zazen Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 although, Nike are saying that only the net proceeds are going to the fund. Oh, yeah just saw that in the FAQ. So would 'net proceeds' mean profit after manufacturing costs? It looks like they're going for $4000/$5000 a pair so hopefully that means plenty of net proceeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 the auction i checked out earlier was at around $8.5k !!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 there was an auction up there for $9,000 but it's disappeared, i'm guessing someone retracted their bid. what i don't understand is that they've a disclaimer saying that they're not intended to be worn, yet they are selling different sizes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Npoess Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 there was an auction up there for $9,000 but it's disappeared, i'm guessing someone retracted their bid. what i don't understand is that they've a disclaimer saying that they're not intended to be worn, yet they are selling different sizes... Swag. [youtubehd]eYMyEqRb2cw[/youtubehd] Poor guy. Aw man. Why do he have to have parkinson...why... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 there was an auction up there for $9,000 but it's disappeared, i'm guessing someone retracted their bid. what i don't understand is that they've a disclaimer saying that they're not intended to be worn, yet they are selling different sizes... Swag. so why have different sizes? just make them all the same size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KY Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 11k for this pair and guys, the ebay description states: "while they are not recommended for playing sports, these highly limited shoes will very likely command attention wherever they are worn." so i think you can wear them. edit: the faq does state that "The 2011 NIKE MAG shoes are not designed or intended for normal wear and use as footwear." but i think that's more of a day-to-day wear reference—you can wear ski boots for example, you just don't want to leisurely stroll around in them all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sirch Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 there was an auction up there for $9,000 but it's disappeared, i'm guessing someone retracted their bid. what i don't understand is that they've a disclaimer saying that they're not intended to be worn, yet they are selling different sizes... dunno. prolly just covering themselves in the possible event that they all start falling apart when people wear them for "normal use". everyone's gonna wear them, though... at least around the house. i would if i'd spent 8 grand on a pair!! ...actually, come to think of it, fuck that... 8 grand!!, they should be put in a display case or sumink... and only brought out at Christmas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, and his wife Anne Wojcicki, co-founder of personal genetics company 23andMe, are matching up to $50 million in funds raised by the Foundation between now and December 31, 2012. Net proceeds from the 2011 NIKE MAG auctions on eBay will be matched, so please bid generously and help us maximize Challenge dollars why doesn't Sergey Brin and his wife just...like, give the $50 million to the foundation anyway....why does it have to be dependent on how much people spend on these shoes? fucking charities, and people that think they're doing a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KY Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, and his wife Anne Wojcicki, co-founder of personal genetics company 23andMe, are matching up to $50 million in funds raised by the Foundation between now and December 31, 2012. Net proceeds from the 2011 NIKE MAG auctions on eBay will be matched, so please bid generously and help us maximize Challenge dollars why doesn't Sergey Brin and his wife just...like, give the $50 million to the foundation anyway....why does it have to be dependent on how much people spend on these shoes? fucking charities, and people that think they're doing a good thing. haha oh man, this x ∞ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcock Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 lets get angry at people for donating obscene amounts of money to charity Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 lets get angry at people for donating obscene amounts of money to charity no, lets get angry at people that say "i'm only going to give this amount of money to charity if you all give to charity too." it's pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazen Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 lets get angry at people for donating obscene amounts of money to charity no, lets get angry at people that say "i'm only going to give this amount of money to charity if you all give to charity too." it's pathetic. Charity giving is quite strange. E.g. when you sponsor someone to do a marathon or cycle across the atlantic or something, they're basically saying: "Here's a cause thats worth donating to and if I do something difficult will you donate?" its kinda odd. BUT I think the Sergey thing makes sense: If the google guy just gave $50mill to some charity it would barely make the headlines. For all I know, he might do that every year or whatever, or have a massive charity foundation set up like Bill Gates, and I'm not likely to hear about it. Charities like the Parkinsons one need publicity just as much as they need donations - to get more focus on the disease, etc. So Sergey agreeing to match donations has the effect of: - encouraging other people to donate - which encourages them to think about parkinsons and charities in general - generates a load of publicity for the charity and for Sergey - which overall probably has more positive effect than just quietly donating a big wadge of cash and no one hearing about it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oscillik Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 i guess i can see your point and messiaen's now. it still irks me though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaen Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 the people that fork out the money for these will not be wearing them outside of their houses, they will be vacuum packed or put in glass cases but money = charity so be it fucksake mjf, WHY U NO NOT HAVE PARKINSONS?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 This listing is restricted to pre-approved buyers only. Email the seller to be placed on that pre-approved list. US bidders only... because they won't send batteries or battery chargers/electronic components outside of the US. - Laaaame You can probably get a package forwarding company to handle the shipping. So they give you an US address and then forward the shoes to you. I am eventually going to set one up, as the prices on zappos shoes are just too tempting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted September 9, 2011 Share Posted September 9, 2011 i guess i can see your point and messiaen's now. it still irks me though. What irks me is that it's tax deductable. These rich cunts aren't paying their fair share already and now they get to choose which pet welfare project that they'd like to support and on top of that get their money back for it from the IRS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zazen Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 i guess i can see your point and messiaen's now. it still irks me though. What irks me is that it's tax deductable. These rich cunts aren't paying their fair share already and now they get to choose which pet welfare project that they'd like to support and on top of that get their money back for it from the IRS. But thats not quite what tax deductable means (is it? **) If someone earns (say) $3000 and then gives $1000 of it to charity, the 'tax deductable' bit essentially means they dont have to pay income tax on the $1000. So they pay a bit less tax, but they've also got proportionally less money too (because they gave some of it away) Which isn't the same as getting a tax refund. ** unless I've completely misunderstood the us tax system, which is possible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
delet... Posted September 10, 2011 Share Posted September 10, 2011 Here it means you get a refund on a proportion of what you gave. I'm not sure what it is there, but i think that it's more generous, to the giver. So i just ranted away. heh. Forgive me if it's all bullshit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.