KopTalk

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
1st Team Squad
Offline
1st Team Squad
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
What about Amazon Prime and free shipping?

Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
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.

Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193
G
Under 16 Player
Offline
Under 16 Player
G
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193
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.

Last edited by ghostgoal; 24/09/19 04:52 PM.
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
Liverpool Legend
Offline
Liverpool Legend
Joined: Jan 2010
Posts: 22,926
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

Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
1st Team Squad
Offline
1st Team Squad
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
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.

Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193
G
Under 16 Player
Offline
Under 16 Player
G
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193
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.

Last edited by ghostgoal; 24/09/19 05:45 PM.
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
1st Team Squad
Offline
1st Team Squad
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
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.

Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193
G
Under 16 Player
Offline
Under 16 Player
G
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193
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.

Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
1st Team Squad
Offline
1st Team Squad
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 5,936
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.

Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193
G
Under 16 Player
Offline
Under 16 Player
G
Joined: Jul 2018
Posts: 193
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.

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  KopTalk Team 

Link Copied to Clipboard
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
Advertisements
Liverpool FC Discussion