Why do we stay with Russell Athletic?

JacketFromUGA

JacketFromUGA

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,895
Let me again emphasize the most important thing that will be from the new deal with someone other than Russell.


Additionally, Rutgers will receive adidas’ product & marketing expertise and the two will collaborate on marketing opportunities and the development and enhancement of the licensed retail landscape on campus.
 
ChasonBaller

ChasonBaller

on Pastner Polo watch
Messages
3,531
UA is the sexy pick right now with Curry and Spieth leading the way, Adidas is the go to for almost all of the big name Euro players, and Nike will always be relevant and cool. I would prefer UA based on the current AAU circuit but out of the 3, a bad choice cannot be made.
 

RamblinRed

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
5,735
I think all three are involved, but you get the sense that UA and Adidas are out front. I think Nike has plenty of properties in the area so they don't feel the need to make a strong play.

I would expect it will come down to UA and Adidas eventually. Stansbury is heading this up so I actually have a fair bit of confidence in the process.
 
GTFLETCH

GTFLETCH

Banned
Messages
2,639
BigDaddyBuzz said:
So I talked to someone today. Confirmed that Russell is not even bidding. UA wants GT bad but so does Adidas. Nike running a distant third. If the numbers I saw on what Adidas is paying Rutgers are true, then I expect GT deal to be in the $11-12 million a year range. UA may have to pay more than originally expected.
Click to expand...

While I hope we can get someone to pay us 11 million a year...I just do not believe it will happen... At this point I will take a 5 year 25M deal.. However I am not sure anyone will pay us 5M a year...I am hearing we might find it hard to find someone willing to pay us 3 Million a year.

Why am I so worried ?? Because Rutgers new deal is so poor...begins at $1.7 million in 2017-18 and rises to $1.8 million in the sixth year. (Total 6 year at 10.5M) This is worse than our current deal with RA (and a worse deal then their unofficial extension offer Bobblehead turned down)



Link
https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/...he_financial_details_of_rutgers_adidas_d.html
 
Last edited:
GTFLETCH

GTFLETCH

Banned
Messages
2,639
RamblinRed said:
I think Nike has plenty of properties in the area so they don't feel the need to make a strong play.
Click to expand...

Agree just look at the VT Nike extension that runs through 2022...Virginia Tech’s deal is 5th-worst out if all deals... averages only 1.9M per year....the same time we had RA offering Bobblehead 5M per year in extension monies. (GT walked so I hope we have something lined up for 5M per year)

However I find it hard to see Nike offering more than 2M per year. They just do not need us... I hope we can get UA or Adidas to pay 5M plus, but my gut tells me that is not going to happen we may get something between the 2M - 4M range!

Link
http://virginiatech.sportswar.com/article/2016/05/25/virginia-techs-nike-deal/
 
Last edited:
GTFLETCH

GTFLETCH

Banned
Messages
2,639
BigDaddyBuzz said:
If the numbers I saw on what Adidas is paying Rutgers are true, then I expect GT deal to be in the $11-12 million a year range.
Click to expand...

Your Numbers are Wrong... Rutgers deal with Nike was 1M per year... The new Adidas deal is for 1.7M per year or 6 year 10M dollar deal. Not even close to the 11-12M range. It is even less than the 10yr - 20M deal GTAA has with RA that ends in 2018.

Good News is that the Rutgers new "deal" is the lowest contract from Adidas, the next lowest deals with Adidas are Mississippi ST 2.5M (ends 2021) & Nebraska at 3M (Ends 2018)... So one could conclude that we should be able to switch to Adidas and ensure GTAA does not lose money as we should be able to get a 2M - 3M deal from Adidas, and with a bidding war between UA and Adidas we may get lucky and get up to 5M per year! That would be great!

We will not get any solid bids from Nike as they are trying to reup with current Football Power house Bama and Current Basktball Power house UNC in 2018, also they are negotiating with Oregon. Nike let Rutgers walk so they could throw the "Rutgers" money into the new deals with Bama, Oregon and UNC. I am not so worried that Nike won't sign GT as I am worried that Nike will allow Iowa, Iowa St and others go like they did with Rutgers and with so many teams looking for new deals, the deals are lower!!

At this point if we can find a company willing to give us 2.5M a year Adidas, UA, or Nike I think it is a win for Tech!!!
 
shakim3

shakim3

Jolly Good Fellow
Messages
252
I think I've said this before (and I'm sure someone in this thread has touched on it) but Sammy Huntley played football with Stansbury at Tech and is currently the Senior Director of Team Sports at UA (aka the guy who makes these types of decisions). He also previously worked at Russell in early 2000 so he understands the current deal pretty well.

GT was the first entity ever to wear UA (not just school... they bought the first ever sold 10 units for a trial for the game at Notre Dame in mid 2000s).

When they put us through new member hires at UA they talked about the history of the company and in every document it talked about GT buying the first units. They have wanted GT since the beginning and this is their opportunity to pounce.

Not saying it will be UA but they are certainly motivated to right the wrong that occurred when they couldn't secure the deal originally.
 

mstranahan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,553
I honestly hope we never wear UA. I'm an old school ACC guy and the Maryland defection was led, engineered and funded by the Twerp alum that founded UA. I can't stand giving him a nickel. Let him sign all the B1G schools, but no ACC.

I know that will never happen, but I hate seeing anything good happen to the guys that broke up the ACC
 
JacketFromUGA

JacketFromUGA

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,895
mstranahan said:
I honestly hope we never wear UA. I'm an old school ACC guy and the Maryland defection was led, engineered and funded by the Twerp alum that founded UA. I can't stand giving him a nickel. Let him sign all the B1G schools, but no ACC.

I know that will never happen, but I hate seeing anything good happen to the guys that broke up the ACC
Click to expand...
never knew there were people pining for Maryland.
 
kg01

kg01

Get-Bak! Coach
Featured Member
Messages
14,435
Location
Atlanta
shakim3 said:
I think I've said this before (and I'm sure someone in this thread has touched on it) but Sammy Huntley played football with Stansbury at Tech and is currently the Senior Director of Team Sports at UA (aka the guy who makes these types of decisions). He also previously worked at Russell in early 2000 so he understands the current deal pretty well.

GT was the first entity ever to wear UA (not just school... they bought the first ever sold 10 units for a trial for the game at Notre Dame in mid 2000s).

When they put us through new member hires at UA they talked about the history of the company and in every document it talked about GT buying the first units. They have wanted GT since the beginning and this is their opportunity to pounce.

Not saying it will be UA but they are certainly motivated to right the wrong that occurred when they couldn't secure the deal originally.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's the only part of a UA deal that I'd like. There's that history there that could gain us some sort of preferred status with them.

I want us to end up a Nike school but I'd actually like that angle if we ended up with UA.

I'm a 'no' on adidas completely. all I do is destroy athletes' knees
 

mstranahan

Helluva Engineer
Messages
1,553
I am not a Twerp fan by any stretch, but I hate that a founding member of the conference ran away in the middle of the night and now we have the outcasts from the Big East instead. I know Cuse & Louisville are good programs but Pitt, VPI, BC and Miami will never fit in. The "new" ACC was constructed around football money, and I'm a hoops guy. We lost the home and homes, which were great. Now the regular season is all about scheduling and who gets the easy road vs the hard road. Give me the 8 team ACC (pre-FSU) or at worst the 9 team league. Those were the days and I would even take the Twerps back if it meant we could jettison the Big East luggage.
 
Ibeeballin

Ibeeballin

Im a 3*
Messages
6,047
kg01 said:
Yeah, that's the only part of a UA deal that I'd like. There's that history there that could gain us some sort of preferred status with them.

I want us to end up a Nike school but I'd actually like that angle if we ended up with UA.

I'm a 'no' on adidas completely. all I do is destroy athletes' knees
Click to expand...

@kg01 you gotta get on the Adidas Boost train.

I'm fine with either UA or Adidas(as stated numerous times that I'm big on the Adidas lifestyle wear)

I'm not sure why UA has folks scared. They are not going anywhere for awhile as they will be to Uniform provider for the MLB, official partner of the NFL, and has some of the best performance models out. I was totally against Adidas going to my days of HS. Their cleats were some of the most uncomfortable of shoes I've ever worn. I thought uniform choices for UL, Miami, and Michigan were horrendous and very Russell-like. It wasn't until last season when Adidas rebranded themselves with and also redoing Da U uniforms that I was convinced they could be a great sponsor for us. Long story short, I'm excited for either
 
ChasonBaller

ChasonBaller

on Pastner Polo watch
Messages
3,531
I went into Barnes & Noble to try and find my mom a shirt and almost everything in the book store was UA..hopefully foreshadowing the new contract
 
Top