Official Thread to Discuss Boris Berian's Contract

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

Still confused wrote:

I'm still confused. Why wouldn't Berian simply confirm that no reductions were material terms? I didn't see any response to Nike's email in the documents posted, and his legal team makes no mention of confirming this in the response they filed. If they had confirmed it, case closed, right?

Because he is trying to get out of a contract with Nike. He never wanted Nike to match the deal and may not have included the detail about no reductions on purpose in order to try to weasel out of this.

I don't think he should be forced to sign with Nike, but I have no idea how much extra they paid him in '15 for the right to match competing offers for 180 days after his contract ended.

BB DID NOT have a contract with Nike. The contract expired. Nike did not match the NB offer. Nike has a one-time shot to make an offer, not a right to a protracted negotiation. Case closed.

If it was that clear cut, why would a healthy likely Olympian be cancelling races, or not officially signing with new balance?

The trickery with the NB branded "club" jersey seems shady as well.

Foda pooda wrote:

Does that mean the contract with Nike is over...I don't think so.

This is not correct. To be correct athletes that Nike let go would not be able to sign with someone until the extended terms of the contract were over.

LetsRun.com wrote:

Here is our article on the temporary restraining order being granted to Nike. We'll update it when the filing is made official:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/06/nike-granted-temporary-restraining-order-lawsuit-boris-berian/

I'm really glad to see the affidavit from John Evans of New Balance. To me, it sounds as though someone at Nike got a little greedy (or perhaps just sloppy) by including the reduction clause. I haven't seen the ruling granting Nike's request for a temporary restraining order, but I doubt that it includes any truly earthshaking factual findings or legal conclusions, and apparently Boris can live with a 14-day TRO. At this point, I'd be surprised if Nike gets the preliminary injunction (or, ultimately, the contract) that it purports to be seeking.

Avocado's Number wrote:

LetsRun.com wrote:

Here is our article on the temporary restraining order being granted to Nike. We'll update it when the filing is made official:

http://www.letsrun.com/news/2016/06/nike-granted-temporary-restraining-order-lawsuit-boris-berian/

I'm really glad to see the affidavit from John Evans of New Balance. To me, it sounds as though someone at Nike got a little greedy (or perhaps just sloppy) by including the reduction clause. I haven't seen the ruling granting Nike's request for a temporary restraining order, but I doubt that it includes any truly earthshaking factual findings or legal conclusions, and apparently Boris can live with a 14-day TRO. At this point, I'd be surprised if Nike gets the preliminary injunction (or, ultimately, the contract) that it purports to be seeking.

This entire farce is all about Nike attempting to get a hold of NB's contract. If they get it they will go over it and then make revisions to Nike's standard contract to gain a competitive contract advantage of the much-hated NB.

I have not read this whole thread (and won't) but I have followed this case from the start. I'm a lawyer. I don't know all the facts from behind the scene but I would think that Berian's lawyers tried to play hard ball with the Nike lawyers and that is why Nike has taken what seems to be a hardline stance. I would be willing to bet that Nike was very open to working this situation out without all the public fireworks but Berian's advisors pushed the matter to this point. A lot ot times lawyers are forced to take what is perceived to be an unreasonable position due to an unreasonable client and so his lawyers might be doing the best they can given Berian and/or his manager's demands.

I don't think Nike would be going through such a public fight unless they are legally sound. Having been a letsrun reader for many years, I have learned that there is a lot of anti-Nike/anti-Oregon/anti-corporate/anti-winner sentiment on this board and elsewhere so I don't pay much attention to all that. I pay attention to what the lawyers are doing and it seems apparent to me that Nike would not have wanted this public fight and would not have gone here had the other side been reasonable. They have done thousands of contracts with athletes and I think they probably know how to handle those negotiations properly and if they had screwed up, they would not have gone to this point.

But, occasionally I am surprised by something.

Mike in LA wrote:The real issue here to me is, depsite the fact that Nike might try to put take it or leave it contracts out there, is that Meb's brother is an idiot for letting his client sign a contract with the negotiation period after the prior term of the contract. This negotiation period should be at the 180 period at the end of the term, not the 180 days after the term has already expired. You are setting your client up to not be receving compensation from anyone during that period. Crappy representation.

Was Keflezghi Berian's agent when Berian entered into the original Nike contract or did that come later?

how I understand it wrote:

Saladbar lackey wrote:

Can someone correct my understanding?

Nike can match NB's offer. Then Berian can say no thanks its me not you *cough* and sign with NB anyway?

No. IF Nike matches the NB offer, then Berian must stay with Nike.

The entire crux of the issue is whether or not Nike truly 'matched' the NB offer.

Thanks. That's a pretty shitty clause in the contract. Unless this is all part of his ploy...?

NB's Contract wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

I'm really glad to see the affidavit from John Evans of New Balance. To me, it sounds as though someone at Nike got a little greedy (or perhaps just sloppy) by including the reduction clause. I haven't seen the ruling granting Nike's request for a temporary restraining order, but I doubt that it includes any truly earthshaking factual findings or legal conclusions, and apparently Boris can live with a 14-day TRO. At this point, I'd be surprised if Nike gets the preliminary injunction (or, ultimately, the contract) that it purports to be seeking.

This entire farce is all about Nike attempting to get a hold of NB's contract. If they get it they will go over it and then make revisions to Nike's standard contract to gain a competitive contract advantage of the much-hated NB.

NB would seek and likely obtain a protective order. Nike's lawyers could see the contract, but not Nike employees. This is routine.

You really think the Nike lawyers wouldn't give certain information about the contract to Capriotti; all off the record, of course?

NB's Contract wrote:

Avocado's Number wrote:

I'm really glad to see the affidavit from John Evans of New Balance. To me, it sounds as though someone at Nike got a little greedy (or perhaps just sloppy) by including the reduction clause. I haven't seen the ruling granting Nike's request for a temporary restraining order, but I doubt that it includes any truly earthshaking factual findings or legal conclusions, and apparently Boris can live with a 14-day TRO. At this point, I'd be surprised if Nike gets the preliminary injunction (or, ultimately, the contract) that it purports to be seeking.

This entire farce is all about Nike attempting to get a hold of NB's contract. If they get it they will go over it and then make revisions to Nike's standard contract to gain a competitive contract advantage of the much-hated NB.

Why can't NB intervene in the case?

Is "HARD BALL" a legal phrase?

Gurufhugfhvh wrote:

Why can't NB intervene in the case?

Because Nike is still pretending they are only going after Berian. NB should throw their attorney's into this if Nike will settle for nothing less than getting a full contract to review. There is no executed contract for Nike to lay a hand on. What Nike wants is a copy of a contract that has not been signed.

No match wrote:

Foda pooda wrote:

Does that mean the contract with Nike is over...I don't think so.

This is not correct. To be correct athletes that Nike let go would not be able to sign with someone until the extended terms of the contract were over.

It's not clear if the poster is correct. We do not have the whole nike contract. Nike never got to that stage because it thought it matched.

how I understand it wrote:

Saladbar lackey wrote:

Can someone correct my understanding?

Nike can match NB's offer. Then Berian can say no thanks its me not you *cough* and sign with NB anyway?

No. IF Nike matches the NB offer, then Berian must stay with Nike.

The entire crux of the issue is whether or not Nike truly 'matched' the NB offer.

Well Berian is arguiing 1) they didn't match and 2) Even if they did, i couldn't sign. So both of you are right.

Nike is arguing.

1) We matched and 2) Even if we didn't we said we were going to match so it doesn't matter that we sent over a contract a bunch of reduction provisions in it.

rojo wrote:

Nike is arguing.

1) We matched and 2) Even if we didn't we said we were going to match so it doesn't matter that we sent over a contract a bunch of reduction provisions in it.

2) ** And the reduction provisions stand because they are part the latest standard Nike contracts.

Nike will not drop the reduction provisions just for Berian.

Gurufhugfhvh wrote:

No match wrote:

This is not correct. To be correct athletes that Nike let go would not be able to sign with someone until the extended terms of the contract were over.

It's not clear if the poster is correct. We do not have the whole nike contract. Nike never got to that stage because it thought it matched.

I can't tell if some are confused on how these contracts work. Here's how right of first refusal would usually work. If an athlete gets an offer they want to sign within the time period of right of first refusal 180 days in this case they send it to Nike saying they intend to accept the offer. Nike would then have a set amount of time to match the contract. Probably 10 days or something in that ballpark. If Nike matches in that time period the athlete is required to sign with Nike. If Nike does not match in that time period the athlete is free to sign to sign with the other company immediately, they do not have to wait until 180 days to sign the offer.

If Nike chooses to match the New Balance offer submitted New Balance can't counter offer or Berian can't choose not to sign the Nike offer.

Also to be clear Berian could have negotiated with New Balance. He could have rejected their offer and asked for more money. He just couldn't sign an offer with them without first giving Nike a chance to match.

the ridiculous part is they are supporting Sharapova but suing Boris....WTF!?!?!

no respect for n|ke

Nike Interpretation wrote:

rojo wrote:

Nike is arguing.

1) We matched and 2) Even if we didn't we said we were going to match so it doesn't matter that we sent over a contract a bunch of reduction provisions in it.

2) ** And the reduction provisions stand because they are part the latest standard Nike contracts.

Nike will not drop the reduction provisions just for Berian.

Nike already said they would if it had been offered. So you lose.