---

Buudy bo breep wrote:

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.

---

100+ trials to verdict wrote:

800 dude wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:
I quickly read through Boris's response. I really don't understand why his lawyers aren't focusing more on the standards for obtaining injunctive relief, specifically TROs and preliminary injunctions. In addition to the requirement to show likelihood of success on the merits, Nike needs to meet a number of equitable requirements regarding, among other things, irreparable harm and interests of the public. These are not typically easy standards to meet, especially when dealing with athletes whose livelihoods depend largely on how they perform once every four years.

---

---

I agree completely. They're too focused on the facts of this specific case instead of arguing how categorically inappropriate Nike's request is. I don't believe they cite any law at all.

---

Analysis by guys who sound like they don't have a lot of courtroom litigation experience versus pleading drafting experience.

---

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Buudy bo breep wrote:

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.

Nope. That would all competitors have to do is not include reduction provisions for other athletes and Nike would have to remove them. Not happening. The reduction provisions were added--not long ago--to make the financials work better for Nike.

So, you, and your client/employer Nike, lose.

---

not my real name. wrote:
this guy is funny. I'm friends with one of these guys and well aware of the other, both have world class educations, and both are well versed in law & sport. I'll certainly have what you're smoking down there, buddy.

I'm also well acquainted with vince ewing, and I'm half temped to text him this thread, specifically Avo and 800dude's comments, as I'd love to see him starting hitting nike more directly on this. Really don't see how they can lose, but need to adjust the angle of attack on this one.

100+ trials to verdict wrote:

800 dude wrote:
Avocado's Number wrote:
I quickly read through Boris's response. I really don't understand why his lawyers aren't focusing more on the standards for obtaining injunctive relief, specifically TROs and preliminary injunctions. In addition to the requirement to show likelihood of success on the merits, Nike needs to meet a number of equitable requirements regarding, among other things, irreparable harm and interests of the public. These are not typically easy standards to meet, especially when dealing with athletes whose livelihoods depend largely on how they perform once every four years.

---

---

I agree completely. They're too focused on the facts of this specific case instead of arguing how categorically inappropriate Nike's request is. I don't believe they cite any law at all.

---

Analysis by guys who sound like they don't have a lot of courtroom litigation experience versus pleading drafting experience.

---

Booed buddy wrote:

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Buudy bo breep wrote:

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.

Nope. That would all competitors have to do is not include reduction provisions for other athletes and Nike would have to remove them. Not happening. The reduction provisions were added--not long ago--to make the financials work better for Nike.

So, you, and your client/employer Nike, lose.

Is English your second language?

---

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

---

---

Doc Brown wrote:
He just can't wear competitor's products. If I were him I would get some huaraches and target brand shirt and shorts for the next couple of races. Or make his own shirt that says derogatory things about Nike in some way or something funny otherwise

---

---

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Buudy bo breep wrote:

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.

Nope. That would all competitors have to do is not include reduction provisions for other athletes and Nike would have to remove them. Not happening. The reduction provisions were added--not long ago--to make the financials work better for Nike.

So, you, and your client/employer Nike, lose.

---

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Doc Brown wrote:
He just can't wear competitor's products. If I were him I would get some huaraches and target brand shirt and shorts for the next couple of races. Or make his own shirt that says derogatory things about Nike in some way or something funny otherwise

---

Since most good quality running gear has obvious logos then it would be a inappropriate restraint against Berian.

He can't run in Target since Target gets some free PR.

He can't run in huaraches because Nike has a brand under that name, and no other competitor dares to use that name.
http://www.footlocker.com/_-_/...e+huarache

---

Booed buddy wrote:

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Buudy bo breep wrote:

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.

Nope. That would all competitors have to do is not include reduction provisions for other athletes and Nike would have to remove them. Not happening. The reduction provisions were added--not long ago--to make the financials work better for Nike.

So, you, and your client/employer Nike, lose.

Why you are saying NO to what Nike has said YES to in court?

---

Nike Interpretation wrote:
LOL ... Cap"gun"riotti has his team out on the LRC. Special treatment for those on his hit list.

---

---

Primo Numero Uno wrote:

Gurufhugfhvh wrote:

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.

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.

---

Booed buddy wrote:

Nike Interpretation wrote:
LOL ... Cap"gun"riotti has his team out on the LRC. Special treatment for those on his hit list.

---

LOL you're an idiot.

---

Booed buddy wrote:

Nike Interpretation wrote:
LOL ... Cap"gun"riotti has his team out on the LRC. Special treatment for those on his hit list.

---

LOL you're an idiot.

---

Nike Interpretation wrote:

Booed buddy wrote:

Nike Interpretation wrote:
LOL ... Cap"gun"riotti has his team out on the LRC. Special treatment for those on his hit list.

---

LOL you're an idiot.

Why does something the Wall Street Journal reported --about LRC on a hit list-- make you so angry?