CSNbbs

Full Version: OT: Under Armour trying to terminate agreement with ucla
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Are there any implications for Cincy or is this just an attempt to renegotiate their agreement with ucla


Rumors floating they are separating from Cal as well (10 years- $86M).
Part of me hopes they buy us out so we get a little chunk of change up front and can go back to Nike. We'd be making less money, but it would be better for basketball recruiting.
Never been a fan of Under Armour stuff. If Nike wasn't an option I'd settle for Adidas again. I liked the Adidas unis of the past and I still have a few Bearcats Adidas sportswear in the closet.
(06-27-2020 03:14 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Part of me hopes they buy us out so we get a little chunk of change up front and can go back to Nike. We'd be making less money, but it would be better for basketball recruiting.

Look at what Nike does to it's sub-prime properties before you ask for that...we're at least getting some great gear out of this, even if it costs us $10 more for a shirt. Nike's non-high profile teams basically get practice jerseys and horrible t-shirts now.
(06-27-2020 06:22 PM)BearcatMan Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2020 03:14 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Part of me hopes they buy us out so we get a little chunk of change up front and can go back to Nike. We'd be making less money, but it would be better for basketball recruiting.

Look at what Nike does to it's sub-prime properties before you ask for that...we're at least getting some great gear out of this, even if it costs us $10 more for a shirt. Nike's non-high profile teams basically get practice jerseys and horrible t-shirts now.

This, and now is not the right time to take another haircut in terms of revenue to the athletic department.
(06-27-2020 03:14 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote: [ -> ]Part of me hopes they buy us out so we get a little chunk of change up front and can go back to Nike. We'd be making less money, but it would be better for basketball recruiting.

Not likely, if i had to guess we are probably really GREAT value for UA which is the opposite of ucla and Cal.
(06-27-2020 11:15 AM)eroc Wrote: [ -> ]Are there any implications for Cincy or is this just an attempt to renegotiate their agreement with ucla



Is this because of Cronin??? 04-jawdrop
(06-27-2020 06:53 PM)Bear Catlett Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-27-2020 11:15 AM)eroc Wrote: [ -> ]Are there any implications for Cincy or is this just an attempt to renegotiate their agreement with ucla



Is this because of Cronin??? 04-jawdrop

UA claims they are terminating due to a lack of marketing benefits from their agreement with UCLA...ie, it isnt 1965 anymore, and no one gives a **** about your average sports teams.
Seems like a bizarre thing for them to figure out after the fact

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk
Wouldn't they lose all credibility with other schools they might want to sign. They made a stupid deal, whose fault is it?
It's hard to know what is really happening between UA and UCLA, but I'd have to believe licensed merchandise sales have been well below projections as Bruins' football and basketball have really struggled of late in the Pac12. One of the biggest media markets, but lots of professional and collegiate competitors vying for interest in L.A. too. Do you buy your son a Lakers jersey or one from a pretty average UCLA squad?

It begs the question, will UA, Adidas, and Nike try to downgrade lots of deals in 2020 given the precarious position of college athletics? If we have college football and basketball (I believe we will) crowd restrictions will limit game day retail merchandise sales as never before.

UC can ill afford to lose revenue on this side of the equation, given the current conference TV deal and looming attendance restrictions.
(06-29-2020 09:43 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to know what is really happening between UA and UCLA, but I'd have to believe licensed merchandise sales have been well below projections as Bruins' football and basketball have really struggled of late in the Pac12. One of the biggest media markets, but lots of professional and collegiate competitors vying for interest in L.A. too. Do you buy your son a Lakers jersey or one from a pretty average UCLA squad?

It begs the question, will UA, Adidas, and Nike try to downgrade lots of deals in 2020 given the precarious position of college athletics? If we have college football and basketball (I believe we will) crowd restrictions will limit game day retail merchandise sales as never before.

UC can ill afford to lose revenue on this side of the equation, given the current conference TV deal and looming attendance restrictions.

I used to work for a California based company up until a few years. I had a contact out in the LA office who was a UCLA alum and fan. To listen to him talk, he was not bullish on the Bruin fanbase of administration. He acknowledged they were distantly behind pro sports and USC in the pecking order out there. Said fans were extremely fickle, and attendance (butts in the seat, not tickets distributed) were much worse than reported.

With respect to the administration, he did not believe they were committed to winning at a high level in revenue sports. In the PAC12 the Olympic sports are a big deal, so there are limitations there that schools in other parts of the country do not face.
(06-29-2020 10:33 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-29-2020 09:43 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to know what is really happening between UA and UCLA, but I'd have to believe licensed merchandise sales have been well below projections as Bruins' football and basketball have really struggled of late in the Pac12. One of the biggest media markets, but lots of professional and collegiate competitors vying for interest in L.A. too. Do you buy your son a Lakers jersey or one from a pretty average UCLA squad?

It begs the question, will UA, Adidas, and Nike try to downgrade lots of deals in 2020 given the precarious position of college athletics? If we have college football and basketball (I believe we will) crowd restrictions will limit game day retail merchandise sales as never before.

UC can ill afford to lose revenue on this side of the equation, given the current conference TV deal and looming attendance restrictions.

I used to work for a California based company up until a few years. I had a contact out in the LA office who was a UCLA alum and fan. To listen to him talk, he was not bullish on the Bruin fanbase of administration. He acknowledged they were distantly behind pro sports and USC in the pecking order out there. Said fans were extremely fickle, and attendance (butts in the seat, not tickets distributed) were much worse than reported.

With respect to the administration, he did not believe they were committed to winning at a high level in revenue sports. In the PAC12 the Olympic sports are a big deal, so there are limitations there that schools in other parts of the country do not face.

I live out in LA. Everything you said is true. UCLA gets almost no airtime on sports talk radio, unless they are broadcasting a basketball/football game. Even the UCLA flagship radio station out here talks constantly about USC. Let's face it, USC's athletic and academic scandals have been pretty compelling in recent years.

Dodgers/Lakers and now the Rams are king out here. On paper UCLA and the market in LA look great. In reality, unless you or your family member attended UCLA, you probably don't pay much attention to UCLA athletics. Even if UCLA was top 10 in basketball and football, I'm skeptical that the city would embrace them. This is not the Los Angeles of the John Wooden era.
(06-29-2020 10:33 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-29-2020 09:43 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]It's hard to know what is really happening between UA and UCLA, but I'd have to believe licensed merchandise sales have been well below projections as Bruins' football and basketball have really struggled of late in the Pac12. One of the biggest media markets, but lots of professional and collegiate competitors vying for interest in L.A. too. Do you buy your son a Lakers jersey or one from a pretty average UCLA squad?

It begs the question, will UA, Adidas, and Nike try to downgrade lots of deals in 2020 given the precarious position of college athletics? If we have college football and basketball (I believe we will) crowd restrictions will limit game day retail merchandise sales as never before.

UC can ill afford to lose revenue on this side of the equation, given the current conference TV deal and looming attendance restrictions.

I used to work for a California based company up until a few years. I had a contact out in the LA office who was a UCLA alum and fan. To listen to him talk, he was not bullish on the Bruin fanbase of administration. He acknowledged they were distantly behind pro sports and USC in the pecking order out there. Said fans were extremely fickle, and attendance (butts in the seat, not tickets distributed) were much worse than reported.

With respect to the administration, he did not believe they were committed to winning at a high level in revenue sports. In the PAC12 the Olympic sports are a big deal, so there are limitations there that schools in other parts of the country do not face.

i think it's really difficult for college teams in big pro sports markets or cities that have a ton of other stuff to do to build a critical mass of supporters. This is especially tough if you aren't a great team to begin with. in recent memory only SC and the Canes come to mind as having continued success in cultivating a fan base for colleges located in those big pro sports markets/"big city" environments. Boston College, Rutgers, ucla, Cal, Northwestern, Washington, GA Tech the list goes on and on.

i'm not disputing what you're saying about their admin/leadership but it certainly isn't unique to ucla.
Unless UA put in some benchmarks that UCLA had to meet UA will have no case to breach that contract. We all in business have made bad deals by agreeing to a royalty or revenue sharing that turned out to be unwarranted.

UA defense in court would be "We paid to much so we should be let off the hook. " Laughed out of court.

Now if these deals are so bad they are forced to declare bankruptcy, a judge could restructure or terminate deals.
Those of you hoping for UA to sever their deal with UC are going to be disappointed. Our 10-year $47M deal pales in comparison to the $28OM they signed with UCLA and they are likely got us on the cheap back in 2015. They are making money off of UC.
(06-30-2020 07:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]Those of you hoping for UA to sever their deal with UC are going to be disappointed. Our 10-year $47M deal pales in comparison to the $28OM they signed with UCLA and they are likely got us on the cheap back in 2015. They are making money off of UC.

I would worry that Addidas or Nike would try to lowball us if the UA deal was terminated. We would have no leverage at that point and I don't think those companies would ever treat us as anything but an afterthought.
(06-30-2020 07:20 AM)Banter Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2020 07:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]Those of you hoping for UA to sever their deal with UC are going to be disappointed. Our 10-year $47M deal pales in comparison to the $28OM they signed with UCLA and they are likely got us on the cheap back in 2015. They are making money off of UC.

I would worry that Addidas or Nike would try to lowball us if the UA deal was terminated. We would have no leverage at that point and I don't think those companies would ever treat us as anything but an afterthought.

I think you're right. UA gave us a heck of a deal and I'm guessing it could be the best in the G5 and superior to a number of schools in the P5.

It did seem to me that UA was very late shipping UC merchandise to retailers last summer for the 2019 football season which made me wonder if they were facing some financial setbacks. If we see that again in 2020 it could be cause for concern regarding the company's longer term viability. But I believe UC's core fanbase, while not as large as many P5 schools, buys a lot of merchandise. And other Cincinnatians seem to be wearing the Red and Black in greater numbers than ever before.

I claim no expertise on sports clothing but an $80.00 UC polo shirt--even after royalties are paid to the University, has a very high profit margin, when similar generic "dry tech" polos can be purchased for $20.00. That is, in large part, how these deals get funded that benefit the universities.
(06-30-2020 08:10 AM)OKIcat Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2020 07:20 AM)Banter Wrote: [ -> ]
(06-30-2020 07:17 AM)CliftonAve Wrote: [ -> ]Those of you hoping for UA to sever their deal with UC are going to be disappointed. Our 10-year $47M deal pales in comparison to the $28OM they signed with UCLA and they are likely got us on the cheap back in 2015. They are making money off of UC.

I would worry that Addidas or Nike would try to lowball us if the UA deal was terminated. We would have no leverage at that point and I don't think those companies would ever treat us as anything but an afterthought.

I think you're right. UA gave us a heck of a deal and I'm guessing it could be the best in the G5 and superior to a number of schools in the P5.

It did seem to me that UA was very late shipping UC merchandise to retailers last summer for the 2019 football season which made me wonder if they were facing some financial setbacks. If we see that again in 2020 it could be cause for concern regarding the company's longer term viability. But I believe UC's core fanbase, while not as large as many P5 schools, buys a lot of merchandise. And other Cincinnatians seem to be wearing the Red and Black in greater numbers than ever before.

I claim no expertise on sports clothing but an $80.00 UC polo shirt--even after royalties are paid to the University, has a very high profit margin, when similar generic "dry tech" polos can be purchased for $20.00. That is, in large part, how these deals get funded that benefit the universities.

Temple fan here. Temple signed a 10 year- $30M deal with UA I believe around the same time UC signed their UA deal. Temple and UA severed ties this past spring and Temple is moving to Nike. From what I was told, UA came to Temple and basically said they couldn't fulfill all that was promised in the contract. Instead of litigating Temple decided to mutually void the contract. I do think Cincy is a much better return for UA than Temple but I'd be cautious if I were the Cincy administration.

I personally liked UA for football stuff but the basketball equipment including shoes I think hurt our bball program when going up against Nike schools. Rumors are floating around that Temple is in discussions to make the bball program a Jordan brand program in the next couple of years.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Reference URL's