Lemond/Trek new thread

[Race Radio]

Just because they decided to choose to not market the LeMond brand doesn't qualify it for not satisfying the contract minimums. If LeMond had it figured they were missing a critical market opportunity, it seems as if he was free to move the brand and reposition it as he saw fit. Why not do that?

Wrong.

The contract is clear that they have to make an effort to market Lemond bikes. Not making an effort is a clear violation. In addition there was an amendment to the agreement that insured that Trek put an effort into international distribution, something they stopped doing in 2004. The amendment even instituted a mandatory royalty on international sales.

As for moving the brand, why should LeMond be forced to find another manufacture and distributor because Trek has decided they don't feel like fulfilling their side of the agreement?

 

[scribe]

Wrong.

The contract is clear that they have to make an effort to market Lemond bikes. Not making an effort is a clear violation. In addition there was an amendment to the agreement that insured that Trek put an effort into international distribution, something they stopped doing in 2004. The amendment even instituted a mandatory royalty on international sales.

As for moving the brand, why should LeMond be forced to find another manufacture and distributor because Trek has decided they don't feel like fulfilling their side of the agreement?

Wrong again. Trek's complaint asserts they have dutifully followed the minimum conditions of the agreement.

Article 46 of Trek's complaint

Pursuant to paragraph 8.01 of the Sublicense Agreement, Trek must spend a "reasonable amount" on marketing, promotion and advertising of LeMond bicycles and frames, and agreed that a "reasonable amount" was equivalent of approximately 3% of the Net Sales for each contract year.

That is a defined number. I am confident they are ready to demonstrate they have fulfilled the minimum obligations of the agreement. All bad personal feelings aside.....Why would they present misleading information that is provable by simple math?

 

[flicker]

Hey we in Nor-Cal were Gregs mentors. In the 70s we were some of the best cyclists in the country. I raced with Bob L. I raced against Greg. He was unstoppable couldn't be touched made the best of the best into 2nd place.
Kudos to Greg awesome competetor nice guy.
I just have an issue with the lawsuits I mean he sued his own Father. Whats that about. Where is the credibility. Gregs' Son with substance abuse problem estranged from his Father.
World of hurt in Greg a lot of bad choices were made for him out of his control.
When I read he had been shot and then when I read he had been molested I cried.
I have been on the other end of ugly lawsuits and its some sick mierda let me tell you.
From what I hear Greg makes a career out of lawsuits.
That is unfortunate.
When I read Lances' first book I got this about Lance, Lance loves Lance.

 

[flicker]

I just don't know what to say. Gregs ex what should she say when she sends the kids to school. Should she say to the kids "Your Dads' ex friend Greg LeMond is taking us to court. Greg wants us to sign a deposition that says I saw your Dad use illegal drugs."
Lance is about Lance. Kristian has class for not being vengeful for being spurned.
I hope Greg can learn from Kristian.
Please note.
Kristian doesn't owe Lances fans or haters anything.
She owes her children a nice stable normal loving life.
After I read the book Its not about the bike I discussed Lance with my wife.
She said, "Kristian is so lucky she is not with Lance" and I agreed.

 

[L29205]

In addition there was an amendment to the agreement that insured that Trek put an effort into international distribution, something they stopped doing in 2004. The amendment even instituted a mandatory royalty on international sales.

Just finished reading LeMond's filing, it was a very interesting read. I am sure it was posted earlier but can be found online here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472984/LeMond-Cyclings-March-2008-Lawsuit-vs-Trek-Bikes

I would disagree with the above. From the filing I would say Trek did nothing to market or make available LeMond's bikes into the European market. I would guess that it was cheaper for Trek to pay the minimum royalty for international sales than it was to market LeMond's bikes. If you are trying to build market share for your primary brand, why would you market a potentially more popular boutique brand in the same market. I still am saying the European marketing was more a business move then a we are out to get Greg move. Still relevant to the case however.

 

[Race Radio]

Wrong again. Trek's complaint asserts they have dutifully followed the minimum conditions of the agreement.

Article 46 of Trek's complaint

Pursuant to paragraph 8.01 of the Sublicense Agreement, Trek must spend a "reasonable amount" on marketing, promotion and advertising of LeMond bicycles and frames, and agreed that a "reasonable amount" was equivalent of approximately 3% of the Net Sales for each contract year.

That is a defined number. I am confident they are ready to demonstrate they have fulfilled the minimum obligations of the agreement. All bad personal feelings aside.....Why would they present misleading information that is provable by simple math?

You are assuming that 3% is a "reasonable" amount and that Trek can back up their claims. Given the amount of effort and legal expense that Trek went to to try to keep their internal communications on the matter secret I would say the likelihood is low that this is the case.

Most would agree that telling dealers that Trek was no longer supporting the brand with 4 years left in the agreement does not qualify as a "reasonable amount" of support.

 

[blackcat]

Just finished reading LeMond's filing, it was a very interesting read. I am sure it was posted earlier but can be found online here.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472984/LeMond-Cyclings-March-2008-Lawsuit-vs-Trek-Bikes

I would disagree with the above. From the filing I would say Trek did nothing to market or make available LeMond's bikes into the European market. I would guess that it was cheaper for Trek to pay the minimum royalty for international sales than it was to market LeMond's bikes. If you are trying to build market share for your primary brand, why would you market a potentially more popular boutique brand in the same market. I still am saying the European marketing was more a business move then a we are out to get Greg move. Still relevant to the case however.

but Lemond was not gauging major fees. If Trek could not get turnover on the continent like Scott do, surely Lemond could have been used. I do not see it as zero sum. How many marques are competing in that piece of the market? Time, Look, Specialized, Cannondale, Scott, Giant, Merida, then the more national marques, such as Time and Look that cannot be but bit players outside their home market. Such a fragmented market, I do not see them having both a potential problem.

Though they did let Klein whither.

 

[blackcat]

Just because they decided to choose to not market the LeMond brand doesn't qualify it for not satisfying the contract minimums. If LeMond had it figured they were missing a critical market opportunity, it seems as if he was free to move the brand and reposition it as he saw fit. Why not do that?

Public Strategies should pay you more than you are getting, surely.

 

[Kennf1]

Wrong again. Trek's complaint asserts they have dutifully followed the minimum conditions of the agreement.

Article 46 of Trek's complaint

Pursuant to paragraph 8.01 of the Sublicense Agreement, Trek must spend a "reasonable amount" on marketing, promotion and advertising of LeMond bicycles and frames, and agreed that a "reasonable amount" was equivalent of approximately 3% of the Net Sales for each contract year.

That is a defined number. I am confident they are ready to demonstrate they have fulfilled the minimum obligations of the agreement. All bad personal feelings aside.....Why would they present misleading information that is provable by simple math?

You're still not reading all the documents. Particularly Lemond's argument about "best efforts" vs. bare minimum. It's one of the key points in the summary judgment briefing. I pointed that out to you yesterday, but it appears you gave up on your research. If Trek's marketing is half-***, and it torpedoes the brand even while spending the 3% on marketing, sales will probably decline. And if sales decline... it gets to spend less on marketing.

 

[scribe]

You are assuming that 3% is a "reasonable" amount and that Trek can back up their claims. Given the amount of effort and legal expense that Trek went to to try to keep their internal communications on the matter secret I would say the likelihood is low that this is the case.

Most would agree that telling dealers that Trek was no longer supporting the brand with 4 years left in the agreement does not qualify as a "reasonable amount" of support.

It is never safe to assume that defined numbers in an agreement mean anything other than what they represent.

As an aside. Trek actually makes some of their internal communications public right inside of their complaint. Go to article 39 and see a candid look at typical Trek communications regarding the business relationship with GL. Putting that sort of colorful language right inside of your complaint to the court is anything but hiding.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond

Trek's European Director as shared with John Burke:

"So I bust my balls to get LeMond on the booth at Eurobike and into our GAS dealer programme and then up pops Greg in Tour Magazine (The most influential European/GAS road magazine) and slags off Trek right slap bang in the middle of pre-season when we are trying to get the bikes (the ones with his name on) into the dealers.

The guy is legend and I have the utmost respect for what he achieved in the sport but from a commercial perspective he's an idiot and I don't see any way back for us in Europe."

 

[scribe]

You're still not reading all the documents. Particularly Lemond's argument about "best efforts" vs. bare minimum. It's one of the key points in the summary judgment briefing. I pointed that out to you yesterday, but it appears you gave up on your research. If Trek's marketing is half-***, and it torpedoes the brand even while spending the 3% on marketing, sales will probably decline. And if sales decline... it gets to spend less on marketing.

In other words, GL had better do a better job writing up his next licensing agreement. To be fair, Trek signed on an awfully long agreement without much of an 'out' themselves. Best bet is for everyone to try a little harder to get along and define their positions more clearly when they establish a business relationship.

 

[L29205]

Such a fragmented market, I do not see them having both a potential problem.

Though they did let Klein whither.

Klein was a very good brand, Own a Pulsecomp MTB.

In a fragmented market would you try to consolidate the market under your main brand that is not going away in 2010 or would you add another player into such a diverse market?

 

[Kennf1]

It is never safe to assume that defined numbers in an agreement mean anything other than what they represent.

As an aside. Trek actually makes some of their internal communications public right inside of their complaint. Go to article 39 and see a candid look at typical Trek communications regarding the business relationship with GL. Putting that sort of colorful language right inside of your complaint to the court is anything but hiding.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond

Trek's European Director as shared with John Burke:

"So I bust my balls to get LeMond on the booth at Eurobike and into our GAS dealer programme and then up pops Greg in Tour Magazine (The most influential European/GAS road magazine) and slags off Trek right slap bang in the middle of pre-season when we are trying to get the bikes (the ones with his name on) into the dealers.

The guy is legend and I have the utmost respect for what he achieved in the sport but from a commercial perspective he's an idiot and I don't see any way back for us in Europe."

A candid look at typical Trek communications? Are you truly that naive, or seriously, are you on the payroll? Trek putting an internal e-mail in its complaint calling Lemond an idiot is supposed to be commendable? It's too bad we can't see all of Trek's internal communications, instead of the ones its legal team picks to throw into its complaint to be "colorful." Like "Holy crap Lance is working with Ferrari."

And why do you keep calling paragraphs "articles?"

 

[scribe]

Point is, it is anything but hiding.

 

[Race Radio]

It is never safe to assume that defined numbers in an agreement mean anything other than what they represent.

As an aside. Trek actually makes some of their internal communications public right inside of their complaint. Go to article 39 and see a candid look at typical Trek communications regarding the business relationship with GL. Putting that sort of colorful language right inside of your complaint to the court is anything but hiding.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2472821/Trek-Bikes-lawsuit-vs-cyclist-Greg-Lemond

Trek's European Director as shared with John Burke:

"So I bust my balls to get LeMond on the booth at Eurobike and into our GAS dealer programme and then up pops Greg in Tour Magazine (The most influential European/GAS road magazine) and slags off Trek right slap bang in the middle of pre-season when we are trying to get the bikes (the ones with his name on) into the dealers.

The guy is legend and I have the utmost respect for what he achieved in the sport but from a commercial perspective he's an idiot and I don't see any way back for us in Europe."

You do realize that this is an Trek employee correct? This email was sent long after the campaign to slime Lemond was underway.

It should also not come as a surprise that many of "Complaint" emails about Greg actually came from Trek employees. It also should not be surprising that Trek tried to withhold thousands of internal emails until they were forced to do so by the judge...wonder what they were trying to hide?

It is comical to see Trek claim they spent $3 million on marketing the Lemond bikes line.....about as much as they spent on legal fees in their efforts to cover up their actions.

 

[Kennf1]

Point is, it is anything but hiding.

I confess, I'm baffled by the point.

 

[L29205]

A candid look at typical Trek communications? Are you truly that naive, or seriously, are you on the payroll? Trek putting an internal e-mail in its complaint calling Lemond an idiot is supposed to be commendable? It's too bad we can't see all of Trek's internal communications, instead of the ones its legal team picks to throw into its complaint to be "colorful." Like "Holy crap Lance is working with Ferrari."

And why do you keep calling paragraphs "articles?"

From a technical standpoint, given the time frame of 2004. We will probably never see any electronic communications. I would hazard to guess that Trek will say that all electronic communications have been deleted from that time frame due to standard archiving practices. Most corporations at that time frame did not have an archiving policy that would keep emails forever.

 

[red_flanders]

Point is, it is anything but hiding.

They put nothing in that report they didn't think was to their advantage. Making this out to be some sort of corporate transparency is quite a statement. They must be really sure of themselves to allow "colorful" language where they claim LeMond "slags" Trek into the complaint.

Heck, Braveheart himself would have been hard pressed to man up thusly. Greg's probably going to crush them like a waaar-em now for sure.

 

[Race Radio]

Point is, it is anything but hiding.

Anything but hiding?

Why did Trek fight for months trying to keep their emails out of case? What did they have to hide? Why did Burke claim that he had only exchanged 3-4 emails with Armstrong when the real number was in the thousands?

really, you need to try harder then this.

 

[blackcat]

scribe, how much Public Strategies paying you?

 

[Kennf1]

From a technical standpoint, given the time frame of 2004. We will probably never see any electronic communications. I would hazard to guess that Trek will say that all electronic communications have been deleted from that time frame due to standard archiving practices. Most corporations at that time frame did not have an archiving policy that would keep emails forever.

I would venture to guess that once the rift started in 2001, some e-mails were selectively archived. Others not. But you're right, we're not gonna know. And trek is a private corporation.

 

[L29205]

I would venture to guess that once the rift started in 2001, some e-mails were selectively archived. Others not. But you're right, we're not gonna know. And trek is a private corporation.

+1
The ones that can be produced will help Trek not hurt them. Everything else will be lost.

 

[Race Radio]

Funny that one of the Emails that Trek produced was a supposed complaint from a "Customer" this "Customer" used his personal email "lemondsucks@yahoo.com".

Does anybody really believe average Joe is using "Lemondsucks@yahoo.com" as their email?

 

[cathulu]

I just want to add, if you think you are having problems with your contract, the last thing you should do is try and get out of it if you think the other party is harming you. So Greg's best option was to stay in the contract and go after Trek. Those that question why he didn't get out early are just plain foolish. Scribe, I am talking to you.

Greg is a smart cookie. Good luck to him.

 

[Kennf1]

Funny that one of the Emails that Trek produced was a supposed complaint from a "Customer" this "Customer" used his personal email "lemondsucks@yahoo.com".

Does anybody really believe average Joe is using "Lemondsucks@yahoo.com" as their email?

I wonder if Trek produced my e-mail to them from last April. I'm guessing not.