You can't handle the TRUTH! wrote:
You can't handle the truth. How long have you shilled for Nike for free?
A shill, by definition, does not work for free. They only pretend they aren't being paid.
Kind of like BB plugging NB on social media.
You can't handle the TRUTH! wrote:
You can't handle the truth. How long have you shilled for Nike for free?
A shill, by definition, does not work for free. They only pretend they aren't being paid.
Kind of like BB plugging NB on social media.
Incentives & information wrote:
are you a Nike shill? wrote:If Nike was so invested in Boris, why did they wait to see what NB was offering him? If they really wanted to sign Boris, shouldn't they have made a big offer to begin with?
You are right, but the problem for Nike and Boris is figuring out how big is big.
Nike wants to make an offer that's big, but not too big. The right of first refusal protects Nike from overpaying Boris, because they are matching what other companies are actually willing to pay Boris. It also protects Boris from being low-balled by Nike, by forcing Nike to pay Boris at least as much as other companies would pay him.
Despite the outrage among some here over the right of first refusal, these clauses make sure both Nike & Boris get what they want.
Nike is doing everything they can to ensure Boris does not get what he wants. He wants out of the Nike contract and in no way is first refusal helping him get that.
[quote]Paid shills out in force wrote:
Nike is very afraid of the terrible PR beating they are suffering as the result of their foolish lawsuit./quote]
Negative on this.
false impression wrote:
Nike is doing everything they can to ensure Boris does not get what he wants. He wants out of the Nike contract and in no way is first refusal helping him get that.
Point taken. That probably wasn't the right way to say that rofr clauses ensure both sides get the $$$ they want.
On a related note, do we know why Berian wanted out of his Nike contract? From Capriotti's email of Jan 22, it looks Nike was willing to match the NB contract, even if that meant giving him a contract without reductions. Since Berian didn't accept that offer, it looks like he just didn't want to run for Nike anymore.
Kiprop dope wrote:
Boris has too many NB team members in his head. He's a college flunk out who is evidently easily influenced by a bunch of NB team members love bombing him to the Cult of His NB Club.
Played correctly, he could have gotten more money out of Nike (and actually possibly still could, after the WIC Gold).
He's getting screwed by his club, NB and the passivity of his agent.
Here's a crazy thought - what if Boris actually values NB as a brand more than Nike? *gasp* Higher potential earnings or not, you have to enjoy where you're training and who you're training with to succeed.
Could it also be that on his initial, entry-level Nike contract which he signed when he was just a talented, McDonald's worker, Berian felt he was treated as a disposable piece of chattel and only when he had a breakout year in which it became clear to everyone that he was a star in the making, did Nike do a 180 and again, like chattel, try to keep him from leaving to the point of suing?
If I was Nike I'd probably let this one go at this point. There will be more young talent.
false impression wrote:
Incentives & information wrote:You are right, but the problem for Nike and Boris is figuring out how big is big.
Nike wants to make an offer that's big, but not too big. The right of first refusal protects Nike from overpaying Boris, because they are matching what other companies are actually willing to pay Boris. It also protects Boris from being low-balled by Nike, by forcing Nike to pay Boris at least as much as other companies would pay him.
Despite the outrage among some here over the right of first refusal, these clauses make sure both Nike & Boris get what they want.
Nike is doing everything they can to ensure Boris does not get what he wants. He wants out of the Nike contract and in no way is first refusal helping him get that.
I think Nike is feeling the sting of losing high profile athletes.
The Denver Post had a good write up. But more Proof Hawi is an idiot. He claimed the Nike contract would be made public in a filing. No wsy Nike's lawyers let it get made public. They could and should ask for a protective order. Hawi should know that.
Gurufhugfhvh wrote:
The Denver Post had a good write up. But more Proof Hawi is an idiot. He claimed the Nike contract would be made public in a filing. No wsy Nike's lawyers let it get made public. They could and should ask for a protective order. Hawi should know that.
Well, since Nike is demanding the NB contact for review then it seems only fair for Nike's to be available for review. But, it is up to Nike to make it clear that their contract cannot be made available to anyone because of Nike's non-disclosure terms, but their demand to force NB to provide their contract, despite NB's non-disclosure terms, is a "different" matter.
Up To Nike wrote:
Gurufhugfhvh wrote:The Denver Post had a good write up. But more Proof Hawi is an idiot. He claimed the Nike contract would be made public in a filing. No wsy Nike's lawyers let it get made public. They could and should ask for a protective order. Hawi should know that.
Well, since Nike is demanding the NB contact for review then it seems only fair for Nike's to be available for review. But, it is up to Nike to make it clear that their contract cannot be made available to anyone because of Nike's non-disclosure terms, but their demand to force NB to provide their contract, despite NB's non-disclosure terms, is a "different" matter.
You are confused I didn't say Nike's contract wasn't going to be made available for review.
I didn't say nights contract will not be made public as Boris' agent seems to think.
Gurufhugfhvh wrote:
false impression wrote:Nike is doing everything they can to ensure Boris does not get what he wants. He wants out of the Nike contract and in no way is first refusal helping him get that.
I think Nike is feeling the sting of losing high profile athletes.
The Denver Post had a good write up. But more Proof Hawi is an idiot. He claimed the Nike contract would be made public in a filing. No wsy Nike's lawyers let it get made public. They could and should ask for a protective order. Hawi should know that.
Nike will survive no matter the outcome. I'm not sure why all would feel any impact on product sales with the loss of an 800 meter runner to another shoe company. Lots of ego involved and owning the trials, bottom line its a yawn.
Agent does not know what he is doing clear and simple.You would think his license to represent athletes would be pulled. This is a great example of what poorly prepared agents do to athletes. Most of it goes under the radar,athletes don't know they could do better or that the screw up is not ok.
The Nike contract will be very similar to the NB in structure, everybody knows everybody else bonus schedules, travel and equipment. The retraction clause maybe something we now may see more of by other shoe companies in the future, the door and knowledge are now open. Athletes you can all thank the agent for this!
Steve on a cell in Brooklyn wrote:
[quote]Paid shills out in force wrote:
Nike is very afraid of the terrible PR beating they are suffering as the result of their foolish lawsuit./quote]
Negative on this.
Nike will lose. Positive on the PR beating.
While I am grateful tha Nike has contributed so much to Track & Field, I think they're doing hemselves a disservice by creating an image of them as a bully. In the court filings, Nike stated "[Berian’s] actions are causing and will continue to cause Nike irreparable harm. .... The Olympics and Olympic Trials are held once every four years. Defendant’s participation and potential for success in these events make his endorsement a unique marketing and promotional opportunity. There is no question that Nike would be irreparably harmed if [Berian] were allowed to compete in such high-level events wearing the footwear and apparel of one of Nike’s competitors, as the value to Nike of defendant competing in a rare event like the Olympics is both unquantifiable and irreplaceable."
It is my understanding that Berian has been unsponsored for quite some time now. He is not sponsored by Nike and has not signed a sponosrship agreement with New Balance or any other shoe company. The only agreement he has with Nike is that he must give Nike the opportunity to match any sponsorship agreement offer from another shoe company. Berian is being sued to prevent him from wearing non-nike shoes and uniforms that have logos of other shoe companies as that has and will cause Nike "irreparable" harm. These are actions only a bully would take in my opinion. Nike is concerned about one unsponsored athlete wearing a track club uniform with a New Balance logo, but amazingly unconcerned about the irreparable harm from forcing large numbers of non-Nike-sponsored athletes to wear the Nike swoosh just to compete in the Olympics. I guess when Jenny Simpson, a New Balance athlete has to wear the Nike swoosh to be in the Olympics, it's no big deal. But when unsponsored Berian wears "NB" on his track club uniform at smaller meets, it's "irreparable."
I would expect that since Berian is unsponsored, he could wear whatever brands of shoes he wants -- preferably something that helps him run faster. If I were considering a sponsorship offer from a shoe company, I'd insist on trying out their shoes before endorsing their products.
Fortunately, Nike has been kind enough to help us see that reduction clauses are not industry standard. Nike also provided a great opportunity for other shoe companies to show their athletes that they're more concerned with keeping them happy than with suing them for every little perceived hurt. But I hope that someone with maturity and long-range vision at Nike would agree to drop the lawsuit as long as Berian sits down with them to discuss what Nike might have been able to do better.
If you're right that Nike matched the offer then why are they insisting that reduction clauses were "industry standard" and why did they submit a long form contract that included reduction clauses? Nike always intended that reduction clauses be part of the contract, NB never had such intention. Consequently, there was no meeting of the minds and thus no contract. A ROFR can't trump basic contractual principles. Besides, even if Nike matched NB term sheet , Nike later committed "novation" (i.e. substituting one contract for another) by offering long form contract that contained reduction clauses. A ROFR does not give the Offeror (Nike) the right to materially change the terms of the contract after the Offerree (BB) accepts Nike's contract. Now if Nike had admitted from the beginning that its match included no reduction clauses and be willing to enter into a contract that contained no such clauses they would have a much stronger position. Instead they want to have it both ways. They want to say they matched NB's offer and then want to change the terms of what they actually matched.
N. Clark wrote:
If you're right that Nike matched the offer then why are they insisting that reduction clauses were "industry standard" and why did they submit a long form contract that included reduction clauses?
I agree, that is the key question: Why did Nike include the reductions in the long form without any evidence from Berian's camp that the NB contract included reductions? Capriotti's email on January 22 makes it clear that he is worried about reductions, but it also seems he says Nike will sign Berian even without reductions.
I'd love to know what the two sides said to each other between January 22 and the Hawi/Cesar emails of February 15th. From the later emails, it's clear they were talking.
I'm puzzled by Hawi's language on February 15th. He says Berian "has expressed an interest not to resume a relationship with Nike." Why didn't he just say, "We gave you a chance to match the NB offer, but you didn't. You added a reductions clause. Since you didn't match the NB offer, BB is now free to sign with anyone. AMF."
Hawi then goes on to say that he's take Cesar up on his earlier email, and send him a revised offer. Why does he do that? Shouldn't he just say, "You didn't match, so AMF"?
Can the Nike guys have been so convinced that that they were right about reductions being standard that they refused to believe NB didn't ask for them?
PR Loss wrote:
Nike will lose. Positive on the PR beating.
Whether they win or lose, PR isn't going to be a problem because of it.
Was Hawi Meb's agent for the skechers deal? Because it seems he got most of his clients based on his brother rathet than actual experience.
How does Nike gets these deals? Because it seems they got most of athletes by running a racket.
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? Follow up question: if the answer is no, is that any different than reductions?
Thanks!
The reduction clauses are now out and they were big.
Court documents reveal that Nike certainly didn't agree to pay Berian a minimum of $375,000 over three years ($125,000 per year). Nike wanted to have the right to terminate the agreement entirely if Berian was injured and didn't compete for 180 days. If Berian got injured and only competed a handful of times and didn't make Worlds and wasn't ranked in the top 10 in the world, they wanted to be able to reduce his pay from $125,000 to $6,250. If he died or was permanently disabled, they also wanted to be able to cancel the deal. Berian says that's one reason why he doesn't want to run for Nike - the other is he doesn't like their shoes as he bombed out of USAs the first time he competed in them last year.