Easily one of the Top 5 Apparel Deals in the Country....

The school also announced plans for a Friday morning press conference.

"(Jurich) will make a major announcement" at the press conference, U of L's news release said.

The deal comes at a time when Louisville was nearing the end of its contract with Adidas. That agreement ran through this coming school year, with a one-year extension option, and was worth $39 million over five years.

The new contract puts U of L near the top of collegiate athletics in sponsorship deals.

UCLA broke from Adidas and inked a 15-year, $280-million contract with Under Armour last year, giving the Bruins the No. 1 sponsorship deal in Division I sports.

http://www.courier-journal.com/story/spo...600363001/

Isn't this old news? Or is it that they just hadn't gotten around to signing it yet.

(08-25-2017 01:43 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Isn't this old news? Or is it that they just hadn't gotten around to signing it yet.

No....just came out...they signed with Adidas about 2 years ago for $39 Million....reupped to the Now $160 Million for 10 years...went from around $8 Million a year to $16 Million and apparently straight cash

Tom Jurich gets it done again. Excerpt from article in link:

Sources from the booster function Thursday said Jurich spoke about a 10-year deal worth $160 million. If that number is accurate, Louisville’s deal would trail only UCLA’s 2016 deal with UnderArmour (15 years, $280 million), Ohio State’s 15-year, $252 million Nike deal, and Texas’ 15-year, $250 deal with Nike.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/36214824/crawf...arel-deals

The problem is that Louisville is tied to Adidas which can have a negative effect on basketball recruiting. Nike may be corrupt but they're effective in channeling top players to their schools.

You also have to figure that Nike will have to match what Adidas and UA are offering.

Thats a nice chunk of change. Congrats Ville fans.

(08-25-2017 07:56 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  The problem is that Louisville is tied to Adidas which can have a negative effect on basketball recruiting. Nike may be corrupt but they're effective in channeling top players to their schools.

You also have to figure that Nike will have to match what Adidas and UA are offering.

Our recruiting is going just fine. We are channeling a good Chunk of top players ourselves.
FLossY Out...

(08-25-2017 07:56 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  The problem is that Louisville is tied to Adidas which can have a negative effect on basketball recruiting. Nike may be corrupt but they're effective in channeling top players to their schools.

You also have to figure that Nike will have to match what Adidas and UA are offering.

Adidas has put a lot more effort into recruiting last few years. Also, looking at our commits, we are recruiting just fine :)

(08-25-2017 07:56 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  The problem is that Louisville is tied to Adidas which can have a negative effect on basketball recruiting. Nike may be corrupt but they're effective in channeling top players to their schools.

You also have to figure that Nike will have to match what Adidas and UA are offering.

Louisville basketball, no matter what brand, is going to attract recruits. BTW our recruiting is going as good as it ever has under Pitino

Adidas steers kids to Adidas schools as well.

(08-25-2017 02:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 01:43 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Isn't this old news? Or is it that they just hadn't gotten around to signing it yet.

No....just came out...they signed with Adidas about 2 years ago for $39 Million....reupped to the Now $160 Million for 10 years...went from around $8 Million a year to $16 Million and apparently straight cash

Deal is not all-cash. It is about $10m per year cash for first 4 years, then $7m per year cash for next 6 years. Plus some up-front cash premiums are paid.

In addition to the cash, there is approx. $6m per year in "adidas goods".

So basically it is about 50/50 in cash and non-cash.

(08-26-2017 08:27 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 02:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 01:43 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Isn't this old news? Or is it that they just hadn't gotten around to signing it yet.

No....just came out...they signed with Adidas about 2 years ago for $39 Million....reupped to the Now $160 Million for 10 years...went from around $8 Million a year to $16 Million and apparently straight cash

Deal is not all-cash. It is about $10m per year cash for first 4 years, then $7m per year cash for next 6 years. Plus some up-front cash premiums are paid.

In addition to the cash, there is approx. $6m per year in "adidas goods".

So basically it is about 50/50 in cash and non-cash.

Which means that it may be misleading to compare this deal with other deals where the noncash element may not have been included in the dollar amount announced.

(08-26-2017 08:45 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-26-2017 08:27 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 02:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 01:43 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Isn't this old news? Or is it that they just hadn't gotten around to signing it yet.

No....just came out...they signed with Adidas about 2 years ago for $39 Million....reupped to the Now $160 Million for 10 years...went from around $8 Million a year to $16 Million and apparently straight cash

Deal is not all-cash. It is about $10m per year cash for first 4 years, then $7m per year cash for next 6 years. Plus some up-front cash premiums are paid.

In addition to the cash, there is approx. $6m per year in "adidas goods".

So basically it is about 50/50 in cash and non-cash.

Which means that it may be misleading to compare this deal with other deals where the noncash element may not have been included in the dollar amount announced.

I think most announced deals are inclusive of both cash and non-cash amounts. I cannot speak to the normal "mix". But the top ones are all similar. All Public deals are available openly FOIA. Of course deals like Duke's are not public.

(08-26-2017 08:45 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-26-2017 08:27 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 02:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 01:43 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Isn't this old news? Or is it that they just hadn't gotten around to signing it yet.

No....just came out...they signed with Adidas about 2 years ago for $39 Million....reupped to the Now $160 Million for 10 years...went from around $8 Million a year to $16 Million and apparently straight cash

Deal is not all-cash. It is about $10m per year cash for first 4 years, then $7m per year cash for next 6 years. Plus some up-front cash premiums are paid.

In addition to the cash, there is approx. $6m per year in "adidas goods".

So basically it is about 50/50 in cash and non-cash.

Which means that it may be misleading to compare this deal with other deals where the noncash element may not have been included in the dollar amount announced.

Most deals are announced as cash values, especially when a variety of goods/services are included. It is simpler to spread the news, get the press, and for people to understand. When the two parties to an agreement state the value of the deal is X that is the value whether cash or otherwise.

This is a good deal for Louisville and whether receiving cash and/or goods, it is in the top range of apparel deals. Nothing for people to nit pick about. Jurich did a good job.

This also goes to show how much money is really out there for the schools. As current apparel deals expire, expect increases across the board. Thank you, Mr. Jurich, you not only helped Louisville, you helped everyone else. We all know we are overpaying for athletic wear, as such, it is good to see the schools get a better cut of the bargain.

(08-26-2017 09:30 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(08-26-2017 08:45 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-26-2017 08:27 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 02:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 01:43 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Isn't this old news? Or is it that they just hadn't gotten around to signing it yet.

No....just came out...they signed with Adidas about 2 years ago for $39 Million....reupped to the Now $160 Million for 10 years...went from around $8 Million a year to $16 Million and apparently straight cash

Deal is not all-cash. It is about $10m per year cash for first 4 years, then $7m per year cash for next 6 years. Plus some up-front cash premiums are paid.

In addition to the cash, there is approx. $6m per year in "adidas goods".

So basically it is about 50/50 in cash and non-cash.

Which means that it may be misleading to compare this deal with other deals where the noncash element may not have been included in the dollar amount announced.

Most deals are announced as cash values, especially when a variety of goods/services are included. It is simpler to spread the news, get the press, and for people to understand. When the two parties to an agreement state the value of the deal is X that is the value whether cash or otherwise.

This is a good deal for Louisville and whether receiving cash and/or goods, it is in the top range of apparel deals. Nothing for people to nit pick about. Jurich did a good job.

This also goes to show how much money is really out there for the schools. As current apparel deals expire, expect increases across the board. Thank you, Mr. Jurich, you not only helped Louisville, you helped everyone else. We all know we are overpaying for athletic wear, as such, it is good to see the schools get a better cut of the bargain.

All True!

(08-26-2017 09:30 AM)HtownOrange Wrote:  

(08-26-2017 08:45 AM)Hallcity Wrote:  

(08-26-2017 08:27 AM)IHAVETRIED Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 02:41 AM)Maize Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 01:43 AM)ChrisLords Wrote:  Isn't this old news? Or is it that they just hadn't gotten around to signing it yet.

No....just came out...they signed with Adidas about 2 years ago for $39 Million....reupped to the Now $160 Million for 10 years...went from around $8 Million a year to $16 Million and apparently straight cash

Deal is not all-cash. It is about $10m per year cash for first 4 years, then $7m per year cash for next 6 years. Plus some up-front cash premiums are paid.

In addition to the cash, there is approx. $6m per year in "adidas goods".

So basically it is about 50/50 in cash and non-cash.

Which means that it may be misleading to compare this deal with other deals where the noncash element may not have been included in the dollar amount announced.

Most deals are announced as cash values, especially when a variety of goods/services are included. It is simpler to spread the news, get the press, and for people to understand. When the two parties to an agreement state the value of the deal is X that is the value whether cash or otherwise.

This is a good deal for Louisville and whether receiving cash and/or goods, it is in the top range of apparel deals. Nothing for people to nit pick about. Jurich did a good job.

This also goes to show how much money is really out there for the schools. As current apparel deals expire, expect increases across the board. Thank you, Mr. Jurich, you not only helped Louisville, you helped everyone else. We all know we are overpaying for athletic wear, as such, it is good to see the schools get a better cut of the bargain.

Yes ... a whole lot of this deal is because of Louisville's now association with the ACC, and the exposure the Cards get from being in this conference. I would expect all ACC schools to get significantly more money from apparel deals.

It helps to have the athletic success that U of L has had recently. And certainly Adidas likes at least one more year of Lamar Jackson, maybe two.

But this is a reflection of ACC affiliation in large part.

This deal is indeed another example of what Louisville's membership in The ACC has done for its profile. It also serves as an example of alternative revenues out there for all ACC programs. When it comes these type deals some ACC programs with higher profiles leaving dollars on the table.
CJ

I still am amazed that Kohls, which also carries Addias shoes Never has any in Red & Black Addias shoes in inventory , yet They have Red & Black Nike, Puma and others in Louisville Kohls stores. I shop there often because of great sale prices. Lol !

160 million reason why the Cardinals love the #3stripelife

Interesting fact about valuing product in these contracts. Nike bases the value of product they give schools based on retail value. Adidas bases it on wholesale. Basically with addidas, you get twice as much gear for the price.

Wholesale Prices vs. Aggregate Retail Value

As it turns out, Adidas and Nike don’t speak the same language when it comes to product allotment. If you’re going to compare the two, you have to adjust the product allotment figure in the contract to account for the fact that Adidas allotments are based on wholesale prices (50% off) and Nike allotments are based on aggregate retail value.


http://businessofcollegesports.com/2015/...athletics/

Sent from my SM-G920P using CSNbbs mobile app