carla karloff wrote:
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.
Just because Nike is a dbag here doesn't mean Berian is right.
The nike haters are just as bad as the nike fanboys.
440er wrote:
400er wrote:I work for Capriotti!
Secret agent man wrote:
THIS.
Yes, we realize you work for the Nike machine.
No. I actually thing Nike is being a bit silly about the whole thing. I understand the concept of fighting to enforce contracts, but I don't think it's worth all this airing of dirty laundry just to try to keep an athlete who doesn't want to run for you. I couldn't imagine any other running company doing that.
But until I see something that demonstrates that Hawi replied to Cap with something that demonstrated that the NB offer contained no reductions, other than Hawi's statement in the original e-mail, then I think that as a matter of law, Nike is in the right.
I've always been a Nike fan and root for most of their athletes but really hope they lose and lose big with this suit.
On the bright side perhaps other athletes will now push for better contracts.
Secret agent man wrote:
440er wrote:Yes, we realize you work for the Nike machine.
No. I actually thing Nike is being a bit silly about the whole thing. I understand the concept of fighting to enforce contracts, but I don't think it's worth all this airing of dirty laundry just to try to keep an athlete who doesn't want to run for you. I couldn't imagine any other running company doing that.
But until I see something that demonstrates that Hawi replied to Cap with something that demonstrated that the NB offer contained no reductions, other than Hawi's statement in the original e-mail, then I think that as a matter of law, Nike is in the right.
Again, you're just wrong about this. Nike had no right to further information. Nike had the offer sheet, and could have turned that offer sheet into a contract by saying "Done." But Nike wanted MORE. BB (through Hawi) actually had no obligation to give Nike any more information.
Does Nike want the contract with BB that's stated in the term sheet? I think NO. And that's all that matters. Nike didn't exercise her ROFR.
Gurufhugfhvh wrote:
carla karloff wrote: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.
Just because Nike is a dbag here doesn't mean Berian is right.
The nike haters are just as bad as the nike fanboys.
Wrong. Berian is in the right. Nike is in the wrong.
Secret agent man wrote:
But until I see something that demonstrates that Hawi replied to Cap with something that demonstrated that the NB offer contained no reductions…
Nope. Capriotti does not get to see that.
You obviously fail to understand contracts and how they are written, and what it means when something is not mentioned in them.
Cal attorney wrote:
Secret agent man wrote:No. I actually thing Nike is being a bit silly about the whole thing. I understand the concept of fighting to enforce contracts, but I don't think it's worth all this airing of dirty laundry just to try to keep an athlete who doesn't want to run for you. I couldn't imagine any other running company doing that.
But until I see something that demonstrates that Hawi replied to Cap with something that demonstrated that the NB offer contained no reductions, other than Hawi's statement in the original e-mail, then I think that as a matter of law, Nike is in the right.
Again, you're just wrong about this. Nike had no right to further information. Nike had the offer sheet, and could have turned that offer sheet into a contract by saying "Done." But Nike wanted MORE. BB (through Hawi) actually had no obligation to give Nike any more information.
Does Nike want the contract with BB that's stated in the term sheet? I think NO. And that's all that matters. Nike didn't exercise her ROFR.
Good point Cal attorney but you didn't go far enough. If Nike matched by saying "Done" and made the term sheet the contract, then the new contract would 1) have no new ROFR, 2) have no reductions, 3) be governed by California law, 4) have no confidentiality requirement, etc.... which BB's lawyer argues in the response brief.
No way Nike wins this. The court just can't force BB into all of these Nike-specified contract provisions. Nike's view is that anything that wasn't in the term sheet is for Nike to decide. That's preposterous. Nike 0, Boris 1.
440er wrote:
Secret agent man wrote:But until I see something that demonstrates that Hawi replied to Cap with something that demonstrated that the NB offer contained no reductions…
Nope. Capriotti does not get to see that.
You obviously fail to understand contracts and how they are written, and what it means when something is not mentioned in them.
I understand what you're saying, but didn't Nike say that they were matching, even if there were no reductions?
Secret agent man wrote:
440er wrote:Nope. Capriotti does not get to see that.
You obviously fail to understand contracts and how they are written, and what it means when something is not mentioned in them.
I understand what you're saying, but didn't Nike say that they were matching, even if there were no reductions?
Matching what? One money number with a contract with terms that did not exist in the prior contract. The "new" contract was materially different from the prior. Pulling this stunt is a black eye for Nike. Athletes are now aware of this game (bait-and-switch a prior poster appropriately called it), and their agents will look out for it.
Secret agent man wrote:
440er wrote:Nope. Capriotti does not get to see that.
You obviously fail to understand contracts and how they are written, and what it means when something is not mentioned in them.
I understand what you're saying, but didn't Nike say that they were matching, even if there were no reductions?
Saying their matching is great but the contract is what counts. They sent him a contract filled with reductions and other terms that were not like, such as the option year and Nike getting ROFR again.
When does this get judged?
Cal attorney wrote:
Secret agent man wrote:No. I actually thing Nike is being a bit silly about the whole thing. I understand the concept of fighting to enforce contracts, but I don't think it's worth all this airing of dirty laundry just to try to keep an athlete who doesn't want to run for you. I couldn't imagine any other running company doing that.
But until I see something that demonstrates that Hawi replied to Cap with something that demonstrated that the NB offer contained no reductions, other than Hawi's statement in the original e-mail, then I think that as a matter of law, Nike is in the right.
Again, you're just wrong about this. Nike had no right to further information. Nike had the offer sheet, and could have turned that offer sheet into a contract by saying "Done." But Nike wanted MORE. BB (through Hawi) actually had no obligation to give Nike any more information.
Does Nike want the contract with BB that's stated in the term sheet? I think NO. And that's all that matters. Nike didn't exercise her ROFR.
Calattorney, are you saying Nike was supposed to guess about material conditions that were agreed to and not disclosed in the offer sheet? That seems like a stretch. Don't you agree that if Berian's agent had been acting in good faith he would have made sure nb included any such elements that he and his client viewed as material? After all, it is up to Nike to decide whether to match, not up to Berian to decide whether he wants them to in those first 180 days. This seems a clear case of an agent trying to weasel out of an agreement by omitting relevant info. Fact is, if nb had actually agreed to that salary with no reductions, they would have put it on the offer sheet. Otherwise nb could just as easily ended up including reductions clause in any contract they offered Berian in the case that Nike didn't match. (And for those who want to say that nb doesn't include reduction clauses, you are naive. The nb filing was carefully worded to say nb hasn't reduced an athlete, not that the contracts don't contain that clause).
We'll see what the court finds but
...so far seems clear Nike is in the right on this. And btw I wear nb bc nikes hurt my feet. Still, I think Berian's side is wrong on this.
Here's a thought: The biggest mistake here is the 3-year term. Boris wanted to get away from Nike, but instead he got exposed to another 3 years with them. Boris and New Balance were cooperating nicely, trying to come up with a deal that Nike wouldn't want to match. They should have gone with a fully specified, signed 6-month contract - same length as the 2015 Nike-Boris contract. At worst, Nike would have matched the deal and Boris would have represented Nike through June 30.
What's wrong with that thought? Nike would have "matched" and then asserted another ROFR into the new contract. And the same controversy would exist. Nike $uck $ucky $uckity $uck-a$$ $uck$.
What will happen if they rule in Nike's favor? Will Boris be forced to wear their gear? And what does the whole restraining order do?
We have another article up on the case just now:
It includes Berian's deposition.
This all could be decided today as the two will meet in court in 30 minutes. We have a reporter on the ground in Portland to cover it for you.
Here is our Quick Take from today's article:
Quick Thought #1: The first question for a judge to decide is, “Did Nike match?â€
If we were the lawyers representing Berian, today in court, we would admit the obvious – that Berian wanted out of the Nike deal. Don’t let that facts make him look guilty. Just say, “Yes, our clients didn’t want to sign with Nike and doesn’t have to as Nike didn’t match.†There is nothing wrong with wanting out of a contract.
It seems to us this is most likely going to boil down to one question for the judge to answer, “Did Nike match?†All of the other stuff (Big Bear logo, New Balance’s shoes are better) seems a bit contrived. Does the judge believe Nike matched or not (or perhaps he could rule those terms were an unlawful poison pill but we doubt the reductions clause would be viewed that way)?
Nike says it couldn’t match as Merhawi didn’t give them the details of the no-reductions. Berian’s team counters by saying the offer sheet presented by NB didn’t have any reductions so there were no details to give.
LetsRun.com wrote:
We have another article up on the case just now:
http://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/06/boris-berian-say-oath-square-off-court-today-boris-berians-deposition-released/It includes Berian's deposition.
This all could be decided today as the two will meet in court in 30 minutes. We have a reporter on the ground in Portland to cover it for you.
Here is our Quick Take from today's article:
Quick Thought #1: The first question for a judge to decide is, “Did Nike match?â€
If we were the lawyers representing Berian, today in court, we would admit the obvious – that Berian wanted out of the Nike deal. Don’t let that facts make him look guilty. Just say, “Yes, our clients didn’t want to sign with Nike and doesn’t have to as Nike didn’t match.†There is nothing wrong with wanting out of a contract.
It seems to us this is most likely going to boil down to one question for the judge to answer, “Did Nike match?†All of the other stuff (Big Bear logo, New Balance’s shoes are better) seems a bit contrived. Does the judge believe Nike matched or not (or perhaps he could rule those terms were an unlawful poison pill but we doubt the reductions clause would be viewed that way)?
Nike says it couldn’t match as Merhawi didn’t give them the details of the no-reductions. Berian’s team counters by saying the offer sheet presented by NB didn’t have any reductions so there were no details to give.
To my understanding it's clear Nike did not match, the real argument is WHY. Nike is saying they couldn't match because BB's agent didn't provide information. But according to Cal attorney RoFR doesn't give Nike authority to ask questions, only to accept or deny the piece of paper in front of them. There is only this gray area because Instead of signing the contract and being done, Nike after "accepting" the match new balance made, rewrote the contract that they had previously agreed upon and added things.
Does Nike have the authority to add, edit and change a RoFR contract, or just sign it and accept it? Especially when the things Nike adds and edits drastically lower the value of the deal. In my opinion it doesn't matter whether Nike knew of reductions or not, they agreed upon a deal of certain value, then added reductions that lower that value.
This whole thing does seem like one big advertisement for how bad Nike's T&F contracts are for athletes. I figure there's got to be a strategy beyond Boris here....but i sure dont see it.
Did anybody else notice that pages 33 through 36 are missing from the Boris's deposition??? It kills me because that's where they start going into the difference between a term sheet and a contract, and in my mind, that's such a huge part of this case.
15 Q Okay. All right. Now, this attachment to
16 the e-mail, which is titled "Boris Berian Offer
17 Compensation and Bonus Schedule," this is not an
18 actual sponsorship contract, is it?
19 A What do you mean?
20 Q Well, it does not include some of the terms
21 that you would expect in a normal sponsorship
22 agreement, like provisions allowing the sponsor to
23 use your name or image, or provisions saying that
24 you would make appearances on behalf of the sponsor,
25 those kinds of provisions?
.
That's the end of page 32, and then the next 4 pages are missing! Ahhhh!!!
Ghhehdhd wrote:
There is only this gray area because Instead of signing the contract and being done, Nike after "accepting" the match new balance made, rewrote the contract that they had previously agreed upon and added things.
Does Nike have the authority to add, edit and change a RoFR contract, or just sign it and accept it? Especially when the things Nike adds and edits drastically lower the value of the deal. In my opinion it doesn't matter whether Nike knew of reductions or not, they agreed upon a deal of certain value, then added reductions that lower that value.
Getting someone to sign a short-term contract with one set of conditions, then demanding they sign a new contract with entirely different conditions would be called bait-and-switch.