ADIDAS....

So, we handed them all those azzz whoopin's for what reason?

(08-25-2017 06:44 PM)eaglebeaver Wrote:  ADIDAS....

So, we handed them all those azzz whoopin's for what reason?

howie ****** us.....we've discussed this to ad naseam.....

spilled milk been spilt for some time now.....

I'll go VT spanking our cods before UL.....

wtfe.....

just beat KY jelly....that works for me....

(08-25-2017 07:15 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 06:44 PM)eaglebeaver Wrote:  ADIDAS....

So, we handed them all those azzz whoopin's for what reason?

howie ****** us.....we've discussed this to ad naseam.....

spilled milk been spilt for some time now.....

I'll go VT spanking our cods before UL.....

wtfe.....

just beat KY jelly....that works for me....

oh, go to bed and shut up!

I fully expect us to be addias soon

We certainly won't be with Russell since they're getting out of the college outfitting business. We know Nike got outbid last time around, so Adidas or Under Armor are the safe bets.

FWIW, I was reading just yesterday about Under Armor working with Navy as the Academy was trying to cut down a freakishly high lower body injury rate last season. UA really went above & beyond for them. Would they treat us as well as Uncle Sam? No telling, but they came off as great partners to have.

There's plenty of businesses out there we could work with to sponsor things on campus, whether that be a new basketball arena or whatever, we're just too incompetent to chase after them.

(08-25-2017 08:59 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  I fully expect us to be addias soon

What makes you say that? Why wouldn't UA dive in head first with Southern Miss? We're their premier baseball program as of late.

(08-26-2017 10:06 AM)GeagleFan Wrote:  

(08-25-2017 08:59 PM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  I fully expect us to be addias soon

What makes you say that? Why wouldn't UA dive in head first with Southern Miss? We're their premier baseball program as of late.

Im sure they are bidding. from one of our hc's Nike and addias have. Addias is also being aggressive trying to gain market share equal to nike.
Only knock on ua is their hoops shoes are not the quality of the other brands.

(08-26-2017 10:45 AM)Thegoldstandard Wrote:  Only knock on ua is their hoops shoes are not the quality of the other brands.

Of course, neither are our actual hoops, so....

(08-26-2017 07:43 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  There's plenty of businesses out there we could work with to sponsor things on campus, whether that be a new basketball arena or whatever, we're just too incompetent to chase after them.

I dunno about new arena money, but does the state bar selling naming rights for on-campus facilities? Surely if asked, a company like Hancock Back or Mississippi Power would be willing to pay a couple hundred grand a year to to put their name on one. Ain't nothing wrong with Roberts-Carlisle-Faulkner field at Hancock Bank Stadium or Petro Nissan Tennis Courts.

I heard from someone close to the matter that Billy Mc was talking with someone about naming rights for a new basketball arena. $10 million dollars for the naming rights. The company, apparently, was like "Okay, so 5 year naming rights for $10 million. Seems about the norm." And our people were like "No, we meant for life." They looked at them like they had no idea what they were doing.

Quote:The company, apparently, was like "Okay, so 5 year naming rights for $10 million. Seems about the norm." And our people were like "No, we meant for life."

Wait... so our school admins said it'd be a lifetime naming rights for just $10M?? WTF?

(08-28-2017 08:00 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:The company, apparently, was like "Okay, so 5 year naming rights for $10 million. Seems about the norm." And our people were like "No, we meant for life."

Wait... so our school admins said it'd be a lifetime naming rights for just $10M?? WTF?

Calm down guys.

A. This is a secondhand rumor.
B. Considering the deal wasn't done and no one on here was in the room when it happened, no one knows if this is actually true or not.
C. Let's not go crucifying USM's admin over unconfirmed message board rumors.

(08-28-2017 08:23 AM)SouthernMissSNu Wrote:  

(08-28-2017 08:00 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  

Quote:The company, apparently, was like "Okay, so 5 year naming rights for $10 million. Seems about the norm." And our people were like "No, we meant for life."

Wait... so our school admins said it'd be a lifetime naming rights for just $10M?? WTF?

Calm down guys.

A. This is a secondhand rumor.
B. Considering the deal wasn't done and no one on here was in the room when it happened, no one knows if this is actually true or not.
C. Let's not go crucifying USM's admin over unconfirmed message board rumors.

look at how brilliantly admin negotiated the e12loss contract .... specifically the buyout clause.... with their track record, we tend to believe 2nd rumors

I can't give you 100% confirmation on that rumor, but I can say that the person who I heard it from is an incredibly reliable source and tends to hear his stories straight from people involved. You can choose to believe that or not, I really don't care. I do know, though, that I trust them on this.

(08-28-2017 08:23 AM)SouthernMissSNu Wrote:  C. Let's not go crucifying USM's admin over unconfirmed message board rumors.

But isn't that at least half the fun?

(08-28-2017 09:45 AM)jebaroo Wrote:  look at how brilliantly admin negotiated the e12loss contract .... specifically the buyout clause.... with their track record, we tend to believe 2nd rumors

To be fair, no one involved in creating that particular piece of the track record is making decisions here anymore.

Part of me wants to believe the story, but if that conversation actually took place, how would us offering lifetime rights for what the company was planning to spend for only 5 years of rights cause the deal to fall through? I'd wonder about the competence of the management of that company more than that of our administration in that situation. If you go into a meeting prepared to pay "x" dollars for 5 years of something and get offered a lifetime supply of it for that same "x" dollars, you're not getting up and walking out. You're reaching for a pen as fast as you can.

Fell through because $10 million is still short of the $50 million we were going to need. Can't name something that isn't built.

(08-29-2017 07:47 AM)EagNBran Wrote:  Fell through because $10 million is still short of the $50 million we were going to need. Can't name something that isn't built.

Still, no reason both parties couldn't have that part agreed to in principle while the other $40 million is being pursued.