Thanks KG.. Kinda sounds like Russell had us by the balls..
Contract lawyers don't advise on business points. That said, I'm no lawyer, but I'm happy to step in.The AA REALLY needs a good contract lawyer. It seems like we get stuck on the short end of contracts at every single deal (coaches, apparel, media, etc.).
Yes. GT's long-dated relationship with Russell is a function of those kinds of ties, but Russell is now owned by Warren Buffett. We should go work with the best overall deal, not out of a sense of loyalty.Didn't I read somewhere that the founder of RA or CEO or whoever has deep ties or is a GT alum?
Contract lawyers don't advise on business points. That said, I'm no lawyer, but I'm happy to step in.
@Techster great points and you bring up a term I feel I've heard before regarding the apparel deal, which is test the market for value. We might actually be in that window. Kind of a guess on my part, but I think I've seen that somewhere.
Didn't I read somewhere that the founder of RA or CEO or whoever has deep ties or is a GT alum?
That didn't stop Auburn from jumping ship from Russell years ago (under Bowden). IIRC, their defection meant layoffs at the AL-based company which was a huge deal in that state. I also think it's part of why Bowden is still hated there but I digress.
Come to think of it, that's probably part of the reason they see GT as being so important to them.
Auburn dislike for Russell had to be really bad because they signed with New Balance before going to Under Armour. Like Dtm said, I expect it to be UA with deal in the 10yr/ $75-90mil range and personally, I would prefer UA because we be a Tier 1 school (meaning we would premiere there new technology) we cant be that with Nike. Also the newest face of UA Football is.... you guessed it Baybay Thomas. So that is great tie in and would make for a great commercial.
Aren't the "contracts" in question really only about uniforms?
You can find Russell, Nike, UA, etc. GT clothing and the ilk in various places.
Pretty that is common perception and not fact.Yeah but IIUC being a 'Nike' or 'UA' school means more and better merchandise out there. I'm sure each company puts out generic stuff they basically affix logos/colors to whereas they do more for their signature schools.
Also, someone else noted that for UA we'd be a tier 1 school for them or STTE which (based on my meager understanding) is a good thing (i guess?).
Pretty that is common perception and not fact.
Does anyone really think that Nike , UA, adidas, etc. would not put their logo on anything they thought would sell?
Cash $sThere has to be some incentive above simply providing uniforms, no?
Saw this is the most recent issue of Sports Illustrated. 10 of the top 20 committed players are changing their shoe affiliation from HS to college. This suggests to me at least that the shoe company thing is not quite as strong as I initially thought, though I think there's no question it's in play.
View attachment 1336