Boris Berian forced to scratch out of the rest of my races, maybe even the trials

rupp-certified salaadbar wrote:

Hippo wrote:

It seems strange that a contract would have to explicitly say what it doesn't have, that being a no-reductions clause. It should be clear there were no reductions by the fact that there were no reductions.

THIS. This, this, this, this.

New Balance wasn't planning reductions. Why do they need a section to say what ISN'T in the contract.

This is like Nike saying "New Balance's contract was silent on the issue of feeding Berian's dog to Galen Rupp, so we consider our offer which included dognapping to be a match. Dognapping is standard in all Nike contracts."

Nike is saying that reductions are industry standard in all contracts, but of course that's not true. Athletes speaking on Brooks, Sketchers and New Balance contracts have all stated a lack of reductions in at least their own. Should New Balance also list all of the travel and communication restrictions they WON'T place on an athlete, just because Nike does that?

This should be a short case, ending up with Nike looking very silly indeed.

Booed buddy wrote:

rupp-certified salaadbar wrote:

THIS. This, this, this, this.

New Balance wasn't planning reductions. Why do they need a section to say what ISN'T in the contract.

This is like Nike saying "New Balance's contract was silent on the issue of feeding Berian's dog to Galen Rupp, so we consider our offer which included dognapping to be a match. Dognapping is standard in all Nike contracts."

Nike is saying that reductions are industry standard in all contracts, but of course that's not true. Athletes speaking on Brooks, Sketchers and New Balance contracts have all stated a lack of reductions in at least their own. Should New Balance also list all of the travel and communication restrictions they WON'T place on an athlete, just because Nike does that?

This should be a short case, ending up with Nike looking very silly indeed.

Please don't say "this" it makes you look stupid..

But to your point. Yes, it does seem odd that Nike would expect NB to include what's not in the contract (In reality, this is done quite a bit in negotiations)

First, I don't trust what athletes say.The athletes don't speak for the companies. Second, unlike travel/communication restrictions, the reductions clause is mostly likely material to the contract.

And Borian's agent did think it was important enough to mention to Nike in an email. However, he should have made sure the NB offer had it in - Just to avoid situations like this.

I mean if he had NB include it in the offer sheet. Either Boris would have a contract with NB or a Nike contract with no reductions. No lawsuit.

rupp-certified salaadbar wrote:

Booed buddy wrote:

Please don't say "this" it makes you look stupid..

But to your point. Yes, it does seem odd that Nike would expect NB to include what's not in the contract (In reality, this is done quite a bit in negotiations)

First, I don't trust what athletes say.The athletes don't speak for the companies. Second, unlike travel/communication restrictions, the reductions clause is mostly likely material to the contract.

And Borian's agent did think it was important enough to mention to Nike in an email. However, he should have made sure the NB offer had it in - Just to avoid situations like this.

I mean if he had NB include it in the offer sheet. Either Boris would have a contract with NB or a Nike contract with no reductions. No lawsuit.

Saying "this" doesn't make me look stupid. Your response to it makes you look stupid. So does your post.

"However, he should have made sure the NB offer had it in - Just to avoid situations like this."

Had WHAT in it?? THEY WEREN'T PROPOSING REDUCTIONS, SO THERE WAS NOTHING TO "HAVE" IN IT. Get it?