Big things going down in the world of baseball products

[TheSportsCardFile]

No wine shall be served until its time.

 

[Therion]

The most intelligetn post in this thread seriously. Thanked

I would also like to say...

Whatever happened to just liking cards, regardless of who made them, and not caring about all the behind the scenes BS?

Meh.

I don't think it is a great point because this is an issue no matter what kind of collector you are. Card companies acting skeevy is a big deal because we "just [like] cards". We put up with crap designs from UD only to find out they're busy playing games with the prospectors. One would be hard pressed to tell me that I'm all about money when I collect IP/TTM autos of Astros and Darryl Kile cards but this does affect me.

The attitude of not caring about behind the scenes BS is what made card companies get out of control in the first place.

It's like saying people shouldn't vote because they're still living in a free country.

 

[rico08]

The most intelligetn post in this thread seriously. Thanked

I would also like to say...

Whatever happened to just liking cards, regardless of who made them, and not caring about all the behind the scenes BS?

I hope ALL collectors care about the decisions companies make and the behind the scenes BS. To not is to be taken advantage of.

When consumers are unhappy, not listened to, or treated unfairly they have a right (as the people who keep the companies in business) to know what is going on.

 

[GAbballplayer148]

So after 17 pages are we just bitching back and forth or is there something relevant in there?

 

[BunchOBull]

Wow...ya know, I've always cared so little about Razor, I never really gave any attention to the "Brian" and BG character that sometimes came around and was often talked about...

Is this the same Brian Grey out of Dallas who was once a major distributor...can't remember the name now...but was he a distributor in Dallas?

 

[Therion]

Wow...ya know, I've always cared so little about Razor, I never really gave any attention to the "Brian" and BG character that sometimes came around and was often talked about...

Is this the same Brian Grey out of Dallas who was once a major distributor...can't remember the name now...but was he a distributor in Dallas?

Yes.

 

[HoustonTeams4Me]

Hmmmm, so if this comes to light that it is in fact true then the "Exclusive" contract's will be voided? (this is what it says in the memo, which is why I ask, & if this occurs you can bet your bottom dollar that Topps will immediately print out cards of the Razor "exclusive's"; then how much do you think the Razor card's will sell for??? :? )

 

[BunchOBull]

Thanks, that's very interesting. He wasn't a very popular fellow when he was in the distribution game.

 

[air23]

What was the name of the company he owned

 

[cgilmo]

What was the name of the company he owned

edgeman

 

[bballcardkid]

There are a few things I am confused about.

1) In the memo it states "following the agent meetings, some of you advised us that your contracts contained provisions permitting you to void the agreements in the event that the rumored relationship with Upper Deck were revealed to be a reality." Who's contracts contain such language? Is this sort of like, if the government has been revealed to have financed GM in the production of the new Corvette, the exclusitivity of the Vette will be non existant and Ford can make it because I have a contract saying so. I don't understand how something like this could hold up.

2) In regards to exclusitivity for all players, if what I am reading is true, then what happens to the current exclusive contracts? Are they terminated immediately? How does the MLBPA go about making every single player available to every single company without terminating every single contract? And can this even be done?

3) I'm failing to see the problem in Upper Deck financing Razor if the quote which I provided ends up false. Even if the quote is true, I'm not even sure if the contracts can and will be deemed void. Regardless if it's true or not, someone explain the problem in Upper Deck financing Razor. There is no conflict of interest, perhaps more of a mutual interest if anything. I'm positive that UD has a growing animoscity towards Topps due to the Rookie card fiasco. Teaming with Razor would be a way at getting back at Topps (looks like it got Topps attention). Sure Brian perhaps made a lie, but if he revealed this financing information, the public would be under the impression that Razor wasn't "his" company.

 

[Therion]

What was the name of the company he owned

edgeman

He may also be referring to American Icons, though he technically still owns AI.

 

[ccouch (Chad)]

If this is true, then there are obviously a number of potential implications. Seeing how the dominos fall will be interesting to say the least.

I can undoubtedly say that I've always advocated for CHOICE in the hobby. I was absolutely not in favor of the decision in late 2004 to only license two manufacturers and I sincerely believe that the baseball side of the hobby has been worse off since Donruss/Playoff was effectively eliminated from producing licensed product.

And while I have no negligible opinion about Razor products themselves (I've never held a Razor card in my hand), I've felt that Razor's exclusive contracts only served to hurt the average collector. I know that the argument exists that Topps amped up 2008 BCDP with Aflac autos only because Razor was signing half of the world to exclusive contracts. To that, I say "Bleh." Topps' late 2008 products were considerably weaker because they couldn't include a number of key players. Frankly, I'd much rather that collectors have choices -- and for a number of players in the 2008 draft, collectors did not have those choices.

It is obviously too early to tell how this whole thing will play out (IF it is indeed true). But frankly, I'm not a real big fan of the idea that collectors could be losing more choices.

 

[HoustonTeams4Me]

There are a few things I am confused about.

1) In the memo it states "following the agent meetings, some of you advised us that your contracts contained provisions permitting you to void the agreements in the event that the rumored relationship with Upper Deck were revealed to be a reality." Who's contracts contain such language? Is this sort of like, if the government has been revealed to have financed GM in the production of the new Corvette, the exclusitivity of the Vette will be non existant and Ford can make it because I have a contract saying so. I don't understand how something like this could hold up.

2) In regards to exclusitivity for all players, if what I am reading is true, then what happens to the current exclusive contracts? Are they terminated immediately? How does the MLBPA go about making every single player available to every single company without terminating every single contract? And can this even be done?

3) I'm failing to see the problem in Upper Deck financing Razor if the quote which I provided ends up false. Even if the quote is true, I'm not even sure if the contracts can and will be deemed void. Regardless if it's true or not, someone explain the problem in Upper Deck financing Razor. There is no conflict of interest, perhaps more of a mutual interest if anything. I'm positive that UD has a growing animoscity towards Topps due to the Rookie card fiasco. Teaming with Razor would be a way at getting back at Topps (looks like it got Topps attention). Sure Brian perhaps made a lie, but if he revealed this financing information, the public would be under the impression that Razor wasn't "his" company.

I think it comes down to Upperdeck having a license & producing unlicensed product (the MLBPA has the rc rule in place so if UD produced prospects, albeit through Razor, then they are breaking thier agreement with the MLBPA). I think this is what it comes down to?.?.?

 

[matfanofold]

Has anyone been able to confirm the 'memo' is in fact legitimate?

I do find humor in the fact that a handful of us were pondering the possibility that UD was the driving force behind RAZOR in the begining, but if I remember correctly, BG and Gilmo shot that down quickly. How ironic that it has seemingly come to fruition now...

Also, I'm on the side of the fence that does not really care, nor ever wanted to see 'exclusive contracts' in baseball cards. Let the quality of the card and the reputation of the company be the driving force in competition, not the power of there dollar. If all it takes to be competitive is to spend money (on exclusives) then all they will care about is getting(recouping that) money (from you and me). I say let them spend there time and money making quality cards and providing customer service, not finding and hoarding the latest 'exclusives'.

Ultimatly, I suppose this all could just be BS, but it sure is interesting how things appear right now..

 

[ru4scuba]

If this is true, then there are obviously a number of potential implications. Seeing how the dominos fall will be interesting to say the least.

He lives!!

 

[bballcardkid]

If the result of this decision ends up in Topps collectively tightening the belt around their fat waste and producing quality prospect products, then I'm happy. However, if this is simply a move to allow Topps to have free domain over the industry in the production of prospect cards, and the continued inabiltiy to sign big players, water down products with terrible base checklists, produce 40 + autographs in a set, and continue to recycle player after player after player, then it is a terrible move that will only limit my collecting habbits.

 

[bballcardkid]

There are a few things I am confused about.

1) In the memo it states "following the agent meetings, some of you advised us that your contracts contained provisions permitting you to void the agreements in the event that the rumored relationship with Upper Deck were revealed to be a reality." Who's contracts contain such language? Is this sort of like, if the government has been revealed to have financed GM in the production of the new Corvette, the exclusitivity of the Vette will be non existant and Ford can make it because I have a contract saying so. I don't understand how something like this could hold up.

2) In regards to exclusitivity for all players, if what I am reading is true, then what happens to the current exclusive contracts? Are they terminated immediately? How does the MLBPA go about making every single player available to every single company without terminating every single contract? And can this even be done?

3) I'm failing to see the problem in Upper Deck financing Razor if the quote which I provided ends up false. Even if the quote is true, I'm not even sure if the contracts can and will be deemed void. Regardless if it's true or not, someone explain the problem in Upper Deck financing Razor. There is no conflict of interest, perhaps more of a mutual interest if anything. I'm positive that UD has a growing animoscity towards Topps due to the Rookie card fiasco. Teaming with Razor would be a way at getting back at Topps (looks like it got Topps attention). Sure Brian perhaps made a lie, but if he revealed this financing information, the public would be under the impression that Razor wasn't "his" company.

I think it comes down to Upperdeck having a license & producing unlicensed product (the MLBPA has the rc rule in place so if UD produced prospects, albeit through Razor, then they are breaking thier agreement with the MLBPA). I think this is what it comes down to?.?.?

Ah I see, I'm sure their is a loophole somewhere in the contracts with Upper Deck, such as if UD had majority ownership in Razor and did this, perhaps the contract would be void, however if UD had a minority ownership in Razor, perhaps the contract would not be void. I find it hard to believe that UD would jeopardize their business by making such a move that would surely seal their fate, unless such a loophole protected them from a MLBPA backlash. I guess the discussion stops here until more details arise.

 

[walter55]

There are a few things I am confused about.

1) In the memo it states "following the agent meetings, some of you advised us that your contracts contained provisions permitting you to void the agreements in the event that the rumored relationship with Upper Deck were revealed to be a reality." Who's contracts contain such language? Is this sort of like, if the government has been revealed to have financed GM in the production of the new Corvette, the exclusitivity of the Vette will be non existant and Ford can make it because I have a contract saying so. I don't understand how something like this could hold up.

2) In regards to exclusitivity for all players, if what I am reading is true, then what happens to the current exclusive contracts? Are they terminated immediately? How does the MLBPA go about making every single player available to every single company without terminating every single contract? And can this even be done?

3) I'm failing to see the problem in Upper Deck financing Razor if the quote which I provided ends up false. Even if the quote is true, I'm not even sure if the contracts can and will be deemed void. Regardless if it's true or not, someone explain the problem in Upper Deck financing Razor. There is no conflict of interest, perhaps more of a mutual interest if anything. I'm positive that UD has a growing animoscity towards Topps due to the Rookie card fiasco. Teaming with Razor would be a way at getting back at Topps (looks like it got Topps attention). Sure Brian perhaps made a lie, but if he revealed this financing information, the public would be under the impression that Razor wasn't "his" company.

I think it comes down to Upperdeck having a license & producing unlicensed product (the MLBPA has the rc rule in place so if UD produced prospects, albeit through Razor, then they are breaking thier agreement with the MLBPA). I think this is what it comes down to?.?.?

Ah I see, I'm sure their is a loophole somewhere in the contracts with Upper Deck, such as if UD had majority ownership in Razor and did this, perhaps the contract would be void, however if UD had a minority ownership in Razor, perhaps the contract would not be void. I find it hard to believe that UD would jeopardize their business by making such a move that would surely seal their fate, unless such a loophole protected them from a MLBPA backlash. I guess the discussion stops here until more details arise.

I am not sure about loop holes or not but when the time comes for the MLBPA to renew contracts with Topps and UD then all they would have to do is not renew UD's license and there would be nothing UD could do. Which is what they did with Donruss. Now I have no idea if the licenses are renewed yearly or a what length though.

 

[HoustonTeams4Me]

I say let them spend there time and money making quality cards and providing cuntomer service

I'm not sure what that is, but I like the sound of it & I'm all for the card companies providing it for us collector's!!! :lol: