Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
Expand Quote
I hate this guy because he denied koston es ownership and Reynolds emerica ownership, can’t get behind anything he or his companies do. Then again koston in Nike is tight but I think Reynolds missed an Adidas contract by stating loyal to emerica.
All true. And those are only the “high profile” stories that have leaked to the public. There are countless stories of shadiness and other riders getting absolutely fucked over. Koston also wanted to start an apparel brand(think 4 star) through sole way back and got denied. The amount they preach against “corporate” footwear brands then shit all over skateboarders is unfathomable. Been happening for decades. Their demise is well earned. And the point made about the Vision gear is also amazing. Bravo.
Also now that we’ve entered the new year and continued financial hardship, keep an eye on who disappears from the rosters and how “down for skateboarders” they are.
The level of naivete in both of these statements is staggeringly cute. Almost responded seriously before remembering half the posters on here are children who would put their trucks on backwards if the shop didn't put their board together for them. Imagine thinking that a company is somehow required to give away partial ownership to one of their employees... lol.
Thank god Koston is now part owner of Nike with a signature clothing brand and Reynolds owns part of Vans, huh?
Naivete huh? Your logic is sophomoric. The difference being that Koston and Andrew were both decades-long riders who were part of brand evolution and made eS and Emerica/Altamont what they were. Making Sole and Pierre hundreds of millions of dollars. Offering them a small percentage of the brands as a token of appreciation and a means to keep them there, engaged and happy, along with the brands growing, instead of dying like they have ... would have been courteous, logical and very smart. Their presence also would have kept other key riders in place (go look who left eS right after Koston did and the Emerica exodus around the time of Supra and Krew forming) and helped them acquire better new up-and-coming riders as well. Not to mention, likely better shoe and apparel design. Everyone wins. But Pierre chose ego or greed or made the wrong decisions or whatever in this and many other instances and well, you've watched what's unfolded for the last 15 years.
Sorry man, your understanding of business is so misguided and you’re just regurgitating rumours. No point in explaining things to you.
The funny part is, I was there for 15 years. So why don’t you try “explaining” what I don’t know to me, business mogul. And while you’re at it tell me what “rumors” I am “regurgitating”.
Wait - you worked at Sole Tech for 15 years and somehow still feel this way? I guess if you worked there for 15 years you must know Koston was only on for less than 10 years, not “decades”. Would you give away partial ownership to an ageing pro who’s only been with your brand a handful of years? That’s some serious trust/generosity.
The rumours I speak of is the claim that both people left due to being rejected on ownership requests. If you have proof, let’s see it. I’ll gladly accept I’m wrong if I’ve missed something.
Feel what way? Just sharing because that’s what so many people so often claim they want here ... real info. Felt it might add to the discussion. But when it happens its just met with insults and attacks. I’ve seen it with industry dudes here for years. I was approximating their time on the brands because Eric was with etnies for many years as well. And again, the two most valuable riders in the history of the company were Eric and Andrew ... Shecks too. Yes, offering them even a percent of their respective brands (which are all now dying) could have been a good move. Certainly couldn’t have made things worse considering the current state of affairs there. It’s working in many instances all ofer the industry, as is the example that if you don’t appreciate your riders they leave often and start their own thing.
Beginning to think that forum clout and the desire to argue and attack and seeming the most “skate knowledgeable” far supersedes the actual desire for truth here. You don’t have to believe it. But to immediately shoot it down as if you might know more than I and not even consider it, is funny. You believe plenty of other things without hard proof this has been industry knowledge for ages (so now we know you are less knowledgable than you make out to be). Sorry dude, I don’t have transcriptions of their meetings or copies of theor resignation letters, nor could they be posted here anyway. so tell us what happened then ... since you understand business so well and others here don’t.
Either way. Don’t believe it if you don’t want. Some people here might appreciate the insight. Shalom to them.
Lol on you not even knowing Koston’s timeline but then trying to harsh me for it. Guess we are seeing where you are at. At least you admitted it.
There’s other instances of riders being given partial ownership of a brand? Who?
Yup, got my Koston timeline wrong cause I thought the move to Lakai was earlier, accepted my mistake there and removed the previous comment. Like I said, I have no problem at all accepting I’m wrong about something.
If you worked there then yeah, I’d love to hear insight. But more so I’m curious of specific examples of other shoe brands offering riders partial ownership. Let’s hear those examples!
I didn’t say shoe brands. I said brands. There are plenty of brands that pros co-own or have co-owned with partners. If I have to give you a list then you have some homework to do.
Also just gave you plenty of insight and clearly you don’t love to hear it. Don’t need to sit here and prove anything to you. Just don’t understand the reaction here when someone tries to share what so many of you claim you want.
Ok. A skater partnering with someone to start a board brand and a team rider for a shoe brand being offered partial ownership are completely different things. Not even remotely the same. C’mon now. If you can point to an established rider being offered part ownership of a brand, then that’s a start. Multiple instances would establish more of a precedent.
Honestly thought you were a kid talking out of your ass cause there’s a lot of that on here. Sorry for the mischaracterization. We may disagree on the subject of giving away brand ownership, but I’m not trying to out knowledge you or anything.
There ya go. Way better than a knee-jerk verbal assault. Congrats. And the fact that more than one person is here saying the same thing might also be something to consider regarding these “rumors” .
You worked there - are the rumours true or not? They have only been rumours to my knowledge, I don’t recall ever seeing any sort of confirmation which is why I still refer to them as rumours. An employee confirming that both Eric and drew left due to being denied ownership would put an end to that debate. My point was more about that sort of offer being out of the ordinary and short sighted, though I understand the thinking behind it. I guess I just don’t agree it’s a good idea because it doesn’t guarantee anyone will stick around, and creates a huge headache if they do leave. Imagine trying to figure out how to get that partial ownership back that you gave away for free?
You don’t understand why ownership / equity would keep someone around? More than just a contract and a salary? Which, by the way, is allegedly what was enforced to keep Andrew from dipping to adidas during Away Days launch time, the same time mind you, thay they began hooking up his daughter. How can you say that then be attacking others on their knowledge of business. Speaking of business, have yo uever considered that actual proof might be protected under NDAs and not speakable? Not only for riders but staff, ex staff and so on?
What’s this business knowledge and experience you have again?
I said I can understand the thinking behind it, and I agree it would help keep someone around longer - what I said is it does not guarantee that they will stick around, and presents a much bigger issue than simply giving someone a raise or a bonus if the decide to leave the brand.
I have worked in the skate industry on and off for over 25 years, from literally pressing decks all the way to retail sales and everything in between. I've managed warehouses, brands, teams, done graphic/product design, made videos, wrote for magazines, screen printed boards/clothing/stickers, done wholesale sales, organized and taught skate camps and lessons... the list goes on. I was even on Sole Tech flow in Canada for almost a decade (which is why I often speak in defense of ST on here). But honestly, none of that is why I'm questioning the idea of offering part ownership of a company to a team rider - that whole idea just seems short sighted to me, that's all. If it was common practice and proved to be a boost for brands who did it, I wouldn't be doubting it.
I also want to point out that saying something is a rumor does not mean it isn't true - it just means it's not confirmed officially. I think you're taking that assertion too negatively. All I'm saying is we don't have proof that was the case in either situation, only hearsay. People on here still believe Nike bought Janoski's name so they don't have to keep paying him royalties, even though he has personally refuted that. Multiple people believing something they heard through the rumor mill does not make anything more or less true.
I've already apologized for insinuating you were just some random kid with no knowledge of the subject. You're an anonymous poster on a message board - for all I know you never even worked there. But I choose to believe you. Not sure what else you want from me. I also didn't claim to have any knowledge of the reasons either skater left Sole Tech, I just had my doubts about the ownership deal claims, and even then I was more focussed on if that would have been a reasonable request more than if it actually happened or not.
Edit: but also - this is SLAP. This place is salty as fuck and it rubs off on everyone in their posts. I'm much more of a salty old dog on here because other posters have made me that way. You can only take so many random posters being disrespectful before you let the politeness start to slide yourself.
Double edit: the whole reason I responded to you and the other poster in the first place was because you claimed Sole Tech preaches against corporations and the whole tone of your post being very negative, hoping for the demise of the company. Now that you've said you worked there for 15 years, that makes more sense because I assume you did not leave a happy camper? Maybe that anti-corpo talk only happened behind close doors where you would hear it, as an employee? Did Sole Tech brands do anti Nike ads or something that I'm not remembering?