Agassi with Donnay?!?!?

[Larrysümmers]

he should have just stuck with cable

[Steve F.]

Originally Posted by vsbabolat

http://www.sportsdirectplc.com/brand...ds/donnay.aspx

http://www.sportsdirectplc.com/brand...ds/dunlop.aspx

Thanks vs. Good lord, I hadn't realized George Orwell penned press releases as well...

[classic tennis]

The company that has the US licence to slap a name on Chinese made tennis racquet's and call them Donnay for a fee to UK owned superstore Sports Direct has zero to do with the Belgian Donnay and past glories, players, etc....again...for the 50th time.

[classic tennis]

This is what the brand has become, the prefered attire of Chavs (see trailer trash) here; http://www.sportsdirect.com/donnay?d...ppp=true&mcp=1

[SFrazeur]

Originally Posted by classic tennis

The company that has the US licence to slap a name on Chinese made tennis racquet's and call them Donnay for a fee to UK owned superstore Sports Direct has zero to do with the Belgian Donnay and past glories, players, etc....again...for the 50th time.

The NY based operation has a 30 year licence to the Donnay name so I have been told.

-SF

[SFrazeur]

Seeing as RPNY was Agassi's racquet customizer and RPNY has strong involvement with Donnay I do not see it as surprising Agassi would test a Donnay frame out at some point.

-SF

[adidasman]

Originally Posted by West Coast Ace

He hated the way his old man pushed him into it; sent him to Bolleteri's Academy and away from his friends against his will. Now he can play when he wants - and he realizes it's a good way to keep his name and school in the public eye.

Nike didn't 'blow it' and Steffi's Adidas gig had nothing to do with it: Agassi tried to shake down Nike for money for his school; more than Nike was willing to part with. Adidas was just the next biggest fish in the apparel ocean and they caved in.

You honestly think Steffi's relationship with adidas had nothing to do with Andre going that way? That seems highly unlikely. And you think adidas seeing a chance to snag one of Nike's main guys, even at the end of his career, was them "caving in"? That was a PR opportunity too good to pass up, not to mention the chance to support good being done by the school. The amazing part is that Nike was unwilling to pony up the money for Agassi's school, when they certainly made enough off of Andre's work for years and years, and adidas was. Good to see Nike is an all-American company in the greed department.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by adidasman

You honestly think Steffi's relationship with adidas had nothing to do with Andre going that way? That seems highly unlikely. And you think adidas seeing a chance to snag one of Nike's main guys, even at the end of his career, was them "caving in"? That was a PR opportunity too good to pass up, not to mention the chance to support good being done by the school. The amazing part is that Nike was unwilling to pony up the money for Agassi's school, when they certainly made enough off of Andre's work for years and years, and adidas was. Good to see Nike is an all-American company in the greed department.

I doubt Nike made very much profit, if anything at all, off of Agassi over the years. They paid him like over $100 million over the years. I highly doubt Nike made over an additional $100 million in profit just because of Agassi. In fact, the tennis market has never been a big profit maker for Nike, hence the never ending rumors that they may shut down their tennis business. I think the only thing that has kept it alive all of these years is that the CEO Phil Knight personally like tennis, because it certainly hasn't been because of the incredible profits.

[RollTrackTake]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

I doubt Nike made very much profit, if anything at all, off of Agassi over the years. They paid him like over $100 million over the years. I highly doubt Nike made over an additional $100 million in profit just because of Agassi. In fact, the tennis market has never been a big profit maker for Nike, hence the never ending rumors that they may shut down their tennis business. I think the only thing that has kept it alive all of these years is that the CEO Phil Knight personally like tennis, because it certainly hasn't been because of the incredible profits.

according to a relative of mine who works in the athletic shoe field it costs most large shoemakers (nike included) somewhere between $5-7 USD to make a pair of sneakers (ie. Vapors). Without getting into the details of what nike charges retailers for the shoes, varying prices, marketing amortizations etc.... if nike clears a profit of $50 per shoe Nike needs to sell 200,000 shoes per year to break even. I'm willing to bet Nike clears that in the US market alone. Count the rest of the world and they double their money on their 100 mil investment in Aggassi

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by RollTrackTake

according to a relative of mine who works in the athletic shoe field it costs most large shoemakers (nike included) somewhere between $5-7 USD to make a pair of sneakers (ie. Vapors). Without getting into the details of what nike charges retailers for the shoes, varying prices, marketing amortizations etc.... if nike clears a profit of $50 per shoe Nike needs to sell 200,000 shoes per year to break even. I'm willing to bet Nike clears that in the US market alone. Count the rest of the world and they double their money on their 100 mil investment in Aggassi

I can GUARANTEE you that Nike does not make a profit of $50 per shoe. The retail mark-up is well over 2X the wholesale price. That's how retailers can put things on sale for 50% off and still make a profit.

Don't forget all the development, engineering, transportation, marketing, sales, advertising, and overhead costs that need to be included into the cost of a pair of shoes. The cost of materials for a shoe may be $7, but add in labor costs, equipment costs, factory overhead, and profit for the factory that Nike contracts to make the shoes. Add in all of these costs and I'd be surprised if Nike makes more than $15 in profit on a pair of shoes after accounting for returns, seconds, discounting after season, etc.

Besides, it's not like nobody would buy Nike shoes if Agassi didn't wear them. So you have to estimate only the INCREMENTAL sales that would not have occurred without Agassi. Was it an incremental $100 million in profits (not sales)? I doubt it.

[RollTrackTake]

Originally Posted by BreakPoint

I can GUARANTEE you that Nike does not make a profit of $50 per shoe. The retail mark-up is well over 2X the wholesale price. That's how retailers can put things on sale for 50% off and still make a profit.

Don't forget all the development, engineering, transportation, marketing, sales, advertising, and overhead costs that need to be included into the cost of a pair of shoes. The cost of materials for a shoe may be $7, but add in labor costs, equipment costs, factory overhead, and profit for the factory that Nike contracts to make the shoes. Add in all of these costs and I'd be surprised if Nike makes more than $15 in profit on a pair of shoes after accounting for returns, seconds, discounting after season, etc.

Besides, it's not like nobody would buy Nike shoes if Agassi didn't wear them. So you have to estimate only the INCREMENTAL sales that would not have occurred without Agassi. Was it an incremental $100 million in profits (not sales)? I doubt it.

Nike makes a hefty profit on shoe sales. It is their cash cow. When kids buy Jordan's, Kobe's, Ballistics etc.. I can safely say they earn more than $15/shoe. My brother works in the corporate office for a major athletic apparel company that includes shoes. The money the can make off shoe sales is why addidas can give Derrick rose $250 mil. And the cost of manufacturing a pair of nikes, factory+labor is no more than $20 best case scenario. When phil knight + Nike were busted for running sweat shops in Taiwan the cost of each shoes with labor attached was half. Basketball sneakers alone do $2 Bil in sales annually. I'm sure tennis doesn't do as well but even a slight fraction of that is a nice profit. And if u think shoe companies spend more than 5% of their budget on R&D then can I interest you in some moon rock I want to infuse into the next line of tennis racquets?

[DolgoSantoro]

Ha ha, he spent several pages whining about them in his biography.

[ChicagoJack]

Originally Posted by SFrazeur

Seeing as RPNY was Agassi's racquet customizer and RPNY has strong involvement with Donnay I do not see it as surprising Agassi would test a Donnay frame out at some point.

-SF

Ha, you beat me to it. Not surprising at all. Roman and Agassi go back a long way.

Jack

[SFrazeur]

Originally Posted by ChicagoJack

Ha, you beat me to it. Not surprising at all. Roman and Agassi go back a long way.

Jack

The only thing that surprises me is that it took so long.

-SF

[JoelDali]

Steffi is the classy Lady's Lady GOAT. She will win The Wimbledon.

[Fifth Set]

Originally Posted by paulorenzo

same model that courier uses

Yup, it's a very nice stick. I demoed but, alas wasn't skilled enough for it, even with the generous 102 sq in.

[BreakPoint]

Originally Posted by RollTrackTake

Nike makes a hefty profit on shoe sales. It is their cash cow. When kids buy Jordan's, Kobe's, Ballistics etc.. I can safely say they earn more than $15/shoe. My brother works in the corporate office for a major athletic apparel company that includes shoes. The money the can make off shoe sales is why addidas can give Derrick rose $250 mil. And the cost of manufacturing a pair of nikes, factory+labor is no more than $20 best case scenario. When phil knight + Nike were busted for running sweat shops in Taiwan the cost of each shoes with labor attached was half. Basketball sneakers alone do $2 Bil in sales annually. I'm sure tennis doesn't do as well but even a slight fraction of that is a nice profit. And if u think shoe companies spend more than 5% of their budget on R&D then can I interest you in some moon rock I want to infuse into the next line of tennis racquets?

The fact that shoe companies pay athletes contracts like $250 million or $100 million is exactly why they can only make a profit of $15 or less per pair of shoes. Those salaries are included in marketing costs, which are deducted before net profits. The question is, did Nike make more net profits after paying Agassi $100 million or would they have made more net profits from their tennis business if they hadn't paid Agassi $100 million? What was the net incremental profit after paying Agassi?

[big ted]

i dont even think nike thought of agassi as a profit deal but more of as an advertisement deal. he was always on tv and in the magazines wearing nike clothing and shoes - exposure. even if people didnt buy his crazy neon clothes and shoes he got the brand out there

[classic tennis]

Originally Posted by SFrazeur

The NY based operation has a 30 year licence to the Donnay name so I have been told.

-SF

Yeah I'm sure given Mike and Dave's track record they signed up for that

No chance.

[SFrazeur]

Originally Posted by classic tennis

Yeah I'm sure given Mike and Dave's track record they signed up for that

No chance.

I was told it was a 30 year license by someone who had some business negotiations with one of the owners. The actual realities of the license is unknown to any of us here.