I have read that Nike had a differently worded "morals" clause in their contract with Michael Vick. Did they word it differently because they had investigated him and knew there could be "issues" down the road? How thoroughly are potential spokesmen checked out before they sign to endorse a company's products?
Any chance we could get Nike to take some of their Vick profits and make a huge donation to the ASPCA so something good can come from all those poor animals that suffered at the hands of Vick and his sick friends?|||Nike has absolutely no responsibility now that Vivk plead guilty. Nike may actually sue Vick....and they have every right to now for violating his contract|||Uh, he's lost most of his endorsement deals already...Where you been?...They made a lot of money of him?...Michael Vick is NOT the victim here...Michael Vick made a lot of money off THEM...THEY believed in him, and just like the commissioner, THEY were lied to...They have every right to terminate their contracts with him...|||i think ur question is totally stupid..to say the least..there is one person responsible for michael vick's actions...thats michael vick...nike shouldnt be involved in any conversation at all, except whether or not they dropped vick from their company|||Any endorsements he have are done. I am in North Carolina and you can get an AUTHENTIC Vick jersey for about 20 bucks. Nike and everyone else wants his stuff off the shelves ASAP|||All contracts have a "moral clause", so if the person they sign does something stupid (aka Pacman Jones) they can release them without litigation. It's been around for years, may have started because of Pete Rose|||let vick go he kills 4 fun so did OJ simpson so y cant vick|||Nike wasn't fighting and killing dogs. Micheal Vick was though.|||Here's my responsibility to yahoo answers:
STOP POSTING DAMN VICK QUESTIONS!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment