The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(11-18-2020 05:08 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 05:01 PM)dsquare Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 03:03 PM)dubcat14 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 02:58 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  Woah...did not expect that even with the UCLA and Cal news, UA must be in real trouble.

Does Nike really see us as that much of a prime brand to throw their Jordan-brand hands on us again? At the moment, the only football programs on the Jordan brand portfolio are UNC, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Florida.

Could be Jumpman logo for basketball, Nike for everything else.

Well one good thing is our football "brand" and exposure is about as high as we could possibly have hoped given where we were at four years ago. It will be interesting to see what plays out, but Fickell and his guys have at least advanced that piece of the pie and gotten us more media exposure than i would say we expected. I wonder if Fickell has connections with Nike from his Osu days.

Alex Meachum has talked about this before on his podcast, but UC's tie-in with Nike is through former Huggins player Jamaal Lucas, who is now high up the food-chain for the Jordan Brand.

As others are suggesting, if this had to happen sometime, UC football has probably had more exposure the past 90 days than the sum total of any previous season. Our colors and graphic identity are always strong and there should be opportunity to forge a new deal while the brand is hot.

Hey Puma enter the USA a little more send a sweetheart deal.

Looks like the original info was misleading. Per Chad, the deal continues through 2024. Basically UA negotiated some upfront money to get out of the deal a year earlier. Much ado about nothing. He’ll have more on his podcast tonight.

(11-18-2020 05:57 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Looks like the original info was misleading. Per Chad, the deal continues through 2024. Basically UA negotiated some upfront money to get out of the deal a year earlier. Much ado about nothing. He’ll have more on his podcast tonight.

That was in the original post as well.

(11-18-2020 05:29 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Hey Puma enter the USA a little more send a sweetheart deal.

interestingly enough, there are a couple of olympic sports+bball apparel companies that i would love to see bid on us (new balance being the other company outside of Puma), but the big question mark would be who would supply the football team. For all intents and purposes, it's really down to Nike/Jumpman and Adidas when it comes to fb and i doubt that they would outfit fb only.

(11-18-2020 05:57 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Looks like the original info was misleading. Per Chad, the deal continues through 2024. Basically UA negotiated some upfront money to get out of the deal a year earlier. Much ado about nothing. He’ll have more on his podcast tonight.

That seems odd...theyre paying $9M to get out of a year of a deal that wouldve cost them $5M?

(11-18-2020 09:06 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 05:57 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Looks like the original info was misleading. Per Chad, the deal continues through 2024. Basically UA negotiated some upfront money to get out of the deal a year earlier. Much ado about nothing. He’ll have more on his podcast tonight.

That seems odd...theyre paying $9M to get out of a year of a deal that wouldve cost them $5M?

I thought I just have misunderstood something because I was wondering the same. Why they would pay that much to get out of the contract just one year early. I just be missing something.

(11-18-2020 09:06 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 05:57 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Looks like the original info was misleading. Per Chad, the deal continues through 2024. Basically UA negotiated some upfront money to get out of the deal a year earlier. Much ado about nothing. He’ll have more on his podcast tonight.

That seems odd...theyre paying $9M to get out of a year of a deal that wouldve cost them $5M?

That was where the confusion was. The $9M isn’t a buyout. They’re speeding up the payments and as a concession they will pay less over the remaining 3 years and drop a year off the contract. UC would’ve made somewhere in the neighborhood of $13.5M over that same 3 year period.

So bottom line, UC gets less money but quicker.

I have to be honest, I was never too enthralled with the nike gear. I mean, they were ok...

I've liked the UA stuff for the most part. I really like that they haven't trotted out basketball uniforms with idiotic sleeves.

(11-18-2020 09:29 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:06 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 05:57 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Looks like the original info was misleading. Per Chad, the deal continues through 2024. Basically UA negotiated some upfront money to get out of the deal a year earlier. Much ado about nothing. He’ll have more on his podcast tonight.

That seems odd...theyre paying $9M to get out of a year of a deal that wouldve cost them $5M?

That was where the confusion was. The $9M isn’t a buyout. They’re speeding up the payments and as a concession they will pay less over the remaining 3 years and drop a year off the contract. UC would’ve made somewhere in the neighborhood of $13.5M over that same 3 year period.

So bottom line, UC gets less money but quicker.

Sounds like a way for the AD to float money to help carry significant losses while betting on themselves.

Good to hear there is no negotiation restriction, so we can have things set up whenever we want with another apparel company.

(11-18-2020 03:05 PM)dubcat14 Wrote:  clarifications provided.. nothing is in place but Meach is working his connections.

Maybe someone should fill Meacham in on what exactly happened...since he is making some calls.

(11-18-2020 10:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:29 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:06 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 05:57 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Looks like the original info was misleading. Per Chad, the deal continues through 2024. Basically UA negotiated some upfront money to get out of the deal a year earlier. Much ado about nothing. He’ll have more on his podcast tonight.

That seems odd...theyre paying $9M to get out of a year of a deal that wouldve cost them $5M?

That was where the confusion was. The $9M isn’t a buyout. They’re speeding up the payments and as a concession they will pay less over the remaining 3 years and drop a year off the contract. UC would’ve made somewhere in the neighborhood of $13.5M over that same 3 year period.

So bottom line, UC gets less money but quicker.

Sounds like a way for the AD to float money to help carry significant losses while betting on themselves.

Good to hear there is no negotiation restriction, so we can have things set up whenever we want with another apparel company.

Varsity Village is more broke than I feared. This is like cashing out a 401k with the 35% penalty.

UA is likely selling this as a way to help their school partners but it’s them cleaning up their books of liabilities. They may be in the early stages of M&A work.

(11-19-2020 07:01 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 10:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:29 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:06 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 05:57 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  Looks like the original info was misleading. Per Chad, the deal continues through 2024. Basically UA negotiated some upfront money to get out of the deal a year earlier. Much ado about nothing. He’ll have more on his podcast tonight.

That seems odd...theyre paying $9M to get out of a year of a deal that wouldve cost them $5M?

That was where the confusion was. The $9M isn’t a buyout. They’re speeding up the payments and as a concession they will pay less over the remaining 3 years and drop a year off the contract. UC would’ve made somewhere in the neighborhood of $13.5M over that same 3 year period.

So bottom line, UC gets less money but quicker.

Sounds like a way for the AD to float money to help carry significant losses while betting on themselves.

Good to hear there is no negotiation restriction, so we can have things set up whenever we want with another apparel company.

Varsity Village is more broke than I feared. This is like cashing out a 401k with the 35% penalty.

UA is likely selling this as a way to help their school partners but it’s them cleaning up their books of liabilities. They may be in the early stages of M&A work.

It's only a 35% penalty if we get nothing during the year we got back.

If we get the same type of deal per year from another company, then we'll end up ahead because we accelerated the payment. Unless I'm reading this whole thing wrong....

(11-19-2020 08:02 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's only a 35% penalty if we get nothing during the year we got back.

If we get the same type of deal per year from another company, then we'll end up ahead because we accelerated the payment. Unless I'm reading this whole thing wrong....

This is my understanding of it. Liquid cash flow now, status quo on branding, figure out the rest after the pandemic. Seems reasonable.

The next round of apparel deals may not be the same animal for most programs now that individual players’ names, images and likeness will be monetized. That is another possible reason for UA cratering the UCLA deal as well as others. The game has changed. Being tied into a long term deal under the old framework may just not make sense for the companies.

(11-19-2020 08:13 AM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 08:02 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  It's only a 35% penalty if we get nothing during the year we got back.

If we get the same type of deal per year from another company, then we'll end up ahead because we accelerated the payment. Unless I'm reading this whole thing wrong....

This is my understanding of it. Liquid cash flow now, status quo on branding, figure out the rest after the pandemic. Seems reasonable.

Liquid cash flow at a premium that would make payday loan cash advance companies blush. I’d feel better about it if I had more confidence that the people heading up the athletic department will find a better deal in that reduced year and beyond that will make up for that $$ given up to cash out.

(11-19-2020 08:20 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  The next round of apparel deals may not be the same animal for most programs now that individual players’ names, images and likeness will be monetized. That is another possible reason for UA cratering the UCLA deal as well as others. The game has changed. Being tied into a long term deal under the old framework may just not make sense for the companies.

And there is some aspect to diminishing returns or ROI relative to how many programs Nike/Adidas/UA need to sponsor

(11-19-2020 08:02 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-19-2020 07:01 AM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 10:41 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:29 PM)Billy_Bearcat Wrote:  

(11-18-2020 09:06 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  That seems odd...theyre paying $9M to get out of a year of a deal that wouldve cost them $5M?

That was where the confusion was. The $9M isn’t a buyout. They’re speeding up the payments and as a concession they will pay less over the remaining 3 years and drop a year off the contract. UC would’ve made somewhere in the neighborhood of $13.5M over that same 3 year period.

So bottom line, UC gets less money but quicker.

Sounds like a way for the AD to float money to help carry significant losses while betting on themselves.

Good to hear there is no negotiation restriction, so we can have things set up whenever we want with another apparel company.

Varsity Village is more broke than I feared. This is like cashing out a 401k with the 35% penalty.

UA is likely selling this as a way to help their school partners but it’s them cleaning up their books of liabilities. They may be in the early stages of M&A work.

It's only a 35% penalty if we get nothing during the year we got back.

If we get the same type of deal per year from another company, then we'll end up ahead because we accelerated the payment. Unless I'm reading this whole thing wrong....

I see little chance we'll get the same sort of deal that we were getting from UA. As of the report yesterday, UC still had one of the top 20 apparel deals in the country with UA. I really doubt Nike or Adidas is going to be able to match it. Moreover, there is no pressure on them to. Other than one another who are they competing against-- Puma?

Houston and Temple have Nike deals. Temple had UA like we did until switching earlier this year. I don't believe either school is getting any significant cash out of the deal, just apparel. Also, as a frame of reference I discovered Clemson signed a deal comparable in cash and apparel to our UA deal two years ago (10 yrs $58M). If Clemson can't get a better deal I don't have any hopes that we could even come close to that.

Can No Fear come back and bid?

Wasn't that UC's 1st "apparel deal"?

(11-19-2020 09:06 AM)CliftonAve Wrote:  I see little chance we'll get the same sort of deal that we were getting from UA. As of the report yesterday, UC still had one of the top 20 apparel deals in the country with UA. I really doubt Nike or Adidas is going to be able to match it. Moreover, there is no pressure on them to. Other than one another who are they competing against-- Puma?

Houston and Temple have Nike deals. Temple had UA like we did until switching earlier this year. I don't believe either school is getting any significant cash out of the deal, just apparel. Also, as a frame of reference I discovered Clemson signed a deal comparable in cash and apparel to our UA deal two years ago (10 yrs $58M). If Clemson can't get a better deal I don't have any hopes that we could even come close to that.

I think based on everything we've learned about UA over the last year, they went on a spending spree in their more recent apparel deals and overspent on several of these partnerships with colleges; UCLA's $280M/15 yr deal being the notable example of that but it's not hard to believe UC was getting paid more than their market value in their deal with UA.

When the ROI on that awful strategy turned out to be negligible, UA had to reverse course and cut costs in a number of areas and I'm curious if Cincinnati was one of those schools that suffered because of it; how many people seem to complain about the quality of UA gear despite the higher price and have you seen the state of UC football's practice jerseys?

So while it might be a stretch to see Cincinnati's next deal be valued at $5M/year, my hope is that Nike/Adidas/whoever can offer fans a quality product while still providing UC's teams with great uniforms and pumping a few million dollars into the athletic department.