Nike to buy Puma?

Nike owns Bauer.

Nike owns Saucony, who owns Mizuno, who own adidas, who owns Reebok, who owns Brooks, who owns Puma, who owns Asics... Who gives a rat's hairy ass?

Stride Rite just bought out Saucony. Nike owns Converse.

Adidas and Puma once were co owned by two brothers and they broke into two brands.

runsc wrote:

Adidas and Puma once were co owned by two brothers and they broke into two brands.

with three stripes and a cat!

Puma is starting/started a team line.

chica bonita wrote:

Reebok owns CCM and the Hockey Company

So from this and Gotchya's remarks am I to infer that Reebok has more "street cred" (whatever the hell that means) than Nike? Wow Gotchya you really are jonesing for some semblance identity - imagining "street cred" where it ain't. BTW - didn't Nike buy Converse out of bankruptcy? Hey Converse way to ride your "street cred" all the way down to insolvency. Would CCM and the Hockey Company done the same thing if they didn't sell out?

I agree with ODS, trying to assume that there is a difference in today's global economy between Nike, Addidas/Puma, et al is a waste of time. The best way to measure value is what they put back into the local running community. And Nike wins that hands down, imaginery "street cred" or not.

Damn, people on here have bad PMS.

JoMama wrote:

chica bonita wrote:

Reebok owns CCM and the Hockey Company

So from this and Gotchya's remarks am I to infer that Reebok has more "street cred" (whatever the hell that means) than Nike? Wow Gotchya you really are jonesing for some semblance identity - imagining "street cred" where it ain't. BTW - didn't Nike buy Converse out of bankruptcy? Hey Converse way to ride your "street cred" all the way down to insolvency. Would CCM and the Hockey Company done the same thing if they didn't sell out?

I agree with ODS, trying to assume that there is a difference in today's global economy between Nike, Addidas/Puma, et al is a waste of time. The best way to measure value is what they put back into the local running community. And Nike wins that hands down, imaginery "street cred" or not.

Damn, people on here have bad PMS.

JoMama wrote:

chica bonita wrote:

Reebok owns CCM and the Hockey Company

So from this and Gotchya's remarks am I to infer that Reebok has more "street cred" (whatever the hell that means) than Nike? Wow Gotchya you really are jonesing for some semblance identity - imagining "street cred" where it ain't. BTW - didn't Nike buy Converse out of bankruptcy? Hey Converse way to ride your "street cred" all the way down to insolvency. Would CCM and the Hockey Company done the same thing if they didn't sell out?

I agree with ODS, trying to assume that there is a difference in today's global economy between Nike, Addidas/Puma, et al is a waste of time. The best way to measure value is what they put back into the local running community. And Nike wins that hands down, imaginery "street cred" or not.

China owns Nike.

I think the point although through some incorrect facts is that the overall quality and difference between brands and types will cease to exist and everything will be very similar and bland.

You know the "New World Order" theory.

a little help wrote:

I heard this real quick on the news, and that Puma's stock was up this morning, but can't find any info on any market websites. Is this true?

Gawrsh, I hope not. I like Puma's style. Their whole line is eye-catching and they're taking track and xc spikes very seriously. Furthermore they're able to spot gaps in the market. Puma's Cortlandt xc spikes and flats were basically an improved reissue of the old Nike Waffle xc from 4-5 years ago.