šŸˆ Just for fun: What would you want to see as UA's on-the-field sponsorship logo? [Update: UA signs deal with US Navy for logo sponsorship]

Bama has to find a way to take advantage of the Bama name and Brand to generate NIL money period... Have to make up the difference in Nike and Oil money and they have the Bama brand so use it.
While you're right, in this case this is facility money. It's certainly linked to NIL.

When NIL started one of the things we talked about here was how booster contributions were a zero sum game. If a guy is giving $1 to Tide Pride he's looking at splitting that dollar, or taking it away from one and give to the other.

New money was, is, and will be essential.
 
While you're right, in this case this is facility money. It's certainly linked to NIL.

When NIL started one of the things we talked about here was how booster contributions were a zero sum game. If a guy is giving $1 to Tide Pride he's looking at splitting that dollar, or taking it away from one and give to the other.

New money was, is, and will be essential.
Yep if you rob peter to pay paul, you have to generate new revenue for peter..... So NIL is at the core of the need for more revenue. I simplify things in my mind and you have said it also it is a zero sum game. From the limited large doners relatively speaking, you have to prioritize how you spend that money.

Other paths to create more revenue is these same donors pay more but that will only go so far. Then you have reduce spending on other sports and then lastly find new revenue sources... To make up the difference with the Texas and Oregons of the world we will have to do all three. Bama has the brand to sale so use it. In the end they will not be able to completely close the gap...
 
Haven't read through the thread, but did anyone see we signed an extension with Nike? No details have been public yet but it was announced.

Hoping it was a good amount too. Bill Battle made a lazy deal with them that cost us millions. Byrne actually tried to renegotiate with NIKE when he became AD because of how bad the deal was. NIKE said no because they knew they won it. The program was making CFB history, yet Battle allowed us to get lowballed that ended with us making less than UCLA.
 
Haven't read through the thread, but did anyone see we signed an extension with Nike? No details have been public yet but it was announced.

Hoping it was a good amount too. Bill Battle made a lazy deal with them that cost us millions. Byrne actually tried to renegotiate with NIKE when he became AD because of how bad the deal was. NIKE said no because they knew they won it. The program was making CFB history, yet Battle allowed us to get lowballed that ended with us making less than UCLA.
Yeah Terry posted and talked about it a little few weeks ago
 
Hoping it was a good amount too. Bill Battle made a lazy deal with them that cost us millions. Byrne actually tried to renegotiate with NIKE when he became AD because of how bad the deal was. NIKE said no because they knew they won it. The program was making CFB history, yet Battle allowed us to get lowballed that ended with us making less than UCLA.
You know, Battle signed the deal with Nike just like Byrne did this one; long before anyone knew. The thing about Battle? He also signed the deal long before anyone knew of the deal other schools signed later. Is it a fair shake to fault someone for something that happened in their future?

In 2016 Ohio State signed a contract with Nike for $252 million. Texas had recently resigned for $2 million less. People started paying attention; but only a little and they were all sports people.

Then UCLA and Under-Armor hit the newsstands and everyone was reading. That one was for $280 million. All of this is happening in and around 2016.

Battle signed the contract with Nike in 2013 before that "cash bonanza" was even drafted.

I haven't heard anything about Byrne trying to renegotiate the contract with Nike. There was no language in that contract about renegotiations.

Before Battle took the AD job, the last two contracts with Nike were signed well before the contract ended. His deal, as well as Byrne's, are no different than anything this century in when they were renewed.

I have no doubt the new contract is competitive.

I have to question any criticism of the new deal. Only a select few know the details.

Let's not forget. Schools have been sent FOIA requests for Nike contracts and those requests have been refused. We may never know the details.
 
A couple of things on the Nike stuff...

Byrne did try to renegotiate the original deal that Battle agreed to and yes, Nike basically told him to kick rocks... if I recall, they made some (overall) very minor concessions with school issued apparel stuff (basically, players/sports got a slight bump in Nike gear).

The new deal was done through the Crimson Tide Foundation, not the school itself. That pretty much shields it from ever being public, something neither Nike nor UA wanted.
 
You know, Battle signed the deal with Nike just like Byrne did this one; long before anyone knew. The thing about Battle? He also signed the deal long before anyone knew of the deal other schools signed later. Is it a fair shake to fault someone for something that happened in their future?

In 2016 Ohio State signed a contract with Nike for $252 million. Texas had recently resigned for $2 million less. People started paying attention; but only a little and they were all sports people.

Then UCLA and Under-Armor hit the newsstands and everyone was reading. That one was for $280 million. All of this is happening in and around 2016.

Battle signed the contract with Nike in 2013 before that "cash bonanza" was even drafted.

I haven't heard anything about Byrne trying to renegotiate the contract with Nike. There was no language in that contract about renegotiations.

Before Battle took the AD job, the last two contracts with Nike were signed well before the contract ended. His deal, as well as Byrne's, are no different than anything this century in when they were renewed.

I have no doubt the new contract is competitive.

I have to question any criticism of the new deal. Only a select few know the details.

Let's not forget. Schools have been sent FOIA requests for Nike contracts and those requests have been refused. We may never know the details.

I'm upset we didn't go Jordan. That's my only comment about it.
 
You know, Battle signed the deal with Nike just like Byrne did this one; long before anyone knew. The thing about Battle? He also signed the deal long before anyone knew of the deal other schools signed later. Is it a fair shake to fault someone for something that happened in their future?
I'm sorry but Battle was a supposed "business man" and his exact words were "make us an offer we can't refuse" in 2013. Literally the first money thrown at Alabama - $63 million - and he signed without negotiating to try and maximize $. This when Alabama was coming off of back to back national championships. Byrne did attempt to renegotiate because it was such a lowball of a deal, costing Alabama an estimated $100 million. Ohio State? 15-year deal, 252 million signed back in 2016.

I don't buy this excuse that it was before way the era of lucrative deals. There was options to understand where the market was going and demand for Alabama apparel. If he wasn't a lazy AD - and he was - Alabama could have locked in way more. Downvote away.
 
Last edited:
I'm sorry but Battle was a supposed "business man" and his exact words were "make us an offer we can't refuse" in 2013. Literally the first money thrown at Alabama - $63 million - and he signed without negotiating to try and maximize $. This when Alabama was coming off of back to back national championships. Byrne did attempt to renegotiate because it was such. a lowball of a deal, costing Alabama an estimated $100 million. Ohio State? 15-year deal, 252 million signed back in 2016.
What reason do you have to believe he didn't negotiate a 'better than market deal?' It's speculation based on people talking with few knowing the details of the market in 2013.

FSU signed a contract with Nike the same year for a little less than Bama (50 over 10 years.) Nebraska signed one that season for far less than both schools (3 over 5 years.)

I never said Byrne didn't try to renegotiate. I said that wasn't included in the original contract. It's an easy out for any party: in this case Nike.

(We've seen similar with the addition of SEC teams and the TV contracts. It was one of the top discussion points about adding OU and TX and continues to be when looking at adding teams in the future.)

What you've said here is reinforcing my point. What happened in 2013 and what happened in 2016 and somehow Battle was supposed to be clairvoyant?

In my view, Ohio State deserved more money than Alabama in spite of suggesting the football titles hold as much weight. They don't from an economic point of view. The OSU program has twice the inventory Alabama carries. It's a bigger athletic department. A broader reach.

I don't buy this excuse that it was way the era of lucrative deals. There was options to understand where the market was going and demand for Alabama apparel. If he wasn't a lazy AD - and he was - Alabama could have locked in way more. Downvote away.
No reason to downvote your opinion.

I guess other AD's were lazy at the time.
 
Why? Jordan is Nike. Same materials, same designs. The only thing that’s different is the logo. Why would you want a brand focused on basketball to be the apparel for football, baseball, track and volleyball?

We've already hashed this out multiple times. It's more than Nike and the materials. It's the perks, more limited than Nike. It's what it can do for you, not the fact it's made better.

Jordan is an avid golfer and has a big line of golf items. They makes baseball and football items specific to Jordan as well. Not just basketball, but every sport.
 
What reason do you have to believe he didn't negotiate a 'better than market deal?' It's speculation based on people talking with few knowing the details of the market in 2013.
I have nothing to say he didn't renegotiate. I have a hard time believing NIKE was so against the idea of signing a deal upwards of $100 million for 15 years because the market didn't demand it at the time. Did it really increase that much in two years that Michigan was able to secure a 15-year, $169 million deal? Meanwhile we're stuck getting 20% less? All this with Alabama dominating the CFB landscape, having a dramatic increase in enrollment, never going a day without being mentioned in the media, and its athletic department winning multiple titles in other sports (golf, gymnastics, and softball). The demand for Alabama apparel was likely never bigger. Battle's exact words were "make an offer we can't refuse". NIKE did what any good company would do and started low to negotiate from there. Battle likely was content with the figure and signed it. Again, speculation on my part but I for the life of me can't see otherwise. Even Bob Dorfman, a sports marketing analyst, was surprised to hear about Alabama's 2013 deal with Nike.

"Certainly, if the deal was expiring, I would suspect Alabama would sign the richest deal of all right now," Dorfman said. "I would think they'd re-up with Nike and Nike would pay them definitely more than UCLA is getting paid by Under Armour."

It is also pure speculation on my part. There isn't a slight bit of inside info or anything I know that could ever put forth evidence to support my claim. When he was hired, he was lauded as a "business man" and understood contracts. Maybe it's my bias against him, but nothing he did at the University of Alabama struck my as an aggressive, calculated business man. He retained Anthony Grant to the point where Grant himself told him face to face "do what you have to do". Even then, it was the pressure from boosters that forced him to fire Grant. He failed miserably with the Greg Goff fiasco, setting the program back even further. When Sarah Patterson retired, he only interviewed two assistants. Instead of thoroughly going through the process and finding an idea replacement, he lazily selected one of the two assistants. He hired Avery on name alone after missing big on Gregg Marshall. I could go on, but point blank, he fucking sucked as an AD.

Again, you could not simply turn on ESPN, read a magazine, see social media, etc.. a day without Alabama being mentioned. All while rocking that NIKE logo. It was a big opportunity to make way more than what Alabama was given. It was a terrible deal.

Hindsight; whatever. It's not something easy to get over.
 
We've already hashed this out multiple times. It's more than Nike and the materials. It's the perks, more limited than Nike. It's what it can do for you, not the fact it's made better.

Jordan is an avid golfer and has a big line of golf items. They makes baseball and football items specific to Jordan as well. Not just basketball, but every sport.
Jordan is a part of Nike. Nike isn’t a part of Jordan.
 
Back
Top Bottom