forums

New Miami Adidas UltraboostšŸ”„

wspcane said:
Well one of them is the most condescending *** on the board, so by process of elimination..,
Click to expand...
h4819832B.jpg
 
Advertisement
Pearson704 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Aye, thereā€™s the rub!
 
I really don't understand what @Canedude08 and @calinative umstudent don't understand.

Multi-year guaranteed contracts always seem great in Year 1. But invariably, by the time that you reach the end of a multi-year guaranteed contract, it is paying below market. Then you get a new bump to "exceed" market, and then the market outpaces your deal sometime during the course of the contract.

Of course...a royalty deal is more flexible, and reflects what is actually happening. And if you set a fair royalty rate, then nothing needs to be adjusted over time. You actually make more money over time simply because shirts and shoes and hats become more expensive.

But we have two yahoos acting like a royalty deal is somehow an insult. Even if the insult is richly-deserved for an AD who kept stealing equipment and gear from his teams in order to put more money into his budget. And then blaming the apparel company for his own shenanigans.

And all of the relevant facts have already been acknowledged.

Yes, the NEW adidas deal paid a higher guarantee than the OLD Nike deal. And you can't even compare the "NEW" Nike deal, since they didn't offer a big guarantee.

Yes, the NEW adidas deal was, AT THE TIME, above market. Doesn't mean it's still above market (see earlier discussion).

Yes, we currently sell less adidas merch TODAY than what we sold with Nike from 2005-2015 (a period where we won zero-point-zero national championships).

Yes, under a royalty deal SELLING ADIDAS, we would have made less money.

But here's the thing. Nike knew what Miami had sold during the non-championship period from 2005-2015. And even so, they still wanted to be in business with Miami. Nike still wanted to pay Miami (potentially) a lot of money if Miami sold a lot of merch. Nike just wanted to make sure that the "old deal" of converting equipment/gear into money was no longer the way that Beta Blake could enrich the deal.

And what is important to remember is how the market was changing. From 2005 to 2015, Miami relied on Harry at AllCanes and Ken at CanesWear to sell a ton of UM merch. But with the rise of Fanatics, and the trend of Nike taking more retail to its online store, you have the potential to sell a LOT more merchandise across the country, not just in SoFla.

I realize that the two adidas-loving, Beta-Blake-supporting yahoos are going to poormouth Miami's merch sales over the past 8 years and try to blame it on "team performance". Which, of course, never stopped us from selling merch in the prior decade. But what they refuse to acknowledge is that the new online sales model expands the market from coast-to-coast. I see a ton of UM gear in Atlanta, and I know they didn't buy it all from CanesWear. So regardless of the W-L records since 2015, I have no doubts that UM would have sold more Nike merch in this new market than we were selling from 2005-2015 under the brick-and-mortar approach.

And under a royalty-heavy deal, we would have made a lot more, selling Nike merch, since 2015.

Let's not forget, Beta Blake was fired for this. For mismanaging the Nike and adidas deals. Those are facts which were quickly discovered by Joe Echevarria and Rudy Fernandez.

So let's stop yapping about the guarantee that adidas offered back in 2015.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
šŸ‘‡šŸ¾šŸ‘‡šŸ¾

www.canesinsight.com

New Miami Adidas UltraboostšŸ”„

Well one of them is the most condescending *** on the board, so by process of elimination..,
www.canesinsight.com www.canesinsight.com
Click to expand...

The title is irrelevant and you know it. This is a Nike ****riding thread by content.

That spokesman that Nike is pimping, can call himself a chick, but heā€™s a dude. This thread can have the title of Adidas, but itā€™s a Nike thread. Check the majority of the porsts - ****riding Nike.

Thatā€™s just reality.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
The title is irrelevant and you know it. This is a Nike ****riding thread by content.

That spokesman that Nike is pimping, can call himself a chick, but heā€™s a dude. This thread can have the title of Adidas, but itā€™s a Nike thread. Check the majority of the porsts - ****riding Nike.

Thatā€™s just reality.
Click to expand...

Siiigh; I understand it may have flew over ur head since u have these soap box tendencies, BUT no one said YOU were Nike or Adidas **** riding. WHAT I ACTUALLY explained was this is something that ALL these companies are doing, & it started w/ Adidas. Nothing more nothing less. If u have issues w/ it, express urself on Twitter or donā€™t, idgaf.
 
Advertisement
Rellyrell said:
Siiigh; I understand it may have flew over ur head since u have these soap box tendencies, BUT no one said YOU were Nike or Adidas **** riding. WHAT I ACTUALLY explained was this is something that ALL these companies are doing, & it started w/ Adidas. Nothing more nothing less. If u have issues w/ it, express urself on Twitter or donā€™t, idgaf.
Click to expand...

Or I can express myself here like everybody else does. And maybe I have soap box tendencies, but a lot of people here having Nike ****riding tendencies. So itā€™s all good.
 
Ight I'll respond @TheOriginalCane lol
Multi-year guaranteed contracts always seem great in Year 1. But invariably, by the time that you reach the end of a multi-year guaranteed contract, it is paying below market. Then you get a new bump to "exceed" market, and then the market outpaces your deal sometime during the course of the contract.

Of course...a royalty deal is more flexible, and reflects what is actually happening. And if you set a fair royalty rate, then nothing needs to be adjusted over time. You actually make more money over time simply because shirts and shoes and hats become more expensive.
Click to expand...
I fully understand this lol. BUT just because something is bigger on the back end obviously doesn't mean you are guaranteed OR likely to surpass the significantly larger front-end figures. Again, this is all VERY basic math that I have no doubt the People at Nike and in our administration were more than capable of estimating. Given they knew what the sales figures were for the last 30 years, I'm sure they could make a very basic prediction. And I have never said ONCE that it isn't POSSIBLE to make more on the backend from the Nike structure. But should you bet on that? EX) Look at NFL player contracts. Do you think players would prefer to have low Front-end guarantees because they have high performance based incentives on the back end? Or do you think they just want the High guarantees? Sure they may be a star, but what if? QBs know full well they will be surpassed before their contract expires, yet they do it anyway.

That brings us to the 2nd point, if Athletic Success doesn't play any factor in how successful our Merch sales are, then why wouldn't Nike be willing to pay more up front? Why do they need their contracts to be so performance driven? Thats why I'm saying we have 8 years of hindsight to go on. And we have basically sucked in football, been meh in baseball, and now are pretty good in basketball. If you're argument is even with these results we are STILL a top selling merch school, AND if it was so obvious that this would be the case, then Nike should have jumped to match the Adidas offer and keep the 30 year partnership alive. The reality is, and I'm literally using Nike doing good business as my evidence, Nike thought Adidas was paying us more than we were worth. That is the OBVIOUS reality of the situation imo. Nike thought Adidas was overpaying us, and resetting the market, and they didn't want to match.

Now the aspect about how Adidas is weaselling their way out of paying us more (like how yall are saying we are supposed to be highest paid in ACC) - if that really is the case, I agree with yall. But that imo is a problem with our administration/lawyers being dumb - NOT by itself evidence that the switch from Nike was a bad move. Because you could simply say if our lawyers had done their job and we had the legal guarantee we'd be the highest paid in the ACC, we'd be making a **** load more and the Nike offer probably wouldn't have even come close for hopefully obvious reasons.

But here's the thing. Nike knew what Miami had sold during the non-championship period from 2005-2015. And even so, they still wanted to be in business with Miami. Nike still wanted to pay Miami (potentially) a lot of money if Miami sold a lot of merch.
Click to expand...

Right, Nike knew what we sold, and wanted to be in business with us. They just didn't want to pay us what Adidas was willing to because their assesment was if they paid us more than they offered they wouldn't profit. Sure they were willing to pay us a lot of money IF we sold a lot of merch, nobody is denying that possibility. And if we didn't have much success on the field and didn't sell much merch... you know like what ended up happening the last 8 years... We're just left with our **** in our hands while we could have been sitting with tens of millions up front.

Nike just wanted to make sure that the "old deal" of converting equipment/gear into money was no longer the way that Beta Blake could enrich the deal.
Click to expand...

Wait. Am I supposed to believe Nike didn't agree to match Adidas' deal, instead choosing to not have Miami at all in their portfolio, because they didn't want us converting equipment/gear into money as a way to "enrich" the deal? lmfao, to me that would be evidence of Nike not wanting to pay us. Why should Nike get any say in whether our AD - Whether Dumbass Blake James OR Brilliant Rad - chooses to take equipment/gear or Money? Lol That makes no ******* sense If our AD is an idiot, then Nike should let him be an idiot. It should be of no concern to Nike IF the value of equipment they are sending us is really 1:1 with the cash alternative in the contract. But saying that is a major reason why they were unwilling to pay us larger up front money - matching Adidas deal - makes no sense. Again, this has NOTHING to do with whether Blake was an idiot to do that or not. This is about The Contract with Adidas and Nike and which provided more money. So saying Nike didn't want us "enriching" the contract by converting equipment to Cash doesn't help the argument that the Nike deal would have paid more lol.

And what is important to remember is how the market was changing. From 2005 to 2015, Miami relied on Harry at AllCanes and Ken at CanesWear to sell a ton of UM merch. But with the rise of Fanatics, and the trend of Nike taking more retail to its online store, you have the potential to sell a LOT more merchandise across the country, not just in SoFla.
Click to expand...

I think this is a good point. But I think this is actually the reason why the Contract length is the biggest issue with the switch to Adidas, which just so happens to be something I have REPEATEDLY agreed with @Rellyrell on lol. That is CLEARLY imo the biggest mistake of the Adidas deal. I have zero issue - even after all these months of arguing about which deal would have paid more - with the payment structure. I don't care whether we are paid all on the front-end or all on the backend, as long as we get the most money possible - and in this case I think in the past 8 years the Adidas structure was actually smarter. The problem has always been the contract length and the actual management of the contract itself (talking about Adidas not holding their end of the deal or whatever). So when you say how the market for merch sales has changed (increased due to fanatics and general online increase), that would NOT have been an issue if our contract was up anytime from 2 years ago to now. Because we'd be entering the market again, and potentially resetting it again.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top