notrump wrote:
So you're posting here because.... ?
Rock and hard place wrote:It's probably because this is the most hate filled running site on the net with a lot of that directed at Nike. I agree that Nike is a cancer for the sport of running, but letsrun is not far behind.
+1
Good entertainment and laughs! Oh by way, if a mobster wanted you dead you'd be dead and never found!
You must work in a shitty running store like a fleet feet or RSG owned store. Perhaps you are forgetting the aidias line before boost came out. Asics does nothing for innovating running shoes. To say the Pegasus is a bad shoe shows that you suck at your job. Yes, Nike does make some terrible shoes (free line, most lunar shoes), but to discredit a whole brand based on a swoosh is pretty stupid. YOU are what's wrong with running stores.
Does nikeman have anything to say on this matter? Optics are very bad for Nike, even if they are legally correct.
doot doot wrote:
Beyond the Politics wrote:I haven't purchased Nike gear for myself since 1996. But it's not because of any political, ethical or moral feelings I may or may not have against the company. It is because Nike products are overpriced TOTAL CRAP.
Having worked in a running store for about five years, I came to realize that Nike shoes are all about fashion and ZERO about function. Not a shoe in the line is/was better than anything made by Saucony, Asics or Adidas, and the Nike shoes lacked durability. And unless a runner had absolutely flawless biomechanics, running in Nike shoes was simply a way of guaranteeing injury.
And Nike apparel? What a joke. For every piece of "performance" apparel in the Nike line, I can buy an off-brand equivalent from Road Runner Sports or the like and save 75 percent.
If you're buying Nike, you're just a sucker.
What is your preferred hemp soap?
You must work in a shitty running store like a fleet feet or RSG owned store. Perhaps you are forgetting the aidias line before boost came out. Asics does nothing for innovating running shoes. To say the Pegasus is a bad shoe shows that you suck at your job. Yes, Nike does make some terrible shoes (free line, most lunar shoes), but to discredit a whole brand based on a swoosh is pretty stupid. YOU are what's wrong with running stores.
somebloke wrote:
Dretch wrote:Eh, I doubt there are very many people that Salazar likes. He doesn't seem like the type who would have a healthy working relationship with his colleagues.
I heard salazar doesn't like his own mother.
I heard he never had a mother -- he was created by a mad scientist space alien working with the mafia and Nike, somewhere around Roswell.
jkfrauddetection wrote:
Does nikeman have anything to say on this matter? Optics are very bad for Nike, even if they are legally correct.
nikeman has nothing to do with nike.
Beyond the Politics wrote:
If you're buying Nike, you're just a sucker.
This is the truth. Nike INVENTED the running shoe and then peddled it as a running necessity that needs to be replaced every few months. The company was a con job from day one. Their flats and spikes are the only worthwhile products they make, and they're almost always ruined with neon sorority girl colors.
Too bad that all of this is going on. Most of this due to what largely sounds like a lack of communication. Boris is a great guy. I wish him well regardless of what brand he ends up in.
Politics aside, the reason that I have been loyal to Nike for over 30 years is that it is my firm belief that they make the best running (and racing) shoes out there.
For those of you who say that Nike makes crappy running shoes it's pretty obvious that you haven't tried any of them lately.
Go Bears!
paul nowicki wrote:
best thing we can ALL do is not buy any nike products, the only thing a huge corp will ever understand or take seriously is the bottom line, so hit nike (and similar big bully corporations ) in the wallett, DONT BUY NIKE, support boris b!
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
I still can't get over this from the lawsuit: Nike "would suffer serious, substantial, and irreparable harm" from Berian switching to NB.
A company that made revenue of $7.8 BILLION in Q4 last year and $30 BILLION for the FY complaining about:.......................
It's laughable at best. Nike will sell more shoes and apparel in the next 10 minutes around the world because of LeBron James than they would by sponsoring Berian for the next 10 YEARS. Serious, substantial and irreparable harm my ass.
This is just legal talk to meet the basis for an injunction. You're reading too much into it.
To me the biggest issue is why Nike sticks with Capriotti. At this point, he's not good for the brand. I'm all for defending your brand/contracts, but Capriotti reminds me of a football/basketball coach that has lost the control of his locker room. Unfortunately, there are very limited alternatives for a lot of athletes, but I can't see having him in charge as being best for Nike. Athletes with another choice may be more likely to take it. The guy is too much of a wildcard, and if I was an athlete I wouldn't want him as the leader of my "brand".
Sad. Stupid.
I switched from Adidas to Nike when I was 18 because my man Pre wore Nikes.
Now, it's been years since I touched a pair.
They keep giving themselves a black eye.
I'm still a fan of many athletes who run for Nike...
asics hah what a joke wrote:
You must work in a shitty running store like a fleet feet or RSG owned store. Perhaps you are forgetting the aidias line before boost came out. Asics does nothing for innovating running shoes. To say the Pegasus is a bad shoe shows that you suck at your job. Yes, Nike does make some terrible shoes (free line, most lunar shoes), but to discredit a whole brand based on a swoosh is pretty stupid. YOU are what's wrong with running stores.
Translated: You're one of the suckers to whom I alluded in my post.
I'm sure the negative press for Cap isn't good - but as long as he is delivering and keeping everything under budget, then the higher higher ups at Nike will not move him.
Capriotti has a reputation for being a jerk, but sometimes you need a jerk to have his position. Someone who can bully his way to get the results necessary.
Few people know who Capriotti is - especially not the ones forking over billions each year for running shoes. As long as it stays that way, he isn't going anywhere.
The negative press of him threatening people isn't good - but I think this WSJ article is the first major article (front page) on a major publication to shine Capriotti's antics to light. There was that fight with the Brooks coach, but that was kept a bit under wraps.
I'm personally starting to get worried now, knowing that Nike file lawsuits and stuff and want to 'hit' LRC.
So, for the record, I'd just like to say:
1) I respect and support Nike's decision to sponsor Justin Gatlin. The dude committed the crime, and did the time. Nike's sponsorship is less an endorsement of drug-taking, rather it's a commendable effort to support an athlete who deserves a second chance. (oh ... hang on ... third chance.)
2) Nike's decision to have Lord Coe on their payroll has nothing to do with wanting to influence athletics in any way. Coe is a grown man, an honest Brit. He will make impartial decisions.
3) Eugene deserves the 2021 World Championships. It's the best venue. Only an idiot would think that there should be a bidding process for a major athletics championship.
Glad to have put the record straight.
N. Clark wrote:
If it turns out that Nike is the only one that actually has these reduction clauses, then Nike may have what us antitrust lawyers call monopsony power (i.e. anti competitive market power on the buyer, rather than seller side). In a competitive pro track and field endorsement labor market, Nike would not be able to offer contracts with reduction clauses and still dominate the endorsement market as indicated by the WSJ article.
This is basically the cellophane fallacy. You can't know anything about market power unless you have a baseline for comparison. If Nike is the only company with reduction clauses, it might just as well be because Nike tends to pay above market rates. (Which is not to say I think Nike doesn't have market power.)
Incidentally, it occurred to me that there's a potential Noerr-Pennington problem with this suit. Although the merits of the suit itself surely don't qualify as a sham, Nike's request for injunctive relief is utterly ridiculous.
MeHereYouWhere?! wrote:
I still can't get over this from the lawsuit: Nike "would suffer serious, substantial, and irreparable harm" from Berian switching to NB.
A company that made revenue of $7.8 BILLION in Q4 last year and $30 BILLION for the FY complaining about:
1. A guy competing in a fringe sport (to the general world population)
2. A guy who primarily competes overseas
3. A guy who you would be paying MAYBE $500,000 total for the year
4. A guy who, at the highest profile events in your sport (The World Championships and Olympics) would STILL BE DECKED OUT IN YOUR NIKE SPONSORED APPAREL.
It's laughable at best. Nike will sell more shoes and apparel in the next 10 minutes around the world because of LeBron James than they would by sponsoring Berian for the next 10 YEARS. Serious, substantial and irreparable harm my ass.
Nike brass are shooting themselves in the foot here.
Match the contract or shut up.
Beyond the Politics wrote:
I haven't purchased Nike gear for myself since 1996. But it's not because of any political, ethical or moral feelings I may or may not have against the company. It is because Nike products are overpriced TOTAL CRAP.
Having worked in a running store for about five years, I came to realize that Nike shoes are all about fashion and ZERO about function. Not a shoe in the line is/was better than anything made by Saucony, Asics or Adidas, and the Nike shoes lacked durability. And unless a runner had absolutely flawless biomechanics, running in Nike shoes was simply a way of guaranteeing injury.
And Nike apparel? What a joke. For every piece of "performance" apparel in the Nike line, I can buy an off-brand equivalent from Road Runner Sports or the like and save 75 percent.
If you're buying Nike, you're just a sucker.
Haven't purchased the gear for yourself? Does that imply you have bought it for others or let others buy it for you or supply it to you free of charge?
I don't have perfect biomechanics and I have run in Mizuno, Asics, Saucony, Puma, and Adidas, as well as Nike. I've been injured in almost every brand shoe, but Nike is actually on the low end for me.
I certainly don't love their evil empire mentality, and with their production volume it doesn't make sense for their cost to be so high (aside from protecting their brand), but their stuff is good.
I agree though, I look to get their products, and others, on sale. I would love to take an ethical stand, but unless I am making the shoes in my own workshop, I really can't vouch for the morals or ethics of any brand, Toms included.
cleans wrote:
2) Nike's decision to have Lord Coe on their payroll has nothing to do with wanting to influence athletics in any way. Coe is a grown man, an honest Brit. He will make impartial decisions.
That goes without saying. Even Lord Coe himself said that there was no conflict of interest. Also he declared that he didn't "lobby the IAAF and/or Lamine Diack on behalf of Eugene 2021", so it's official. He simply "reached out to Diack specifically on this topic", nothing to see here.
Source: bbc.
http://www.bbc.com/sport/athletics/34908237I think they make good running gear.
For decades I have bought about one pair of Pegasus every six months. They last me about 800-1000 miles (unless twice-a-day squelching through English weather gives them a permanent stink, and I have to take them out and shoot them first). Other brands have tended to give me shin issues promptly. Maybe there's a Nike-shaped foot and some people have it. But I always get them in sales online, for about 60% less than the latest models.
I also like their spikes, especially for cross country.
Shorts? Love'em. But only when I find them in TJ Maxx for $10 on my trips to the States. I'm more likely to find a deal in Nike that fits me, simply because there are more of them to offload.
Yes, they also make cheapo things that LOOK like running shoes for occasional joggers, or for those on 15 miles per week. But so do Decathlon, Karrimor and a few other firms. I can't criticise them for covering all the main niches.
