perform either very well, or very poorly.

The primary "Nike screwed us" crowd is predominantly UM alums who graduated from about 2007 onward. They never saw us win a title. They've only experienced UM's decline. And they have no idea that UM used to be a Top 10 selling merch school from the late 80s to the early 00s.

And I'm always honest and transparent on this issue (I've discussed this multiple times with @Rellyrell too), I was initially misled by the Beta Blake Myth Machine. I was told that Nike was uninterested and didn't offer us any money. I was told that the Nike support was soooo bad that the football team was reduced to wearing old SportsFest t-shirts to practice. I was told that adidas was going to be ultra-competitive in the college game.

Then I saw the results. The rollout of Miami's worst football uniforms since (at least) the 1970s. The basketball scandal. The Louisville fellatio. The Supernova. The ProBounce. The ZX.

Bottom line, Beta Blake screwed up. He thought he was smarter than everyone else, and he was wrong. And don't give us the "Miami is not a major public university" crap. When Miami is doing well, we sell disproportionately to most public schools. It's not just alums that buy, it's everyone else in the country (and world) who love The U.

Just stop this. Neither company is perfect, but Nike/Jumpman are a better fit for Miami than adidas has been.

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.