Hey there. First I need to say I feel the same: Both companies going at each other without providing full information, takes out time and energy from people trying to push the sport forward in their communities. I haven't talked to anyone of this companies only read what was posted online. Nethertheless I wanted to share some thoughts, as your interpretation were a bit different then mine in some parts.: -3:20-5:00 claim that B can return goods to SB Inc.: Yes the shared clause could be out of context. Still, in "B's reaction to SB Inc.'s Mail" there's the text from SB Inc. saying "The bank is holding off on final agreement procurement due to working out details witch Brookline. Long story short: We can't take back the goods in our possession. We thought this was a possibility but it isn't." So there must have been some kind of an agreement or at least a discussion of taking the inventory back. So in your video you take SB Inc.'s statement that "theirs [B's] presentation about what happened during our partnership is outright false" seems a bit off (or as SB Inc. would say "outright false"=)). For me not only clause 20.1 but also insight in what SB Inc. has offered to taking back at some point is missing. Clause 20.2 is from the sole contributor contract, I’d expect some agreement like that when changing to demand planning. -5:00-5:21 timeline of arguments: timing for me makes totally sense. if I have too much stock from my supplier (and at that time good partner), then this situation arises, you'll try to find a solution to keep the partnership alive (B. was founded to sell SB Inc. stuff), so you try to sell stuff somehow and profit from partnership in later years with better markets and more accurate orders. And on SB Inc.’s side timeline is ok too. If manufacturar bills can still be paid, let’s see if we find a plan so you can pay the debt back over a longer period. -exceeding expectations and still havin excess inventory: when looking at percentages, the question has to be: X% OF WHAT. I understand it like that: 827% of the target that had been projected to sell in 2022, when starting the company and making the initial contract with SB Inc. in 2020. They exceeded this initial target by 662% in 2021, despite delivery difficulties from SB Inc.. If they planned 2022 according to those “new” numbers, with a demand planning of 2x growth, they would have had to exceed their target by around 1300%. So with an initial target reached by 827% they would be exceeding expectations from 2020 but still much lower than the number they planned after a successful 2021. So it makes sense to me to have excess inventory and having this numbers. -for me also not understandable: between 3. and 4. SB and BL work out a payment plan in which B can still order new stock. Why would they order more instead of selling the excess inventory first? Is there something in the contract that forced them? Or does it have to do with the question you already asked: Where did the money go for the excess inventory that at some point was sold?
-why go to the court of public opinion: legal battles can go long and are mostly costly. For a company that is bankrupt not really payable. B. explains themselves in their firs message. I'd ask the other way around: why would SB Inc. in the "debt waiver agreement" put in the clause 4.2 if it's so evident that SB Inc. hasn't done anything wrong, bad-mouthing wouldn’t hurt a company (that with new partners can thrive again in Europe “the decision to work with a new distributor has dramatically increased our ability to continue to support the sport..”(SB Inc.’s letter)) that much. -bankrupcy not doing SB Inc. any good: (from SB Incs’s letter) «We had a partner that couldn’t pay it’s debts and couldn’t afford to bring enough inventory to satisfy the marketplace. Retail stores across Europe had no inventory and could’t get Spikeball sets. It’s that simple». Seems like SB Inc. had something to win, as they were «loosing» money because of the binding contract with sturggling B. -not answering questions: it’s frustrating to have this half insight. just wanted to point out that the only party sharing specifics is B.. SB Inc. only answered in vague rhetoric mostly not answering any of B’s claim that would be important: After changing to demand planning, was it agreed on that excess inventory could be returned? No concrete Info in SB Inc.’s letter. Until now no clear denial of that, only that the clause that B. had spread was out of context. Did SB Inc. breach contract by selling stuff to Amazon (also distributing in Europe and allegeably one of the main customers of B. in Europe, making it more difficult for B. to pay debt back) and when did business start with the new company. No concrete Info in SB Inc.’s letter. Regarding this two claims. When prioritizing new orders over legacy debt payments, what exactly was agreed on? No concrete Info in SB Inc.’s letter Where did the money go from excess inventory that was sold in the meantime? No info from B Perhaps in the meantime you have any insights on one of these thoughts. 🤗 happy to change my mind, although it’s not made up yet…
@raulterradillos5226 thanks for the thoughtful comments and questions. I know I don't have all the answers either but I'll try to clarify as much as I can here. 3:20-5:00 - To my understanding, when Spikeball told Brookline "The bank is holding off on final agreement procurement due to working out details witch Brookline. Long story short: We can't take back the goods in our possession. We thought this was a possibility but it isn't." ... none of that was legally binding, this was framed to me as Spikeball trying to find ways to help their business partner. Ultimately, Spikeball couldn't afford to do this, so the costs of storage, etc. end up falling on Brookline. 5:00-5:21 - Right, both parties wanted to continue growing roundnet by selling more equipment. So Spikeball made the decision to defer payments and figure out a longer-term plan, and Brookline got to continue selling. The issue comes in late 2023 when Brookline ceases to pay Spikeball on schedule and ends up pausing all repayments. At that point, Spikeball made the decision to cut their losses and go in a new direction. Exceeding Expectations - this is a good point that initial projections may have been set back in 2020. I guess my point is just that the data incongruence is where I get lost. To present that things are going so well and being 827% above target while also investing in EU communities (and over-promising Tops funds) but you still owe a ton of money to your business partner doesn't add up. I don't believe they were forced to order more inventory - they order more new equipment because they ended up selling all the old inventory. At the time Brookline posted their letter, they had no inventory left to sell but still owed Spikeball all this money. That meant money was lost in operational costs, paying employees, and other odds and ends. Court of Public Opinion: My guesses here - Brookline wants Spikeball likely just wanted to turn a new leaf and get back to focusing on distribution. Not knowing who is in the right or wrong... I do know that this kind of discourse hurts a company even if they're in the right legally. What's more, employees at Spikeball had to spend their time managing public relations instead of helping provide equipment to Europe, and people like us were using our time trying to understand what's going on instead of spending our energy on building roundnet communities. Bankruptcy doesn't help Spikeball: getting to work with a new partner in Europe is a good thing for Spikeball and roundnet, according to Spikeball. They do of course forfeit the $1.5M they were owed that Brookline says it was going to eventually pay back, and the bankruptcy for Brookline means they will have no chance of recovering that money. Not Answering: this is a weird thing in discussions like this. If Brookline makes an allegation and Spikeball says "that's not true"... it definitely isn't specific... and for anyone to get to the bottom of it they would have to access all the documents and communication to reach a formal conclusion. To my understanding, Spikeball did not agree to return excess inventory, but they did try to find a way to do that and couldn't. Selling to Amazon, starting business with Buffalo (new distributor), prioritizing new orders over legacy debt payments, and where did the money go from selling excess inventory: I don't know the answers to these ones, but they are all valid and interesting ones. Overall great notes and questions here. The one thing I do know is between these two companies (whoever's fault or if it is both of their fault, I'm not sure)... they tried to partner together to grow roundnet in Europe and it seems like they did through equipment distribution and supporting the community. But they also lost over $1M trying to grow roundnet in Europe. That's the real bummer here - growing roundnet lost them over a million dollars.
@@bdantowitz Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly. At some details we still don't have the same impression of the situation but as you said, without all the documents it will be impossible to know exactly. Your last paragraph summarizes it full heartedly. Thanks again for all the time you put in to growing roundnet. Hope to see you at Worlds 🤗
Is the "no answer" from Brookline all due to the fact that the insolvency administrator prohibited the release of further information at the time or because Brookline simply did not reply?
Brookline declined to answer almost all questions I asked them back on April 3-4. The main ones being 1. Where is all the money from selling out all this inventory 2. How did sales exceed targets but you could not pay back spikeball (and yet committed significant sums of money to sponsor other Roundnet entities).
Seems like there’s a lot weighing on that contract clause about returning product- Chris’ contextualization of it makes more sense for a distribution agreement, but it would be nice if the contract was made public
Hey there.
First I need to say I feel the same: Both companies going at each other without providing full information, takes out time and energy from people trying to push the sport forward in their communities. I haven't talked to anyone of this companies only read what was posted online. Nethertheless I wanted to share some thoughts, as your interpretation were a bit different then mine in some parts.:
-3:20-5:00 claim that B can return goods to SB Inc.: Yes the shared clause could be out of context. Still, in "B's reaction to SB Inc.'s Mail" there's the text from SB Inc. saying "The bank is holding off on final agreement procurement due to working out details witch Brookline. Long story short: We can't take back the goods in our possession. We thought this was a possibility but it isn't." So there must have been some kind of an agreement or at least a discussion of taking the inventory back. So in your video you take SB Inc.'s statement that "theirs [B's] presentation about what happened during our partnership is outright false" seems a bit off (or as SB Inc. would say "outright false"=)). For me not only clause 20.1 but also insight in what SB Inc. has offered to taking back at some point is missing. Clause 20.2 is from the sole contributor contract, I’d expect some agreement like that when changing to demand planning.
-5:00-5:21 timeline of arguments: timing for me makes totally sense. if I have too much stock from my supplier (and at that time good partner), then this situation arises, you'll try to find a solution to keep the partnership alive (B. was founded to sell SB Inc. stuff), so you try to sell stuff somehow and profit from partnership in later years with better markets and more accurate orders. And on SB Inc.’s side timeline is ok too. If manufacturar bills can still be paid, let’s see if we find a plan so you can pay the debt back over a longer period.
-exceeding expectations and still havin excess inventory: when looking at percentages, the question has to be: X% OF WHAT. I understand it like that: 827% of the target that had been projected to sell in 2022, when starting the company and making the initial contract with SB Inc. in 2020. They exceeded this initial target by 662% in 2021, despite delivery difficulties from SB Inc.. If they planned 2022 according to those “new” numbers, with a demand planning of 2x growth, they would have had to exceed their target by around 1300%. So with an initial target reached by 827% they would be exceeding expectations from 2020 but still much lower than the number they planned after a successful 2021. So it makes sense to me to have excess inventory and having this numbers.
-for me also not understandable: between 3. and 4. SB and BL work out a payment plan in which B can still order new stock. Why would they order more instead of selling the excess inventory first? Is there something in the contract that forced them? Or does it have to do with the question you already asked: Where did the money go for the excess inventory that at some point was sold?
-why go to the court of public opinion: legal battles can go long and are mostly costly. For a company that is bankrupt not really payable. B. explains themselves in their firs message. I'd ask the other way around: why would SB Inc. in the "debt waiver agreement" put in the clause 4.2 if it's so evident that SB Inc. hasn't done anything wrong, bad-mouthing wouldn’t hurt a company (that with new partners can thrive again in Europe “the decision to work with a new distributor has dramatically increased our ability to continue to support the sport..”(SB Inc.’s letter)) that much.
-bankrupcy not doing SB Inc. any good: (from SB Incs’s letter) «We had a partner that couldn’t pay it’s debts and couldn’t afford to bring enough inventory to satisfy the marketplace. Retail stores across Europe had no inventory and could’t get Spikeball sets. It’s that simple». Seems like SB Inc. had something to win, as they were «loosing» money because of the binding contract with sturggling B.
-not answering questions: it’s frustrating to have this half insight. just wanted to point out that the only party sharing specifics is B.. SB Inc. only answered in vague rhetoric mostly not answering any of B’s claim that would be important:
After changing to demand planning, was it agreed on that excess inventory could be returned? No concrete Info in SB Inc.’s letter.
Until now no clear denial of that, only that the clause that B. had spread was out of context.
Did SB Inc. breach contract by selling stuff to Amazon (also distributing in Europe and allegeably one of the main customers of B. in Europe, making it more difficult for B. to pay debt back) and when did business start with the new company. No concrete Info in SB Inc.’s letter.
Regarding this two claims.
When prioritizing new orders over legacy debt payments, what exactly was agreed on? No concrete Info in SB Inc.’s letter
Where did the money go from excess inventory that was sold in the meantime? No info from B
Perhaps in the meantime you have any insights on one of these thoughts. 🤗 happy to change my mind, although it’s not made up yet…
@raulterradillos5226 thanks for the thoughtful comments and questions. I know I don't have all the answers either but I'll try to clarify as much as I can here.
3:20-5:00 - To my understanding, when Spikeball told Brookline "The bank is holding off on final agreement procurement due to working out details witch Brookline. Long story short: We can't take back the goods in our possession. We thought this was a possibility but it isn't." ... none of that was legally binding, this was framed to me as Spikeball trying to find ways to help their business partner. Ultimately, Spikeball couldn't afford to do this, so the costs of storage, etc. end up falling on Brookline.
5:00-5:21 - Right, both parties wanted to continue growing roundnet by selling more equipment. So Spikeball made the decision to defer payments and figure out a longer-term plan, and Brookline got to continue selling. The issue comes in late 2023 when Brookline ceases to pay Spikeball on schedule and ends up pausing all repayments. At that point, Spikeball made the decision to cut their losses and go in a new direction.
Exceeding Expectations - this is a good point that initial projections may have been set back in 2020. I guess my point is just that the data incongruence is where I get lost. To present that things are going so well and being 827% above target while also investing in EU communities (and over-promising Tops funds) but you still owe a ton of money to your business partner doesn't add up.
I don't believe they were forced to order more inventory - they order more new equipment because they ended up selling all the old inventory. At the time Brookline posted their letter, they had no inventory left to sell but still owed Spikeball all this money. That meant money was lost in operational costs, paying employees, and other odds and ends.
Court of Public Opinion: My guesses here - Brookline wants
Spikeball likely just wanted to turn a new leaf and get back to focusing on distribution. Not knowing who is in the right or wrong... I do know that this kind of discourse hurts a company even if they're in the right legally. What's more, employees at Spikeball had to spend their time managing public relations instead of helping provide equipment to Europe, and people like us were using our time trying to understand what's going on instead of spending our energy on building roundnet communities.
Bankruptcy doesn't help Spikeball: getting to work with a new partner in Europe is a good thing for Spikeball and roundnet, according to Spikeball. They do of course forfeit the $1.5M they were owed that Brookline says it was going to eventually pay back, and the bankruptcy for Brookline means they will have no chance of recovering that money.
Not Answering: this is a weird thing in discussions like this. If Brookline makes an allegation and Spikeball says "that's not true"... it definitely isn't specific... and for anyone to get to the bottom of it they would have to access all the documents and communication to reach a formal conclusion.
To my understanding, Spikeball did not agree to return excess inventory, but they did try to find a way to do that and couldn't.
Selling to Amazon, starting business with Buffalo (new distributor), prioritizing new orders over legacy debt payments, and where did the money go from selling excess inventory: I don't know the answers to these ones, but they are all valid and interesting ones.
Overall great notes and questions here. The one thing I do know is between these two companies (whoever's fault or if it is both of their fault, I'm not sure)... they tried to partner together to grow roundnet in Europe and it seems like they did through equipment distribution and supporting the community. But they also lost over $1M trying to grow roundnet in Europe. That's the real bummer here - growing roundnet lost them over a million dollars.
@@bdantowitz Thanks for taking the time to reply so thoroughly. At some details we still don't have the same impression of the situation but as you said, without all the documents it will be impossible to know exactly. Your last paragraph summarizes it full heartedly. Thanks again for all the time you put in to growing roundnet. Hope to see you at Worlds 🤗
Thank you for this Ben!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts and the situation Ben. :)
Glad to share some general insights! I’ve reserved most of my thoughts at this time to share the updates as well as I can
Is the "no answer" from Brookline all due to the fact that the insolvency administrator prohibited the release of further information at the time or because Brookline simply did not reply?
Brookline declined to answer almost all questions I asked them back on April 3-4. The main ones being
1. Where is all the money from selling out all this inventory
2. How did sales exceed targets but you could not pay back spikeball (and yet committed significant sums of money to sponsor other Roundnet entities).
Seems like there’s a lot weighing on that contract clause about returning product- Chris’ contextualization of it makes more sense for a distribution agreement, but it would be nice if the contract was made public