My thoughts exactly, lol..Maybe Mike Ryan can derail adidas like he derailed Yormark…
My thoughts exactly, lol..Maybe Mike Ryan can derail adidas like he derailed Yormark…
Nobody that porsts here is making this deal, so what’s the issue?
Personally, the program is going in the right direction, and I’ve got a feeling the people in charge do read the fine print and understand the short and long-term implications of any deal that they might sign. So I really don’t see what the issue is.
The issue is that other schools are getting 15% royalties while adidas is offering $22 of trinkets for Manhattan.
Nobody that porsts here is making this deal, so what’s the issue?
Personally, the program is going in the right direction, and I’ve got a feeling the people in charge do read the fine print and understand the short and long-term implications of any deal that they might sign. So I really don’t see what the issue is.
What r u even talking about? Lmao. Like some of ya’ll just like to respond just to respond.
Furthermore, pal, our own AD who actually signed the deal didn’t know what the fine print said. It was LITERALLY posted on this very site after it was exposed how tumultuous Blake James’ tenure was here. Like seriously, pls take a break & stop feeling the need to always respond to **** u don’t know.
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.
Ninja, what??? What r u even talking about? U responded to my post about how royalties work which was a convo that was 5 yrs old. Lol.
Lastly, u’re not important enough to me to touch a nerve, but yet u feel the need to chime in every post just to be loud & wrong **** near all the time. Fascinating.
Assuming what you’re saying is true and not just an opinion, how is it that our people aren’t aware of that.
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.
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
You're forgetting that nobody wants to buy Adidas. 15% of 0 is still 0.1. Go to adidas. Say "15% royalty or we walk".
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.
You're forgetting that nobody wants to buy Adidas. 15% of 0 is still 0.
(just joking, sort've)
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.
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.
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.
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.