Nike deal

[calinative umstudent]

I didn't say I controlled anyone's posts.

I was just pointing out what a bull**** excuse it was. You claimed you were satisfying your curiosity by googling Silicon Valley Bank, but the reality of why you posted about it was to nitpick @Rellyrell 's post, not because you were "curious".

Man your God complex is really taking over right now huh. You really don't know why I post anything lol. Of course Rather than accepting what other people say, you always try to interpret everything as an attack, I assume probably cause that's your mentality. Anyways...

 

[calinative umstudent]

To make @Angry Ibis less angry, I will be (relatively) brief, in contrast to your dense nonsense.

First, I'm going to laugh at your appeal to laziness. Sure, we should take a bloated guarantee so that we can just be a fat blood-filled tick that doesn't have to win games or make an effort to sell our merchandise.

Second, I'm also laughing at your lack of real-world experience in such matters. While you CONTINUE to make your same one argument over and over again (guarantees > royalties), I've actually lived in the world of sports and royalties and I know how the math works. And while I'm not saying that adidas would ever default on a guarantee, I have witnessed a major merchandise company failing to make its guaranteed payments, and it's brutal.

Finally, I would point out that your inexperience and unawareness of how the industry works is evidenced in your final paragraph. You are so insanely obsessed with "textbook business school concepts" that you make idiotic conclusions. "What is stopping them from lowering the royalties on those sales in future contracts"? Give me a ******* break. Based on your moronic grasp of business, we should conclude that the REAL end game for Nike is to put everyone out of business, and the lower the royalties to zero. Suuuuure.

But that's not what happens. There are industry standards. And if you honestly believe that Nike is so rapacious and greedy and willing to shaft its business partners, then a NATURAL opportunity will arise for adidas and Under Armour to revitalize themselves simply by paying a higher royalty. It's not just "actual competition" that can be a force in business; "fear of increased competition" can also guide a dominant company to NOT **** over its business partners.

I realize that you will NEVER put your business textbooks down in order to observe how things work in the industry, and you will NEVER give up on the crazy idea that "guarantees are better than royalties".

And that's why you're wrong and people don't listen to your predictable ravings. We only respond to you so that less discerning posters don't assume you know something.

Guaranteed $100M is better than a 15% chance at <$100M, 75% chance at $100M, and a 10% chance at >$100M. Royalties are only better if they result in more money - which they are absolutely NOT guaranteed to do lol. Obvious, but somehow you don't like that fact. I've never said Royalties CAN'T be better than Up Front money lol. Its all about what is more probable to occur.

And I laugh that you think "Laziness" is somehow less smart? If we can make $20M for no performance requirements, that IS objectively better FOR US. Idk why you think that having performance requirements in an apparel deal is somehow going to make us more likely to win on the field. If THAT is the motivation we need we are going to fail period.

The funny thing about you failing to attempt to discredit the importance of competition is that you yourself said Adidas isn't trying to exit, they are just being beat out by better offers from Nike... So Adidas doing things like getting us away from Nike lead to Nike upping their offers and now spending more money than they were before. I also didn't say Nikes End-Goal is to put everyone out of business and then lower their payouts. Thats Amazons playbook.... But if there is no competition, that will be the inevitable result.

Guarantees aren't intrinsically better than Royalties. I've never said they were, unlike you claiming Royalties are better. I'm saying Large enough guarantees that they sufficiently are more probable to earn more money are obviously better. And in an IDEAL DEAL unlike what you were claiming, having a Guaranteed Up Front #1 payout without having to sell as the #1 apparel school is OBVIOUSLY better.

 

[calinative umstudent]

I’ll try to be as concise as possible:

1. In the short term, The Adidas deal appeared to be the better deal, particularly for the 2015 season.

2. The 2016-18 seasons, in my honest opinion would’ve been a far and away better deal w/ Nike simply b/c of the reinvigoration of the program, & merchandise was selling…a lot of that merchandise was from 3 party retailers, too.

At the end of the day, Blake did what he “felt” was in the best interest of the school, but also what was in his best interest to make a statement as an AD. The problem is, & the issue I had w/ Blake, he was not qualified to be an AD here. His experience was ticket sales.

A lot of decisions he made were very short sighted, and not thoroughly vetted. When the scathing report came out how he didn’t understand language used in our contract w/ Adidas, that gave a glimpse into his qualifications. So it made all the sense in the world the lack of respect shown by Golden & Diaz towards him.

Here’s what’s crazy about the Adidas contract:
-We were told, promised that we would be the flagship program of the ACC, & neither a state school or ACC school would have a more lucrative contract than us.

Our contract is approx. 12 yr/$80

UL during this same period, signed a 10yr/$160m contract! A major part of this was nepotism as Tom Jurich’s daughter is an executive in their marketing dept. Not only does this violate Adidas’ own conflict of interest clause, but it also violates the stipulation that was found in our contract, being that UL is an ACC school.

Since our “marquee” contract in which Adidas was going to showcase & rebrand us:

KU: 14yr/$196m
UL: 10yr/$160m
UW: 10yr/$119m
Neb: 11yr/$128m
IU:$8yr/$54m

*TAMU haven’t released details of their new extension in 2022, but their previous contract was between $7.1 - $7.8m/yr.

I’m just saying, we low key got shafted on the deal & that’s b/c Blake overplayed his hand, while not sitting down & throughly vetting the complete picture.

I recall reading about why UTenn left Adidas, despite more $$, & the AD said, in part, that they had to look at the totality of the contract which included branding, brand recognition, apparel, global reach, finances, & it made sense to go w/ the “perceived” lower offer. So far, it appears UTenn is doing just fine financially. Ironically, Alabama, too, is perceived to have a low contract w/ Nike, yet they’re now reported to be 3rd in revenue despite Texas A&M’s contract “dwarfing” their Nike contract.

That’s the power of back end revenue.

So if we had better contract lawyers that made it impossible to not get what we were promised, we'd end up getting matched to Louisvilles $16M/yr... Sounds like a good deal to me as far as the money is concerned. Just too long, and not properly vetted. Of course that means the actual issue wasn't whether the money was guaranteed up front or in the form of royalties on the back end...

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Guaranteed $100M is better than a 15% chance at <$100M, 75% chance at $100M, and a 10% chance at >$100M. Royalties are only better if they result in more money - which they are absolutely NOT guaranteed to do lol. Obvious, but somehow you don't like that fact. I've never said Royalties CAN'T be better than Up Front money lol. Its all about what is more probable to occur.

And I laugh that you think "Laziness" is somehow less smart? If we can make $20M for no performance requirements, that IS objectively better FOR US. Idk why you think that having performance requirements in an apparel deal is somehow going to make us more likely to win on the field. If THAT is the motivation we need we are going to fail period.

The funny thing about you failing to attempt to discredit the importance of competition is that you yourself said Adidas isn't trying to exit, they are just being beat out by better offers from Nike... So Adidas doing things like getting us away from Nike lead to Nike upping their offers and now spending more money than they were before. I also didn't say Nikes End-Goal is to put everyone out of business and then lower their payouts. Thats Amazons playbook.... But if there is no competition, that will be the inevitable result.

Guarantees aren't intrinsically better than Royalties. I've never said they were, unlike you claiming Royalties are better. I'm saying Large enough guarantees that they sufficiently are more probable to earn more money are obviously better. And in an IDEAL DEAL unlike what you were claiming, having a Guaranteed Up Front #1 payout without having to sell as the #1 apparel school is OBVIOUSLY better.

I can always tell when an uniformed person begins making **** up. That's when the fake hypotheticals start.

Before I even get to the "guaranteed $100M" silliness, I'll just point out that @Rellyrell says the number is $80M.

And as for your "15% chance" and "75% chance" and "10% chance" nonsense, I'm just going to laugh. And marvel at how that kind of fake-logical argument bamboozles some people on the board.

Royalties are NOT "only better if they result in more money". There are a lot of elements to a royalty arrangement. And money is just money. You can pick ANY guaranteed number, and you will either exceed it or not exceed it. There is never a "75% chance that you hit the number right on the head".

It doesn't matter if a royalty-heavy deal resulted in 78.8 million or 80.2 million compared to the 80 million guarantee. It just doesn't matter.

What is truly illuminating here is that Beta Blake felt that the 80 million guarantee was SOOOOOOOO much better than he would have earned under the Nike royalties arrangement. And THAT is disturbing. Because to judge the numbers given BY NIKE AND ADIDAS to many other schools within a few years of the Miami deal in 2015, the merch business is good. **** GOOD. Good enough to be forking out MUCH more money than what UM is getting.

So instead of using your bullcrap "15%/75%/10%" model, look at it the way businessmen actually look at it. If you have an $80M 12 year deal on the table (which is just south of $7M per year), then you can establish a range. If you think you could have a variance of $1M per year (which is plus/minus less than 15%). Now, I'm not trying to crap on a million dollars, but our overall revenue is over $130 million. But what the $1M range does is to say, could we live with a ROYALTY range between 58 million over 12 years and 92 million over 12 years. Because if you do not think the Royalty model can bring you even $58 million, then you are clearly better with the "guarantee". And if you think you can make more than $92 million on royalties, then you clearly reject the guarantee.

And my point about THAT analysis (which is far superior to your percentages nonsense) is that nobody can predict the number with perfect specificity. But if you come up a bit short or a bit over, it's not a big deal.

But when you compare the numbers that @Rellyrell has given, it is obvious that even adidas is capable of paying more than 10M per year for these deals, let alone what Nike was paying. And even if UM got a "raise" because of Louisville, it just makes it OBVIOUS that signing a long-term "guarantee" deal is stupid. Painfully stupid.

On top of the obvious point. If you do a royalty deal, and the price of merch goes up over 12 years, you make more and more money AS A FUNCTION OF MATH. Not because you got a raise. Simply because you get a percentage of every dollar of merch sold.

Finally, I'm just going to leave you with this. You are fighting so many people that you can't even remember who said what, or what they said. I have NEVER said royalty arrangements are ALWAYS better than a guarantee. I've said that AS IT RELATES TO MIAMI, which is a brand (particularly with the U logo) that has cachet and recognizability beyond our current W-L record. I've said that royalties are better FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI. Nothing more, nothing less. And as for adidas exiting contracts or not, that is an issue that @Rellyrell discusses. I've simply pointed out that the adidas roster of universities is uninspiring. And recruits know that too.

Anyhow, enjoy your fever delusion that there would ever be a 75% chance that a 12-year contractual guarantee would turn out to be the EXACT SAME NUMBER as you would have had under a royalty arrangement.

Hilarious.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

So if we had better contract lawyers that made it impossible to not get what we were promised, we'd end up getting matched to Louisvilles $16M/yr... Sounds like a good deal to me as far as the money is concerned. Just too long, and not properly vetted. Of course that means the actual issue wasn't whether the money was guaranteed up front or in the form of royalties on the back end...

You can always tell the point where a @calinative umstudent post loses all semblance of sanity...

...it's as soon as you see the words "Sounds like a good deal to me"...

 

[calinative umstudent]

I can always tell when an uniformed person begins making **** up. That's when the fake hypotheticals start.

Before I even get to the "guaranteed $100M" silliness, I'll just point out that @Rellyrell says the number is $80M.

And as for your "15% chance" and "75% chance" and "10% chance" nonsense, I'm just going to laugh. And marvel at how that kind of fake-logical argument bamboozles some people on the board.

Royalties are NOT "only better if they result in more money". There are a lot of elements to a royalty arrangement. And money is just money. You can pick ANY guaranteed number, and you will either exceed it or not exceed it. There is never a "75% chance that you hit the number right on the head".

It doesn't matter if a royalty-heavy deal resulted in 78.8 million or 80.2 million compared to the 80 million guarantee. It just doesn't matter.

What is truly illuminating here is that Beta Blake felt that the 80 million guarantee was SOOOOOOOO much better than he would have earned under the Nike royalties arrangement. And THAT is disturbing. Because to judge the numbers given BY NIKE AND ADIDAS to many other schools within a few years of the Miami deal in 2015, the merch business is good. **** GOOD. Good enough to be forking out MUCH more money than what UM is getting.

So instead of using your bullcrap "15%/75%/10%" model, look at it the way businessmen actually look at it. If you have an $80M 12 year deal on the table (which is just south of $7M per year), then you can establish a range. If you think you could have a variance of $1M per year (which is plus/minus less than 15%). Now, I'm not trying to crap on a million dollars, but our overall revenue is over $130 million. But what the $1M range does is to say, could we live with a ROYALTY range between 58 million over 12 years and 92 million over 12 years. Because if you do not think the Royalty model can bring you even $58 million, then you are clearly better with the "guarantee". And if you think you can make more than $92 million on royalties, then you clearly reject the guarantee.

And my point about THAT analysis (which is far superior to your percentages nonsense) is that nobody can predict the number with perfect specificity. But if you come up a bit short or a bit over, it's not a big deal.

But when you compare the numbers that @Rellyrell has given, it is obvious that even adidas is capable of paying more than 10M per year for these deals, let alone what Nike was paying. And even if UM got a "raise" because of Louisville, it just makes it OBVIOUS that signing a long-term "guarantee" deal is stupid. Painfully stupid.

On top of the obvious point. If you do a royalty deal, and the price of merch goes up over 12 years, you make more and more money AS A FUNCTION OF MATH. Not because you got a raise. Simply because you get a percentage of every dollar of merch sold.

Finally, I'm just going to leave you with this. You are fighting so many people that you can't even remember who said what, or what they said. I have NEVER said royalty arrangements are ALWAYS better than a guarantee. I've said that AS IT RELATES TO MIAMI, which is a brand (particularly with the U logo) that has cachet and recognizability beyond our current W-L record. I've said that royalties are better FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF MIAMI. Nothing more, nothing less. And as for adidas exiting contracts or not, that is an issue that @Rellyrell discusses. I've simply pointed out that the adidas roster of universities is uninspiring. And recruits know that too.

Anyhow, enjoy your fever delusion that there would ever be a 75% chance that a 12-year contractual guarantee would turn out to be the EXACT SAME NUMBER as you would have had under a royalty arrangement.

Hilarious.

I didn't say "there is a 75% chance that you hit that number right on the head" lol. Again it really is funny that when I just said 15%, 75% 10% you took that to mean EXACT numbers, and not a range like any reasonable person would assume. Bro how you can't comprehend that saying $100M was an example using a nice round number is just insane. Your ability to twist literally anything and not just actually attempt to be reasonable is absolutely unmatched on here. When I say 75% chance at $100M That OBVIOUSLY would be equivalent to you saying

It doesn't matter if a royalty-heavy deal resulted in 78.8 million or 80.2 million compared to the 80 million guarantee

Anyways after typing all that, your main actual point is how the actual negative is really about the length of the contract.....yet again. I guess once again I must point out that you are completely ignoring the fact that I have repeatedly said the length of the contract is a huge issue.

 

[calinative umstudent]

You can always tell the point where a @calinative umstudent post loses all semblance of sanity...

...it's as soon as you see the words "Sounds like a good deal to me"...

So $16M guaranteed up front wouldn't have been good now? Meanwhile yall have been barely willing to say Nikes deal for us to renew at that time would have paid us more than Adidas which is only like $8M/yr, and almost entirely dependent on the fact that Adidas deal was just too long.

Ight how about this, lets make this completely simple, and you list what you think the top 10 schools in the country wer making in total on their apparel deal per year until now.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

So $16M guaranteed up front wouldn't have been good now? Meanwhile yall have been barely willing to say Nikes deal for us to renew at that time would have paid us more than Adidas which is only like $8M/yr, and almost entirely dependent on the fact that Adidas deal was just too long.

Ight how about this, lets make this completely simple, and you list what you think the top 10 schools in the country wer making in total on their apparel deal per year until now.

I've already said we would have made more with a royalty deal.

And I've complained about multiple elements of the contract, including but not limited to the 12-year term.

Look, I get that you're trying to make a valiant effort here, but you have no experience in this area. You just don't know what you're talking about.

 

[calinative umstudent]

I've already said we would have made more with a royalty deal.

And I've complained about multiple elements of the contract, including but not limited to the 12-year term.

Look, I get that you're trying to make a valiant effort here, but you have no experience in this area. You just don't know what you're talking about.

Ight how about this, lets make this completely simple, and you list what you think the top 10 schools in the country wer making in total on their apparel deal per year until now.

 

[Rellyrell]

Guaranteed $100M is better than a 15% chance at <$100M, 75% chance at $100M, and a 10% chance at >$100M. Royalties are only better if they result in more money - which they are absolutely NOT guaranteed to do lol. Obvious, but somehow you don't like that fact. I've never said Royalties CAN'T be better than Up Front money lol. Its all about what is more probable to occur.

And I laugh that you think "Laziness" is somehow less smart? If we can make $20M for no performance requirements, that IS objectively better FOR US. Idk why you think that having performance requirements in an apparel deal is somehow going to make us more likely to win on the field. If THAT is the motivation we need we are going to fail period.

The funny thing about you failing to attempt to discredit the importance of competition is that you yourself said Adidas isn't trying to exit, they are just being beat out by better offers from Nike... So Adidas doing things like getting us away from Nike lead to Nike upping their offers and now spending more money than they were before. I also didn't say Nikes End-Goal is to put everyone out of business and then lower their payouts. Thats Amazons playbook.... But if there is no competition, that will be the inevitable result.

Guarantees aren't intrinsically better than Royalties. I've never said they were, unlike you claiming Royalties are better. I'm saying Large enough guarantees that they sufficiently are more probable to earn more money are obviously better. And in an IDEAL DEAL unlike what you were claiming, having a Guaranteed Up Front #1 payout without having to sell as the #1 apparel school is OBVIOUSLY better.

Ummmmm this is a poor, or better yet an inaccurate example you used.

The example should’ve been 12 yr/$100m is better than 12 yr/$60m + % of royalties. The reason why you wouldn’t use such an example is b/c in the long run, that 12 yr/$60m contract will indeed outperform that 12 yr/$100m contract.

Allow me to furnish u an example of Texas. In 2005, Texas garnished $8.2m in royalties. So this is back in 2005…let’s just say for the sake of argument, Miami’s royalties starting in 2015 would be around $4m/yr. That would put that same 12 yr/$60m at 12yr/$108m; furthermore, I didn’t even include escalators from team performances which mutually benefits Nike. That’s y it’s best to look at the totality of the contract vs. one segment.

Lastly, Nike is not trying to put everyone out of business. Lol. Competition is what grows a company, & clearly set one above the other.

 

[Rellyrell]

@calinative umstudent

I’m going to provide a detailed look in to all of the other features of OSU’s contract. I want u to peer into, not the sum of their contract, but rather the other incentives that benefited the entirety of the University, including non student-athletes.

How Ohio State's 15-year, $252 Million Contract With Nike Measures Up to Michigan, Texas Deals

Ohio State's $252 million apparel deal with Nike is the most lucrative in college athletics. Here is how it stacks up with that of Texas and Michigan.

www.elevenwarriors.com

 

[calinative umstudent]

@calinative umstudent

I’m going to provide a detailed look in to all of the other features of OSU’s contract. I want u to peer into, not the sum of their contract, but rather the other incentives that benefited the entirety of the University, including non student-athletes.

How Ohio State's 15-year, $252 Million Contract With Nike Measures Up to Michigan, Texas Deals

Ohio State's $252 million apparel deal with Nike is the most lucrative in college athletics. Here is how it stacks up with that of Texas and Michigan.

www.elevenwarriors.com

"Historically, you haven't seen a lot of that in Nike deals," Kish said. "Adidas, from reading a lot of these contracts, pioneered those sorts of 'sweeteners.' T-shirts for the student sections, student events, for example. But I think there's more demand for that because universities see the value in providing stuff to the student body. Not just to athletes."

"Under Armour's presence pushed Nike to lock up the programs dearest to its longterm success."

"Ohio State's deal is the most lucrative in college athletics, followed behind Texas and then Michigan. Florida State (Nike), LSU (Nike), Louisville (Adidas), Kansas (Adidas), UCLA (Adidas) round out the top eight. Kish said the contracts for Florida State and Florida were extended way before the completion of the prior agreements, just like Texas, Michigan and Ohio State. That makes Nike's goal clear. Nike is being very aggressive about locking up its most elite programs because they're very valuable relationships for sportswear companies," Kish said."


So based on those comments IF our actual contract was met and we at least had that contract that Adidas gave Louisville, by this article we would have had a top 6 Apparel deal... So again we come back to poorly written/agreed to contract and too long of a contract...

Idk what so crazy about saying Nike didn't value us nearly as much as yall want to make it out to be.... Or maybe us leaving pushed them to not let other programs they valued so highly to leave by extending better offers.

 

[Rellyrell]

"Historically, you haven't seen a lot of that in Nike deals," Kish said. "Adidas, from reading a lot of these contracts, pioneered those sorts of 'sweeteners.' T-shirts for the student sections, student events, for example. But I think there's more demand for that because universities see the value in providing stuff to the student body. Not just to athletes."

"Under Armour's presence pushed Nike to lock up the programs dearest to its longterm success."

"Ohio State's deal is the most lucrative in college athletics, followed behind Texas and then Michigan. Florida State (Nike), LSU (Nike), Louisville (Adidas), Kansas (Adidas), UCLA (Adidas) round out the top eight. Kish said the contracts for Florida State and Florida were extended way before the completion of the prior agreements, just like Texas, Michigan and Ohio State. That makes Nike's goal clear. Nike is being very aggressive about locking up its most elite programs because they're very valuable relationships for sportswear companies," Kish said."


So based on those comments IF our actual contract was met and we at least had that contract that Adidas gave Louisville, by this article we would have had a top 6 Apparel deal... So again we come back to poorly written/agreed to contract and too long of a contract...

Idk what so crazy about saying Nike didn't value us nearly as much as yall want to make it out to be.... Or maybe us leaving pushed them to not let other programs they valued so highly to leave by extending better offers.

I asked u to do one thing & u couldn’t do it. This is an older article, and I told u to focus, not on the $$ aspect, but the add’l incentives for non-student athletes & u just can’t help urself. That language regarding non-student athletes have been around forever, & I know this b/c my ex gf from SC was a recipient of said benefit way back in 2004.

Also, I love how u’re using the word “if” as a rebuttal.

No one has to make anything out to be something it’s not. I’ve given plenty examples throughout various threads on this, including Alabama’s deal that would’ve been $2m/yr more than ours, approx. in its current construct. I laid out a whole contract scenario using direct language found in a current Nike contract w/ another University & we did the math together!

Yet, here we r once again. So my friend, as I say w/ others w whom I no longer feel the need to waste my time or thumb on…God bless u & have a great day on this mighty fine Weds.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

Idk what so crazy about saying Nike didn't value us nearly as much as yall want to make it out to be.... Or maybe us leaving pushed them to not let other programs they valued so highly to leave by extending better offers.

We've explained this. Many times.

Blake James...was converting Nike equipment/gear...into cash payments...and then blaming Nike...and Nike didn't like that.

About a thousand times, you have repeated the lie of "Nike didn't value us". That's just untrue. We were their first all-apparel university. Nike loves the University of Miami.

But Beta Blake was ******* around. And Nike didn't want to be blamed for **** that they didn't cause.

Please stop inventing false stories, about how Nike "didn't value" UM.

 

[TheOriginalCane]

I asked u to do one thing & u couldn’t do it. This is an older article, and I told u to focus, not on the $$ aspect, but the add’l incentives for non-student athletes & u just can’t help urself. That language regarding non-student athletes have been around forever, & I know this b/c my ex gf from SC was a recipient of said benefit way back in 2004.

Also, I love how u’re using the word “if” as a rebuttal.

No one has to make anything out to be something it’s not. I’ve given plenty examples throughout various threads on this, including Alabama’s deal that would’ve been $2m/yr more than ours, approx. in its current construct. I laid out a whole contract scenario using direct language found in a current Nike contract w/ another University & we did the math together!

Yet, here we r once again. So my friend, as I say w/ others w whom I no longer feel the need to waste my time or thumb on…God bless u & have a great day on this mighty fine Weds.

He's just a game-playing troll. He has no intention of engaging in honest debate. He's going to keep repeating 10-year-old falsehoods ("Nike didn't value UM" and "Nike wouldn't give us new equipment" and "Nike gear was sub-standard") and then get into a ****ing contest with you over Silicon Valley Bank having a bigger stock crash than Under Armour.

He has been provided factual information for 56 pages on here and over 100 pages on the other thread.

He is going to continue to tell us that a "guarantee" contract is superior to a royalties contract.

He is going to continue to try to rehabilitate his past postings by telling us that he was ALWAYS concerned about the excessive length of the contract.

He is going to continue to tell us that the ONLY things wrong with the adidas contract is that it was poorly drafted (and too many years).

He is going to continue to ignore well-supported arguments and then fixate on one or two technicalities while acting like he has undermined everything that we've said.

It just doesn't matter. When the deal goes down, I'm going to box up all my crappy adidas gear and send it to his house. He loves adidas so much. He defends Beta Blake at every turn. He continues to claim that the adidas contract was so amazing and groundbreaking and lucrative.

Nothing will dent his thick skull.

 

[Rellyrell]

He's just a game-playing troll. He has no intention of engaging in honest debate. He's going to keep repeating 10-year-old falsehoods ("Nike didn't value UM" and "Nike wouldn't give us new equipment" and "Nike gear was sub-standard") and then get into a ****ing contest with you over Silicon Valley Bank having a bigger stock crash than Under Armour.

He has been provided factual information for 56 pages on here and over 100 pages on the other thread.

He is going to continue to tell us that a "guarantee" contract is superior to a royalties contract.

He is going to continue to try to rehabilitate his past postings by telling us that he was ALWAYS concerned about the excessive length of the contract.

He is going to continue to tell us that the ONLY things wrong with the adidas contract is that it was poorly drafted (and too many years).

He is going to continue to ignore well-supported arguments and then fixate on one or two technicalities while acting like he has undermined everything that we've said.

It just doesn't matter. When the deal goes down, I'm going to box up all my crappy adidas gear and send it to his house. He loves adidas so much. He defends Beta Blake at every turn. He continues to claim that the adidas contract was so amazing and groundbreaking and lucrative.

Nothing will dent his thick skull.

But, but, but he states he’s a Nike guy, though. Lol. There’s two posters who have both claimed to be “Nike guys” & both have gone out of their way to spew false narratives to support a move that faced major blow back from the vast of alums that bled for this program.

Oh, did u see Mario’s new Legend Camp invites?

 

[st21wa]

But, but, but he states he’s a Nike guy, though. Lol. There’s two posters who have both claimed to be “Nike guys” & both have gone out of their way to spew false narratives to support a move that faced major blow back from the vast of alums that bled for this program.

Oh, did u see Mario’s new Legend Camp invites?

Do tell about these Legend Camp invites.

 

[calinative umstudent]

We've explained this. Many times.

Blake James...was converting Nike equipment/gear...into cash payments...and then blaming Nike...and Nike didn't like that.

About a thousand times, you have repeated the lie of "Nike didn't value us". That's just untrue. We were their first all-apparel university. Nike loves the University of Miami.

But Beta Blake was ******* around. And Nike didn't want to be blamed for **** that they didn't cause.

Please stop inventing false stories, about how Nike "didn't value" UM.

Lets play a game called spot the difference:

"Nike didn't value us nearly as much as yall want to make it out to be"

vs

"Nike didn't value us"

Hmm I wonder if one quote is trying to intentionally be misleading or not... hmmm.

 

[Rellyrell]

Do tell about these Legend Camp invites.

Look closely:

2024 - Legends Camp June 22, 2023 (2024 Edition)

June 22 will be Legends camp and also the biggest recruiting OV weekend of the year. Visitors Recruit Year Position Stars UVs Zachary ‘Zac’ Katz 27 QB 1 Carter Smith 25 QB 3* Dia Bell 26 QB Jackson Kollock 25 QB 3* Marquise Davis 25 RB 4* Waden Charles 26 WR 4* Joshisa...

www.canesinsight.com

 

[Angry Ibis]

Look closely:

2024 - Legends Camp June 22, 2023 (2024 Edition)

June 22 will be Legends camp and also the biggest recruiting OV weekend of the year. Visitors Recruit Year Position Stars UVs Zachary ‘Zac’ Katz 27 QB 1 Carter Smith 25 QB 3* Dia Bell 26 QB Jackson Kollock 25 QB 3* Marquise Davis 25 RB 4* Waden Charles 26 WR 4* Joshisa...

www.canesinsight.com

Nike symbol visible on the graphic