Final thing, stop with the "from day one were told it's a startup" BS. That narrative only came out when the venture was teetering and about to implode - in fact unless I'm wrong it only came out for the first time when they announced they were cutting the Philly meet from 3 days to 2 and then reinforced when LA was axed. When this series was created and sold to athletes and agents, the narrative was "it's the new dawn of pro track and field with the money the athletes finally deserve" and "unrivaled this" and "never been seen before that". All he did was chirp about his 30 million dollars in backing - I never ever heard him say it wasn't guaranteed or it was a startup and things might not be guaranteed. All I heard was how awesome it was going to be and how he was saving the sport of track running. It's easy to say "well the agents should have been on to it and understood the pitfalls" - based on what? They have never had to confront this before - what are they going to do when their athletes are like "hey we finally have a chance to make serious, career changing money" - go back to them and say "hey I don't think you should do this because it's a startup and you might not get paid"???
Good post. The startup language wasn't from day 1. And the cancellation of the distance stuff for Philly was clearly to save money. So when did the lying start? And is it still continuing?
I think it's been discussed many times - it's highly unlikely there is "fraud" at least in a legal sense.
Yes he tried but then you ask yourself this important question. Did he "try" because he really cared about moving the sport forwards and the wellbeing of athletes, or did he try to personally profit in terms of ego, popularity and money? I don't have a firm stance on that but the point that I can't unequivocally say it's the first possibility is a problem in itself.
The other thing is that there are nuances and subtleties to the concept of "trying". There never seemed to be a lot of humility and there certainly wasn't a lot of honest transparency. He could have said "hey I have an idea and want to use my platform to try this because I truly believe I can make the sport better. I've secured conditional funding which could be game changing for the sport but I have to make it work, come support me and the athletes and see if we can revolutionize the world of track (and field)". That's very different from what happened right down to the launch of the website where the first thing you ever saw was this massive write-up all about Michael Johnson the Olympic Hero (and I know this 100% was the case because I remember seeing it vividly).
To close out the "trying" - the tragedy for him at least in terms of public perception is that when it all imploded, despite everything else, if he had come out and taken some freaking responsibility and accepted that ultimately it was a failed venture, I really think people would have sympathized with him and understood. But he couldn't even do that - these BS press releases that clearly aren't even written by him that just insult peoples intelligence.
So unfortunately just commending him for trying takes a serious hit because of all the other nonsense surrounding it that he bought on himself.
Even better post by Salvitore. I've changed my take on Johnson. Taking him off BBC was probably right call.
Let the record show that Grand Slam Track was pitched as startup not expecting to make a profit in Year 1 nor Year 2. The proof is a Runner's World article from over a year ago.
Johnson said the series was pitched with long-term staying power in mind and was not looking to sell quickly.
“If I had an investor who said, ‘Well, I need it to be profitable in year two,’ I would not take their money because that’s impossible,” Johnson said. “It’s just not going to happen. Our investors have come on and said, ‘Hey, we believe in the long term viability of this.’”
this isn’t a knock on KM. He is an ok person. I assume he’s been directed by their legal team to remain silent on this. This is the same guy who sought of the NYT to write a lengthy expose on his retirement. Not talking about himself is unusual.
I am 99.9% certain the term sheet was contingent upon the first event being a success and they weren’t sold and walked. the real question is why did they continue on pretending as if it hadn’t happened?
This post was edited 11 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
add context
2) You can't be so black and white and pragmatic about separating whats happened in GST and this commentating gig with the BBC. No "technically" they aren't related but that's not the point. The point is that Michael Johnson carries some serious baggage with him right now that is just not worth getting involved with.
Absolutely correct. It would be awkward and disgraceful for BBC to carry on with Michael Johnson, as if nothing happened.
For one thing, those Grand Slam Track results are referred to frequently during meets. Steve Cram has done it many times and likewise Hannah England. It's going to continue. Many athletes set personal bests in those meets. I can think of Masai Russell and Kenny Bednarek off the top of my head.
When Michael Johnson is not involved, mentioning those results is no big deal. But imagine a BBC feed or analysis segment in which one of the commentators either refers to a Grand Slam Track race, or catches himself at the last second and detours. That stuff is inevitable over the course of a long meet.
Now everybody is thinking about Michael Johnson instead of the race/athlete. And Michael Johnson can't be allowed to make deflecting self-serving statements in that setting. Everybody knows damn well he is exactly the type to do that.
Somehow the situation influence is always ignored.
Funny, the ad at the top of my screen while reading this thread was "Pay Bills Overseas in Seconds"
GST is the classic business case study of the concept, "if it sounds too good to be true, it isn't." To be flown to a meet business class, run a 110H time that doesn't crack the top 9,000 all-time, next day post a mediocre (for high school) 10.8/10.9 men's 100 meters and walk away with $10-20k is is not sustainable.
What I’ve seen in these threads is the posters that blame Merber have no idea how companies work. I’ve had jobs at startups to Fortune 500 where I’ve had budgets in excess of $10M a year. The CFO and accounting are managing paying bills, liquidity, managing funds. The CEO in a startup is often doing full time fund raising. Unless you are in the c suite you are not going to know what money is where. You just know what you are allowed to spend. You won’t be paying any of the bills directly.
Unless I see evidence otherwise, assuming Merber knew anything about the financial situation is a failure to understand how companies work. Michael Johnson on the other hand knew exactly what the financial situation was, he knew there wasn’t enough money to pay athletes before the races were run. If you want to blame him that is fair. You could argue he was just incompetent and seems likely he really thought things would somehow magically work out.
Also just throwing out there, and I sound like a broken record, but MJ and Merber should be transparent- show us what they got paid and how much money they collected along the way. They didn’t miss paychecks clearly because they stuck with the grift and the scam. Why won’t they show us an audit of where all that money went and what it went toward down to the penny.
This is naive. Do you think that they are free to do that when there are lots of legal issues and I would guess many suits filled and more threatened.
Final thing, stop with the "from day one were told it's a startup" BS. That narrative only came out when the venture was teetering and about to implode - in fact unless I'm wrong it only came out for the first time when they announced they were cutting the Philly meet from 3 days to 2 and then reinforced when LA was axed. When this series was created and sold to athletes and agents, the narrative was "it's the new dawn of pro track and field with the money the athletes finally deserve" and "unrivaled this" and "never been seen before that". All he did was chirp about his 30 million dollars in backing - I never ever heard him say it wasn't guaranteed or it was a startup and things might not be guaranteed. All I heard was how awesome it was going to be and how he was saving the sport of track running. It's easy to say "well the agents should have been on to it and understood the pitfalls" - based on what? They have never had to confront this before - what are they going to do when their athletes are like "hey we finally have a chance to make serious, career changing money" - go back to them and say "hey I don't think you should do this because it's a startup and you might not get paid"???
Good post. The startup language wasn't from day 1. And the cancellation of the distance stuff for Philly was clearly to save money. So when did the lying start? And is it still continuing?
I think it's been discussed many times - it's highly unlikely there is "fraud" at least in a legal sense.
Yes he tried but then you ask yourself this important question. Did he "try" because he really cared about moving the sport forwards and the wellbeing of athletes, or did he try to personally profit in terms of ego, popularity and money? I don't have a firm stance on that but the point that I can't unequivocally say it's the first possibility is a problem in itself.
The other thing is that there are nuances and subtleties to the concept of "trying". There never seemed to be a lot of humility and there certainly wasn't a lot of honest transparency. He could have said "hey I have an idea and want to use my platform to try this because I truly believe I can make the sport better. I've secured conditional funding which could be game changing for the sport but I have to make it work, come support me and the athletes and see if we can revolutionize the world of track (and field)". That's very different from what happened right down to the launch of the website where the first thing you ever saw was this massive write-up all about Michael Johnson the Olympic Hero (and I know this 100% was the case because I remember seeing it vividly).
To close out the "trying" - the tragedy for him at least in terms of public perception is that when it all imploded, despite everything else, if he had come out and taken some freaking responsibility and accepted that ultimately it was a failed venture, I really think people would have sympathized with him and understood. But he couldn't even do that - these BS press releases that clearly aren't even written by him that just insult peoples intelligence.
So unfortunately just commending him for trying takes a serious hit because of all the other nonsense surrounding it that he bought on himself.
Even better post by Salvitore. I've changed my take on Johnson. Taking him off BBC was probably right call.
Do I go on record as the only man to ever change the opinion of Robert Johnson mid thread? :D
Let the record show that Grand Slam Track was pitched as startup not expecting to make a profit in Year 1 nor Year 2. The proof is a Runner's World article from over a year ago.
Johnson said the series was pitched with long-term staying power in mind and was not looking to sell quickly.
“If I had an investor who said, ‘Well, I need it to be profitable in year two,’ I would not take their money because that’s impossible,” Johnson said. “It’s just not going to happen. Our investors have come on and said, ‘Hey, we believe in the long term viability of this.’”
Firstly the exact term "start-up" was and is never mentioned - even in this article. That phrase and wording is very important.
Secondly the paragraph before the one that contains this "investor" quote says this
"The circuit—not affiliated with a shoe company—is operating on $30 million of initial investment, primarily from private equity."
Which simply wasn't true was it. Having 30 million of initial investment is vastly different from 30 million of what now appears to be conditional investment. Because if he had 30 million he absolutely would have the means to have paid those athletes.
Furthermore, how many startups have you ever heard of that have 30 million bucks in seed funding? Seed funding at most is about 5 million, a series A seed round might be around 15 million - but this usually happens when a a startup has shown it has some viability and traction in its market. Series B is more but this usually happens 12 to 24 months after a successful series A.
Point is, if it was a startup then he should have said this (which he didn't) and made it clear to the athletes and agents (which he didn't) and shouldn't have been throwing around 30 million dollars (which he didn't have) like a f-ing amateur.
Let the record show that Grand Slam Track was pitched as startup not expecting to make a profit in Year 1 nor Year 2. The proof is a Runner's World article from over a year ago.
Johnson said the series was pitched with long-term staying power in mind and was not looking to sell quickly.
“If I had an investor who said, ‘Well, I need it to be profitable in year two,’ I would not take their money because that’s impossible,” Johnson said. “It’s just not going to happen. Our investors have come on and said, ‘Hey, we believe in the long term viability of this.’”
Firstly the exact term "start-up" was and is never mentioned - even in this article. That phrase and wording is very important.
Secondly the paragraph before the one that contains this "investor" quote says this
"The circuit—not affiliated with a shoe company—is operating on $30 million of initial investment, primarily from private equity."
Which simply wasn't true was it. Having 30 million of initial investment is vastly different from 30 million of what now appears to be conditional investment. Because if he had 30 million he absolutely would have the means to have paid those athletes.
Furthermore, how many startups have you ever heard of that have 30 million bucks in seed funding? Seed funding at most is about 5 million, a series A seed round might be around 15 million - but this usually happens when a a startup has shown it has some viability and traction in its market. Series B is more but this usually happens 12 to 24 months after a successful series A.
Point is, if it was a startup then he should have said this (which he didn't) and made it clear to the athletes and agents (which he didn't) and shouldn't have been throwing around 30 million dollars (which he didn't have) like a f-ing amateur.
Let the record show.
Firstly, Johnson didn't need to use the exact word "startup" because everyone knew it was a startup.
Secondly, Johnson actually did indeed use the word "startup" in his interview with The Guardian published the day before the first GST meet.
“We’re in this for the long haul,” he says. “Startups aren’t profitable in year one. You know if anybody comes to you with a startup, saying: ‘Hey, we’re going to be profitable in year one,’ run away as fast as you can. But we will continue to grow.”
In the same interview, Johnson also said track doesn't need saving.
Now. I will add one thing. I want 100% total honesty from Johnson moving forward and am not sure if we are getting it.
Like is this statement true? If not, I'm starting to get angry.
The Independent wrote:
A spokesperson for Johnson offered a brief statement: "He has other commitments, unfortunately, but is looking forward to working with the BBC in the future.”
If he was pulled from the broadcast at the request of the BBC, then tell us. If he pulled himself as he thinks it's a bad look, then tell us as that will create some good will and sympathy.
I will say at times the difference between PR hype and fraud is a fine line with startrups.
Along those lines, I've said to Weldon and Jonathan privately and maybe on the podcast I did wonder if some of this behavior could be viewed as criminal. They thought that was a crazy statement. So I play it both ways.
But lay off Merber.
Nah brother Merber was in it and knew the nitty gritty details. If the ship goes down the crew does with it. Just because he has two young kids doesn’t change the fact that he was part of the biggest scam to track in recent years.
Firstly, Johnson didn't need to use the exact word "startup" because everyone knew it was a startup.
Secondly, Johnson actually did indeed use the word "startup" in his interview with The Guardian published the day before the first GST meet.
“We’re in this for the long haul,” he says. “Startups aren’t profitable in year one. You know if anybody comes to you with a startup, saying: ‘Hey, we’re going to be profitable in year one,’ run away as fast as you can. But we will continue to grow.”
In the same interview, Johnson also said track doesn't need saving.
Are you Michael Johnson trying to absolve yourself? Seriously?
Your first article didn't have the terminology to fit your narrative so you had to find yourself another one in a panic. Either way your point is relevant. Grand Slam Tracks "profitability" and being a "startup" (congrats on finding that, I bet it was a relief) has nothing to do with paying it's human resources. Find me an article where Johnson says the athlete compensation is dependent on GST's profitability? That's not the way it works my friend. You are bandying around this concept that if it was a startup it absolves his responsibility to pay anyone by nature of what a startup is and you have no f-ing clue.
If I have a "startup" and employ 10 staff and contractually agree to pay them a salary of "X" dollars for a year, the profitability of the startup is irrelevant. Because almost every startup loses money in it's first years - and most of the money goes to the people working in it by way of their compensation. Where does that money come from? The seed funding. Johnson said he had 30 million of it. He didn't.
I promise you that if he had said "so we have 3 million in prize money per event BUT the meet needs to raise that capital before we pay athletes" he would have had exactly zero starters in any of his meets.
So it doesn't matter if people knew it was a startup, if he said it was a startup - he also said he had 30 million bucks to pay athletes which is the only reason they even signed up and he didn't. End of story Michael. Tough luck on the BBC gig mate.
Firstly, Johnson didn't need to use the exact word "startup" because everyone knew it was a startup.
Secondly, Johnson actually did indeed use the word "startup" in his interview with The Guardian published the day before the first GST meet.
“We’re in this for the long haul,” he says. “Startups aren’t profitable in year one. You know if anybody comes to you with a startup, saying: ‘Hey, we’re going to be profitable in year one,’ run away as fast as you can. But we will continue to grow.”
In the same interview, Johnson also said track doesn't need saving.
Are you Michael Johnson trying to absolve yourself? Seriously?
Your first article didn't have the terminology to fit your narrative so you had to find yourself another one in a panic. Either way your point is relevant. Grand Slam Tracks "profitability" and being a "startup" (congrats on finding that, I bet it was a relief) has nothing to do with paying it's human resources. Find me an article where Johnson says the athlete compensation is dependent on GST's profitability? That's not the way it works my friend. You are bandying around this concept that if it was a startup it absolves his responsibility to pay anyone by nature of what a startup is and you have no f-ing clue.
If I have a "startup" and employ 10 staff and contractually agree to pay them a salary of "X" dollars for a year, the profitability of the startup is irrelevant. Because almost every startup loses money in it's first years - and most of the money goes to the people working in it by way of their compensation. Where does that money come from? The seed funding. Johnson said he had 30 million of it. He didn't.
I promise you that if he had said "so we have 3 million in prize money per event BUT the meet needs to raise that capital before we pay athletes" he would have had exactly zero starters in any of his meets.
So it doesn't matter if people knew it was a startup, if he said it was a startup - he also said he had 30 million bucks to pay athletes which is the only reason they even signed up and he didn't. End of story Michael. Tough luck on the BBC gig mate.
Are you a Diamond League employee who benefits from Grand Slam Track's demise? You were bashing GST long before it launched. What's your motive for doing so?
It's hilarious to see you backing up like a Tonka truck now that I've proven you wrong about the league being described as a startup from Day 1. First you say he didn't call it a startup until later. Now I've proven you wrong, and you say it doesn't matter. Beep! Beep!
Who said anything about athlete compensation being based on profitability? Don't strain yourself while you desperately grasp for straws. Payment was obviously based on investor funding, which got pulled.
Hyper-capitalistic Americans always looking to make a quick buck regardless of who they screw over in the process. Nothing is ever good enough unless it's lining their own pocket. Disappointed in Michael Johnson, thought he was different.
I 100% believe MJ and Merber meant well. When the money didn't come through, they had a choice to either pull the plug, or keep it going while hoping and praying they found another source of revenue to keep their dream alive. Maybe some screwed up logic in their head told them that if the next 2 or 3 meets went well, people would line up to give them money.
Too bad it didn't work out.
These athletes are lucky to have 3, 5, or maybe 10 years of really high level running. Many of them organized their training around the GST concept, instead of putting their full focus into worlds, because the promise of $ was very enticing.
Some of them may have even developed injuries or peaked too early, which could cost them at worlds. And some of them have also ruined relationships with Diamond League meet organizers, which cost them money this summer, and into the future.
Consequences for MJ
FAFO, as the kids like to say
yeah it isn't just prize money for the athletes-it is their paycheck...I'm sure MJ drew a decent salary through this...
MJ shouldn’t be allowed to ever work in track and field again until those people get paid. He should be social pariah, an outcast, and he should be treated like a leper. Why should he be allowed to work for the BBC and make money when he’s not going to use any of that money gained to pay anyone he owes? He’s just going to line his own pockets, much like he did with GST. MJ is done - legacy ruined. Everyone knows he’s a scammer and a grifter and doesn’t give af about moving the dial in track and field. Him and merber are white collar crooks and don’t deserve a space at all, in this sport any longer.
When you bash Merber, you are making my point for me. Do you really think Kyle Merber with two young kids thought, "I'm going to quit my stable job at Amex and join GST and con a bunch of athletes and then run off into the sunset?" No. Merber took a risk to help the sport. It appears to have failed. Of course, he should be allowed to work in the sport moving forward if he wants to. He was an employee and likely had no idea of the financials.
MJ is different certainly but let me explain my rationale. I think the venom is over the top.
From day 1, many people have viewed me as a critic of GST but the OP is correct - I very much defended Johnson the SC podcast yesterday. Maybe I'm too much of a contrarian, but I've never understood the venom towards MJ (and particularly Kyle).
Johnson's job on the BBC is to analyze track and field. I don't understand how his businesss failure impacts his ability to do that. He's not really interviewing athletes. He can still easily analyze the races.
From day 1, we were told GST was a startup. Guess what - a lot of startups fail.
I guess it depends on how much dishonesty was involved. They were put in a tough spot. They thought they had funding, they didn't and then it became an issue of how can we get it and if not when do we pull the plug? Or do you think all along, they plan was "Let's startup a league, pay ourselves for 6 months and then fleece everyone and ruin our reputations?"
On paper, all of the athletes lost out big. But what I want to know is how much of those losses are real as compared to what they could have earned elsewhere. Most werent' going to be making big $ anywhere. I'd love to see how much a Josh Kerr or Grant Fisher made from GST this year as to what they could have made on the DL.
The ones I feel for are the likes of Medina Eisa who could have been running road races.
It reminds me of a buddy who back to during the .com bust lost a ton on paper. Right after college, he joined a startup and it's valuation quickly went nort of a billion bucks but before he could sell his shares it crumbled.
That's only partially true. The way the BBC covers athletics means that athletes will frequently be brought in to the studio to discuss races with the analysts. There's a very high chance MJ would come face-to-face with an athlete he owes money, like Matt Hudson Smith, Georgia Hunter Bell, Dina Asher Smith, Neil Gourley, or Josh Kerr. While I'd like to see that in a kind of ghoulish way, I don't think anyone at the BBC wants to be out in that position.
That's only partially true. The way the BBC covers athletics means that athletes will frequently be brought in to the studio to discuss races with the analysts. There's a very high chance MJ would come face-to-face with an athlete he owes money, like Matt Hudson Smith, Georgia Hunter Bell, Dina Asher Smith, Neil Gourley, or Josh Kerr. While I'd like to see that in a kind of ghoulish way, I don't think anyone at the BBC wants to be out in that position.
Very interesting - you make a really good point. They don’t want any sort of risk, and right now if they brought him in, even though it’s unlikely anything would happen, there’s still the risk of it going south quickly if what you say is happening with athletes coming in studio.
Now. I will add one thing. I want 100% total honesty from Johnson moving forward and am not sure if we are getting it.
Like is this statement true? If not, I'm starting to get angry.
If he was pulled from the broadcast at the request of the BBC, then tell us. If he pulled himself as he thinks it's a bad look, then tell us as that will create some good will and sympathy.
I will say at times the difference between PR hype and fraud is a fine line with startrups.
Along those lines, I've said to Weldon and Jonathan privately and maybe on the podcast I did wonder if some of this behavior could be viewed as criminal. They thought that was a crazy statement. So I play it both ways.
But lay off Merber.
Nah brother Merber was in it and knew the nitty gritty details. If the ship goes down the crew does with it. Just because he has two young kids doesn’t change the fact that he was part of the biggest scam to track in recent years.
You do not know nearly enough to make that claim with the certainty that you make it. Do you have any ax to grind?
MJ should not be able to work in track and field again.
Is there some party in charge? Has he done anything illegal? Is there any (creditable, posters here generally don't qualify) evidence that he has embezzlement funds, illegally converted funding.
I don't think that you are paying him, and has he harmed you? Let those involved talk.
Rojo was ranting about this on the pod yesterday. He seemed very upset. says the bbc gig has nothing to do with Grand Slam. And he doesn't feel bad for the western athletes not getting paid. says it cost them nothing. Says we shouldn't blame Johnson for trying.
Completely missing the point that the money was dried up before the first meet, and then they did 2 more after that!
MJ screwed over a lot of people. He doesn't get to be part of this world anymore. And deservedly so.
michael Johnson still hasn't backed out the investor did he intends to pay them when as soon as he can. for all we know they may be eligible to be sued but it may take a while. Either way michael johnson clearly doesn't have the money but he wasn't the one who screwed over track athletes.
Rojo was ranting about this on the pod yesterday. He seemed very upset. says the bbc gig has nothing to do with Grand Slam. And he doesn't feel bad for the western athletes not getting paid. says it cost them nothing. Says we shouldn't blame Johnson for trying.
Completely missing the point that the money was dried up before the first meet, and then they did 2 more after that!
MJ screwed over a lot of people. He doesn't get to be part of this world anymore. And deservedly so.
Never, ever take Bill Ackman at his word.
He will screw you over and get all the suckers to blame you.
The money just "dried up"! It's not like Ackman promised $30 million and then stiffed you.
Weird how some think he scammed them. Well where is his 30 million? He didn't backout CLEARLY
