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

[rockdeep]

I have two sides of a coin:

People say..even me to an extent that Bron needs to win a Chip to get his line ANYWHERE close to prestige status like MJ....

Then again.. look at Penny...and did Penny win one? Yet his shoes have stood the test of time for the little time Penny was on top of the world.... Some onesay even more Timeless than Jordans...

Can you say if Bron stopped playing this year, that years from now every shoe in his line will be highly sought after even if he doesn't win?

Burns... Sadly enough... Kevin Plank is doing everything in his Power NOT TO EVER SELL to Nike.. BUT... Even when you create a company.. you eventually answerto investors and Board Members who can vote you out of your OWN *#%..

Every CEO and Founder pics BOARD Members based off of hopeful future loyalty... However when the chance to become rich and not run the risk of your companylosing their face on Stock Options and their worth... folks tend to lose that Loyalty.

Another smart thing about Phil Knight.

The day Phil Knight dies... there will be a big hole at Nike from the inside out bruh.

 

[burns1923]

Originally Posted by RockDeep

I have two sides of a coin:

People say..even me to an extent that Bron needs to win a Chip to get his line ANYWHERE close to prestige status like MJ....

Then again.. look at Penny...and did Penny win one? Yet his shoes have stood the test of time for the little time Penny was on top of the world.... Some one say even more Timeless than Jordans...

Can you say if Bron stopped playing this year, that years from now every shoe in his line will be highly sought after even if he doesn't win?

Burns... Sadly enough... Kevin Plank is doing everything in his Power NOT TO EVER SELL to Nike.. BUT... Even when you create a company.. you eventually answer to investors and Board Members who can vote you out of your OWN *#%..

Every CEO and Founder pics BOARD Members based off of hopeful future loyalty... However when the chance to become rich and not run the risk of your company losing their face on Stock Options and their worth... folks tend to lose that Loyalty.

Another smart thing about Phil Knight.

The day Phil Knight dies... there will be a big hole at Nike from the inside out bruh.

Great post.

The board member factor when it comes to selling slipped my mind. Mr. Plank's got to paint a vision and give everyone their own brush, get them personallyinvested if he wants to grow UA and resist the Swoosh.

As far as people wanting each of LBJ's shoes years from now... yeah I just can't see each of them being highly sought after.

AZG and II have the best chance, and 3 and 4 to an extent but after that... can't see it.

 

[the12the22the32the4]

Originally Posted by 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 fire with excitement and sales.


Just to clarify - Lebron is not the ONLY reason, just one of the major ones. I'll reiterate what I said above:

Nike can afford to buy UA, and it is in their financial interest to do so for 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

All those in concert make a UA acquisition feasible - Lebron as the sole reason would be highly unlikely.

I know Rock touched on it, but I would guess the UA Board is a lot more open to selling than they were even a few months ago - Plank would not want to sell, hewould just be outvoted in the end (in the scenario I presented above).

 

[burns1923]

^I understand your points -

but what would move Nike more to buy UA:

To acquire UA's pluses for their own or

To just to prevent LBJ from leaving?


Say LeBron stays with Nike. Does Nike still plan to buy UA?

Despite the points you made that favor Nike in a buyout situation, I don't see Nike buying UA as an inevitability, regardless of LBJ staying or leaving. Iunderstand that it makes sense for Nike but that doesn't mean anything's impending.

 

[the12the22the32the4]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

^I understand your points -

but what would move Nike more to buy UA:

To acquire UA's pluses for their own or

To just to prevent LBJ from leaving?


Say LeBron stays with Nike. Does Nike still plan to buy UA?

Despite the points you made that favor Nike in a buyout situation, I don't see Nike buying UA as an inevitability, regardless of LBJ staying or leaving. I understand that it makes sense for Nike but that doesn't mean anything's impending.

Here's a good link to some of the rationales: http://wantinggreen.blogs...ke-buy-under-armour.html

Pulled from that article:
"Nike can clearly compete against Under Armour, andprobably win most of the battles over the long run. But, instead they could acquire Under Armour at a discount price, use their inventory controls, superiormanagement, and industry knowledge to build a stronger Under Armour, cut costs and create a real asset to shareholders.
Such a purchase would also ensure that Nike's growth continues. Nike is becoming a mature company and growth is still respectable, butUnder Armour if properly utilized and managed could add to the bottom line in a big way."
Essentially, a preemptive strike by Nike would make a tremendous amount ofsense for all involved (except Kevin Plank, who made a big mistake by allowing outsiders to own 93% of UA). Given the premium that Nike can offer, UA'sshareholders would likely jump at the opportunity to earn a 45-65% premium on the roughly $20 share price UA is trading at now (down about $8 already thisyear).

The main thing that would move Nike to make the purchase is to squash a competitor before they even have a chance to get started. UA is a threat years down theroad; don't allow them to survive that long and you don't have to worry about them. Nike is in a position to make that a reality and that's theviewpoint I've been coming from. It's sort of like getting a bye in a tournament; even though you might rather play another game, if your goal is towin the tournament and you're offered a bye, you'd be foolish not to take it. By taking over UA in the next year or so, it's one less (potentiallylarge) game that Nike has to play three-four years down the road. Regardless of what LBJ does, the acquisition just makes good business sense.

 

[engoi]

Why does everyone think that Nike offered less than Reebok ?

http://matozhero.egloos.com/3490905

Apparently it was the best financial offer and in opposite to Reebok,
Nike put much more effort to get Lebron also with their presentation.

 

[elderwatsondiggs]

Originally Posted by 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 fire with 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 spark changes throughout the industry. Everyone who wears athletic shoes needs this to happen - over the past number of years we've seen nothing but retros (that keep getting worse in quality) and half-efforted designs. Everything has become about sales and moving product and innovation has become an irrelevant 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's underwhelming, just like 5 and 6. Opinion.

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 it properly and let the line die a quiet death. You think this had NOTHING to do with Vince's declining skill/excitement level and the hits he took to his public image?

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. Ok, let's take the converse of that statement, what does he have to gain? If not much it may just be better for him to stay with Nike, at least Nike has a well established global presence.

Just some thoughts and observations about your post, not saying you are wrong and I'mright.

 

[gilsonky]

This is kind of OT, but I had heard back in 2003 when Nike bought Converse that one of the factors was that Converse had previously trademarked "KingJames." Is any of that true?

 

[burns1923]

Originally Posted by ElderWatsonDiggs

Originally Posted by 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 fire with 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 spark changes throughout the industry. Everyone who wears athletic shoes needs this to happen - over the past number of years we've seen nothing but retros (that keep getting worse in quality) and half-efforted designs. Everything has become about sales and moving product and innovation has become an irrelevant 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's underwhelming, just like 5 and 6. Opinion. Of course it's my opinion, but I didn't pull it out of thin air. It's been crystal clear that there has been little buzz about 5 and 6, and sales for those shoes have not been what the previous shoes have produced. I would guess that most LeBron fans would peg the V as the ugliest of the group. VI isn't anything to shout about, either; the colorways have been boring. These views are not unlike plenty of others.

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 it properly and let the line die a quiet death. You think this had NOTHING to do with Vince's declining skill/excitement level and the hits he took to his public image?
Sure it did. That's why I mentioned "VC himself had something to do with it." However, VC's choices cannot entirely account for his line's demise. Nike certainly contributed to that, make no mistake.

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. Ok, let's take the converse of that statement, what does he have to gain? If not much it may just be better for him to stay with Nike, at least Nike has a well established global presence. Valid point. I just have the idea that LeBron's not the kind to tread water. Despite various opinions, his sig line is not where it should be design-wise, sales-wise, excitement-wise. V and VI haven't blown anyone away. And in the sneaker industry, a couple of underwhelming shoes can derail a line and people's enthusiasm quickly. Perhaps Rock could speak more on the subject but there's a sense that LBJ isn't 100% on board with Nike at the moment. Going to UA is a significant chance, yes. But so is staying with Nike and expecting great, revolutionary designs in an environment of "safe" designs lately.

Just some thoughts and observations about your post, not saying you are wrong and I'm right. That's cool - that's what this thread's all about - discussion.

 

[theprocessofbelief]

Originally Posted by RockDeep

^^
Process.. when you say Resources... do you mean Cash on Hand or Stock Options or Both or a Package with a stake in what his line makes?

To any of those.. I'd assume yes.. but Id be worried less about what they can offer in terms of money and more in what they can offer in terms of Marketing HIM and producing a winning design time and again.

Sorry it took me so long to respond... I was more so thinking about the feasbility of Lebron actually choosing UA... as money is something I thinkhe is looking at (first billionaire athlete).

And yes, Cash they can do without issue, their apparel line has been obviously very respectable, they aren't some backwater brand.

But for a company like UA, I think they would almost HAVE to offer an incentive like stock options, or partial ownership of a division, something along thoselines...

 

[tokes99]

Originally Posted by Burns1923

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 spark changes throughout the industry. Everyone who wears athletic shoes needs this to happen - over the past number of years we've seen nothing but retros (that keep getting worse in quality) and half-efforted designs. Everything has become about sales and moving product and innovation has become an irrelevant 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's underwhelming, just like 5 and 6.

here's what i say, as i designer myself, those i work with, as well as others i know in the industry, i can tell you with the utmost confidence that themajority of designers are grinding trying to make the things they work on, the best they can be for its intended purpose; so let's squash the notion thatfull effort isn't being put in...as far as innovation being an "irrelevant concept" not sure it is irrelevant, just right now the lifestyle/retrois what is controlling the lane...so i think every brand is trying to figure out where things are going.

Originally Posted by RockDeep

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

Then again.. look at Penny...and did Penny win one? Yet his shoes have stood the test of time for the little time Penny was on top of the world.... Some one say even more Timeless than Jordans... Can you say if Bron stopped playing this year, that years from now every shoe in his line will be highly sought after even if he doesn't win?

1st i'll say that the 1ct line was classic-not sure about timeless...and again don't think its a fair comparison, for the simple fact that that shoewas born of an era where the relationship to sneakers was very different, surely way down the line there will be some who will will be scouring the sneakerlandscape for some lebron kicks.

 

[solekollectah81]

Under Armour shoes are FUUUGLY.

 

[burns1923]

here's what i say, as i designer myself, those i work with, as well as others i know in the industry, i can tell you with the utmost confidence that the majority of designers are grinding trying to make the things they work on, the best they can be for its intended purpose; so let's squash the notion that full effort isn't being put in...as far as innovation being an "irrelevant concept" not sure it is irrelevant, just right now the lifestyle/retro is what is controlling the lane...so i think every brand is trying to figure out where things are going.
I don't doubt your personal experience but I'm not sure it is indicative of what's happening industry-wide. Designers have directivesand aren't always free to do what they'd prefer, as I believe you inferred. Surely any blame to be placed should be aimed at the decision makers. I'm not privy to the LBJ design process but I can say that whatever the level of effort (which is debatable), it's not getting the job done. Some maydisagree with that sentiment if they like the recent shoes. I don't doubt that many designers have their initial vision intact only to see it whittleddown to a "lesser" version. Perhaps that's happened with shoes 5 and 6.

Mediocre gimmicks, some might say, like Flywire and Lunar foam are what passes for "innovation" from Nike these days. My point is that when a shoelike the 07 Penny Foam One retro is essentially still at the fore in terms of innovation compared to what's currently being designed and released, Nikeneeds to reevaluate. Not to take away from the Foam One - on the contrary, it's a testament to that shoe's engineering. I'm not going to faultany company for offering what they know will sell - currently, retro and lifestyle. But I'm saying there needs to be a balance and Nike, along withothers, have seemed content to focus on sales at the expense of important qualities such as innovation and quality. And that sustained focus on retro willeventually return even worse sales for new product because consumers will simply have gotten so used to retro being the norm that they'll be less and lessreceptive over time to new product. That's why it's in Nike's, and others', interest to really force the issue with new design and to not betimid and soften their designers' work. I want to see that boldness from Nike. If they can't, or won't, bring that to the table, someone else(UA) is at least willing to try.

 

[GTA 809]

I cant wait to cop me some Knick colorway UA Lebron 1's.

 

[engoi]

Apparently the average consumer is less biased about shoes made by Under Armour:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/business/bal-bz.underarmour29apr29,0,6638919.story

I still couldn believe a player like Lebron James in UA but if companies like Anta and Peak can sign NBA-Stars,
why not a bigger player like UA ?