Official Thread to Discuss Boris Berian's Contract

Agree. I was just commenting on what seemed like people saying that this is 1 in 4 year thing for track athletes. Cleary Nike isn't being harmed irreparably.

Yet another lawyer wrote:

[quote]

Nike is seeking the injunction. It is their burden to show those things -- i.e., Nike has to show how it is going to be irreparably harmed if the injunction doesn't issue and has to show that the equities favor an injunction and that an injunction is in the public interest.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised this TRO issued on the facts that I've seen, but (1) I don't know all of the facts and (2) some judges give out TROs too easily and figure they'll sort it all out at the PI stage.

0/10. Capriotti has unleashed his shills against one of his mafia top three targets.

I think Berian did sign the NB contract. People keep on saying contradicting things on whether this is true but it wouldn't make sense for him not to. If Berian had no intent of signing the New Balance contract he would not have submitted it to Nike since he would be required to sign Nike's counter offer. If he refused to sign with Nike under any circumstance he would not accept an offer from any company until the 180 day time period which Nike was given right of first refusal ended. Right of first refusal does not give you the right to prevent someone from going to a different employer, shoe company in this case, if you fail to match the terms per whatever your original contractual agreement stated.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I think Berian did sign the NB contract. People keep on saying contradicting things on whether this is true but it wouldn't make sense for him not to. If Berian had no intent of signing the New Balance contract he would not have submitted it to Nike since he would be required to sign Nike's counter offer.

Nike would not be given a full NB contract to review to match. Nike's contract cannot be given to anyone; that is how the conditions are written. Neither can NB's.

Nike asked specifically if New Balance was putting in a reductions clause and to let Nike know if that was the case when they gave their offer.

Reading the Symmonds, Brooks and Oiselle affidavit.

/making dismissive wanking motion

Doc Brown wrote:

Nike asked specifically if New Balance was putting in a reductions clause and to let Nike know if that was the case when they gave their offer.

My issue was that the note on the no reductions came from the agent...not from New Balance. The way I see it, that is immaterial it came from the agent as 1) Nike didn't know if it actually came from New Balance or 2) Nike didn't know it was part of the original offer from NB to be matched or not matched.

This gets it into a point about having to prove a negative. Is NB through boris required to spell out everything that isn't in the contract that might be material? It doesn't make sense, but on the other than it it was that material to the deal (as Boris and his agent say) is it that much trouble to say on the offer sheet, that the contract has no reductions.

Also, I think people think of reductions as they way Nike presents them- cutting back on base pay for not reaching certain metrics. But if they are defined broadly, it could mean much more.

I'll listen off the air.

No contract wrote:

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I think Berian did sign the NB contract. People keep on saying contradicting things on whether this is true but it wouldn't make sense for him not to. If Berian had no intent of signing the New Balance contract he would not have submitted it to Nike since he would be required to sign Nike's counter offer.

Nike would not be given a full NB contract to review to match. Nike's contract cannot be given to anyone; that is how the conditions are written. Neither can NB's.

People on this board keep on saying this but I'm not sure its true. New Balance would likely know about Nike's ability to match their offer so their terms would be disclosed to Nike. Matching terms would be impossible if they could not see the full contract. Can some post a link to an actual source confirming this one way or another.

The point is who honestly thinks Boris would want to sign with n|ke after the way they are treating him.

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I think Berian did sign the NB contract. People keep on saying contradicting things on whether this is true but it wouldn't make sense for him not to.

You may think whatever you want but there's no apparent support for your belief. The one thing both sides in the dispute agree on is that Berian did not sign the NB contract.

NIke says this fact shows Berian (or his attorney) recognize that Nike did match NB's offer and Berian is not free to sign with NB.

In Berian's most recent filing, Berian's attorney says no signing has happened because of Nike's legal threats.

one to go wrote:

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

I think Berian did sign the NB contract. People keep on saying contradicting things on whether this is true but it wouldn't make sense for him not to.

You may think whatever you want but there's no apparent support for your belief. The one thing both sides in the dispute agree on is that Berian did not sign the NB contract.

NIke says this fact shows Berian (or his attorney) recognize that Nike did match NB's offer and Berian is not free to sign with NB.

In Berian's most recent filing, Berian's attorney says no signing has happened because of Nike's legal threats.

Ok I found the letsrun article that says Berian hasn't signed with New Balance because of fear of legal threat from Nike. But legally Berian could sign the New Balance offer.

Also Berian did send Nike the exact terms of the New Balance offer. Nike is playing dumb and claiming they don't believe it to be the offer because there is no way the New Balance contract didn't contain reductions even though they were not included in what was sent and Boris's agent stated there were no reductions.

I have a strong feeling that at least one of the sides is lying.

From the top rope wrote:

Reading the Symmonds, Brooks and Oiselle affidavit.

/making dismissive wanking motion

It's just grandstanding nonsense that means nothing with these affidavits.

Has Boris hired an agent that can read contracts?

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.

Hawi was not representing Berian at the time he signed his Nike contract.

Doc Brown wrote:

Also the guys claiming Boris's lawyer should have argued more about public interest and harm and whatnot, how exactly is Boris irreparably harmed by not being able to wear new balance gear? Nike isn't restraining him from racing

In a "free" society the onus is on the restrainer (in this case Nike) to prove that they (Nike) and/or the public would be irreparably harmed *unless* the restraint is put in place.

With the mainstream press chiming in, I think maybe it's time for Boris to play the race/slave card. Those old white Nike men can "own" Jordan, they can "own" Lebron, but they'll never "own" Boris!

Ding. Ding. Ding.

Nike offered, in good faith, and Boris signed...one would assume also in good faith, a contract that gave Nike the right of first refusal to match any offer Berian received after the run of Nike's first contract.

Nike asked to be informed of any reduction clauses that might not be shown in the term sheet.

Mawi expressed that Boris expressed a desire Not to continue a relationship with Nike.

MOOT. Boris had already signed a contract obligating himself to Nike at their choosing to exercise the right of first refusal.

Somebody screwed up and acted light-witted, and his initials are BB.

A situation was created where Hawi was forced to look bad...thanks to BB, and Nike looks bad on LRC.

Just guessing, but Nike probably has more experience in "standard" endorsement contracts with athletes...than all the readers of LRC since its' inception...and...and...and...y'know like all the competing companies combined.

Bring Back the 880 wrote:

I have a strong feeling that at least one of the sides is lying.

Both are. But Nike's nose is much, much longer.

Nike digs in its heels for court battle with rising track star Boris Berian

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2016/06/08/nike-digs-in-its-heels-for-court-battle-with-rising-track-star-boris-berian/

I can't understand why ANYONE would sign a contract with Nike if they had an alternative.