"This six year deal is not expected to be as large as the $280 million dollar deal UCLA signed with Under Armour. UCLA is currently suing Under Armour for $200 million for breach of contract."
The mind-rot senility I am beset with has caused me to forget the actual revenue stream of the Under Armour deal. I am guessing it was about $280 mil for the entire term of 15 years, right? However, Nike seems a little more stable and the revenue stream from this will certainly be helpful in (1) reducing the onerous burden of debt that Donut Dan saddled us with from his mind-boggling obscene financial [mis]management of UCLA athletics and (2) perhaps seed a sinking fund to buy out that revolting tub of goo feetsball coach and dietitian to the rich and famous who has catered cuisine delivered to his oval spheroidsters at stratospheric prices.
I am not a huge fan of Jarmond but this is the first positive ray of sunshine cracking over the Hills of Westwood in a long, long while. I will keep an open mind so long as the Boston College escapee gets the kids back on a meatloaf-and-mashed-taters regime where they belong instead of this seven figure Wolfgang Puck wannabe fare they are currently shoveling down their 19-year-old maws.
As to the Under Armour suit, if our sharks are better than their sharks, the whole affair shrieks of "settle out of court for an undisclosed amount of cash". (I am thinking splitting the difference at $100 mil paid off over a multi-year period.) Hopefully, some of that can also go towards rocketing that round mound of non-profound football strategy out of SoCal and back to the pig farm in New Hampshire from whence he came.
Credit to AD Jarmond for getting what sounds like a pretty good deal. U.C.L.A. frankly had almost no leverage in this process. Crawling back to Adidas wasn't going to be very profitable or respectable for us, so Nike was really the only major option left. With our highest profile teams struggling lately and the Pac-12 as a whole not adding much to lift all boats, I didn't expect anything near the record setting UA deal. If it's anything reasonable, then, well done!
I think getting a relatively short term deal was a smart move, too. Basketball is trending way up, and who knows what sort of advances football can make in the next 5 years (esp with a new coach?), but it likely can't be any worse than what we have now. So hopefully we'll be a much more attractive and competitive client pretty soon and, adding in the issues Dimitri noted below, be in line for a bigger payday in just a few more years. Add in a big settlement with UA, and this deal just might rescue the Athletic Dept from the dark and dank depths of Dan's decimation.
Now, Mr. Jarmond, about that on campus football stadium idea...
This is great going news!! A lot of kids (like myself granted I’m 36) think Nike and Jordan is a lot cooler and more with the in crowd than UA and Adidas. Hopefully, going forward with the revenue generated from this deal accompanied by on the court and on the field success, a new longer and more lucrative deal will be achieved. Plus, maybe that brand recognition will have a lot of kids and adults too trying to wear UCLA gear rather than the sc gear. I know, I will be ordering this new UCLA gear. Which reminds me, I remember reading in the comments section when were on BN, that the quality of the gear being sold by UA and before Adidas was cheap and I couldn’t have agreed more with that. I think Nike & Jordan will have more quality products with the 4 letters on it!
This will probably cause the UA lawsuit to settle soon. UCLA has obviously sought this shorter term deal hoping to capitalize off basketball and football being in better positions in 5 years, and the Olympics. UA will argue that UCLA expects to make more over the original contract term than UA was going to pay. Our AD's comments about Westbrook convincing him of the high esteem young people hold the Jordan brand compared to other companies shows that UCLA signed this deal because it expect the Jordan brand to improve its programs more than UA would have. The programs will improve and UCLA will be lined up for an even more lucrative deal at the end of the 6 years, or even before. Frankly, if I'm UA, I argue that UA did UCLA a favor, both financially and in terms of its brand.
"This six year deal is not expected to be as large as the $280 million dollar deal UCLA signed with Under Armour. UCLA is currently suing Under Armour for $200 million for breach of contract."
The mind-rot senility I am beset with has caused me to forget the actual revenue stream of the Under Armour deal. I am guessing it was about $280 mil for the entire term of 15 years, right? However, Nike seems a little more stable and the revenue stream from this will certainly be helpful in (1) reducing the onerous burden of debt that Donut Dan saddled us with from his mind-boggling obscene financial [mis]management of UCLA athletics and (2) perhaps seed a sinking fund to buy out that revolting tub of goo feetsball coach and dietitian to the rich and famous who has catered cuisine delivered to his oval spheroidsters at stratospheric prices.
I am not a huge fan of Jarmond but this is the first positive ray of sunshine cracking over the Hills of Westwood in a long, long while. I will keep an open mind so long as the Boston College escapee gets the kids back on a meatloaf-and-mashed-taters regime where they belong instead of this seven figure Wolfgang Puck wannabe fare they are currently shoveling down their 19-year-old maws.
As to the Under Armour suit, if our sharks are better than their sharks, the whole affair shrieks of "settle out of court for an undisclosed amount of cash". (I am thinking splitting the difference at $100 mil paid off over a multi-year period.) Hopefully, some of that can also go towards rocketing that round mound of non-profound football strategy out of SoCal and back to the pig farm in New Hampshire from whence he came.
Credit to AD Jarmond for getting what sounds like a pretty good deal. U.C.L.A. frankly had almost no leverage in this process. Crawling back to Adidas wasn't going to be very profitable or respectable for us, so Nike was really the only major option left. With our highest profile teams struggling lately and the Pac-12 as a whole not adding much to lift all boats, I didn't expect anything near the record setting UA deal. If it's anything reasonable, then, well done!
I think getting a relatively short term deal was a smart move, too. Basketball is trending way up, and who knows what sort of advances football can make in the next 5 years (esp with a new coach?), but it likely can't be any worse than what we have now. So hopefully we'll be a much more attractive and competitive client pretty soon and, adding in the issues Dimitri noted below, be in line for a bigger payday in just a few more years. Add in a big settlement with UA, and this deal just might rescue the Athletic Dept from the dark and dank depths of Dan's decimation.
Now, Mr. Jarmond, about that on campus football stadium idea...
This is great going news!! A lot of kids (like myself granted I’m 36) think Nike and Jordan is a lot cooler and more with the in crowd than UA and Adidas. Hopefully, going forward with the revenue generated from this deal accompanied by on the court and on the field success, a new longer and more lucrative deal will be achieved. Plus, maybe that brand recognition will have a lot of kids and adults too trying to wear UCLA gear rather than the sc gear. I know, I will be ordering this new UCLA gear. Which reminds me, I remember reading in the comments section when were on BN, that the quality of the gear being sold by UA and before Adidas was cheap and I couldn’t have agreed more with that. I think Nike & Jordan will have more quality products with the 4 letters on it!
This will probably cause the UA lawsuit to settle soon. UCLA has obviously sought this shorter term deal hoping to capitalize off basketball and football being in better positions in 5 years, and the Olympics. UA will argue that UCLA expects to make more over the original contract term than UA was going to pay. Our AD's comments about Westbrook convincing him of the high esteem young people hold the Jordan brand compared to other companies shows that UCLA signed this deal because it expect the Jordan brand to improve its programs more than UA would have. The programs will improve and UCLA will be lined up for an even more lucrative deal at the end of the 6 years, or even before. Frankly, if I'm UA, I argue that UA did UCLA a favor, both financially and in terms of its brand.