|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 27, 2020 9:08:40 GMT -8
StoryMore bad news for the new AD.
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 27, 2020 22:20:21 GMT -8
There's an idea whose time has come 😁😁😁
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 28, 2020 10:16:46 GMT -8
While UCLA has not been "all that" in a while, it's not as if UA entered into this contract during UCLA's glory years. Me thinks this is more to do with UA not realizing they were not as big as they thought they were. The Motley Fool: Under Armour Faces More Troubles Than COVID-19
UCLA's sin in this is not realizing that deal fell into the "if something is too good to be true, it probably is" category. The administration should shop their brand to Nike, find out how much less it will be for the duration of the UA contract and then negotiate an "out" with UA predicated on the company paying UCLA the delta (or as much as they can get of that). |
|
|
|
Post by TAMPATIDE on Jun 28, 2020 11:36:05 GMT -8
Re 88Bruin ........ ^^^^this^^^^
|
|
|
|
Post by blublood on Jun 28, 2020 13:46:26 GMT -8
What I've read is that Nike has kicked the tires on UCLA a number of times and has always declined. Most likely: Back to Addidas. Probably at a significant discount. If UCLA can stick UA for the difference, great. But that will probably require years of litigation.
|
|
dsc
Resident Member
Posts: 759
|
Post by dsc on Jun 28, 2020 22:52:36 GMT -8
Why wouldn't Nike want UCLA? I realize we have been mediocre for awhile in major sports, but we are still a big name brand.
|
|
|
|
Post by mhbruin on Jun 29, 2020 6:38:01 GMT -8
Why wouldn't Nike want UCLA? I realize we have been mediocre for awhile in major sports, but we are still a big name brand. I know a while back, UCLA was well known internationally. And these are first shoe companies, even if they other apparel. But I think the big money is in shoes. And that means basketball. I think betting on UCLA to be a factor in hoops again is a good bet. |
|
|
|
Post by Born2BBruin on Jun 30, 2020 7:21:17 GMT -8
Legal analysis of UCLA's chances of prevailing in a suit against Under Armour. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter, since you can't bet blood from a turnip. Link: Why Under Armour Should Be Scared Of A UCLA Lawsuit
" Ultimately, a legal action will be focused on the language... of the terminated (according to Under Armour) agreement. The agreement provides permission for Under Armour to terminate early if UCLA breaches any material term of the agreement or any one of seven circumstances (laid out in the agreement) occur and UCLA does not cure the breach or circumstance within 30 days of receiving written notice from Under Armour specifying the breach or concern. The only circumstance that seems to be even remotely relevant is the one that centers on UCLA not fielding an NCAA Division I Core Team or that one of those teams does not participate for any reason (other than for a force majeure event) in a complete regular season, missing at least 50% of the scheduled games during the regular season...
However, if Under Armour is actually going to rest on the failure of any UCLA core teams to participate in at least 50% of the scheduled games during a regular season as a way to cause an early termination, then the force majeure event definition will need to be inspected. It is defined as any cause or event that is beyond the reasonable control of UCLA and renders the performance of the agreement by the affected party either impossible or impracticable. While the definition does not specifically include epidemics nor pandemics (and it should be assumed that these types of contracts will in the future), a persuasive argument can be made that COVID-19 made it, at a minimum, impracticable for UCLA to perform. As such, it would make it incredibly difficult for Under Armour to cite to a lack of participation by a core team as grounds to terminate with cause and without penalty.
..
Expect UCLA to challenge Under Armour’s early termination by initiating litigation against the brand and for UCLA to have strong claims that Under Armour had no solid grounds to terminate with cause." |
|
