forums

Nike deal

Rellyrell said:
Whoa whoa there. Lol. There’s a whole lot of assumptions & misquotes thrown in this. Wow! Furthermore, our compensation by Adidas is on various platforms, so don’t patronize the board w/ that ?

1. Neither the Yahoo article posted here, nor I have said or mentioned “if” our lawyers looked over anything. Typically, remember I’m using the word “typically”, an AD is given autonomy on sports related proposals. I’m going to assume, again, “ASSUME”, Blake heard Adidas’, & UA’s pitch. I’m going to “assume” he made some concessions in which Adidas’ verbally agreed to, in which he presented it to members of the BOT. Nike, having first right to refuse (this I know factually) was given the ‘implied’ terms & agreement by Adidas in which Nike said “best to you.” Upon Nike’s & UA’s refusal to match the upfront financial terms, he was given the green light to proceed.

2. CLEARLY we weren’t aware of the ambiguous, escape language found in Adidas contract, b/c AN OUTSIDE SOURCE HAD TO TELL BLAKE THE CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT. I’ve provided tangible proof of the ambiguous language of Adidas contract that allows them hella leeway to change such terms like a landlord can change rent if rent control is not in force. That opening part is not an assumption, that’s a fact.

3. You have zero idea as to how much merchandise Miami moves b/c that’s not public information due to us being a private institution. Are you most likely correct, probably, but as stated, & I’m not sure u conscientiously glossed over this tidbit to be argumentative or if u just failed to completely read, but I said royalties + “bowls”. Which means, we were incentivized to be “good!” Would u look at that. Lol

4. Which brings me to this: The problem w/ this narrative of Nike “low balling us” is predicated on the proposal by Adidas. Hence, I gave context on how much Bama was making, w/ Bama being a tier 1 school. The problem w/ Blake, & have always been w/ Blake, is that he wanted financial commitment w/o sports commitment. That’s y the Nike deal was no good, b/c it took ‘commitment’ on our part to be compensated. Do u know y Clemson, & Bama don’t mind not seeing 8 figure up front deals? B/c their commitment allows them to make 8 figures on the backend from royalties & bowl games. Blake has looked to be pacified for being mediocre. Well, sorry, neither Nike nor UA was willing to overpay for mediocrity & that’s just the real.
Click to expand...
Do you know what the incentives are in these sponsorship deals?
I mean if they’re giving Bama x amount of dollars do they also get x amount of dollars for making the playoffs or winning a ****le?

What about other incentives like equipment or the sharing of Information with the Nike sports research lab.

Nike is always looking towards the future. I’ve always been weary of Nike and their ties with agents and the desire for Nike to push the most talented kids to Nike schools.

It’s also concerning the number of Nike athletes that are represented by IMG.
IMG also acquired ISP in 2010. ISP had exclusive marketing and licensing agreements with over 50 universities including ND Alabama Aurburn and UGA.

So can we please go back to being a Nike school. Lol
 
Advertisement
calinative umstudent said:
Wow what a difference between first and second! That’s really changing everything huh lol. That’s what you’re really gunna use as your main point to say I’m not comprehending what your saying? Lol I guess if that’s all you got go for it. You’re the one that said $7.5m not me.

At the end of the day You could just say if you actually think in the past 7 years we would have received more money with Nike over Adidas, but you won’t say that which basically proves the point. I’d be happy to agree with you if that were the case, but your refusal to say so makes me not believe it.

I didn’t use quotes either btw because it wasn’t a direct quote.
Click to expand...

I’m going to assume since u enrolled at The U, the academic rankings went down.
 
pacusmc said:
Do you know what the incentives are in these sponsorship deals?
I mean if they’re giving Bama x amount of dollars do they also get x amount of dollars for making the playoffs or winning a ****le?

What about other incentives like equipment or the sharing of Information with the Nike sports research lab.

Nike is always looking towards the future. I’ve always been weary of Nike and their ties with agents and the desire for Nike to push the most talented kids to Nike schools.

It’s also concerning the number of Nike athletes that are represented by IMG.
IMG also acquired ISP in 2010. ISP had exclusive marketing and licensing agreements with over 50 universities including ND Alabama Aurburn and UGA.

So can we please go back to being a Nike school. Lol
Click to expand...

Yeah; so basically as I was trying to explain to a numbnut or sagtit on here, The Nike Contracts typically contain signing bonuses, cash deals, equipment, royalties, & other bonuses for bowl games. In FSU’s case, Nike was also funding Bobby Bowden’s scholarship, & if I’m not mistaken, I think I saw a fan say they provided payment each yr for two FSU interns . The latter is not found in the $ amount given to FSU directly.

Like u said, Nike looks towards the future. All I was trying to explain that Blake signed a stupid deal b/c the fine print allowed leeway for Adidas, & u never sign a 12 yr deal w/ a new apparel company, b/c u handcuff urself to their terms. At the most, u sign for 10 if they r breaking u off 9 figures, but typically 8.

Furthermore, the point was Nike didn’t low ball us; they provided a base contract of $2+m w/ royalties, signing bonus (forgot that part), & bowl game incentives based upon our production for well over 15 yrs. But to ur ? regarding Bama, all those Nat’l title T-shirts w/ the swoosh, along w/ their regular fan apparel, jersey sells…anything Bama + Nike, every yr, they get 15% of total sells which is not apart of that evaluation of $5.3m/yr.

So the argument of Adidas is paying more is only b/c of the $ amount posted. I was simply trying to educate that “yes” Adidas is paying more up front $ based upon equipment + cash, but that didn’t mean based upon conditions of the Nike contract, our potential was to make $ per proposed language. The problem is, that means we would’ve had to field a competitive team.

Anyways, Rad got the same deal for Clemson & was very comfortable w/ the entire deal b/c of branding, image, & back end compensation. Same thing w/ Hamond w/ Jumpman, same w/ Tennessee. This wasn’t about if Blake signed a bad contract b/c Adidas paid us more $ that this dumbass (and Idgaf if they are a male, female, or non-pronoun, a dumbass is a dumbass), he signed a bad contract b/c of the length, he didn’t thoroughly vet the language, & got screwed on his own deal in place, despite the $.
 
Pearson704 said:
That's apples to oranges; I'm talking about comparing Miami with Adidas to Miami with Nike. Miami has a different brand than Bama. Bama wins a lot but I wouldn't compare the []__[] to any other school.
Click to expand...
We're talking money here.
I don't get why y'all keep acting like fruit can't be compared as of that's a valid argument. The Nike deal and Adidas deal literally can be compared. We have 7 years to go off of already. So Which provided more money? How many more times does that question need to be straight up asked and avoided?
 
Rellyrell said:
Yeah; so basically as I was trying to explain to a numbnut or sagtit on here, The Nike Contracts typically contain signing bonuses, cash deals, equipment, royalties, & other bonuses for bowl games. In FSU’s case, Nike was also funding Bobby Bowden’s scholarship, & if I’m not mistaken, I think I saw a fan say they provided payment each yr for two FSU interns . The latter is not found in the $ amount given to FSU directly.

Like u said, Nike looks towards the future. All I was trying to explain that Blake signed a stupid deal b/c the fine print allowed leeway for Adidas, & u never sign a 12 yr deal w/ a new apparel company, b/c u handcuff urself to their terms. At the most, u sign for 10 if they r breaking u off 9 figures, but typically 8.

Furthermore, the point was Nike didn’t low ball us; they provided a base contract of $2+m w/ royalties, signing bonus (forgot that part), & bowl game incentives based upon our production for well over 15 yrs. But to ur ? regarding Bama, all those Nat’l title T-shirts w/ the swoosh, along w/ their regular fan apparel, jersey sells…anything Bama + Nike, every yr, they get 15% of total sells which is not apart of that evaluation of $5.3m/yr.

So the argument of Adidas is paying more is only b/c of the $ amount posted. I was simply trying to educate that “yes” Adidas is paying more up front $ based upon equipment + cash, but that didn’t mean based upon conditions of the Nike contract, our potential was to make $ per proposed language. The problem is, that means we would’ve had to field a competitive team.

Anyways, Rad got the same deal for Clemson & was very comfortable w/ the entire deal b/c of branding, image, & back end compensation. Same thing w/ Hamond w/ Jumpman, same w/ Tennessee. This wasn’t about if Blake signed a bad contract b/c Adidas paid us more $ that this dumbass (and Idgaf if they are a male, female, or non-pronoun, a dumbass is a dumbass), he signed a bad contract b/c of the length, he didn’t thoroughly vet the language, & got screwed on his own deal in place, despite the $.
Click to expand...
Watch out rellyrell I don't care one bit, but @OriginalGatorHater really does and might call you a fat fishy ***** for not tagging me in this lol.

If you actually read my responses to you throughout this entire thread the funny thing is 1. I never said Nike lowballed us in this thread 2. I agreed the contract length was bad 3. Am fully taking you for your word that Adidas weaseled their way out of paying us more than we were led to believe.... Yet all that can be true and we can still be getting more money than Nike would have paid us.

Anyways You've shared valuable information in this thread about Nikes offer. In hindsight it seems like the switch to Adidas has worked out decently well these last 7 years. I'll take more total money and the best uniforms we've had in 20years. Tbd if these next 5 will be the same or better. I hope they will be and that we get as much money as possible. Wonder how many people in this thread want that for the U or just want to be with Nike no matter what....
 
Advertisement
calinative umstudent said:
We're talking money here.
I don't get why y'all keep acting like fruit can't be compared as of that's a valid argument. The Nike deal and Adidas deal literally can be compared. We have 7 years to go off of already. So Which provided more money? How many more times does that question need to be straight up asked and avoided?
Click to expand...
you can compare deals for an individual school, but not schools themselves; way too many confounding variables.
 
4AFD4851-EF51-43E3-A01C-C3B63435E7CA.jpeg


No words needed
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Back
Top