- Messages
- 15,701
Well I guess what you are saying is that Nike will pay GT 8 Million a year over 10 years??? 80m?? If that is the case why didn't Nike beat out RA back in 2008 and pay us 2.5M??
The facts aresimple if Nike wanted GT they would have already had us in 2008, however they opted not to sign us, or GT opted to take more cash from RA! Why did Nike decide not to pay us 2.5M to 3M than, becuase they already sell items in the Atlanta Market, and they do not think giving GT 2.5M in 2008 was a good ROI???
Nike & Under Armour aren't trying to sell GT gear. They're trying to sell gear, period. I agree that Nike doesn't need GT for the ATL market because of UGA, but we make an attractive marketing vehicle for Under Armour in a strong media market with ACC exposure.
Back in 2008, the political implications of GT ties to Russell (execs, founders, etc.) existed. Today, as a company owned by Berkshire Hathaway, those go out the window.
Also, there's been massive inflation in media properties, which this is at the end of the day, an advertising vehicle. Nike & UA are in an arms race for mind share. For that reason, the price will be bid up among them. Not because we're only worth so much, but because they don't want the other to get a media asset.