Started By
Message
0
Posted on 2/16/15 at 5:26 pm to thirdlawson
quote:because as it has been said countless times, splitting up the contract greatly decreases the overall max apparel deal we can get. The max value will come from one company having all sports.
Why not?
Posted on 2/16/15 at 5:43 pm to GenesChin
I'm glad you and not me wasted time explaining it
Posted on 2/16/15 at 5:54 pm to Rig
Isn't the first time I've explained this and likely not the last.
It is fascinating to me and I have had some long conversations with some guys who are part of the deal making process.
Only part I hate is explaining how team colors affect team value. People just don't believe it no matter.how much you explain
It is fascinating to me and I have had some long conversations with some guys who are part of the deal making process.
Only part I hate is explaining how team colors affect team value. People just don't believe it no matter.how much you explain
Posted on 2/16/15 at 7:49 pm to GenesChin
quote:racist
Program colors
Posted on 2/16/15 at 8:03 pm to GenesChin
quote:gogogo
Only part I hate is explaining how team colors affect team value
Posted on 2/16/15 at 8:49 pm to TheSandman
Can I ask a question on the side here?
What is keeping us from signing with Nike? Is it that Bama is already under Nike?
My vote here would be to stay with Under Armour. They have been blowing up in the athletic apparel market in the last 5 years. Adidas seems stagnant if not losing ground to Under Armour. This, of course, is just from my POV.
What is keeping us from signing with Nike? Is it that Bama is already under Nike?
My vote here would be to stay with Under Armour. They have been blowing up in the athletic apparel market in the last 5 years. Adidas seems stagnant if not losing ground to Under Armour. This, of course, is just from my POV.
Posted on 2/16/15 at 8:59 pm to AUNashville
Auburn value for apparel comes from the AL, GA and to a lesser extent wider SE market. Nike has deals with more valuable brands in all our markets. They don't need us and their offer would reflect that and border on insulting because they would offer what our value to them is not market value.
Flip side is that UA and Adidas have few major programs in the SE and before Notre Dame, Auburn was Under Armours biggest program. As a result we are treated like kings and compensated as such
Flip side is that UA and Adidas have few major programs in the SE and before Notre Dame, Auburn was Under Armours biggest program. As a result we are treated like kings and compensated as such
Posted on 2/16/15 at 8:59 pm to TheSandman
quote:
gogogo
This post was edited on 2/16/15 at 9:00 pm
Posted on 2/17/15 at 9:20 am to GenesChin
quote:
They don't need us and their offer would reflect that and border on insulting because they would offer what our value to them is not market value
I disagree. Auburn was 11th last year in top selling institutions.
Above national brands such as Oklahoma, Tennessee, Penn State, etc. What your saying is likely true but money drives purchases and Auburn fans buy Auburn shite.
Anyhow, I think we get the best deal from UA. It's cheaper to keep current clients than sign new ones. UA, as has been mentioned, is a growing brand and they need us to stay on board. Nike and Adidas should offer comparable contracts. Neither will be insulting, however.
LINK
1. Texas
2. Alabama
3. Michigan
4. Notre Dame
5. Georgia
6. Florida
7. LSU
8. Florida State
9. Texas A&M
10. North Carolina
11. Auburn
12. Oklahoma
13. Nebraska
14. Arkansas
15. Wisconsin
16. Tennessee
17. South Carolina
18. Penn State
19. Missouri
20. West Virginia
This post was edited on 2/17/15 at 9:25 am
Posted on 2/17/15 at 10:03 am to TheJones
quote:
I disagree. Auburn was 11th last year in top selling institutions.
I said insulting in terms of how it would compare to what UA and possible Adidas would offer us.
Don't get me wrong, Nike would offer a "major" deal, but they wouldn't include the value/premium demanded from the AL/GA/FL market exposure (SECnetwork, national games, people wearing brand etc) that Under Armour and Adidas would offer.
As mentioned earlier, Under Armour, at the time of signing, offered us a fringe "top 5" caliber deal despite being near 13-15 in merchandising at the time with other perks that aren't quantified (equipment relationships for example).
Nike won't offer a deal like that and that is why they don't really get talked about by the people who do the dealing
quote:
UA, as has been mentioned, is a growing brand and they need us to stay on board
We have used this in negotiation. Supposedly, Under Armour had some feathers ruffled last go round
Will be interesting to see how/if signing Notre Dame will impact this point. I imagine not a whole lot but a few more big pickups could quote:
Nike and Adidas should offer comparable contracts.
Nike wouldn't match Under Armour. They would be overpaying for what we provide.
Adidas I could definitely see matching Under Armour or even surpassing them if they are trying to play catchup after losing Tennessee
This post was edited on 2/17/15 at 10:05 am
Posted on 2/17/15 at 10:07 am to TheJones
Also, three out of four of those teams have advantageous colors. While obviously not a deal breaker, it is more cost effective for companies. Our orange (and believe 'blue') aren't standard orange/blue + aren't primary colors for purchases to begin with which is a negative (for example people buy red stuff all the time not as many people buy orange)
Maybe it was because we were drinking but we spoke for about 30 minutes about how colors affect these contracts so I assumed it was important. It legit is discussed in negotations
Use generic red colors
Use standard navy color
Maybe it was because we were drinking but we spoke for about 30 minutes about how colors affect these contracts so I assumed it was important. It legit is discussed in negotations
quote:
12. Oklahoma
13. Nebraska
Use generic red colors
quote:
18. Penn State
Use standard navy color
This post was edited on 2/17/15 at 10:10 am
Posted on 2/17/15 at 10:11 am to GenesChin
If you're interested in learning more, Jon Waggoner teaches a business law type class I've heard is very interesting. He is head of corporate contracts and I've heard willing to talk about it in class
What I am saying is based on talking with a few people over beers about a year ago. I definitely could be remembering things incorrectly
LINK
What I am saying is based on talking with a few people over beers about a year ago. I definitely could be remembering things incorrectly
LINK
This post was edited on 2/17/15 at 10:16 am
Posted on 2/17/15 at 10:15 am to ellitor
For the record, I knew the answer...
Just wanted to bust your balls a little
Just wanted to bust your balls a little
Posted on 2/17/15 at 10:30 am to GenesChin
quote:
Nike and Adidas should offer comparable contracts.
In this, I'm saying that Nike and Adidas would offer similar contracts to each other.
Posted on 2/17/15 at 11:08 am to TheJones
quote:
In this, I'm saying that Nike and Adidas would offer similar contracts to each other.
IMO Nike will low-ball a LITTLE bit. Alabama being their cash cow, its unlikely that we end up with them. Don't think Bama would be too happy with that, even though I'm sure Nike would love it.
Posted on 2/17/15 at 12:05 pm to thirdlawson
quote:
For the record, I knew the answer...
Just wanted to bust your balls a little
Well played.Posted on 2/17/15 at 1:08 pm to TheJones
quote:
In this, I'm saying that Nike and Adidas would offer similar contracts to each other.
Completely misread that then. Adidas did lose Tennessee though and that was their only real large presence in the deep South market. I could see them trying to pick up a replacement program.
I agree that I think UA probably will give the best contract and are progressing.
Posted on 2/17/15 at 1:13 pm to GenesChin
We need a separate thread because this is interesting stuff 
Posted on 2/17/15 at 1:16 pm to TheJones
Yep I love the discussion. One of the better discussions we've had on this board
Page 31 of 123
Latest Auburn News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News