Where will Big Yungin be in 2010... Does he in fact have Options???

[sole investigator]

While following this discussion in the Lebron VII thread and now this thread, it has got me thinking... Like MaZe and Rock pointed out, there are MANYunderlying issues going on in this situation that are not visible to the average fan (or semi-connected person)... there are a lot of People and stuff behindthe stuff that will be happening or actions being taken to influence Lebron's decision.

If only I could be a fly on a wall and hear/see what is going on behind the scenes in this whole situation...

 

[rockdeep]

Sole... if you only knew... lol

Theres a meeting that happens every other week and every week when a big event is goin on. People from all parts of Nike Basketball Marketing talk about futureplans and such. Its on a Conf. call with LA NYC Chi and the Beav.. with a few Field offices included.

In that room.. PR, Marketing, Sports Marketing et all ask chime in and hear what the new stuff is and the lines which will be promoted. Theres actually peoplein there who don't like others and especially some involved WITH Lebrons line. THIS IS FACT.

There are people involved with the Line that Brons folks dont like. When the Re-up happens be assured some folks close to Phil and close to Bron will betelling Mark Parker some folks need to be gone gone. I mean Kenzo designed ALL the Brons right....? Til the VII... and some even say (as its been rumored noteven the new VI) and he and Bron had a GREAT relationship.

Politics always play a role and I know this first hand.

Its definately going to be more chess matches and stuff behind the scenes I wont even hear about, but will be keeping my ear to the street on. Like those Conf.calls they think are so private!! lololol

 

[mister friendly]

Originally Posted by ElderWatsonDiggs

Originally Posted by the12the22the32the4

Originally Posted by ElderWatsonDiggs

Since this thread is so big on quoting I'll join in.

i think it must be reiterated that, in the athletic footwear landscape hoops isn't the giant expanding market it once was, so just because a shoes hits the outlets does not signal some failure on a company's part especially when considering sig shoes that run upwards of $125+, basketball doesn't have that cache when it comes to general releases(unless that shoe has a jumpman on it! even moreso if it is a retro) in fact, it would likely be a challenge to name any $100+ hoops shoe (excluding jordans) that doesn't see the outlets at a discounted price...
i definitely agree that competition is sorely needed to reinvigorate basketball footwear & footwear in general, the reality is for nike, especially as it pertains to basketball, is that competition is jordan brand. i do not have the numbers but i think it goes jordan by a country mile, then nike, adidas a distant 3rd, and converse & reebok battling for 4th, not sure if and1 is still around...the problem isn't that there isn't competition, but that consumers don't really seem to see the competition as viable in a major way, maybe if UA snags LBJ it changes that dynamic, but i wouldn't count on it though, because as bad as people are saying that nike has been doing with their b-ball line(s) there has not been a migration to other brands. quite the opposite; they've become even more dominant, to the point that retailers are practically BEGGING other brands to show up in a major way (no doubt they would want to see this go down), so i believe it is going to take a change in the consumer mindset more than a change in scenery for LBJ to another brand...check out the other brands section every performance bball shoe from the competitors is mostly lambasted, and those brands have superstar personalties right now, and you still see are ruminations about if said person is going to leave for nike/jordan or what if said person was with nike/jordan or just plainly that nike/jordan just would do better...

and i can't for the life or me figure out, why people think LBJ's line is a failure...by which measure(s)?

The question highlighted in Yellow is all I want to know. When someone in here can quantitatively/empirically answer that question then I'll continue...until then it's just opinion and heresay.

Quantitative? Empirical? Sounds like a job for me!

Unfortunately, most of the info on that topic is kept under pretty tight security these days (I really miss the days when Steez had this info every quarter) but here is a link that shows the overall numbers from calendar year 2006, which for Lebron would have included the majority of the run of the ZLIII's, and the first colorway of the ZLIV's. In my opinion, the calendar year is sort of an interesting way to break it down (I think Q3 to Q3 would be a better fiscal year measure for basketball product) but, it does provide the same fair measure for everyone involved so I would assert that the stats are valid.

http://www.insidehoops.co...m/showthread.php?t=36302

Long story short, LBJ placed 27, 35, and 51 on the top 100.
Nike placed 91 shoes in the top 100 in total.
19 of the top 20 were Jordans.
All 20 of the top 20 were Nikes.

Again, this was in 2006 and Lebron had yet to take off as a marketing force so this list is admittedly a bit biased against him, but consider this - three years after Jordan's last launch of a shoe he actually wore on the court, three of MJ's XXI colorways outsold Lebron's best signature colorway in revenue generated (2 of them by 150%) and two of them outsold Lebron's signature in units sold, in less or equal time (the launches were a few weeks apart on the different colorways for the Jordans) and Jordan had 23 different offerings that outsold Lebron's top signature shoe (including a Show'm, a Laney, two team shoes, and a Dub Zero). The man that was anointed "King" had failed to crack the top 25 in the entire industry after FOUR shoe launches and trailed Kevin Garnett in units sold by more than 40,000 pairs and $1.3 million in revenue.

Further, this article dated June 23, 2008 is illuminating:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25330766/site/14081545?__source=yahoo|headline|quote|text|&par=yahoo

What's also interesting to take from that article is that Nike has a 93.5% share of the basketball shoe market, as of less than a year ago. Adidas has 4%, and the remaining 2.5% is presumably the Starbury/Puma/Peak/LiNing/Payless/etc.

Nike is the 153rd biggest company in America on the 2008 Fortune 500 list. They are the biggest apparel company by a mile; VFC with Lee, Wrangler, Majestic, Nautica, etc. is second at #335. Jordan shoes make up 67% of basketball shoe sales - Lebron is part of a Nike segment that along with Kobe and the other Nike basketball guys accounts for only 24% (second link).

IF THAT ARTICLE IS ACCURATE (which, it's Rovell at CNBC so there's no reason it wouldn't be) Lebron, in collaboration with all the other Nike athletes, sells over 250% fewer shoes than Michael Jordan, Carmelo Anthony, and maybe Chris Paul combined (not sure if they included Paul's first signature in that list yet - I would guess not since it had launched only a few months earlier, but that's strictly a guess). It's not even that he's not doing it on his own, it's that he can't do it as a part of the entire Nike Basketball stable.

That is why people think Lebron's line is a failure.

I asked for it, I got it. I will have to read it in further detail before coming up with a valid response so I don't put my foot in my mouth. Muito appreciated.




Wow thats insane!

But now that I think about it. I see alot people with Jordans. They think they are doing it big with some random team "jay"

To them its like this

Random team jay like a FBI,Swerv'm,Jumpan Pro Element etc >>>>>>>>>>> any Lebron,Kobe,Nash,Dirk,Stat etc.

 

[catch22]

Good thread.

I think if LBJ really wanted a piece of his own destiny, at a market cap of $355million, he has the resources and influence to capitalize his own privateequity firm and buy UA himself. Then he could drive his brand/culture/product line as he sees fit without a firewall of useless corporate egos. (Although, withtime and success, he too will find himself surrounded by the "mush", but that is 20 years down the road.)

If he just wants the money w/o the hard work (which doesn't seem to be LBJ style) then he should just continue to be a sweating billboard...um, I mean anendorser for Nike.

 

[gr3yfox23]

Lebron isnt moving.

 

[rockdeep]

Thanks for that insightful deep seeded opinion my man! Im gonna give that one some heavy thought!!! lol

 

[tokes99]

great stuff!!!
jmadidas used to post top sellers a waaayyy back, showing that same phenomenon and i remember seeing that article some months ago on espn's truehoop blog,it made perfect sense to me...the jumpman is more of a status symbol, that's more than 20 years in the "game" (and you also have to wonder howmuch of those #s are retros?)...if people are using that as the standard, it doesn't seem like a fair comparison... no one really has access to those #s,so what gets me is that people are saying that LBJs line was a failure due to it not "being what it could have been" and that somehow this willdrastically change because of UA? could they really do much more than nike has done with him?

 

[255forlife]

i doubt lebron would want to go the shaq route. sell more shoes at a lower price point.


dude's ego seems too big to want to appeal to the masses.


that's why i predict he stays with the swoosh and the line continues the way it goes.. gr hitting outlets, smu hitting the 'bay and underground.

 

[mattyg13]

Don't see him leavin, especially for UA. If anybody can make sneakers that suit Lebron it'll be Nike, and I don't see any other brand helpin himmore with his dream of being a global icon.

 

[zach13g]

Originally Posted by tokes99

it made perfect sense to me...the jumpman is more of a status symbol, that's more than 20 years in the "game" (and you also have to wonder how much of those #s are retros?)...if people are using that as the standard, it doesn't seem like a fair comparison... no one really has access to those #s, so what gets me is that people are saying that LBJs line was a failure due to it not "being what it could have been" and that somehow this will drastically change because of UA? could they really do much more than nike has done with him?

it's not a fair comparison because JB some major athlete's being paid to wear his shoes, that's like Lebron going up against 20 otherstar athletes like Ray, Finley, JH, JJ, CP3, Melo, Bibby, Rip, Kevin Martin, T.O, Jeter, CC, Moss + many more,... LOL then you figure in all of the schools....

yes Lebron has 2 College's and a few HS teams rockin his stuff but don't you guys think if Nike paid all of these Major Athlete's to wear Lebronfootwear on and off the court or fields of there respected sports his numbers would greatly improve?

I think they would.

 

[macgyver35]

LM?

 

[tmukg21]

He has options, but after reading the past two threads, I don't think he'll leave Nike

As a young star, the instant connection between Nike and the consumer is a lot to lose imo. Just needs to make "funner" ads instead of these serious"jordan" ads

A championship and a MVP trophy beating Kobe will help a lot (hope it doesn't happen

)

Plus by next summer Nike could have bought UA, leaving on ADIDAS

Lebron in Adidas, i don't think so

 

[1and12]

If LeBron ever goes UA he should have a line of body padding named after him...

If we hype up LeBron to UA now will it kill any realistic chances of UA landing LeBron? Like how LeBron was hyped to go to NYK in 2010, then he said he'dsign an extension, will his sneaker scenario end up something like that? Can you even sign an extension on your sneaker contract even if it's still active?

Anyway got bored so did this..When in Ohio...

Spoiler

Spoiler

Spoiler [+]

Spoiler

 

[destination kicks]

I'm reserving my spot lol, I'll have to bore you guys with my opinions after work.

 

[ugcatcher2.thebattersbox]

OK guys I'm bout to give you a perspective you probably havn't heard. That of an 18 yr old.

First of all I consider myself an avid sneakerhead who loves nike. I would have alot more shoes if I had alot more money! lol I love nike and it is by far myfav brand ever. Also, I do like UA growing up with the brand I consider my generation the generation that UA markets to. Or at least my generation is in lovewith UA

So that's where I wanna begin. As far as Lebron is concerned he probably will stay with Nike. But, I believe that alot of you guys aren't giving UA anycredit for anything. And its ok I see why. You guys have grown up with Nike and love them. BUT, heres the thing. UA is HUGE within the HighSchool/College/Middle School age. These kids have grown up with UA and have watched them mature into what they are becoming. And the thing is my generationwill buy anything with a UA logo on it. To prove my point, I go to a small school so I can pretty much see what most people are wearing. I will honestly saythat roughly 25% of my school is wearing UA and 50% are wearing Nike/Jordan with the other 25% wearing flip flops, adidas, etc. My point is this, with the veryfew shoes that UA is offering right now people my age are eating them up! and all they have now is running and training shoes, whereas nike has any kind ofshoes you can think of. I remember when the UA prototypes first came out many of my friends were coming up to me (they know I like shoes lol) saying "Dudedo you know UA has shoes now?! I cant wait to get these!" etc. etc. They didn't even hardly care what they looked like just that they had UA on them.UA is very hot to my generation.

Now think about this, Lets say UA does sign Lebron, which would be huge for them. And lets even say that the first couple shoes aren't very good. The thingis my generation, and possibly even older people, are gonna eat these up! They ate up the prototypes think about what they will do with something Lebrons nameis strapped to. My generation is gonna love these. And lets say this Lebron/UA thing were to hold up if it were to happen. I can see the Lebron/UA line to mygeneration being just like the Jordan line to the OG Jordan collectors. Seriously, look at the OG jordan guys, they have been very loyal to the Jordan line(except for the fact that Jordan has released nothing but crap lately, I'm not even one of the original guys and the fusions make me mad) But just like theJordan line markets to the hood right now with all the crap they have released (yea i said it) UA will be marketing straight to my generation. I can honestlysee in 20 years if the Lebron/UA thing happens and UA produces good stuff. I could see it being to my generation the same as it is to the generation that grewup with the Jordan 1 and grew up rockin Jordans. My generation could be growing up with the Lebron 1 and constantly buying Lebron product and it being justlike Jordans line to that generation.

Sorry if I have been confusing but it's hard for me to write what goes on in my head sometimes lol

 

[902kicks]

keep it simple.. he can play wherever he wants, and carry any brand he wants... but who has the brand power to contain this dude and his image

 

[emmanuelabor]

not to get off target but:

"Speaking to the point of Lebrons line compared to any other line. Jordans line had design elements that were original and remained original to HIS line.Brons line takes elements from other elements of Nike's line. When you read Cement or Element or Air.. you think Jordan.

When you read Zoom you think of several shoes within Nikes line.. Not just Lebron. Heck even Kobe is taking on the Lunar Foam as his own...(unfortunately)"

I think this and this alone is what hurts Lebrons line. Jordan(design) always pushed the design every year. Lebron(design) does not. Whats crazy, is Jordanaint even playin and yet they still design each shoe as though he's in his prime lookin for that next technological advance. If I was Lebron THAT would bemy biggest gripe with Nike.

is THAT somethin UA can offer? I cant say for sure. I dont know much about them in terms of their footwear. I get the feeling that their best hoops shoes wouldbe on par with a solid "team" shoe put out by Nike/JB. If they were able to somehow steal away some top design/R&D talent from some of the otherbigger brands, maybe things could turn up. I dont think that JUST signing Lebron would be as great as it may initially sound if they dont get him the talentbehind him to make him "great" (footwear wise)

 

[emmanuelabor]

Originally Posted by Zach13g

Originally Posted by tokes99

it made perfect sense to me...the jumpman is more of a status symbol, that's more than 20 years in the "game" (and you also have to wonder how much of those #s are retros?)...if people are using that as the standard, it doesn't seem like a fair comparison... no one really has access to those #s, so what gets me is that people are saying that LBJs line was a failure due to it not "being what it could have been" and that somehow this will drastically change because of UA? could they really do much more than nike has done with him?

it's not a fair comparison because JB some major athlete's being paid to wear his shoes, that's like Lebron going up against 20 other star athletes like Ray, Finley, JH, JJ, CP3, Melo, Bibby, Rip, Kevin Martin, T.O, Jeter, CC, Moss + many more,... LOL then you figure in all of the schools....

yes Lebron has 2 College's and a few HS teams rockin his stuff but don't you guys think if Nike paid all of these Major Athlete's to wear Lebron footwear on and off the court or fields of there respected sports his numbers would greatly improve?

I think they would.

you really think somebody's buyin a JB team shoe because of Mike Bibby or Kevin Martin? Ray Allen or Mike Finley?

c'mon now

and by "somebody" I mean any kinda substantial buying sector
I mean Mike Bibby is not helpin JB. if anything, JB is helpin him. If Ray Allen or Joe Johnson left for Adidas, I bet a vast majority of the buying publicwouldnt know, or care.

 

[ap27]

just a few logical things to consider:

Under Armour's Enterprise Value is 905.6 million dollars. Nike's EV is 24.6 billion dollars. For Under Armour to invest in what could potentially be a100 million dollar deal, disregarding the time value of money Under armour would be making an investment that's about 1/9th of their company (~11%). ForNike, it would be about 1/246 (.~40%). Keep in mind, this is for an advertising contract, not for any fully tangible asset capable of producing anything, whichmakes the next numbers more alarming.

UA's capital expenditures were 38.594 million in 2008 and more importantly, their SG&A (selling, general, and administrative expenses) were 278.0million in 2008. That means they spent only 38.6 million in a year on investing in assets for their company, and only 278 million on all expenses related toselling their product (including marketing and all employees' salaries) besides cost of goods sold. Let's assume that they are willing to pay LeBron 12million per year (considering the 90 mil, 7 year deal he already had, this is a very conservative assumption), that would be about 1/3rd of what they arealready willing to invest on machinary, property and equipment for the future (which is vital if they are a growing company), and 4.3% of all of their selling,general, and administrative expenses. 4.3% might not seem like a lot, but compare this to Nike, who has a SG&A of ~6 billion. This would be about .03% oftheir expenses. Assuming Under Armour's return on equity of about 12.5%, LeBron's 12 million would mean LeBron's mere presence would have togenerate 15 million for them to break even. This is, without considering the losses in manufacturing capabilities, decreases in capital expenditures, decreasein debt paydowns, and the loss in other useful asets that UA would suffer from losing that 12 million dollars. Assuming they'd have to increase their debtposition in order to sign LeBron makes this an even more risky decision. Also remember this, that 12 million only puts LeBron James on their payroll. Theywould then have to invest even more now to market LeBron James. (Keep in mind, I just said around 12 because that was Lebron's old contract. I believe hewill get more than that)

I believe there are varying studies as to whether athletes add value to a company and how, but even assuming that they add a great amount, I find it hard tobelieve that a small company like Under Armour would be willing to invest so much money into an athlete's endorsement. I guess I should also put up adisclaimer now, lol, and say I do not study marketing (I study Operations Research and Economics), I'm just a college student so sorry if I make somemistakes/come across trying to be an authority bc I'm not AT ALL. I just look at this objectively and logically and can't see Under Armour competingwith Nike here. And without considering all of the more complex economic competition theories (I havent studied much of that, so I'll generalize, lol), ifone were to think, how much would Nike pay to ensure that UA does not take more of their market share (the same as Nike losing market share), it would be easyto see that it would be even more worthwhile for Nike to keep LeBron's contract. The only way I can see UA signing LeBron over Nike is if Nike does notthink LeBron is at all a valuable asset, and UA is willing to make a very risky, substantial investment in signing him that exceeds by far what Nike wouldoffer.

One last thing that I believe people are misunderstanding: The value of LeBron's contract is not entirely how many shoes or clothes he sells. When theaverage consumer buys a pair of socks, and they see the Nike logo, they remember iconic figures like Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, and LeBron James whoinfluence them to purchase goods. The effectiveness of an endorsement on a company's revenue is, as I stated before, debatable, but I think most people onNiketalk would agree that Nike's success can be attributed to their ability to promote themselves in the marketplace as a brand that represents the topathletes in sports. Just because you see LeBron Vs and VIs (which I thought were terrible) on sales racks doesn't mean Nike isn't making money offLeBron.

 

[rockdeep]

amishpimp.... good stats and financial outlook on the topic.

I still think too many people are putting MUCH too MUCH weight on the Cash Value of a Contract which would entice Big Youngin. Hell I could have ended thisthread as soon as I opened it if I said WHO could pay Lebron more money in his next Contract.

Thats easy. Nike. ALL DAY LONG. But I think MANY of you who think the Dollar and the Highest Bidder is what gets Bron to stay is just all out wrong. THAT ISFACT. (Since i have to differentiate between fact and opinion lol)

As stated before. Lebron took less money to be with Nike. If you know the Story...and even if you have read some articles... never never never did it say Nikewon because they dropped the fattest Check. They did offer Bonuses to Bron, but that was on the promise and thought...."You are Lebron James...of courseyou will reach every bonus..." Seven years later... I would ask how many has he reached... and how much of that $90 Million (not $100) Million did heactually get.....?

He chose Nike... (as many athletes say, but REALLY was a deciding factor for Lebron and Mav...) because of Comfort. Comfort with their shoes.. their people..their lifestyle.. their status.

I will say this. Nike has to change ONE thing in order to sell more units like some others who have much lesser designs but much higher sales.

 

[dmoney23444]

I dont think many would check for bron at all with UA kicks....i mean lets face it, nike is THE brand.

 

[the12the22the32the4]

Originally Posted by RockDeep

amishpimp.... good stats and financial outlook on the topic.

I still think too many people are putting MUCH too MUCH weight on the Cash Value of a Contract which would entice Big Youngin. Hell I could have ended this thread as soon as I opened it if I said WHO could pay Lebron more money in his next Contract.

Thats easy. Nike. ALL DAY LONG. But I think MANY of you who think the Dollar and the Highest Bidder is what gets Bron to stay is just all out wrong. THAT IS FACT. (Since i have to differentiate between fact and opinion lol)

As stated before. Lebron took less money to be with Nike. If you know the Story...and even if you have read some articles... never never never did it say Nike won because they dropped the fattest Check. They did offer Bonuses to Bron, but that was on the promise and thought...."You are Lebron James...of course you will reach every bonus..." Seven years later... I would ask how many has he reached... and how much of that $90 Million (not $100) Million did he actually get.....?

He chose Nike... (as many athletes say, but REALLY was a deciding factor for Lebron and Mav...) because of Comfort. Comfort with their shoes.. their people.. their lifestyle.. their status.

I will say this. Nike has to change ONE thing in order to sell more units like some others who have much lesser designs but much higher sales.

It's not all about the cash value of the contract, but even with money, style, marketing presence, comfort, etc. all of those roads point toNike. You're absolutely right, Reebok made a better offer back in 2003, and their failure to get Lebron is what ultimately led to the downfall of them as abrand and forced the merger/sellout to Adidas. Plus, Lebron saw that - he knew Reebok was desperate, that Sonny Vaccaro, et al were desperate and thatthat's why they were offering so much money. He knew if he signed with Nike, the contract would be as secure as it could possibly be; with Reebok, it wasall on him and there was a better than good chance he would not be enough to save the brand on his own, and thus that he stood to potentially lose some of thestipulated money in the Reebok contract offer. He may be in better position to champion/save/captain a brand now (specifically UA in this discussion), but Ithink he's smart enough to realize that it probably isn't in his best interest.

Comfort...if you're Lebron could you really be comfortable at UA, knowing the substantial risk that you are taking and that no one before who as tried ithas truly succeeded on a grand scale (granted that that list only includes CWebb, Marbury, Al Harrington, Shaq)? Rock, if all that you have said/implied tothis point is true, all dollars, cents, and sense aside, then ultimately this is the portrait I feel that you have painted of Lebron and his"comfort" right now:

"Do not have anything in your life you are not willing to walk out on in 30 seconds flat if you spot the heat around thecorner." (Neal McCauley FTW)

Reading between the lines of what you have said thus far, Lebron has seen the heat at Nike, and is ready bolt at the first opportunity. Since you're apretty "inside" source, I'll assume that that is actually the case, and thus, that's why I keep coming back to my original point:

If Nike realizes Lebron is unhappy and looking to bolt, most likely to UA, then they will buy out UA and take the option off the table for him.

When it comes to the corporate world of acquisitions, it IS all about the cash value. Nike can afford to buy UA, and it is in their financial interest to do sofor three major reasons:

1. They can easily afford it at the moment (as I detailed earlier and zach13g referred to in the article he referenced)
2. UA could provide a boost to Nike's "gear" sector (where they are, by most accounts, vastly superior to Nike)
3. They eliminate arguably the best/most likely avenue of escape for Lebron James, should he choose to try to leave Nike

It's Nike's best business play, and Nike is a business that has enjoyed great success by making the right call in these scenarios (buying and holdingConverse, buying and divesting Starter). That's why I ultimately feel that in the next 12-15 months, especially if the threat of Lebron leaving is real,that Nike will acquire UA. It's simply their best option if this "Lebron Doomsday Scenario" is truly looming.

 

[zach13g]

Originally Posted by emmanuelabor


you really think somebody's buyin a JB team shoe because of Mike Bibby or Kevin Martin? Ray Allen or Mike Finley?

c'mon now

and by "somebody" I mean any kinda substantial buying sector
I mean Mike Bibby is not helpin JB. if anything, JB is helpin him. If Ray Allen or Joe Johnson left for Adidas, I bet a vast majority of the buying public wouldnt know, or care.

I see your point but on certain players but what about CP3 or Melo? You don't think people buy their shoes and other JB products because ofthem? I know for a fact I've heard people in stores asking for the new Melo's.

Also it's not all about who the player is specifically it's about the exposure of the product, just a few days ago there were several different topicsstarted about in Jordan Brand that were like this, "What is Michael Finley wearing" "Joe Johnson's J's in Game 1 Tonight " "Ray Allen wearing PE XI's Vs. the CAVS " All those post were created about the same team shoe.

so maybe someone will go out and buy that team shoe because they seen Ray Allen wearing it. I know your talking about the larger buying market and not somerandom kid on the internet but hopefully you can see what I'm saying.

why else would JB pay all of these players to wear his shoes, because they help carry the brand, that's why they created Team Jordan.

Of course JB can survive without Team Jordan but they must help in some ways to sell the name.

 

[tokes99]

Originally Posted by emmanuelabor

not to get off target but:

"Speaking to the point of Lebrons line compared to any other line. Jordans line had design elements that were original and remained original to HIS line. Brons line takes elements from other elements of Nike's line. When you read Cement or Element or Air.. you think Jordan.

When you read Zoom you think of several shoes within Nikes line.. Not just Lebron. Heck even Kobe is taking on the Lunar Foam as his own...(unfortunately) "

I think this and this alone is what hurts Lebrons line. Jordan(design) always pushed the design every year. Lebron(design) does not. Whats crazy, is Jordan aint even playin and yet they still design each shoe as though he's in his prime lookin for that next technological advance. If I was Lebron THAT would be my biggest gripe with Nike.

i

if you really think about it, jordan being "advanced" is a relatively new, in fact you could argue that after the iiis, every jordan up until thexviiis, the mikes were rarely the most advanced, and never about being the most advanced shoes out of beaverton; rather it was about selling the culture ofpersonality, and to that end jordans have always being giving us a piece of that at a time when EVERYONE wanted to be like mike...and i think that the realdifference.

Originally Posted by RockDeep

As stated before. Lebron took less money to be with Nike. If you know the Story...and even if you have read some articles... never never never did it say Nike won because they dropped the fattest Check. They did offer Bonuses to Bron, but that was on the promise and thought...."You are Lebron James...of course you will reach every bonus..." Seven years later... I would ask how many has he reached... and how much of that $90 Million (not $100) Million did he actually get.....?

is that what happened? i thought reebok was "ahead" in the bidding war until the last minute then nike came through with 90 million reasons why LBJshould rock with the swoosh...not that saying that the $$$ was the main factor but it couldn't hurt, just saying...

 

[burns1923]

That's why I ultimately feel that in the next 12-15 months, especially if the threat of Lebron leaving is real, that Nike will acquire UA. It's simply their best option if this "Lebron Doomsday Scenario" is truly looming.

Interesting idea.

I just think it's a reach for Nike to want to buy a company to somehow keep LeBron, whose sig line, by the way, hasn't exactly set the world on firewith excitement and sales.

Besides, just because Nike is bigger and in a financial position to do so, doesn't mean they can take over UA.

UA doesn't have to sell. I doubt the brand was started and grown just so they could eventually sell it off.

I've made my points before but I'll reiterate more boldly:

I hope LeBron leaves Nike. I want him to leave Nike. The shoe industry is comatose and this can be not only truly new for him but also could sparkchanges throughout the industry. Everyone who wears athletic shoes needs this to happen - over the past number of years we've seen nothing butretros (that keep getting worse in quality) and half-efforted designs. Everything has become about sales and moving product and innovation has become anirrelevant concept.

LBJ's shoe line is bad now. 1-4 good. 5-7 bad. We haven't even seen an actual production model pic of the 7 and I already know it'sunderwhelming, just like 5 and 6.

This is sad; I like Nike a lot. I just don't see why every athlete should be beholden to Nike.

What does LeBron James have to lose by leaving Nike? Nothing, really.

He's dominating the game and he'll only get better. And with his line at a stagnant point, going to UA couldn't make his shoe situation any worse.

I'm not sure who wrote it in this thread but someone mentioned how great Vince Carter's line was. It started off great and really built momentum...and then fizzled out completely. Why? VC himself had something to do with it of course but the weight of that falls on Nike. They didn't handle itproperly and let the line die a quiet death.

All things considered, LeBron's future at Nike is just as uncertain and unpredictable as a future with UA could be.

Again, nothing to lose IMO.