forums

MEGA New Miami Adidas Ultraboost🔥 - The Shoe and Nike/Adidas Thread.

OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Assuming what you’re saying is true and not just an opinion, how is it that our people aren’t aware of that.
Click to expand...


Why do you have to assume that what I'm saying is true? It's actually been reported. SEC schools are getting paid 15% royalties by Nike. I don't know if our leadership is aware of these deals or not, but perhaps they may be unaware of how much a 15% royalty actually generates in cash money for those schools.

And, as I have pointed out, it is very common in SoFla for people to brag about their great negotiating skills. "Hey, adidas is willing to HELP us pay our ACC buyout" [FYI, so is a certain TV network]. "Hey, adidas is going to give us some NIL money". "Hey, I got my cable company to give me the sports package for free for an entire year".

I've been clear. Pre-NIL, about two-thirds of the ADVERTISED contract value was non-cash. Post-NIL, it seems that adidas and others may also be offering NIL money (which benefits the schools, but does not end up in the schools' bank accounts). Therefore, I don't care how it is sliced and diced and packaged up like a car salesman offer, let's just focus on the cash that is paid to The U.

Why is everyone afraid of the 15% royalty concept? Is that because we will finally have to admit that the premise of the adidas decision in 2014-2015 was flawed? It that because we will have to admit that all the bells and whistles that we are hearing about now are distractions?

Again, if adidas pays Miami a 15% royalty, then I lose my argument, right? AND I'M FINE WITH THAT. I wear both adidas and Nike, though I admit to having a preference. I am more interested in wearing The U logo than any sports brand logo, though I have consistently pointed out the legitimacy that Nike brought to UM in 1987, and the value of being the FIRST Nike school, and the equity of our 28-year relationship.

But if adidas pays Miami a 15% royalty and Nike doesn't, I'll be fine with whatever the UM leadership decides.



1783093966661.png
 
Last edited:
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
That’s your response? Did I touch a nerve or something? This **** really makes you emotional. I asked a legitimate question and apparently you don’t have any kind of an actual thought out response. Don’t know what that idiot Blake James has to do with it, he’s not here anymore and hasn’t been for years and since we’re talking about a new deal, he’s not going to have anything to do with it. But you go on with your bad self, pal.
Click to expand...


Calmly and rationally...

I said it in a longer post, but the issue with "Blake James" is that he set in motion a process that seems likely to repeat itself. He converted part of Miami's equipment/uniform allowance into cash payments, pointed the finger at Nike for "not loving Miami anymore", and then signed a lazy "guaranteed payment" deal with adidas while spurning the "royalty payment" deal with Nike, without every quantifying the sales levels at which the Nike payments would have exceeded the adidas payments.

And nearly 12 years later, we are right back in the same spot. People trying to rationalize and justify RE-signing with adidas because of "what Nike did" in the first two years that Beta Blake was our AD. And leaking details of what adidas is willing to pay Miami ("HELP" us with our ACC buyout) without acknowledging or quantifying the royalty offer from Nike.

So let's make this very simple, calm, and rational. We can end this **** once and for all, very easily.

1. Go to adidas. Say "15% royalty or we walk".

2. Go to Nike. Say "We want the South Carolina deal, plus money for NIL, because our players are WAAAAY better than their players."

3. Go to Under Armour and say "You heard what we told adidas and Nike."

We have some porster who comes here to tell us how he ****-slaps Big 4 accounting firms all the time, and that they come back to him "groveling" for more business. OK, fine, I'll play ball.

Miami finished #2 in football last year. Miami made the Round of 32 in basketball. Miami will be good in baseball in exactly 1.5 years. Miami is about to join the Big 10, expand its campus, and increase its enrollment.

ALL OF THESE THINGS MEAN "MERCH SALES".

So whoever gives us a 15% royalty gets the contract.

Microphone drop.


Bryan Cranston Mic Drop GIF
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Why do you have to assume that what I'm saying is true? SEC schools are getting paid 15% royalties by Nike. I don't know if our leadership is aware or not, but they may be unaware of how much a 15% royalty actually generates for those schools.

And, as I have pointed out, it is very common in SoFla for people to brag about their great negotiating skills. "Hey, adidas is willing to HELP us pay our ACC buyout" [FYI, so is a certain TV network]. "Hey, adidas is going to give us some NIL money". "Hey, I got my cable company to give me the sports package for free for an entire year".

I've been clear. Pre-NIL, about two-thirds of the ADVERTISED contract value was non-cash. Post-NIL, it seems that adidas and others may also be offering NIL money (which benefits the schools, but does not end up in the schools' bank accounts). Therefore, I don't care how it is sliced and diced and packaged up like a car salesman offer, let's just focus on the cash that is paid to The U.

Why is everyone afraid of the 15% royalty concept? Is that because we will finally have to admit that the premise of the adidas decision in 2014-2015 was flawed? It that because we will have to admit that all the bells and whistles that we are hearing about now are distractions?

Again, if adidas pays Miami a 15% royalty, then I lose my argument, right? AND I'M FINE WITH THAT. I wear both adidas and Nike, though I admit to having a preference. I am more interested in wearing The U logo than any sports brand logo, though I have consistently pointed out the legitimacy that Nike brought to UM in 1987, and the value of being the FIRST Nike school, and the equity of our 28-year relationship.

But if adidas pays Miami a 15% royalty and Nike doesn't, I'll be fine with whatever the UM leadership decides.



View attachment 366723
Click to expand...

With the people that are in charge now, I’m just going to assume that they’re aware of all aspects of the negotiation, including what royalties would bring in on a yearly basis.

As far as the actual calculation, I have no concrete idea, I can only guess. Is that 15% off the gross or the net? What would the projected merchandise sales be for the University of Miami for any particular brand? If I can spitball this here just shooting off the top of my head, I’m sure the guys that are in charge now have as well, and done an analysis much more involved than my cursory porsting.

This is not the Blake James athletic department and it seems like we have a kick *** president that would be aware of this particular upcoming decision.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
With the people that are in charge now, I’m just going to assume that they’re aware of all aspects of the negotiation, including what royalties would bring in on a yearly basis.

As far as the actual calculation, I have no concrete idea, I can only guess. Is that 15% off the gross or the net? What would the projected merchandise sales be for the University of Miami for any particular brand? If I can spitball this here just shooting off the top of my head, I’m sure the guys that are in charge now have as well, and done an analysis much more involved than my cursory porsting.

This is not the Blake James athletic department and it seems like we have a kick *** president that would be aware of this particular upcoming decision.
Click to expand...


I also posted this earlier in the thread. 15% royalty is gross. If we sell $100M in merch per year, that's $15M. If we sell $50M in merch per year, that's $7.5M. If we sell $30M in merch per year, that's $4.5M.

The Nike website offers more "per-school" merch items than the adidas website does. Plus there is Fanatics. Plus there are stores like CanesWear and the UM Bookstore. Plus there is the internet, generally, which facilitates online ordering from whatever source.

From what I've heard from people I've talked with, I'd be willing to bet that we pop close to the midpoint ($50M) for events like: Year 1 changeover, conference changeover, CFP runs, NCAA Tournament runs. And, as I've pointed out, Miami is going to increase the size of the student body. "What the UM Bookstore looks like" in 2026 vs. 1986 when I enrolled...it's like night and day. The entire ground floor sells UM-branded clothing. UM students (or perhaps their parents) will pay for tons of UM-branded gear, particularly when it's with a quality brand, which is why so much of the floor space now features Peter Millar and Cutter & Buck and Columbia and Champion and Tommy Bahama.

Ask for a 15% royalty. Couldn't hurt to ask, right? Then we can see who REALLY loves Miami.

Can't we all just be honest with one another? In 2015, what was the adidas roster of schools? Miami made adidas respectable. Now it's time to be repaid for that, assuming adidas still loves Miami as much as they claimed in 2015.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
With the people that are in charge now, I’m just going to assume that they’re aware of all aspects of the negotiation, including what royalties would bring in on a yearly basis.

As far as the actual calculation, I have no concrete idea, I can only guess. Is that 15% off the gross or the net? What would the projected merchandise sales be for the University of Miami for any particular brand? If I can spitball this here just shooting off the top of my head, I’m sure the guys that are in charge now have as well, and done an analysis much more involved than my cursory porsting.

This is not the Blake James athletic department and it seems like we have a kick *** president that would be aware of this particular upcoming decision.
Click to expand...


Sorry for a second post of this, but I continued to be bothered by the use of words like "assume" and "assumption". I'm not mad at you, it's nothing personal.

When I cited the royalty rates, that was based on reported information, not an assumption. WHAT UM LEADERSHIP KNOWS, I won't assume. Were you bothered by the LONG list that @Rellyrell provided of UM football players injured in non-contact/soft-tissue situations since we switched to adidas? I was, but I can't assume that UM leadership knows about that or is taking it into account.

On the monetary side, I just started another thread about what a "killer" President Joe is on a separate land negotiation with the City of Coral Gables. Yes, I have tremendous faith in President Joe. But I don't know how involved he is in the apparel-deal negotiatons. Therefore, I won't "assume" knowledge or even detailed-awareness of what a 15% royalty deal would yield for Miami.

I work with a very bright CEO. But I can tell you that he doesn't get involved very much with smaller M&A deals. And whether we like it or not, the apparel deal is much smaller than other deals that are cooking. As I said, 6 acres of scruffy grass valued out at $50M, and that's not even counting the impact of what we got in return, the ability to increase the size of the campus and the enrollment numbers.

In a perfect world, I'd prefer that President Joe was NOT involved with the apparel deal. But if he needs to put a foot in someone's ***, by all means.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Sorry for a second post of this, but I continued to be bothered by the use of words like "assume" and "assumption". I'm not mad at you, it's nothing personal.

When I cited the royalty rates, that was based on reported information, not an assumption. WHAT UM LEADERSHIP KNOWS, I won't assume. Were you bothered by the LONG list that @Rellyrell provided of UM football players injured in non-contact/soft-tissue situations since we switched to adidas? I was, but I can't assume that UM leadership knows about that or is taking it into account.

On the monetary side, I just started another thread about what a "killer" President Joe is on a separate land negotiation with the City of Coral Gables. Yes, I have tremendous faith in President Joe. But I don't know how involved he is in the apparel-deal negotiatons. Therefore, I won't "assume" knowledge or even detailed-awareness of what a 15% royalty deal would yield for Miami.

I work with a very bright CEO. But I can tell you that he doesn't get involved very much with smaller M&A deals. And whether we like it or not, the apparel deal is much smaller than other deals that are cooking. As I said, 6 acres of scruffy grass valued out at $50M, and that's not even counting the impact of what we got in return, the ability to increase the size of the campus and the enrollment numbers.

In a perfect world, I'd prefer that President Joe was NOT involved with the apparel deal. But if he needs to put a foot in someone's ***, by all means.
Click to expand...

I’m going to push back on the soft tissue injury “issue” because I know you’re smarter than that and understand science and the trap of anecdotal evidence.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
I’m going to push back on the soft tissue injury “issue” because I know you’re smarter than that and understand science and the trap of anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...


I'm just saying, @Rellyrell posted the list, and it's not encouraging. Mesidor's career was almost ended by those adidas shoes.

If you have a comparable and longer list from when we wore Nike, I'd like to see it.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I'm just saying, @Rellyrell posted the list, and it's not encouraging. Mesidor's career was almost ended by those adidas shoes.

If you have a comparable and longer list from when we wore Nike, I'd like to see it.
Click to expand...

Any list I would come up with, would be the same as the list you’re talking about. Rank anecdotal meaningless evidence and unscientific to its core. You’re better and smarter than this - people that don’t understand science might fall for it, but I’m not and I know you’re not either.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Any list I would come up with, would be the same as the list you’re talking about. Rank anecdotal meaningless evidence and unscientific to its core. You’re better and smarter than this - people that don’t understand science might fall for it, but I’m not and I know you’re not either.
Click to expand...


I'm not "falling for it". It's certainly something to consider, and far more plausible than "the doctors at UHealth are butchers", which you know was the "word on the streets" a few years ago.

As has been discussed on here before, the question is to what extent adidas customizes the equipment for certain players, and whether linemen get a different customization than, say, a wide receiver gets.

And, look, I was in the building when Nijel Pack's shoes fell apart (and I actually own the same pair) and who will ever know if that disaster cost us the Final Four game.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
I'm not "falling for it". It's certainly something to consider, and far more plausible than "the doctors at UHealth are butchers", which you know was the "word on the streets" a few years ago.

As has been discussed on here before, the question is to what extent adidas customizes the equipment for certain players, and whether linemen get a different customization than, say, a wide receiver gets.

And, look, I was in the building when Nijel Pack's shoes fell apart (and I actually own the same pair) and who will ever know if that disaster cost us the Final Four game.
Click to expand...

Zion Williamson says hold my beer
 
Back
Top