wejo wrote:
now that Berian is in it, he's seeing it's not for the feint hearted.
I think he's serious though, and Nike's the one who is feinting.
wejo wrote:
now that Berian is in it, he's seeing it's not for the feint hearted.
I think he's serious though, and Nike's the one who is feinting.
Which one? wrote:
pikerpie wrote:Ever heard of google?
I've heard of Google Gladwell, but not Malcolm Google.
Ummm, who said Malcom Google besides you?
konami code wrote:
It's easy to see why Nike wants everyone to choose option 1. They're making option 2 as unattractive as possible not just for Boris but for everyone else.
Never, ever, sign a contract with Nike.
songsta wrote:
the big question is whether New Balance's contract contains a no reductions clause? If it doesn't, then Nike's suit has merit. If it does contain a no reductions clause, then that's a material difference between the two contracts and Nike has NOT matched NB's offer.
If it doesn't, then Nike's suit has NO merit, because Nike's contract does have reductions.
Who said M Google wrote:
Which one? wrote:I've heard of Google Gladwell, but not Malcolm Google.
Ummm, who said Malcom Google besides you?
Malcolm G's the man!
Who said M Google wrote:
Which one? wrote:I've heard of Google Gladwell, but not Malcolm Google.
Ummm, who said Malcom Google besides you?
No one mentioned Malcom Google except you.
Here's the lesson wrote:
konami code wrote:It's easy to see why Nike wants everyone to choose option 1. They're making option 2 as unattractive as possible not just for Boris but for everyone else.
Never, ever, sign a contract with Nike.
It's funny you listen to the idiot Nick and Bored Housewife Sally, they act like nike is terrible, but Nike got a runner from Brooks and Giselle recently.
So if new balance, brooks, the fierce flock, etc., have no reductions, do their contracts have requirements?
Like Boris would have to appear in NB advertising, and promote the brand on social media (as he is doing for free currently), or something like that?
In that case, a reduction is actually gentler since it just means less pay instead of potentially being in violation of a contract.
Personally, I have boycotted Nike products since the 1980s, but when my son became a high school runner in 2013 I decided to let him make his own choices as he followed his team into the luster of Nike gear. But this Berian saga has changed those kids. They had a Nike bonfire today at their end-of-season gathering. I didn't say one word to encourage it, but I can't say I was opposed to it. That is about 50 pairs of spikes that will be switching over to some other brand come fall, along with trainers and other gear. I doubt any of this will register on Nike's radar screen, but I'd like to think it will.
Bring Back the 880 wrote:
So if new balance, brooks, the fierce flock, etc., have no reductions, do their contracts have requirements?
Like Boris would have to appear in NB advertising, and promote the brand on social media (as he is doing for free currently), or something like that?
In that case, a reduction is actually gentler since it just means less pay instead of potentially being in violation of a contract.
Also, if they have no reductions...do they have a termination clause?
What happens if a runner signs a contract and just doesn't run. You think NB is going keep them.
contracting wrote:
Nike might be losing this PR battle.
https://twitter.com/Gladwell/status/740178853692329984
There is no PR concern with Nike.
Foda pooda wrote:
contracting wrote:Nike might be losing this PR battle.
https://twitter.com/Gladwell/status/740178853692329984Who is Malcom Gladwell? Never heard of him.
He posts here as Bad Wiggins.
Actually I don't think that is true, but I do believe Gladwell posts here sometimes.
Steeplenerd wrote:
Personally, I have boycotted Nike products since the 1980s, but when my son became a high school runner in 2013 I decided to let him make his own choices as he followed his team into the luster of Nike gear. But this Berian saga has changed those kids. They had a Nike bonfire today at their end-of-season gathering. I didn't say one word to encourage it, but I can't say I was opposed to it. That is about 50 pairs of spikes that will be switching over to some other brand come fall, along with trainers and other gear. I doubt any of this will register on Nike's radar screen, but I'd like to think it will.
Pics or it didn't happen.
No, this is a lie.
Here's the lesson wrote:
konami code wrote:It's easy to see why Nike wants everyone to choose option 1. They're making option 2 as unattractive as possible not just for Boris but for everyone else.
Never, ever, sign a contract with Nike.
No, it's not about the Nike contract,its puzzling why this is the focus. The agent is 100% at fault.
The agent should have had the skill to read and interpret the contract. In this case you even have an agent that claims to have a law degree. Few if any athletes have the legalese knowledge and contract negotiating skills to deal with a complex contract.
Hire competence, sue the agent and make sure hes not able to reoresent athletes again.