"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.
As you point out, there is probably going to be a settlement of some kind to end the Under Armour deal. I don't know how much ($100 mil feels right but there's a lot up in the air there) but I wouldn't be surprised if that money gets earmarked to specifically pay off the athletic department's debt.
The Jordan deal itself is short-term just so UCLA can get into a better negotiation position for the next deal. The idea is in six years, UCLA can hopefully get its basketball and football programs trending in the right direction (remember the last deal was signed right when Alford was at his apex with Lonzo while Jim Mora was still seen as having UCLA football on good footing), plus it will come up before the LA Olympics, with the idea that the increased focus on LA sports in general will make the brand stronger in negotiations.
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...
No, officially U.C.L.A. is not. But a small group of imaginative and forward thinkers (you might even call them Optimists) have shown how it could be done and it is glorious.
Never mind how insanely profitable it would be for U.C.L.A.
interesting concept. can you pass along any of the proposals even if they are pie in the sky? I'm not sure where such a stadium could go. I imagine they'd have to put it where Drake or the IM field is (probably both...actually if you look at a satellite view, a stadium would have to go there unless you wanted to knock down serious buildings). Maybe buy nearby land? Or maybe not "on campus" but within 5 miles. Even doing that, I don't see room for more than a 40,000 seat stadium. Maybe I'm wrong. Don't we typically average 65k to 75k even way out at the Rose Bowl? The student section is relatively tiny, probably because of the drive. I'd expect that to increase by at least 5x with an on campus stadium. Personally, I spent 5 years as a UCLA student and attended a grand total of 1 football game. Just wasn't interested in the bus leaving 5 hours before game time, urinating out the window on the 405, etc. I would have attended every home game if there was an on campus stadium. If we ever do give up the Rose Bowl, I just see adopting Sofi Stadium as the new home field as a much easier option.
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!
Being a "Nike program" brings a lot of very tangible advantages with regards to recruiting that go far beyond just brand recognition and popularity with the younger crowds.
i'm hoping the two go hand in hand. Westbrook told our AD that younger players hold not just the Nike brand, but more importantly the Jordan brand, on a pedestal. That basketball is Jordan and not just Nike is huge.
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.
As you point out, there is probably going to be a settlement of some kind to end the Under Armour deal. I don't know how much ($100 mil feels right but there's a lot up in the air there) but I wouldn't be surprised if that money gets earmarked to specifically pay off the athletic department's debt.
The Jordan deal itself is short-term just so UCLA can get into a better negotiation position for the next deal. The idea is in six years, UCLA can hopefully get its basketball and football programs trending in the right direction (remember the last deal was signed right when Alford was at his apex with Lonzo while Jim Mora was still seen as having UCLA football on good footing), plus it will come up before the LA Olympics, with the idea that the increased focus on LA sports in general will make the brand stronger in negotiations.
That was beautiful, WP.
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...
Is UCLA actually considering building an on campus stadium?
No UCLA campus football stadium...never gonna happen. Rose Bowl forever.
No, officially U.C.L.A. is not. But a small group of imaginative and forward thinkers (you might even call them Optimists) have shown how it could be done and it is glorious.
Never mind how insanely profitable it would be for U.C.L.A.
interesting concept. can you pass along any of the proposals even if they are pie in the sky? I'm not sure where such a stadium could go. I imagine they'd have to put it where Drake or the IM field is (probably both...actually if you look at a satellite view, a stadium would have to go there unless you wanted to knock down serious buildings). Maybe buy nearby land? Or maybe not "on campus" but within 5 miles. Even doing that, I don't see room for more than a 40,000 seat stadium. Maybe I'm wrong. Don't we typically average 65k to 75k even way out at the Rose Bowl? The student section is relatively tiny, probably because of the drive. I'd expect that to increase by at least 5x with an on campus stadium. Personally, I spent 5 years as a UCLA student and attended a grand total of 1 football game. Just wasn't interested in the bus leaving 5 hours before game time, urinating out the window on the 405, etc. I would have attended every home game if there was an on campus stadium. If we ever do give up the Rose Bowl, I just see adopting Sofi Stadium as the new home field as a much easier option.
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!
Being a "Nike program" brings a lot of very tangible advantages with regards to recruiting that go far beyond just brand recognition and popularity with the younger crowds.
i'm hoping the two go hand in hand. Westbrook told our AD that younger players hold not just the Nike brand, but more importantly the Jordan brand, on a pedestal. That basketball is Jordan and not just Nike is huge.
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.