Official Thread to Discuss Boris Berian's Contract

Pay your own way wrote:

math and such wrote:

Wouldn't they do reductions applied to the new base compensation after one reduction?

So $125,00 * .5= $62,500,

Then $62,500 * .75 = $46,875

Finally $46,875 * .8 = $37,500

And $37,500 having to pay your own health insurance, having to pay the employers part of Social Security, and suddenly your into the minimum wage pay range. And there are more finallys involved. You could end up below the poverty line.

Min wage pay??? Give me a break.

They work what 2-3 hrs a day.

What don't you understand? Berian's agent was not playing some clever game. He sent over New Balance's exact offer sheet which contained no reductions. He never wrote any part of the offer sheet or alter it to remove reductions.

There were never any reductions in the New Balance offer as was confirmed to Nike. How do you prove the reductions don't exist when they're not it the contract? Nike saying it was not clear if there were reductions are not is the NOISE. You are completely Naive if you think Nike was not clear that no reductions existed the New Balance offer. Cap is just showing how terrible he is to do business with.

On another note I always had heard Nike's reductions really sucked but my God. I can't believe how steep some of them are. According to the Letsrun article they could have reduced his salary to just over $6K a year. Are you kidding me, that's Freaking ridiculous.

What part of Nike being scumbags on nealy every level is obscure here? and I'm not even talking about 'just' track. It's unfortunate so many dipshit yoof ('sneakerheads') and others are infatuated with their garbage basketball shoes also but I digress.

math and such wrote:

Wouldn't they do reductions applied to the new base compensation after one reduction?

So $125,00 * .5= $62,500,

Then $62,500 * .75 = $46,875

Finally $46,875 * .8 = $37,500

No. Read the contract specifically section 10h. The reductions are added together per the Base salary of 125K. So a 25% reduction followed by another 25% reduction would be a 50% reduction. Not 25% reduction on $125K, then a 25% reduction on the new amount.

After reading all the reductions it looks like there's enough different reductions in there where Berian's salary could be reduced to $0 and he'd still be under contract with Nike, although this would require him to violate terms such as wearing another companies logo. Still Nike could easily reduce his salary to less than $10K a year if he's injured and can't compete.

I asked this a couple pages back, but didn't get a direct response, so i hope its ok if i try one more time:

Dumb but honest question: if the NB contract had no reductions, then is BB obligated to do any running at all? Could he just sit and play video games all year? Would he still be entitled to his base pay? If not, in any way, would we consider it a reduction?

Thanks!

This misstates what happened. Nike matched on the basis of an offer sheet. The offer sheet was silent on reduction clause. The agent should have made sure that was included on the offer sheet by nb. (This is why Nike had to inquire about reductions).

Those who want to spend all day talking about how unfair reductions are can do that. But you can't blame a company for including them when the offer sheet they were matching was silent on the issue.

If Berian didn't want to wear nike, he could have waited 180 days.

people should read the Capriotti letter before they opine:

http://cdn.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NB-Contract-and-Nike-Match.pdf

if nb truly offered no reductions (which was a material part of agent's request), it should have been on the offer sheet. It wasn't. Capriotti specifically asked for clarification on that point and gave the agent the opportunity to submit revised offer sheet.

It seems clear that the agent was playing games on this, and he admits in more recent filings that he was interested in further 'negotiation', something which Berian's original contract prevents.

Not sure why anyone would think that a contract with any clause that makes it clearly inferior would be considered to be an adequate matching offer. If the offer sheet doesn't mention that New Balance won't include a clause requiring him to fellate Alberto Salazar daily, should Nike get to require that, too?

The point is that the agent considered this an important material element and communicated that to nb. The fact that it is not on the offer sheet leaves open whether nb intended to include reductions in their actual contract. Given the importance, agent should have made sure it was included on the offer sheet or asked nb for a draft contract. Nike even asked him to do that if it was part of the offer. Anyone who negotiates these offer sheets knows to include elements on which there has been negotiation, otherwise it isn't clear.

400er wrote:

people should read the Capriotti letter before they opine:

http://cdn.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NB-Contract-and-Nike-Match.pdf

if nb truly offered no reductions (which was a material part of agent's request), it should have been on the offer sheet. It wasn't. Capriotti specifically asked for clarification on that point and gave the agent the opportunity to submit revised offer sheet.

It seems clear that the agent was playing games on this, and he admits in more recent filings that he was interested in further 'negotiation', something which Berian's original contract prevents.

Ignorant of Capriotti. The prior contract with BB didn't include them. He "slipped" them in and claims they make no difference.

It seems clear that Caproitti was playing games on this...

400er wrote:

Those who want to spend all day talking about how unfair reductions are can do that. But you can't blame a company for including them when the offer sheet they were matching was silent on the issue.

The offer sheet did NOT include any reductions.

Nike's contract included MANY reductions.

Therefore they are NOT the same.

You don't have to list what is not included in a contract.

Everyone saying it isn't clear if it was included because it wasn't stated otherwise is an idiot. You don't list every potential thing that could possibly be included in a contract and specify that it is excluded from the contract that would be absurd. If it's included it's listed if it'd not it's not listed. I don't know how that can be more black and white.

It's not like there's an industry standard offer sheet that has a reduction clause section New Balance or the agent deleted. Reduction clauses are not industry standard. They are a Nike thing and I'd be willing to bet Nike has athletes like Rupp with no reductions for not meeting performance standards.

Don't be ridculous wrote:

It's not like there's an industry standard offer sheet that has a reduction clause section New Balance or the agent deleted. Reduction clauses are not industry standard. They are a Nike thing and I'd be willing to bet Nike has athletes like Rupp with no reductions for not meeting performance standards.

If the BB reductions were applied to Rupp he would be due of significant pay cut to his base pay. Rupp doesn't do any PR support for the Nike.

It is something that was negotiated between the agent and nb. Common practice would be to include it in an offer sheet if it was negotiated.

Presumably any contract nb produced would have elements, such as a morals clause, that aren't listed on an offer sheet. That is why material elements that are central to negotiation get included, so nobody wastes time drafting a contract that has elements which have been discussed and not agreed to.

In other words, if Berian's agent had been assured by nb that reduction clauses would not be in any final contract, it is in his client's interest to have that on the offer sheet.

It may be in his client's interest and still not be legally required. If his client would rather sign with NB, then it's in his interest to let Nike add a stupid clause and reject the counter-offer, which is what he did.

math and such wrote:

Wouldn't they do reductions applied to the new base compensation after one reduction?

So $125,00 * .5= $62,500,

Then $62,500 * .75 = $46,875

Finally $46,875 * .8 = $37,500

I don't think it's possible that the reduction are added up and then applied to compensation as the percentages add up to over 100% unless you think that if Berian is injured and misses a season he ends up owing Nike money - then again it is Nike so maybe that is possible?

400er wrote:

people should read the Capriotti letter before they opine:

http://cdn.letsrun.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/NB-Contract-and-Nike-Match.pdf

if nb truly offered no reductions (which was a material part of agent's request), it should have been on the offer sheet. It wasn't. Capriotti specifically asked for clarification on that point and gave the agent the opportunity to submit revised offer sheet.

It seems clear that the agent was playing games on this, and he admits in more recent filings that he was interested in further 'negotiation', something which Berian's original contract prevents.

THIS.

Anyone reasonably looking at the situation would conclude that a contract with reductions would not match one without.

BUT, what this case will come down to, and why I think Nike will eventually prevail, is exactly what was stated above. Cap asked for clarification on the reductions, which he wouldn't have done if they weren't important to "matching". But there's no evidence anywhere that Berian/Hawi replied with any specific documentation which stated such (even though there likely were no reductions).

I would guess that Berian/Hawi, having thought that Nike would not match, realized that Nike would indeed match, and realized they'd better change tack, either by claiming they could just sit out the 180 days, or claim that Nike failed to actually match, and that they were thus now in the clear to sign with NB. I would guess it was the former, since they went out of their way to make it known that Berian was not sponsored.

400er wrote:

I work for Capriotti!

Secret agent man wrote:

THIS.

Yes, we realize you work for the Nike machine.

400er wrote:

The point is that the agent considered this an important material element and communicated that to nb. The fact that it is not on the offer sheet leaves open whether nb intended to include reductions in their actual contract. Given the importance, agent should have made sure it was included on the offer sheet or asked nb for a draft contract. Nike even asked him to do that if it was part of the offer. Anyone who negotiates these offer sheets knows to include elements on which there has been negotiation, otherwise it isn't clear.

I can see why a reasonable person might think this is a reasonable way to proceed. But it places Nike in the position of being a party to the negotiation between NB and BB. It says that Nike's right of first refusal (ROFR) is actually a "right of inclusion in negotiation communications" in 3-party negotiations. That Nike is allowed to request and receive further information at will. Maybe a nice view of things in a utopian world... but not even close to what a ROFR implies.

Nike had no right to request further information about NB's offer. The term sheet was it. Nike could have signed that term sheet, and said "Done. we have a deal." But Nike doesn't want to play by those simple and straightforward rules. Nike thinks that anything that's not explicitly stated in the term sheet is for her to decide. Arrogant. And Dumb.