New Miami Adidas Ultraboost🔥

[TheOriginalCane]

i believe it was before covid. it didnt last long at all. i grew up there and that market plus that location was a kill zone. at least he pulled the plug quick. last time i went to that mall (2 months ago), it wasnt there and honestly, that mall isnt attracting lower end retailers like all canes. theres a reason the heat didnt open up a store there but they did open up in west broward.

Yeah, I used to go to Aventura more regularly when I had some friends who lived in one of the high-rises and I was up in Hollywood. Since I've moved out of the area, the traffic around Aventura is too crazy just to make a quick casual trip over there. You really need to commit to being there for a few hours.

Ken has the right approach with CanesWear, he's just in a simple shopping center near some major roads. Smart.

 

[Bunker Mentality]

Merely screaming something, without supporting evidence isn't the flex the cultists believe it is. Amazing how actual journalists, with actual sources could put in print that the deal was MANY TIMES MORE, and Nike refused to match(which was my point), but that doesn't matter. However, some random message board poster just magically knows that one guy unilaterally ignored the better deal for unknown reasons. I know that a lot of our fanbase believes that people can do things around campus without consequences, but if Blake James was unilaterally doing things, things that cost the University money, best believe he would have been FIRED for it. No one, I repeat, NO ONE runs anything on campus without any oversight.

Miami, Adidas strike 12-year merchandise deal

The University of Miami and Adidas announced Thursday that they will partner for the next 12 years in a deal that has the potential to become the most lucrative in the history of Hurricanes athletics.

www.espn.com

Frenk had his head in the sand about athletics before and (to a degree) still does now. He told Blake 'it's on you'; so yea...there was no oversight for Blake.

"Many times more" is vague and doesn't delineate between up-front monies vs percentage of sales over the life of the contract. My understanding is Adidas gave more up-front money and said we'd be a flagship program in CFB for the brand; several years later our contract was surpassed by multiple programs and our equipment disbursement was inferior.

If a school sucks in football the up-front money may be enticing, but if you're the merch. marketing pioneer of CFB with a world-wide brand and any measure of success, the back-end percentage of sales is where the value is.

 

[Rellyrell]

Frenk had his head in the sand about athletics before and (to a degree) still does now. He told Blake 'it's on you'; so yea...there was no oversight for Blake.

"Many times more" is vague and doesn't delineate between up-front monies vs percentage of sales over the life of the contract. My understanding is Adidas gave more up-front money and said we'd be a flagship program in CFB for the brand; several years later our contract was surpassed by multiple programs and our equipment disbursement was inferior.

If a school sucks in football the up-front money may be enticing, but if you're the merch. marketing pioneer of CFB with a world-wide brand and any measure of success, the back-end percentage of sales is where the value is.

Thank u, my friend. Smh; not sure y this has to be explained many times over, & this “random poster” (who have been on this board longer than them) was giving play by play about the switch before details even came out. Lol. ****, this random poster gave a warning shot b4 yrs later, details of Adidas doing exactly what I said came to fruition w/ a scathing report exposing just how incompetent Blake was at his job where an outside entity had to tell Blake Adidas played us. Lol.

Anyways, u’re spot on.

 

[Angry Ibis]

Thank u, my friend. Smh; not sure y this has to be explained many times over, & this “random poster” (who have been on this board longer than them) was giving play by play about the switch before details even came out. Lol. ****, this random poster gave a warning shot b4 yrs later, details of Adidas doing exactly what I said came to fruition w/ a scathing report exposing just how incompetent Blake was at his job where an outside entity had to tell Blake Adidas played us. Lol.

Anyways, u’re spot on.

What are you *****ing about now?

 

[calinative umstudent]

Frenk had his head in the sand about athletics before and (to a degree) still does now. He told Blake 'it's on you'; so yea...there was no oversight for Blake.

"Many times more" is vague and doesn't delineate between up-front monies vs percentage of sales over the life of the contract. My understanding is Adidas gave more up-front money and said we'd be a flagship program in CFB for the brand; several years later our contract was surpassed by multiple programs and our equipment disbursement was inferior.

If a school sucks in football the up-front money may be enticing, but if you're the merch. marketing pioneer of CFB with a world-wide brand and any measure of success, the back-end percentage of sales is where the value is.

Right …so If as everyone says it is so obvious that we would make up for the up front money adidas was offering on the backend from Nike because of our elite merch sales….why wouldn’t Nike just match the offer from Adidas?

That’s one aspect of this whole argument I find funny. Nike is such a great business, and they were offering a deal to us that would have paid more than Adidas over the course of the contract…yet refused to match the Adidas deal that would have paid us less…? You’d think with all the knowledge Nike has they would have the best estimates on what the value of our business is (to us and them), and if Adidas was offering less than they were, they’d just match and have a good deal on their hands, and Blake would have walked away with the deal he wanted….Especially if they valued our brand and the partnership/history we built. … so while the argument is Blake didn’t want to take the risk on making more in the backend, the same can be said for Nike - they didn’t want to take the risk on the front end money because they didn’t believe they’d make up for it on the backend either….

 

[Cryptical Envelopment]

Hey. How's it going in here guys?

Just wanted to let you all know the tea ceremony has been moved from 3pm to 3:30pm but its still in the sanctuary garden, weather permitting of course.

I look forward to seeing you there. And remember, no shoes please.

 

[No_Fly_Zone]

Right …so If as everyone says it is so obvious that we would make up for the up front money adidas was offering on the backend from Nike because of our elite merch sales….why wouldn’t Nike just match the offer from Adidas?

That’s one aspect of this whole argument I find funny. Nike is such a great business, and they were offering a deal to us that would have paid more than Adidas over the course of the contract…yet refused to match the Adidas deal that would have paid us less…? You’d think with all the knowledge Nike has they would have the best estimates on what the value of our business is (to us and them), and if Adidas was offering less than they were, they’d just match and have a good deal on their hands, and Blake would have walked away with the deal he wanted….Especially if they valued our brand and the partnership/history we built. … so while the argument is Blake didn’t want to take the risk on making more in the backend, the same can be said for Nike - they didn’t want to take the risk on the front end money because they didn’t believe they’d make up for it on the backend either….

You started to answer your own question, but then fouled it up with the part in italics. Yes, putting more up front money is riskier than shifting that to a bigger piece on the back-end. But your unsupported and conclusory explanation isn't nearly the most feasible rationale.

There are a many factors that go into that sort of business decision. You'd need to consider the total number of deals Nike has with collegiate programs. The potential that other schools will start negotiating for more upfront money if Nike caves for one university. The increased aggregate risk created by that sort of situation unfolding, where now Nike isn't just increasing it's risk with UM, but all programs that might demand a similar deal. The fact paying out more money on the front end looks different on a balance sheet and ties up more Nike money up front that might otherwise be used for capital improvements/projects/marketing. And the common-sense notion that Nike wants to incentivize its business partners to show off the brand as much as possible by making them a greater stakeholder in the success of merchandise sales.

 

[Bunker Mentality]

Right …so If as everyone says it is so obvious that we would make up for the up front money adidas was offering on the backend from Nike because of our elite merch sales….why wouldn’t Nike just match the offer from Adidas?

That’s one aspect of this whole argument I find funny. Nike is such a great business, and they were offering a deal to us that would have paid more than Adidas over the course of the contract…yet refused to match the Adidas deal that would have paid us less…? You’d think with all the knowledge Nike has they would have the best estimates on what the value of our business is (to us and them), and if Adidas was offering less than they were, they’d just match and have a good deal on their hands, and Blake would have walked away with the deal he wanted….Especially if they valued our brand and the partnership/history we built. … so while the argument is Blake didn’t want to take the risk on making more in the backend, the same can be said for Nike - they didn’t want to take the risk on the front end money because they didn’t believe they’d make up for it on the backend either….

Apparently not enough to match Adidas who was willing to overpay...

I would imagine a company like Nike has a formula with some wiggle-room when doing these deals to keep mech. marketing as a whole profitable. If I recall correctly, Nike had much more market-share than Adidas in CFB merch. and, one would imagine, the ripple-effect from emotional decision to overpay Miami would have implications across their portfolio that made matching Adidas unattractive.

I don't have the specifics of what Nike offered but I recall the Adidas offer being above market because they wanted to make a splash in the CFB space; Miami was a school they targeted to be their brand-ambassador version of "Oregon".

 

[SWFLHurricane]

F Adidas...and their Garbage *** shoes and that Garbage *** one-ply toilet paper shirts they put out.

 

[Rellyrell]

Apparently not enough to match Adidas who was willing to overpay...

I would imagine a company like Nike has a formula with some wiggle-room when doing these deals to keep mech. marketing as a whole profitable. If I recall correctly, Nike had much more market-share than Adidas in CFB merch. and, one would imagine, the ripple-effect from emotional decision to overpay Miami would have implications across their portfolio that made matching Adidas unattractive.

I don't have the specifics of what Nike offered but I recall the Adidas offer being above market because they wanted to make a splash in the CFB space; Miami was a school they targeted to be their brand-ambassador version of "Oregon".

Both you & @No_Fly_Zone are hitting the nail on the head. Trust me when I say there’s no further reason to go back & forth with either one of the two defending the Adidas deal, & in essence Blake’s decision. It doesn’t matter how many graphics u show, former players chiming in, articles, etc., let them both believe what they want. Adidas paid more $$ up front, that’s all that matters to them. However, I will say to ur point, Adidas lost two schools back to back that was carrying their brand, which was ND & UT(Knoxville). They over paid for both ASU & us, but with us specifically, we were assured certain details that were not lived up to, immediately.

Regardless, great diagnosis, folks;

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Right …so If as everyone says it is so obvious that we would make up for the up front money adidas was offering on the backend from Nike because of our elite merch sales….why wouldn’t Nike just match the offer from Adidas?

That’s one aspect of this whole argument I find funny. Nike is such a great business, and they were offering a deal to us that would have paid more than Adidas over the course of the contract…yet refused to match the Adidas deal that would have paid us less…? You’d think with all the knowledge Nike has they would have the best estimates on what the value of our business is (to us and them), and if Adidas was offering less than they were, they’d just match and have a good deal on their hands, and Blake would have walked away with the deal he wanted….Especially if they valued our brand and the partnership/history we built. … so while the argument is Blake didn’t want to take the risk on making more in the backend, the same can be said for Nike - they didn’t want to take the risk on the front end money because they didn’t believe they’d make up for it on the backend either….

Congratulations, Nancy Drew, you really cracked the case.

Of course, it could be the simpler Occam's Razor answer, that Nike had grown tired of Beta Blake converting equipment and gear into cash and then blaming Nike for providing sub-standard stuff...

...which is exactly what a low-guarantee/high-royalty arrangement is designed to address...

...and exactly the type of situation that got Beta Blake fired...

 

[Fluffhead]

Right …so If as everyone says it is so obvious that we would make up for the up front money adidas was offering on the backend from Nike because of our elite merch sales….why wouldn’t Nike just match the offer from Adidas?

That’s one aspect of this whole argument I find funny. Nike is such a great business, and they were offering a deal to us that would have paid more than Adidas over the course of the contract…yet refused to match the Adidas deal that would have paid us less…? You’d think with all the knowledge Nike has they would have the best estimates on what the value of our business is (to us and them), and if Adidas was offering less than they were, they’d just match and have a good deal on their hands, and Blake would have walked away with the deal he wanted….Especially if they valued our brand and the partnership/history we built. … so while the argument is Blake didn’t want to take the risk on making more in the backend, the same can be said for Nike - they didn’t want to take the risk on the front end money because they didn’t believe they’d make up for it on the backend either….

Why is it hard to understand an incentive laden contract that could pay more vs a risk averse lump sum contract? If Nike’s deal was based off of sales amounts, the more UM product sold, the more money for Miami and more money for Nike. Adidas had less upside but more guaranteed money. This is not difficult to understand on any level.

 

[Rellyrell]

Why is it hard to understand an incentive laden contract that could pay more vs a risk averse lump sum contract? If Nike’s deal was based off of sales amounts, the more UM product sold, the more money for Miami and more money for Nike. Adidas had less upside but more guaranteed money. This is not difficult to understand on any level.

Bro, trust me when I tell u they r trolling at this point. I gave a comprehensive contract breakdown that I pulled from another school as an example & look at their response.

New Miami Adidas Ultraboost🔥

Those are nice..and my cheap *** price range. I also just started mixing in some 3-5 mile runs every 4th or 5th day and I like the light weight shoes. I have Brooks Ghosts now and they are a bit bulky. Light but just feel large. I used to love Nike free's (5.0) but they almost made me push my...

www.canesinsight.com

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Bro, trust me when I tell u they r trolling at this point. I gave a comprehensive contract breakdown that I pulled from another school as an example & look at their response.

New Miami Adidas Ultraboost🔥

Those are nice..and my cheap *** price range. I also just started mixing in some 3-5 mile runs every 4th or 5th day and I like the light weight shoes. I have Brooks Ghosts now and they are a bit bulky. Light but just feel large. I used to love Nike free's (5.0) but they almost made me push my...

www.canesinsight.com

After all of the information that has been provided, I simply don't understand why @Canedude08 and @calinative umstudent are so invested in defending a false myth.

It's truly bizarre.

 

[Fluffhead]

Bro, trust me when I tell u they r trolling at this point. I gave a comprehensive contract breakdown that I pulled from another school as an example & look at their response.

New Miami Adidas Ultraboost🔥

Those are nice..and my cheap *** price range. I also just started mixing in some 3-5 mile runs every 4th or 5th day and I like the light weight shoes. I have Brooks Ghosts now and they are a bit bulky. Light but just feel large. I used to love Nike free's (5.0) but they almost made me push my...

www.canesinsight.com

I mean it’s like they act like there’s never seen an incentive laden contract or the reason behind it. I think one of them it’s a lack of intelligence, the other a mix of too much pride and being condescending.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I mean it’s like they act like there’s never been an incentive laden contract or the reason behind it. I think one of them it’s a lack of intelligence, the other a mix of too much pride and being condescending.

I can't wait to see @Canedude08 and @calinative umstudent duking it out to figure out which one is unintelligent...



Spoiler alert:

 

[Fluffhead]

I can't wait to see @Canedude08 and @calinative umstudent duking it out to figure out which one is unintelligent...



Spoiler alert:

Well one of them is the most condescending *** on the board, so by process of elimination..,

 

[calinative umstudent]

Apparently not enough to match Adidas who was willing to overpay...

I would imagine a company like Nike has a formula with some wiggle-room when doing these deals to keep mech. marketing as a whole profitable. If I recall correctly, Nike had much more market-share than Adidas in CFB merch. and, one would imagine, the ripple-effect from emotional decision to overpay Miami would have implications across their portfolio that made matching Adidas unattractive.

I don't have the specifics of what Nike offered but I recall the Adidas offer being above market because they wanted to make a splash in the CFB space; Miami was a school they targeted to be their brand-ambassador version of "Oregon".

... Right... so if 1+1=2 here, What you just essentially said is Adidas offered more than Nike (above market rate, which Nike didn't want to match) because they wanted to make a splash because Nike has the majority of the market...

 

[calinative umstudent]

You started to answer your own question, but then fouled it up with the part in italics. Yes, putting more up front money is riskier than shifting that to a bigger piece on the back-end. But your unsupported and conclusory explanation isn't nearly the most feasible rationale.

There are a many factors that go into that sort of business decision. You'd need to consider the total number of deals Nike has with collegiate programs. The potential that other schools will start negotiating for more upfront money if Nike caves for one university. The increased aggregate risk created by that sort of situation unfolding, where now Nike isn't just increasing it's risk with UM, but all programs that might demand a similar deal. The fact paying out more money on the front end looks different on a balance sheet and ties up more Nike money up front that might otherwise be used for capital improvements/projects/marketing. And the common-sense notion that Nike wants to incentivize its business partners to show off the brand as much as possible by making them a greater stakeholder in the success of merchandise sales.

Right... My point wasn't why Nike would prefer to have back-end money. I fully understand why. It aligns the incentives. We sell more merch, we both make more money. But it isn't guaranteed, and presumably Nike could have matched Adidas. And we haven't been successful except for 1 season in Football and just now 2 seasons in basketball after 8 years. That has been the entire point.

 

[calinative umstudent]

Why is it hard to understand an incentive laden contract that could pay more vs a risk averse lump sum contract? If Nike’s deal was based off of sales amounts, the more UM product sold, the more money for Miami and more money for Nike. Adidas had less upside but more guaranteed money. This is not difficult to understand on any level.

Who is struggling to understand that? lol