Who does Brooks cut to afford Symmonds?

Hopefully 80% of the Beasts and 60% of the Hansons

Jurker.

Brooks is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. They make a ton off hobby joggers as well. Pockets are deep.

road rashed wrote:

Brooks is owned by Berkshire Hathaway. They make a ton off hobby joggers as well. Pockets are deep.

Exactly. Warren Buffett loves a good middle distance racing team.

Why do you think someone has to be let go?

Maybe they feel it will lead to more sales that will cover the costs.

Brooks doesn\\\'t need to cut anyone. They already make a ton of money as is and now with Nick will able to make much more. They haven\\\'t had an athlete to throw on ads since 2008 so this is a big get.

AWESOME article on the entire situation.

Hobby joggers? They make some of the best, if not the best, technical running shoes on the market top to bottom. They are selling their shoes to a lot more than hobby joggers.

At least Brooks money will be going to an athlete and not into coach's pockets a la the Hansons

Hmmmmmm wrote:

Hobby joggers? They make some of the best, if not the best, technical running shoes on the market top to bottom. They are selling their shoes to a lot more than hobby joggers.

Hobby sprinter here. Love Brooks spikes.

Good luck to Mr. Symmonds and Mr. Buffett.

not a beast wrote:

Who do they let go to afford Symmonds?

He can't be cheap.

This isn't the MLB. All runners are "cheap." Most pro runners probably "cost" less than a Brooks entry-level office employee...

Hardloper wrote:

not a beast wrote:

Who do they let go to afford Symmonds?

He can't be cheap.

This isn't the MLB. All runners are "cheap." Most pro runners probably "cost" less than a Brooks entry-level office employee...

This is because this site is filled with fast food workers that live in their parents basement and view $100k as big money. Brooks is making that every 15 seconds.

not a beast wrote:

Who do they let go to afford Symmonds?

He can't be cheap.

Easy. 2:42:50 at 2013 NYC marathon.

Brooks isn't making THAT much on the grand scheme of things. They get no funding from Bershire Hathaway (see Buffet's models on investing). Also take a look at the three other brands that get the most athletes.... Nike revenue - $25 billion, Adidas revenue - $20b, and New Balance revenue - $2.5b. Brooks is a $450 million company... While the athletes (on average) don't make a ton, you have to also consider Brooks's spend on Mt Sac XC and Track as well as their PR invitational. These all come from the same pocket.

DonnieBakerMan wrote:

Brooks isn't making THAT much on the grand scheme of things. They get no funding from Bershire Hathaway (see Buffet's models on investing). Also take a look at the three other brands that get the most athletes.... Nike revenue - $25 billion, Adidas revenue - $20b, and New Balance revenue - $2.5b. Brooks is a $450 million company... While the athletes (on average) don't make a ton, you have to also consider Brooks's spend on Mt Sac XC and Track as well as their PR invitational. These all come from the same pocket.

Why did you mention revenue instead of net profit? That's what really matterd

Both Top Line and Bottom Line count. Revenue shows the amount of income coming in, and net profit shows what earnings remains after all costs, debt, interest, amortization, taxes, etc. The bottom line can be grown substantially by reducing costs--(i.e., cutting head count or reducing other costs). A firm with a lot of revenue can be made very profitable in a short period of time with a few key strategic decisions. Similarly, a firm with little to no revenue can not be made profitable in a short period of time without generating new revenue streams...which is a lot harder to do.

Long story short, revenue can be just as important as net profits sometimes.

Agreed. Bigger revenues can also mean bigger budgets, which then can also lead to more athletes and less net profit.

Fyock wrote:

At least Brooks money will be going to an athlete and not into coach's pockets a la the Hansons

Attaboy, Sage! (Jeez, can somebody please shut his pie hole?)