Tech Fans and Players Fed Up With Miserable Agreement With Russell

Obviously we are going to change. What concerns me is, due to lack of leverage on our part, we will be forced to accept candy azz stripe unis that look like we have fart flames coming out our butts.

Yes, it is important that the S/As like the deal, but it is important that you appeal to those paying your bills.

I just want something classy. Don't care if it is "dodd" uni, boss Ross unis, Triple White , or whatever.
 
texstinger said:
Obviously we are going to change. What concerns me is, due to lack of leverage on our part, we will be forced to accept candy azz stripe unis that look like we have fart flames coming out our butts.

Yes, it is important that the S/As like the deal, but it is important that you appeal to those paying your bills.

I just want something classy. Don't care if it is "dodd" uni, boss Ross unis, Triple White , or whatever.
Click to expand...
Fart flames seems interesting.

I think the jerseys should have louvers cut in them for aero and coolness, just like the one covering the back glass of the '78 Camaro I had in high school.
 
texstinger said:
Obviously we are going to change. What concerns me is, due to lack of leverage on our part, we will be forced to accept candy azz stripe unis that look like we have fart flames coming out our butts.

Yes, it is important that the S/As like the deal, but it is important that you appeal to those paying your bills.

I just want something classy. Don't care if it is "dodd" uni, boss Ross unis, Triple White , or whatever.
Click to expand...
See, this might be the most reasonable thing you've posted on this board in ten years. The problem is that because of all your previous posts, it just means less.
 
The Jacket said:
See, this might be the most reasonable thing you've posted on this board in ten years. The problem is that because of all your previous posts, it just means less.
Click to expand...

Oh dear!

My posts might mean less to someone not knowing near as much as they think they do about GT.

Most of us outgrow Kool-Aid.
 
texstinger said:
Oh dear!

My posts might mean less to someone not knowing near as much as they think they do about GT.

Most of us outgrow Kool-Aid.
Click to expand...
You should be nicer to me. One of these nights, if I felt so inclined, my dick could bring your mom back to life. That attitude though? That's the attitude of someone who wants his mom to stay dead. All the same to me, really, the money I'm not spending on rope, duct tape and rubber sheets just goes to weapons grade lubrication.
 
BainbridgeJacket said:
Oh, look! A thread about an article about a blog with no actual research or quotes from anyone of any importance whatsoever.
Click to expand...

Actually the link I posted from Rumble Seat or whatever includes the actual contract which he got from an open records request. Then everything else is conjecture.
 
Tried to read the contract and realized I'd never get that time back in my life.Typical legal obfuscation.

If we are honoring a contract not entirely favorable to us, then we should hold Russell to their end of the deal!
 
goldeagle said:
Tried to read the contract and realized I'd never get that time back in my life.Typical legal obfuscation.

If we are honoring a contract not entirely favorable to us, then we should hold Russell to their end of the deal!
Click to expand...


Here's the pertinent parts of the contract as it relates to rumors going around about us having already negotiated with other companies. According to this language, we are obligated to negotiate exclusively with Russell for a 3 month period that ends 2 months before the end of the contract. Interestingly enough, it also says that we are obligated to provide to Russell the terms of a competing offer in writing and give them the opportunity to provide a counter proposal. It then say that if Russell offers terms no less favorable than the competitor offer, we agree to extend our agreement with Russell.

We could, of course, figure out how a competitor offer could be structured so that Russell would be unable to match it. But the takeaway here is that any offer we receive must be forwarded to them in writing, and would thus be subjected to open records laws. So, anything that has been discussed to date is purely verbal and unofficial.



vVkFzTl.png

X6E7XSJ.png
 
coit said:
Here's the pertinent parts of the contract as it relates to rumors going around about us having already negotiated with other companies. According to this language, we are obligated to negotiate exclusively with Russell for a 3 month period that ends 2 months before the end of the contract. Interestingly enough, it also says that we are obligated to provide to Russell the terms of a competing offer in writing and give them the opportunity to provide a counter proposal. It then say that if Russell offers terms no less favorable than the competitor offer, we agree to extend our agreement with Russell.

We could, of course, figure out how a competitor offer could be structured so that Russell would be unable to match it. But the takeaway here is that any offer we receive must be forwarded to them in writing, and would thus be subjected to open records laws. So, anything that has been discussed to date is purely verbal and unofficial.



vVkFzTl.png

X6E7XSJ.png
Click to expand...
Is this contract language typical? Seems we're in a potentially endless relationship with Russell until they go out of business.
 
LongforDodd said:
Is this contract language typical? Seems we're in a potentially endless relationship with Russell until they go out of business.
Click to expand...

I would imagine that all of these contracts have some sort of language like this, although I do think it is a little strange. I suppose it depends on how narrow the language regarding "material, measureable, and matchable" is. @savbandjacket you reading?

My guess is that this is actually pretty narrow, and that even if Russell were willing to match the financial terms offered by a competitor, GT could argue that some aspect of the competitor's offer was not "matched" by Russell, if we really wanted to end the relationship.
 
JJacket said:
So you didn't read the article?
Click to expand...

I read it down to the part where he linked the contract, and I downloaded and read the contract on my own.

Doesn't really matter, violations of those terms don't mean you can terminate the contract. You have to give notice, and Russell would have to be given time to cure. Which they could easily do by adding a link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top