Reebok whinning

[Guiness]

I got a laugh out of this. Apparently Reebok has a reasonable amount of control not just over name changes, but player's number changes...because they'll be stuck with outdated jerseys.

They block Keith River's number change over $11,000! Pathetic.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/09/07/reebok-causes-ocho-cinco-delay/



REEBOK CAUSES OCHO CINCO DELAY
Posted by Mike Florio on September 7, 2008, 1:20 p.m. EDT

Chris Mortensen of ESPN reported during Sunday NFL Countdown that the NFL prohibited receiver Chad Johnson from donning “Ocho Cinco” on his jersey because of a potential financial dispute with Reebok.

And, frankly, Reebok’s obsession over the possibility that some jerseys with outdated names and/or numbers might have to be sold at a deep discount (or, God forbid, donated to charity) could be undermining whatever goodwill is being derived from the company’s role as the league’s official uniform supplier.

Just this week, Reebok didn’t want to allow Bengals linebacker Keith Rivers to change his number from 58 to 55 until Rivers bought $11,000 in unsold jerseys bearing No. 58. Also, Lions rookie running back Kevin Smith was told he couldn’t switch from No. 34 to No. 24.

Apparently, Reebok doesn’t want to keep the NFL contract. Because we can guarantee that, once the ability to slap logos on shirts and pants and gloves and jock straps comes up for bid again, Nike and UnderArmour will be glad to include a term that they won’t piss and/or moan over unsold jerseys that probably cost a lot less to make than their retail price reflects.

There's another article on it, saying there could be $500,000 worth of CJ jersey's unsold.

http://www.profootballtalk.com/2008/09/09/johnson-looking-at-a-half-million-price-tag-to-become-ocho-cinco/

[]{ilr]3]

As I understand it each player gets a percentage of the profit made from each jersey sold. That being the case I dont have an issues with this.

[oregonpackfan]

The main "whining" going on has been from Chad "Ocho Cinco" who demands constant attention on himself.

I have said it before but Chad (insert whatever last name he is using this month) was an immature, pain-in-the-butt when he played here for Oregon State and he remains that way. :roll:

[BF4MVP]

The main "whining" going on has been from Chad "Ocho Cinco" who demands constant attention on himself.

I have said it before but Chad (insert whatever last name he is using this month) was an immature, pain-in-the-butt when he played here for Oregon State and he remains that way. :roll:
Doesn't matter to me..Yeah he just changed his name for attention..But he legally changed it..He should be able to put his legally changed name on his jersey..Reebok shouldn't be able to determine what name he can use. Wasted jerseys are THEIR problem..Not Chad's...

[Patler]

Doesn't matter to me..Yeah he just changed his name for attention..But he legally changed it..He should be able to put his legally changed name on his jersey..Reebok shouldn't be able to determine what name he can use. Wasted jerseys are THEIR problem..Not Chad's...

I agree. He isn't the first guy to have changed his name. Ahmad Rashad was drafted as Bobby Moore. Nick Luchey came into the league as Nick Williams, but changed his name shortly before coming to Green Bay. I'm sure there are others, too.

And number changes? That happens quite frequently.

I don't see why Reebok should have any say in the matter at all. Its a risk they run being in the business, just like the risk of injury, trade, retirement, etc. Should Reebok be able to veto a trade because of their investment in jerseys?

[Guiness]

I agreed...until I saw what kilr posted - each player gets a share of the profits from their jersey sales.

If this is the case, then they should also pay a share of the losses - especially if it's their own doing. Reebok wants the money up front because...well, we all remember the furniture rental company that had to put Grady Jackson into collection.

[NewsBruin]

I'd like to know what the "share" is for sold jersys, and how it compares to the cost (the entire at-cost cost, I believe) for unsold jerseys.

I doubt it's anything near equitable, and it's not as though Chad had any input into how many were made and where they were distributed, other than playing his ass off and seeking attention.

[Patler]

I agreed...until I saw what kilr posted - each player gets a share of the profits from their jersey sales.

If this is the case, then they should also pay a share of the losses - especially if it's their own doing. Reebok wants the money up front because...well, we all remember the furniture rental company that had to put Grady Jackson into collection.

Interesting tidbit I found on how Reebok treats ITS customers who have ordered jerseys of players who are suspended, released, etc. The article quoted Reebok as follows:


"We don't take returns on those," said Kenny Gamble, Reebok's vice president of NFL merchandising. "That's the kind of risk you have to take as a retailer."

If their customers (the retailers) take the risk of ordering jerseys ahead of time, it seems to me that Reebok takes the risk of manufacturing them.

[ahaha]

The way the Bengels are playing, they wouldn't have sold those jerseys anyway.