C'mon, everybody needs a $500 pair of BBB disc golf shoes. Bring us the bling, Lavar!
-
Discover new ways to elevate your game with the updated DGCourseReview app!
It's entirely free and enhanced with features shaped by user feedback to ensure your best experience on the course. (App Store or Google Play)
Adidas sponsors Paul McBeth
- Thread starter turbosteve
- Start date
C'mon, everybody needs a $500 pair of BBB disc golf shoes. Bring us the bling, Lavar!
SD86
Banned
Did anyone consider that maybe Mr. McBeth may have found shoes that he likes better?
Yep, this was my first thought, as well. Paul said something a while back about going through a LOT of pairs of the Adidas shoes. Maybe he found something more durable or more comfortable...
rusch_bag
* Ace Member *
Disc golf is not easy on shoes. It puts a lot of torque onto them which they are not designed for. Most of us wear trail running shoes which are made to go forward not laterally, which we all do with every throw. The other main problem point with shoes and disc golf is is in the midsole/outsole. The shoes that will last are going to be a one piece design and most of adidas shoes have boost which is an even softer midsole than most shoes have. With the torque we are putting on those shoes it is really easy to separate the outside and midsole. With how much Paul plays I can see how quick he would go through them.
Geer_Boggles
Par Member
Actually, he has. The cap hit over the long term helped the team obtain more expensive talent. While yes, the salary he was supposed to get was transferred over to a signing bonus, those bonuses were prorated by year. So every year he made a proration of the yearly salary he was supposed to get. Effectively increasing the teams spending capital. You gotta read into the numbers, bud.
I'm not sure exactly how that works, so here's the questions I have:
Does he get that signing bonus up front?
If he gets the bonus up front, then how does that factor into a time value of money analysis? Does prorated money up front equal non-prorated money in the future? Would you rather have $100 now that could be growing over the next year through investment, or would you rather wait until next year for a higher amount that may be different from the value you got by having the $100 immediately?
Did it really affect his bottom line? Even if the team effectively had increased spending capital, it doesn't mean that he took a hit unless he was receiving less money overall.
Geer_Boggles
Par Member
Let me break it down for you:
-Brady is due $30 Million a year salary with a $5 Million Signing bonus (up front and in full) for a 3 year contract.
-Brady decides to switch these figures and take a pro-ration of the $30 Million Signing Bonus annually over these 3 years.
-Brady now gets $15 Million a year for 3 years effectively putting $15 Million into the Patriots spending cap for use in additional roster spots. **EDIT** Per Year
Does that make better sense? He's still getting the money but he is taking much less then he would have if he'd been given the $30 Million salary. Plus, his wife is making bank for him so he doesn't need it anyway.
Last edited:
Would you break that second contract down for me?
As I understand it, the original contract is:
$5 million up front
$30 million in year 1
$30 million in year 2
$30 million in year 3
New contract:
How much up front?
How much in year 1? Year 2? Year 3?
Is it $15 million in Year 1, 2, and 3? How much is the signing bonus up front? I guess what I don't understand is the amount being prorated and when it is due.
Geer_Boggles
Par Member
You are correct in the first example. The second example would be as follows:
Year 1 - $15 Million ($5 million annual salary + $10 million pro-rated amount of the $30 million sign on bonus)
Year 2 - $15 Million ($5 million annual salary + $10 million pro-rated amount of the $30 million sign on bonus)
Year 3 - $15 Million ($5 million annual salary + $10 million pro-rated amount of the $30 million sign on bonus)
Basically, take the (what would be up front) $30 million sign on bonus and divide it by 3 years. The net savings to the team would be $15 Million per year from Brady's move since his salary is $5 million. If you want to get technical about the logistics it would be a $0 net savings in year 1 but a $25 Million savings in years 2 and 3.
This doesn't count towards the salary cap but as far as Brady is concerned, it is his salary. He makes substantially less throughout the 3 years than he would if he did not do this but he's still making a considerable amount.
Geer_Boggles
Par Member
If I've confused you by listing the second scenario that has a different total than the proposed $45 Million in the first scenario, then just ignore the second scenario. That's only how it would look on the books to the Pats. As far as Brady is concerned it would be $15 Million a year.
Honestly....you confused me with the idea that McBeth wearing or signing with Adidas will somehow make our game more watchable or entertaining enough to enter into the mainstream conscienceness.
BlueMonk
Par Member
A week or two ago, I saw a post by McBeth on a social media page that showed the Nike shoes he has been wearing lately during rounds. I went back to look at it again but now I can't find it. Has anyone else seen this? I've checked Facebook, Instagram and Twitter, but I can't find it on any of them.
There's got to be a better way to spend your free time. No?
BlueMonk
Par Member
Sorry, I meant to add #growthesport to my post so it would be more meaningful but I forgot.
Eh, it was more a comment on how social media is stupid.
Just having fun.
Cyber stalk away, my friend.
I think he only had a merchandise only sponsorship with Adidas and then when it was time to resign he wanted to be a paid sponsored athlete and Adidas said no thanks. They have millions, if not billions tied up with athletes from the big sports?? Paying a disc golfer to wear their shoes was not in the cards evidently??
Zanguini
Birdie Member
Discgolfguy says something similar in one of his Throw Down The Mountain Round coverages.
Geer_Boggles
Par Member
How so? Doesn't mean it will be more entertaining or watchable. Means exposure. Big names coming together equal big presence. Big presence equals wider audience.
Except that Brady isn't getting any less money (I'm a huge Packers fan and if I had a nickel for every time they cover signing bonus on the Insider Inbox I'd be able to fund the largest payout ever for a disc golf tourney).
Brady gets the $30 million up front, no other payout, period. The proration is only for the salary cap purposes. It's not that Brady has agreed to take $10 million of that bonus annually, but that for accounting purposes, only $10 million of it counts against the cap each year. Brady got the whole $30 million the moment he signed the deal. So if they cut Brady in year 2, they take the extra $10 million hit from year 3 in year 2. He also gets to keep that signing bonus money usually (the Martellus Bennett situation with the Packers is different because they say he hid the injury before he signed etc).
Also, it should be noted you can only prorate a signing bonus over 5 years. That's why Green Bay is looking to sign Rodgers to an extension now, because while he still has two years left on the deal, they're done prorating out his bonus.
I simply disagree. I don't think any sponsorship of any disc golfer, by nearly anyone, will increase the presence of the game, nor widen the audience. Seems Adidas does not think so either.
My premise, though likely unpopular and perhaps pessimistic, is that our game is a very niche game.
joecoin
* Ace Member *
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2013
- Messages
- 2,335
Sponsorship alone won't do much. Depends on the sponsor actively marketing the person they sponsor.
One 30 second Super Bowl commercial could be huuuuuuuuuuuuuggggggggeeeee!
Similar threads
[Selling]
ASSORTED Discs!
