forums

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

Nike is dead
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0316.png
    IMG_0316.png
    255.4 KB · Views: 0
Bird4um said:
Nike is dead
Click to expand...

Their five-year chart looks horrible. This is the same as yours just from a different source.

IMG_2086.jpeg


Although they may be a BUY now, even at these historically low levels I think they’re risky. There has to be a major shake up in this organization because shareholders, of which I am NOT one, have got to be getting their pitchforks.

Imagine going from around $180 a share to around $40 a share. That’s brutal.

They’ve dropped nearly 80% from their five year high. They’ve lost their way somehow.
 
Bird4um said:
Nike is dead
Click to expand...




I don’t say this disrespectfully, but unless u’re in the market, a shareholder, or a market maker, u shouldn’t post a blanket statement.

History has a way of repeating itself; back when Miami switched to Adidas, Yeezy was taking Adidas to new heights. The Boost were the new craze,& the market turned on Nike. 10 yrs ago, Nike’s stock plummeted to where they are right now, & ppl danced around claiming Nike was dead. Well, after approx 1.5 yrs, their value grew exponentially.

I am a shareholder, & I know that there’s more than meet the eyes such as:

•The dividend rate has been at an all time high
•The running division’s revenue has increased by 20%
•Market shares in several countries have increased
•The North America market increased

So yes, while their evaluation has taken a major hit due to previously relying upon a digitized market, choking off its own partnerships, losing ground in its biggest growth market (China), poor inventory balance, & its heavy reliance upon retros, there’s already been signs of growth positioning it for a major rebound.

The data shows that Nike, even in this position of not hitting revenue goals/matrix, still generated more revenue/sales than
Adidas, Hoka, OnCloud, Puma, & UA COMBINED.

Nike has refocused on innovation, sports, & Greater China. They’ve already brought back The Opening, & when I tell u the site was down for registration when it was announced! I live in All Star Weekend country this yr, & ppl were camping out at sneaker releases. ****, they just had to cancel an event in NY b/c of all the fights that broke out for a sneaker release.

U’re oversimplifying this. The stock is down for a number of reasons, & many of those have nothing to do w sales, & everything to do w poor mgmt under Donahoe & things happening in politics.
 
Rellyrell said:




I don’t say this disrespectfully, but unless u’re in the market, a shareholder, or a market maker, u shouldn’t post a blanket statement.

History has a way of repeating itself; back when Miami switched to Adidas, Yeezy was taking Adidas to new heights. The Boost were the new craze,& the market turned on Nike. 10 yrs ago, Nike’s stock plummeted to where they are right now, & ppl danced around claiming Nike was dead. Well, after approx 1.5 yrs, their value grew exponentially.

I am a shareholder, & I know that there’s more than meet the eyes such as:

•The dividend rate has been at an all time high
•The running division’s revenue has increased by 20%
•Market shares in several countries have increased
•The North America market increased

So yes, while their evaluation has taken a major hit due to previously relying upon a digitized market, choking off its own partnerships, losing ground in its biggest growth market (China), poor inventory balance, & its heavy reliance upon retros, there’s already been signs of growth positioning it for a major rebound.

The data shows that Nike, even in this position of not hitting revenue goals/matrix, still generated more revenue/sales than
Adidas, Hoka, OnCloud, Puma, & UA COMBINED.

Nike has refocused on innovation, sports, & Greater China. They’ve already brought back The Opening, & when I tell u the site was down for registration when it was announced! I live in All Star Weekend country this yr, & ppl were camping out at sneaker releases. ****, they just had to cancel an event in NY b/c of all the fights that broke out for a sneaker release.

U’re oversimplifying this. The stock is down for a number of reasons, & many of those have nothing to do w sales, & everything to do w poor mgmt under Donahoe & things happening in politics.
Click to expand...

I'm a Nike Shareholder... been a horrible investment, luckily just took a little nibble. Down 27%....Literally only BedBathBeyond and some healthcare is worse performance.

.... I'm just wondering when Nike also pivots to Data Centers lol. Just Do It...
 
Calinative said:
I'm a Nike Shareholder... been a horrible investment, luckily just took a little nibble. Down 27%....Literally only BedBathBeyond and some healthcare is worse performance.

.... I'm just wondering when Nike also pivots to Data Centers lol. Just Do It...
Click to expand...

What price did you get in at?
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
What price did you get in at?
Click to expand...
only bought 6/5/25 @ $62.70
Thought it may have hit a bit of a turning point around April. Kinda annoying timing cause a month after I bought it was up to $76 so like 20% and then peaked at like $80.17 late August which would have been like 27%. But from there it just was consistently downhill till about breakeven around Mid/late Feb. But from there it totally cratered pretty quick.... So today down 27%
 
Rellyrell said:




I don’t say this disrespectfully, but unless u’re in the market, a shareholder, or a market maker, u shouldn’t post a blanket statement.

History has a way of repeating itself; back when Miami switched to Adidas, Yeezy was taking Adidas to new heights. The Boost were the new craze,& the market turned on Nike. 10 yrs ago, Nike’s stock plummeted to where they are right now, & ppl danced around claiming Nike was dead. Well, after approx 1.5 yrs, their value grew exponentially.

I am a shareholder, & I know that there’s more than meet the eyes such as:

•The dividend rate has been at an all time high
•The running division’s revenue has increased by 20%
•Market shares in several countries have increased
•The North America market increased

So yes, while their evaluation has taken a major hit due to previously relying upon a digitized market, choking off its own partnerships, losing ground in its biggest growth market (China), poor inventory balance, & its heavy reliance upon retros, there’s already been signs of growth positioning it for a major rebound.

The data shows that Nike, even in this position of not hitting revenue goals/matrix, still generated more revenue/sales than
Adidas, Hoka, OnCloud, Puma, & UA COMBINED.

Nike has refocused on innovation, sports, & Greater China. They’ve already brought back The Opening, & when I tell u the site was down for registration when it was announced! I live in All Star Weekend country this yr, & ppl were camping out at sneaker releases. ****, they just had to cancel an event in NY b/c of all the fights that broke out for a sneaker release.

U’re oversimplifying this. The stock is down for a number of reasons, & many of those have nothing to do w sales, & everything to do w poor mgmt under Donahoe & things happening in politics.
Click to expand...

Haven't watched 5 seconds of the trash...
 
Any rumors of a switch to Nike and/or jumpman?

I figured if reupping with adidas was a forgone conclusion they’d have already done it maximized the playoff run hype
 
sedlst11 said:
You were pretty adamant about us staying with Adidas
Click to expand...


Wait until I send you the picture of @Hurracanes at the last UM practice... :ROFLMAO:

Trust this man if he tells you to take good care of your UM Nike gear. He certainly does!

Sadly, I think that the adidas fix is in. We will probably sign a 50 year deal, given the way that UM usually enters into bad contracts.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
Wait until I send you the picture of @Hurracanes at the last UM practice... :ROFLMAO:

Trust this man if he tells you to take good care of your UM Nike gear. He certainly does!

Sadly, I think that the adidas fix is in. We will probably sign a 50 year deal, given the way that UM usually enters into bad contracts.
Click to expand...
Anything over 8 years and you need written guarantee of a good faith market review that automatically results in pay bumps so at minimum we receive avg of Adidas top 3 payouts. Or better a guarantee of yearly market review that makes us #1
 
Calinative said:
... Lmao what did I make up?

I said if we sign a deal >8yrs that's imo what if require. What exactly is made up about what I'd like the contract to stipulate lmao.
Click to expand...


It's the same typical misleading stuff you invent all the time.

You never said "if we sign a deal". You never said "this is what I'd like the contract to stipulate". You just blurted out some contractual mumbo jumbo that made it sound like that's what Miami could or would get.

Look, it's one thing to spout a bunch of made up terms that sound great, as if you've had experience negotiating such deals, but then it invariably turns into people thinking that you have some knowledge about how Miami has secured a best-in-market deal.

Which, of course, simply isn't true.

There is no apparel deal that should exceed 8 years. Period, end of story. You know what's better than a "good faith market review"? An actual opportunity to negotiate a brand new deal at whatever the prevailing market dictates.

Yeah, boy, a "market review". That'll fix everything, by god. What a ridiculous concept. Why would adidas (or any company) agree to such a thing? "Yes, we just signed an 8-year contract, but the cost could literally increase on an annual basis." Whoever those executives are WOULD BE FIRED. That's like a baseball team having to go to salary arbitration every year for a player, EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS. Nobody is that stupid, except for Beta Blake James.

There are other, simpler, and more accepted ways to go about one's business. Shorter contracts, for one. The onus should be on the apparel maker. If they don't want to have a ****-ton of unsold inventory, then it is in the company's best interest to keep the best-selling universities happy. Long-term contracts breed complacency.

And there are other ways to monitor significant market-driven and hot-new-deal-driven bumps without it being an "annual good faith market review".

All I'm asking from you is to be more clear on whether you are merely PROPOSING new contractual language, or if you are intimating that this is common contractual language which we merely need to insist upon in our negotiations.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
It's the same typical misleading stuff you invent all the time.

You never said "if we sign a deal". You never said "this is what I'd like the contract to stipulate". You just blurted out some contractual mumbo jumbo that made it sound like that's what Miami could or would get.

Look, it's one thing to spout a bunch of made up terms that sound great, as if you've had experience negotiating such deals, but then it invariably turns into people thinking that you have some knowledge about how Miami has secured a best-in-market deal.

Which, of course, simply isn't true.

There is no apparel deal that should exceed 8 years. Period, end of story. You know what's better than a "good faith market review"? An actual opportunity to negotiate a brand new deal at whatever the prevailing market dictates.

Yeah, boy, a "market review". That'll fix everything, by god. What a ridiculous concept. Why would adidas (or any company) agree to such a thing? "Yes, we just signed an 8-year contract, but the cost could literally increase on an annual basis." Whoever those executives are WOULD BE FIRED. That's like a baseball team having to go to salary arbitration every year for a player, EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS. Nobody is that stupid, except for Beta Blake James.

There are other, simpler, and more accepted ways to go about one's business. Shorter contracts, for one. The onus should be on the apparel maker. If they don't want to have a ****-ton of unsold inventory, then it is in the company's best interest to keep the best-selling universities happy. Long-term contracts breed complacency.

And there are other ways to monitor significant market-driven and hot-new-deal-driven bumps without it being an "annual good faith market review".

All I'm asking from you is to be more clear on whether you are merely PROPOSING new contractual language, or if you are intimating that this is common contractual language which we merely need to insist upon in our negotiations.
Click to expand...
I'm not surprised a semi-smart dummy like you couldn't infer what I obviously stated given all you do is repeatedly lie about what people say after you either purposefully or moronically misunderstand what is plainly written in english.

I genuinely think every single response you have made to me in this entire thread is a blatant mistake reading of what I wrote lmao. It's just constantly repeating the same cycle.

You've been arguing with me about apparel contract length for like 4 yrs lmao.
 
Back
Top