With both parties so far apart, only way towards a solution is through a mediator who is respected by both sides.
The big problem here is that neither sponsor is a Danish company and their main market is not even Denmark. They don't have a vested interest in Denmark or Danish badminton. Their focus is on the worldwide cookie war, especially for the markets in China and the U.S. They don't care about leaving Danish badminton in chaos if they can beat the other guy in the cookie war. Otherwise, basic patriotism will bring these companies together to come up with a solution.
Yup. Nah. The basic problem is that the players have signed away employers advertising space. And they don't want or cannot give up their personal contract.
They did. They were in the wrong from the start. They were done in by mistakenly signing that contract. It seems that there are significant penalties attached to that contract. Unless the blue can cookie grants them some relief, these players are between a rock and a hard place. Therefore, it would take the two sponsors to work something out. These players probably didn't know what they got into when they signed the contract with that innocent looking provision of not wearing competitor logo at all times. They were no match for the cunning lawyers and corporate bean counters.
It is a good point. If Kjeldsen's do give in, it will means a "win" for Danisa which for Kjeldsen's it is not only a loss in advertising as well as loss in face. that probably won't happen.
i still don't fully understand the danisa deal... it's only for sudirman cup and the next 3 yrs of denmark open right? so these 5 players don't have to play for those events... what's so hard about that? dba throwing them out completely is truly harsh...truly biting off one's own nose to spite the face...
with some of their attitude on court, their attitude on the negotiation table probably not much better. probably pissed somebody off.
I think Kwun hit the money right on the button. It allows DBA to concentrate resources on the new players. I kinda think the group of 5 had reached their maximum potential. They are consistent but could they overturn things at the very top end?
I think it sets a very bad precedent, whether you like or hate the five players concerned is another matter altogether. The whole saga has to be resolved in a fair and just manner, legally and morally as well. If the players don't have a right to sign any personal contracts but were unofficially allowed to do so or tolerated for about two years , then DBA bears some responsibility for that. For DBA to knowingly go ahead to sign up with Danisa without so much as a word with the five 'Kjeldsens-sponsored' players , yes without even any prior warning - appears high-handed to me, and then to summarily sack all the five players is harsh, not only taking the easy way out but unjust, unfair and an abuse of authority. I'd say the best outcome, if that's still possible after the ugly falling-out, is for all the parties involved to sit down at the negotiating table and try their level best to work out a compromise solution, some give-and-take would definitely benefit everyone in the long run; after all, at stake is Danish badminton, not just a private organization.
Justin, you can say DBA bears some responsibility. Another way to look at it is that DBA were being flexible until a point when DBA's own interests were compromised. Another thing is if the players' sign contracts externally, they are in no way obliged to give a copy to DBA (personal data privacy). So DBA cannot examine what players sign except hope to trust the players.
I think at the present state of the conflict, whatever happens to the 5 players, the ministry of sport people ought to settle it, and sack the DBA president. The players can de at fault, but their responsabilities is to play. The president and high brass have for sole responsability to manage the team, and they obviously failed.
very well said indeed. agreed. Very well said and totally agreed with what is being said. The top management in DBA needs to be sacked due to poor management.
