KopTalk


Quick Links: View All | Latest News | Liverpool FC Forum | Off Topic Forum | KopTalk Members | Help



Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#627606 - 24/09/19 04:44 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: Dunk]
Pickles Offline
Under 23 Player

Registered: 23/12/15
Posts: 4211
What about Amazon Prime and free shipping?

Top

#627609 - 24/09/19 04:48 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: Pickles]
EnergisedReds Offline
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 20585
Originally Posted By Pickles
What about Amazon Prime and free shipping?


Shipping is not free I would imagine, in fact even Asos don't do free shipping to Mauritius anymore. Anyway, as I travel more or less regularly, i buy once a year on my trip, just that with Nike or Adidas it's much more convenient.

Top

#627611 - 24/09/19 04:51 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: Dunk]
ghostgoal Online   content
Under 16 Player

Registered: 21/07/18
Posts: 149
Loc: Merseyside
From what I understand, there is a clause in the NB contract which states they have first refusal on all deals and have the opportunity to match any deal offered to Liverpool. Inferring that, NB must have matched Nike's offer but liverpool have still went with Nike. Liverpool are arguing that NB havent, or rather, cannot match Nike as not only have Nike offered between 70-75 million but are also offering their vast vast distribution network. Something which is on another level to what New Balance has currently. The general feeling is that over the course of Liverpools deal with NB, NB havent quite been able to consistently meet the demand of consumers looking to buy merchandise with Kits often being sold out over the course of the season. There has also been questions arising to NB's ability to cater to further afield consumer bases such as in Asia and India. This has directly led to these said consumers looking to counterfeit and unofficial sources for their LFC merchandise which has subsequently fuelled the ongoing trademark/licensing issue of LFC regarding the name and brand.

Put simply. NB have matched the money but cannot match the distribution. LFC see the distribution as an integral factor in future business and global brand awareness and availability to potential customers. NB believe they have lawful first right of refusal if they match any offer. LFC argue the offer hasnt been matched as they cannot provide the same distribution.


Edited by ghostgoal (24/09/19 04:52 PM)

Top

#627614 - 24/09/19 04:58 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: ghostgoal]
EnergisedReds Offline
Liverpool Legend

Registered: 10/01/10
Posts: 20585
Originally Posted By ghostgoal
From what I understand, there is a clause in the NB contract which states they have first refusal on all deals and have the opportunity to match any deal offered to Liverpool. Inferring that, NB must have matched Nike's offer but liverpool have still went with Nike. Liverpool are arguing that NB havent, or rather, cannot match Nike as not only have Nike offered between 70-75 million but are also offering their vast vast distribution network. Something which is on another level to what New Balance has currently. The general feeling is that over the course of Liverpools deal with NB, NB havent quite been able to consistently meet the demand of consumers looking to buy merchandise with Kits often being sold out over the course of the season. There has also been questions arising to NB's ability to cater to further afield consumer bases such as in Asia and India. This has directly led to these said consumers looking to counterfeit and unofficial sources for their LFC merchandise which has subsequently fuelled the ongoing trademark/licensing issue of LFC regarding the name and brand.

Put simply. NB have matched the money but cannot match the distribution. LFC see the distribution as an integral factor in future business and global brand awareness and availability to potential customers. NB believe they have lawful first right of refusal if they match any offer. LFC argue the offer hasnt been matched as they cannot provide the same distribution.


Yep good point, but it all depends on how it is written in the contract, ie, is it matching the money or something else. That said, as I have personally experienced it in France, Dubai, India and Mauritius, the distribution network of NB is nowhere near Nike and Adidas

Top

#627620 - 24/09/19 05:24 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: Dunk]
Pickles Offline
Under 23 Player

Registered: 23/12/15
Posts: 4211
Depends on the legal jargon of the original NB contract. Sounds to me that NB have a strong case "if" they have a clause which states they can match any other offer for future contracts. It'll be extremely hard for FSG's legal team to argue against a signed contract. It would also explain why FSG have been trying to trademark anything remotely connected to the club.

Top

#627621 - 24/09/19 05:44 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: Dunk]
ghostgoal Online   content
Under 16 Player

Registered: 21/07/18
Posts: 149
Loc: Merseyside
Not hard at all. All FSG's legal team would have to do is highlight the terms of the offer from Nike where it specifies what they could offer in terms of distribution that has not been matched by NB. Terms of a contract isnt just monetary, otherwise the business relationship would just be a string of invoices and there wouldnt really be a need to enter into a contract. Correct, it does depend on the Jargon, but NB having a strong case...not really. Offered terms is ambiguous and extensive enough that it would very very easily cover way beyond simply what the club is paid.


Edited by ghostgoal (24/09/19 05:45 PM)

Top

#627625 - 24/09/19 06:18 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: Dunk]
Pickles Offline
Under 23 Player

Registered: 23/12/15
Posts: 4211
Again it depends of the legal jargon in the original contract, something we are not privy to. A court of law acts on facts not on any ambiguity.

Top

#627626 - 24/09/19 06:26 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: Dunk]
ghostgoal Online   content
Under 16 Player

Registered: 21/07/18
Posts: 149
Loc: Merseyside
Yes it does, but if a contract is deemed ambiguous then it cannot rule in either favour on the basis of what is written. A decision is then made. In which case liverpool wins. That being said. I dont think "terms of offer extending beyond annual payment" is at all ambiguous and will almost certainly be the case with regards to Liverpools Kit contract. The terms will not be purely about what NB pay. Distribution will almost certainly be an integral factor in the terms.

Top

#627634 - 24/09/19 06:40 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: Dunk]
Pickles Offline
Under 23 Player

Registered: 23/12/15
Posts: 4211
Pity FSG didn't see all possible outcomes for the add ons of the Coutinho contract, to covering if he's loaned out?

We won't know until the verdict is made what has been written in the contract and what the Court deems fact to rule on.

Top

#627637 - 24/09/19 06:49 PM Re: New Balance's High Court action against Liverpool [Re: Dunk]
ghostgoal Online   content
Under 16 Player

Registered: 21/07/18
Posts: 149
Loc: Merseyside
What has Coutinho's contract have to do with this? A players employment contract is completely different to a Kit sponsorship. I'm sure you mean the negotiation of his transfer? In which case then that is also irrelevant and completely different to what we're talking about. Kit Sponsorship contracts are primarily concerned with manufacture and distribution.

Top

Page 2 of 4 < 1 2 3 4 >

Moderator:  KopTalk Team 
Shout Box


Advertisements

Liverpool FC Discussion
Sterling dropped by England after Gomez clash
by ghostgoal
13/11/19 08:42 PM
Andy Robertson injured
by van Gogh
13/11/19 06:27 PM
Liverpool's best game pre-1990?
by Hercules/AF 58
13/11/19 05:48 PM
Crystal Palace v Liverpool FC
by Hercules/AF 58
13/11/19 05:42 PM
Mo Salah aggravated ankle injury
by Hercules/AF 58
13/11/19 05:35 PM

General Discussion
The real origins of Brexit by Russell Taylor
by Stanley Park
13/11/19 05:55 PM
Growlers things that make you happy thread!
by lumba
12/11/19 07:22 PM
Who would you vote for in the next UK General Election?
by EnergisedReds
07/11/19 03:24 PM
Music thread! (now epic)
by lumba
01/11/19 08:47 PM
Extinction Rebellion
by EnergisedReds
20/10/19 12:36 PM

Top Posters (30 Days)
EnergisedReds 173
wilkij1975 140
Stanley Park 102
EMP 87
Markhutch1 46
Pickles 38
ecnirp98 37
Shaggydog 37
lumba 35
van Gogh 28