forums

WTF Adidas?

Advertisement
Fart Keyhole said:
Sir, no sir!
Click to expand...
@Fart Keyhole I think this one has even greater impact for an avatar…

IMG_9473.jpeg


Game. Blouses.

QuSTuZlh.gif


PprNNBdV.gif
 
Calinative said:
Every time you comment about This you act like it's literally impossible to estimate the expected TOTAL contract value from both sides. Lmao
It's honestly hilarious, and you continue to lie and act as if I'm only talking about Guaranteed money vs "Back-end" money or any bonuses or etc, etc, etc.

Literally I'm talking EVERYTHING $/value wise that would be transferring from Adidas to Us. What is the difference you'd be willing to accept for that to be Nike instead of Adidas purely for the brand. It's that simple if a question. Or instead of saying a dollar amount say what percentage. Are you willing to take 75% less from Nike? 50% less? 10%?... This is quite simple. If we were making $15M/yr from Adidas I'd probably say minimum id accept as the projection from Nike would be like $12M. That's about 20% less for the Brand Value and so you can stop *****ing about the fan gear. If Nike offers more than 20% less, and we stick with Adidas because of that, I'm good with it. I'm perfectly content with our uniforms as they are.
Click to expand...


Noooo...

What I'm pointing out is beyond obvious to anyone who understands the sports industry.

You can't brag about a "$300 million 10-year contract" when you will never actually receive that much cash. This shouldn't be that complicated for you to grasp. If you don't get a $30 million check each year to deposit into your general operating fund, then the "headline" of "$300M" is illusory.

That is why I have consistently parsed the "total value" of an apparel contract into the cash and non-cash components. As @Rellyrell has continued to tell us FOR YEARS, the "total value" usually breaks into thirds.

One third is the equipment and the uniforms and the corresponding banners and whatnot that you use throughout your facilities. And since EVERY school is going to get helmets and shoulder pads and footballs, where Nike adds value (and is beloved by athletes at Nike schools) is in the provision of rare or custom shoes and clothing that goes beyond what you can buy on Fanatics. But CERTAINLY, you can't just say "$100M of a $300M contract" should be included in side by side analysis, since this is a NON-CASH component of the contract (though it has a monetary value).

Another one third is the marketing activation associated with being a branding co-partner with a university. I was introduced to this stuff nearly 20 years ago when I worked at NASCAR and ISC, because regardless of whether ESPN reported on a "brand new $50M sponsorship for NASCAR", the company itself never received $50M in cash. You had to account for the non-cash components differently, including all of the branding and co-branding opportunities that arise. For instance, some of the money that Nextel or Sprint provided TO THE SPORT did not go directly to NASCAR, but would go to teams or drivers or racetracks (all of which are separate and different stakeholders). Similarly, all of the Fernando Mendoza billboards that adidas puts up are an EXPENSE to adidas, but never generates CASH for Indiana. Instead, Indiana benefits from the co-branding advertising that shows the university logos and uniforms (and players). The reason for the long explanation here is to point out that EVERYONE offers this component of a contract too, but it just so happens that with Nike being the #1 sports apparel company, its billboards and co-branding end up being MORE VALUABLE and providing more benefit than, say, adidas doing the same thing.

Finally, we always come back to the cash money, which, as I have demonstrated, is less than half of the "total value" of a merchandise contract. So if you want to yap about "should we take 20% less to be with Nike versus adidas", it cannot be expressed on the TOTAL VALUE of the contract. We will still get all of our equipment, uniforms, footballs, etc., and we will still get all of our marketing activation and co-branding. So if you said "on a $300M contract over 10 years" that the CASH COMPONENT of the deal is really $100M over 10 years, then if you took "20% less to sign with Nike over adidas", you are only talking about a loss of $2M cash per year.

Which, as I stated originally, would be a worthwhile CASH sacrifice to make to sign with the #1 apparel and shoe company. Because the other benefits would outweigh the cash "sacrifice", particularly when we can make TENS OF MILLIONS simply by winning a couple of playoff games.

I know, I know, you are going to try to spin some bull**** about "total value" to make it look like UM will be begging for change on a street corner if we re-signed with Nike, but that's just not true. Then you're going to tell me how adidas "values" UM more than Nike does, while ignoring how adidas gave MORE MONEY to Louisville within a couple of years of signing UM, while failing to honor the "most-favored-nations" clause in the contract. And somewhere along the way, you're going to try to blur the distinction between cash and non-cash values within a contract, while swearing up and down that re-signing with Nike will cost Miami way more cash than is actually true.

Whatever. You've got your agenda. I just want to sign with the #1 company, that had the ORIGINAL university-all-apparel-all-shoe contract with MIAMI (not Oregon or North Carolina). I prefer to honor our history and our legacy instead of haggling for a few more pennies, because Miami and Nike had a shared success story for the vast majority of our years together, no matter how the last couple of years went after Beta Blake's sabotage. And, yes, that includes championships. And championships are more precious than a million dollars or two.
 
TheOriginalCane said:
So if you said "on a $300M contract over 10 years" that the CASH COMPONENT of the deal is really $100M over 10 years, then if you took "20% less to sign with Nike over adidas", you are only talking about a loss of $2M cash per year.

Which, as I stated originally, would be a worthwhile CASH sacrifice to make to sign with the #1 apparel and shoe company. Because the other benefits would outweigh the cash "sacrifice", particularly when we can make TENS OF MILLIONS simply by winning a couple of playoff games.
Click to expand...
On a $300M/10 yr = projected $30M/yr. So if you were willing to take $2M/yr less than that deal to be with Nike, it'd be $2M/30M/yr would be <7% you were willing to "lose"/get paid less for being with nike than adidas. In THAT example I'd be willing to take closer to $5-6M/yr less.

The "OTHER BENEFITS" is specifically what I'm trying to get you to say YOU Value the Nike Brand association over Adidas at. Literally at no point have I actually cared HOW the dollar value is delivered to this athletic department. Specifically how many millions is it worth to be with Nike vs Adidas PURELY in brand value and all those little other benefits you constantly bring up.

TheOriginalCane said:
I know, I know, you are going to try to spin some bull**** about "total value" to make it look like UM will be begging for change on a street corner if we re-signed with Nike, but that's just not true. Then you're going to tell me how adidas "values" UM more than Nike does, while ignoring how adidas gave MORE MONEY to Louisville within a couple of years of signing UM, while failing to honor the "most-favored-nations" clause in the contract. And somewhere along the way, you're going to try to blur the distinction between cash and non-cash values within a contract, while swearing up and down that re-signing with Nike will cost Miami way more cash than is actually true.
Click to expand...
smh lol

TheOriginalCane said:
Whatever. You've got your agenda. I just want to sign with the #1 company, that had the ORIGINAL university-all-apparel-all-shoe contract with MIAMI (not Oregon or North Carolina). I prefer to honor our history and our legacy instead of haggling for a few more pennies, because Miami and Nike had a shared success story for the vast majority of our years together, no matter how the last couple of years went after Beta Blake's sabotage. And, yes, that includes championships. And championships are more precious than a million dollars or two.
Click to expand...
Okay yes, so How much money are you willing to accept not receiving from Nike to be with then, you know like I've been talking about the entire time lol. OBVIOUSLY If Nike is offering us the same or more in total value the answer is you just choose Nike period. Nobody has literally ever said anything opposite to that. Okay so IF Nike makes their offer and it's 50% less than what Adidas is offering do you take it? Do you take it if it's 20% less?

Like I said I'd be very happy to go back to Nike. I wouldn't be happy to do it at a 20% or more discount. We don't know what Nikes offer is or will be in relation to Adidas. We will only end up knowing which one is agreed upon.... So it's all hypothetical anyways, and not like our opinions chnage the result...
 
Allabouttheu95 said:
Might as well spread some game in this thread too
Click to expand...

Adidas is all in on Mendoza. This is a great marketing ploy for them; the kid from Miami, growing up near the school he grew up loving, & now he’s back home as a Heisman winner.

For Adidas, this is not a shot at us vs. promoting their NIL guy who just beat Adidas’ biggest sneaker rival’s poster child Univ. in NikeU. I paid attention to how each victory’s IG was handled for us vs. IU:

For us, it was a simple: “It’s a Fiesta”, but for IU it was “Duck, Duck, Whooo?” That was a big moment for the brand, no shade to us. I’ve long shared w this board that Adidas’ will focus on one darling at a time. They do not have the marketing infrastructure to promote others, for w/e reason.

I gave the example of Ward last yr, how it was all He1sman promotions, UNTIL Hunter became the favorite. Not only did Adidas shift its marketing campaign to Travis, but they gave him his own line, and Cam became an after thought.

Ffwd to 2025-26; when Mendoza became the heavy favorite, Adidas’ marketing team was not just behind Mendoza, but IU as a whole (a long, long, LONG time partner of Adidas). So their marketing is going to be focused on their pride & joy “for this season.”

The fact we still have fans caping 4 this is quite humorous to me despite the tangible evidence. Regardless, it’s a win-win for Adidas this yr, but for marketing purposes, I can tell u who they prefer. But, I’ll allow a few members continue to say “but, they r paying more.”
 
Advertisement
RVACane said:
@Rellyrell


F Adidas

🤮

Who would actually want adidas over Nike??? Nike is worth more paying us less. Big boost in brand appeal, merchandising and recruiting. I literally will not buy a Toney jersey because I don’t want that 3 stripe logo.
Click to expand...

It absolutely HURT for me to buy this...but I had to for the National Championship Logo. Had to have it. But other than that, I haven't purchased an Adidas product since I bought one of those neck keychains back in HS. lol

BTW...how much longer is the Adidas contract?

1768370909226.png
 
Advertisement
Here we are playing for the Natty and it’s clear some of you guys are more interested protecting a brand than anything else.

Adidas or Nike, I really don’t give a **** either way, some of you guys approach this like it’s religious zealotry.

They’re both just companies that don’t actually give a **** about the University Of Miami, other than how they can increase their sales and improve their brand.

If either one of the companies could do that by stomping on this U, that’s exactly what they would do. Let’s give it a ******* break. Religious crazies have nothing on you guys.
 
The disrespect is off the charts.

Hey Adidas, how about doing us a solid and putting up a few more of these up around the city.
 
Back
Top