good for now wrote:
rojo wrote:It amazes me that we have people fighting back and forth when we bascially have no facts.
Umm...your company started this thread and stated that you have the runner's back.
Rojo ... seriously .... you seem like a nice guy but you contradict yourself often. You look a bit silly here.
Like when you recently had a tizzy about naming cheaters -- while having a $200k prize up for one you very publicly named.
I've read Nike's complaint. Nike alleges that it and BB entered into a contract that afforded Nike the exclusive right to negotiate a new agreement with BB during the 60 days prior to the expiration of the existing contract (Dec. 31, 2015). For a period of 180 days after the expiration of the existing contract, Nike alleges that BB was required to submit to Nike any contract offered to him by a new sponsor that he desired to accept. Thereafter, Nike had 10 business days to "accept" and match the competing contract or decline to do so.
On Jan. 20, 2016, BB's agent allegedly emailed Nike and advised that New Balance had offered BB a contract that he wanted to accept. According to Nike, this triggered its right to accept and match the New Balance offer. On Jan. 22, 2016, Nike alleges that it responded and accepted or matched the New Balance offer. According to Nike, this meant that it and BB were bound to a new contract on the same terms as those offered by New Balance.
Nike's complaint goes on to state that, in mid-February, BB's agent sent another email in which he advised that BB wasn't interested in a contract with Nike, but that BB was willing to present Nike with a "revised offer" of some sort. Nike alleges that it responded to this communication by stating that it believed it and BB were bound by the contract Nike contends was formed by its "acceptance" of the terms offered by New Balance on or about Jan. 22. Nike also alleges that since Feb, it has tried to communicate with BB and/or his agent, but that those efforts were rebuffed.
Nike does not demand monetary damages from BB. Rather, Nike seeks a declaratory judgment that it and BB had a binding contract as of Jan. 22, 2016 and an injunction prohibiting BB from entering into any contractual relationship with a Nike competitor and from endorsing or promoting a Nike competitor.
Those are the facts so far, according to Nike.
jjjjjj wrote:
isn't wearing gear of other companies already a breach of contract and sufficient to get you fired? why sue when you can fire them? when they turn out to be a lot better than you thought last year when you picked them up for only a short period, not knowing whether they'd be a flash in the pan? Props to Berian for going public with this.
It seems to me the question is whether NIKE's offer was equal to New Balance's. Berian believes it wasn't and NIKE believes it was and Berian therefore was still under contract to them.
NIKE (I Hate referring to the company when an individual -Capriotti?- made the decision to serve Berian) must believe Berian is the real deal and they want him in their gear. Therefore they don't want to fire him.
I wonder if arbitration happens before the Olympic Trials?
Wow, that's a terrible agreement. It basically makes you Nike's plaything to sign or discard as they please. His agent should never have advised Berian to sign that. That said, Nike is notoriously vindictive and are probably trying to make an example of Berian.
Les wrote:
Wow, that's a terrible agreement. It basically makes you Nike's plaything to sign or discard as they please. His agent should never have advised Berian to sign that. That said, Nike is notoriously vindictive and are probably trying to make an example of Berian.
Right of first refusal is standard for these contracts.
Left Said Fred wrote:
Les wrote:Wow, that's a terrible agreement. It basically makes you Nike's plaything to sign or discard as they please. His agent should never have advised Berian to sign that. That said, Nike is notoriously vindictive and are probably trying to make an example of Berian.
Right of first refusal is standard for these contracts.
That may be so, but it's still a terrible contract. If the former sponsor has right of first refusal then the athlete can't ever be a free agent if the sponsor still wants to sponsor them.
Les wrote:
Left Said Fred wrote:Right of first refusal is standard for these contracts.
That may be so, but it's still a terrible contract. If the former sponsor has right of first refusal then the athlete can't ever be a free agent if the sponsor still wants to sponsor them.
And in exchange, someone is going to pay you to f-ing run. If that's so terrible a deal, go back to McDonald's, where you can change to another fast food franchise whenever you want.
He lives in California. Right of first refusal and non-compete clauses in employment contracts are practically unenforceable in California. They are only included to bully employees through the threat of litigation and consequent time and money costs.
Phil Fondacaro wrote:
He lives in California. Right of first refusal and non-compete clauses in employment contracts are practically unenforceable in California. They are only included to bully employees through the threat of litigation and consequent time and money costs.
Check your choice of law provisions.
Xsww127inm wrote:
Les wrote:That may be so, but it's still a terrible contract. If the former sponsor has right of first refusal then the athlete can't ever be a free agent if the sponsor still wants to sponsor them.
And in exchange, someone is going to pay you to f-ing run. If that's so terrible a deal, go back to McDonald's, where you can change to another fast food franchise whenever you want.
I bet you're a racist too. Admit it.
good for now wrote:
rojo wrote:It amazes me that we have people fighting back and forth when we bascially have no facts.
Umm...your company started this thread and stated that you have the runner's back.
Haha this is so true ^^^
Bygone eras wrote:
Xsww127inm wrote:And in exchange, someone is going to pay you to f-ing run. If that's so terrible a deal, go back to McDonald's, where you can change to another fast food franchise whenever you want.
I bet you're a racist too. Admit it.
Yes. I prefer marathons over other races.
Xsww127inm wrote:
Les wrote:That may be so, but it's still a terrible contract. If the former sponsor has right of first refusal then the athlete can't ever be a free agent if the sponsor still wants to sponsor them.
And in exchange, someone is going to pay you to f-ing run. If that's so terrible a deal, go back to McDonald's, where you can change to another fast food franchise whenever you want.
This.
Looks like Berian and his agent screwed up.
If Nike wanted to really stick it to him they could have served him at the Trials, but in the end they just want people to adhere to the terms of their contracts.. Wow. Nike is sooo evil amirite guys? 😒
rojo wrote:
I agree we should get facts but are you an idiot?
The thing here is that there is NO OTHER company that would ever put an athlete in this position.
If I read the facts of this case with the names removed, I would bet thousands that it was Nike involved over any other company.
Utter dirtbags. Between this behavior and their support of known doper athletes and coaches, Nike is the slimiest brand in the business.
I have Nike shorts that I'm literally embarrassed to wear around people who follow the sport. Going to throw them out today. Maybe I'll crap on the first and post the pic on Imgur.
probably not wrote:
It seems to me the question is whether NIKE's offer was equal to New Balance's.?
Because Nike's contract was with Nike.
HLB wrote:
I've read Nike's complaint. Nike alleges that it and BB entered into a contract that afforded Nike the exclusive right to negotiate a new agreement with BB during the 60 days prior to the expiration of the existing contract (Dec. 31, 2015). For a period of 180 days after the expiration of the existing contract, Nike alleges that BB was required to submit to Nike any contract offered to him by a new sponsor that he desired to accept. Thereafter, Nike had 10 business days to "accept" and match the competing contract or decline to do so.
On Jan. 20, 2016, BB's agent allegedly emailed Nike and advised that New Balance had offered BB a contract that he wanted to accept. According to Nike, this triggered its right to accept and match the New Balance offer. On Jan. 22, 2016, Nike alleges that it responded and accepted or matched the New Balance offer. According to Nike, this meant that it and BB were bound to a new contract on the same terms as those offered by New Balance.
Nike's complaint goes on to state that, in mid-February, BB's agent sent another email in which he advised that BB wasn't interested in a contract with Nike, but that BB was willing to present Nike with a "revised offer" of some sort. Nike alleges that it responded to this communication by stating that it believed it and BB were bound by the contract Nike contends was formed by its "acceptance" of the terms offered by New Balance on or about Jan. 22. Nike also alleges that since Feb, it has tried to communicate with BB and/or his agent, but that those efforts were rebuffed.
Nike does not demand monetary damages from BB. Rather, Nike seeks a declaratory judgment that it and BB had a binding contract as of Jan. 22, 2016 and an injunction prohibiting BB from entering into any contractual relationship with a Nike competitor and from endorsing or promoting a Nike competitor.
Those are the facts so far, according to Nike.
Nike doesn't appear to require that the matched contract is assumed agreed to without signatures. Only that they can match the offer. HLB, what does the prior contract say about a matching offer? Besides "must be signed" or "doesn't need to be signed", also, length of matched contract, and fee terms.
A contract match isn't a match unless other terms are also a match. Maybe Nike's corporate attorneys missed this. Or, maybe the match allows Nike to claim a match even though the terms are of significantly lower value.
new low even for Nike wrote:
The thing here is that there is NO OTHER company that would ever put an athlete in this position.
I have Nike shorts that I'm literally embarrassed to wear around people who follow the sport. Going to throw them out today. Maybe I'll crap on the first and post the pic on Imgur.
No one has more interest in this issue than Nike does. If Nike "owns" the sport, it's their duty to maintain that position. This sends a clear, deterrent message.
And .. just, wow to that second bit. Bunch of fvcking cry baby toddlers misguided by their biases/emotions.
So Berian should be grateful Nike is not sticking it to him as much as they could? He should be grateful ANY sponsor would want to pay him to run? He should be grateful to be signed to a contract that is completely one-sided in favor of Nike?
Maybe. Maybe not. But Berian is the athlete. His agent seems borderline incompetent. Maybe he got bad advice.