arod812
New member
I wouldn't trust anything the Leaf guy has to say especially from what I heard about him last week regarding his products from a knowledgeable collector.
Welcome to our community
Be apart of something great, join today!
Is Leaf/Brian Gray going to get Johnny Manziel kicked out of NCAA football
- Thread starter sportscardtheory
- Start date
Disclaimer: Links on this page pointing to Amazon, eBay and other sites may include affiliate code. If you click them and make a purchase, we may earn a small commission.
notjomommasclint
Active member
You can't really say that and then not air it out..
predatorkj
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 11,871
- 2
By all means, spill the beans. In any case, Brian is putting out some pretty damn cool stuff. I have added a lot to my various player collections via his products and would even say his cards are a better alternative to press pass and sage. If he had an NFL license, I'm sure I'd be spending way more.
arod812
New member
I don't want to be threatened legal action because of hearsay sorry LOL
gt2590
Super Moderator
I'm with Clinton on this one.
And I've heard plenty of folks question BG's products or business choices, etc. (including me) but I don't remember anyone saying he's un-trustworhty or is trying to sneak stuff by collectors. From what I've seen and heard, he usually is up front with problems and tries to take care of them...
200lbhockeyplayer
Active member
- Aug 10, 2008
- 11,049
- 2
Why not ask him directly about whatever it is you heard?
If Brian is nothing else, he's approachable in every manner. That accounts for a lot.
MansGame
Well-known member
predatorkj
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 11,871
- 2
I agree about problems being something Brian handles well. I think he understands everyone makes mistakes and so will he. He also seems to understand that if you fully confront and admit to a mistake, it really takes people's wind out of their sails and they are pretty cool about forgiving you. And finally, he seems to generally know his limitations and stick within them. Not try as other companies do, to write checks his rear end can't cash. You really have to give him credit for this. Because some companies aren't capable of any of it. And you know who they are/were.
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
Here is my take on the pay etc....
*Besides whatever scholarship (if any) an athlete is on, all sports included, they should also receive meals (or meal money) for each day their sport requires them to be involved
*The players can sell their autographs, their likeness etc as well as they are not using the schools colors, name etc. So for autos etc, they basically would need to be on index cards w/no school colors showing etc
*Schools can work agreements with companies/athletes for autograph/memorabilia deals while they are still in college, splitting 50/50 w the player
*The players can sell anything they own or is given to them from the school as long as it is theirs. This is stuff like rings, awards etc if they choose to sell
*The players can accept advances, houses, cars etc from pro agents as long as there is no ties w gambling etc. Thus would be after the student is enrolled, no pay or benefits in recruiting to the school, or from another school after enrollment
*Schools can sell/market the players names/likeness etc on all jerseys/memorabilia they sell. Anything tied to a player will be revenue shared at 25% to the player , payable to that player when the athlete leaves the school
*After the player leaves the school, if the school still sells merchandise linked to that player, the player receives a 50% cut
*After the player leaves school, and wants to sell items or a likeness that evolved from their time at the school, such as Desmond, the school and player split revenue 50/50
*5% from all schools athletic sales and revenue is shared between all schools in the NCAA hopefully to benefit the athletic departments at lesser schools
Some people may disagree w some/all if this, but this is my plan....
Ryan
*Besides whatever scholarship (if any) an athlete is on, all sports included, they should also receive meals (or meal money) for each day their sport requires them to be involved
*The players can sell their autographs, their likeness etc as well as they are not using the schools colors, name etc. So for autos etc, they basically would need to be on index cards w/no school colors showing etc
*Schools can work agreements with companies/athletes for autograph/memorabilia deals while they are still in college, splitting 50/50 w the player
*The players can sell anything they own or is given to them from the school as long as it is theirs. This is stuff like rings, awards etc if they choose to sell
*The players can accept advances, houses, cars etc from pro agents as long as there is no ties w gambling etc. Thus would be after the student is enrolled, no pay or benefits in recruiting to the school, or from another school after enrollment
*Schools can sell/market the players names/likeness etc on all jerseys/memorabilia they sell. Anything tied to a player will be revenue shared at 25% to the player , payable to that player when the athlete leaves the school
*After the player leaves the school, if the school still sells merchandise linked to that player, the player receives a 50% cut
*After the player leaves school, and wants to sell items or a likeness that evolved from their time at the school, such as Desmond, the school and player split revenue 50/50
*5% from all schools athletic sales and revenue is shared between all schools in the NCAA hopefully to benefit the athletic departments at lesser schools
Some people may disagree w some/all if this, but this is my plan....
Ryan
predatorkj
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 11,871
- 2
Only issue is if they have to split profits with the school on...let's say a signed college mini or photo, after they have already left school, then the athlete's going to want to charge more for their auto to cover that cost. It might be even more ridiculous, price wise, for auto collectors.
I do like some of your other points though. And it would be cool to actually have a college jersey with the athletes name on it rather than just the number. Everyone wins in this situation.
I do like some of your other points though. And it would be cool to actually have a college jersey with the athletes name on it rather than just the number. Everyone wins in this situation.
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
Yeah I think the merchandise tying into the player w name etc as long as there is some revenue to the player, is a win.
With your point after the player leaves, there is no split of the auto charge. It would only be on the merchandise that the auto is getting signed on and that would have already have been paid for. Like if it was a mini the school would have got that revenue when the item sold, if it was a jersey linked to the player the school and player would have split that revenue when that was sold. But when the player signs, he gets whatever that amount is. If they were already getting a cut if the merchandise it could lead to asking a lower amount for the auto fee.
Ryan
notjomommasclint
Active member
To me the problem with selling autos is larger teams will allow for more income due to boosters and fanbase and it won't be an equal playing field for the teams.
Take Oregon.. Phil knight can spend $$$ for every one of his employees to get a Christmas auto of the prep star the school is wooing.
Take Oregon.. Phil knight can spend $$$ for every one of his employees to get a Christmas auto of the prep star the school is wooing.
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
I understand that, my theory is that the money can be spent and received by players, after they are in school playing. I am not in favor of money/buying the prep star to go to a certain school. It's a tough line between saying "once you come to school I'll pay you..." but then again , I am not sure if college should be equal playing fields..?? Maybe it is ok to pay players to come play?
Ryan
notjomommasclint
Active member
I'm actually split on it. Part of me wants kids to benefit from their work. The other part doesn't want to see schools with larger boosters kill some of the underdogs.
It would be better if the NCAA wasn't reaping billions per year and they could argue against paying with a low end budget. Instead of being a greedy group of peckergnats.
predatorkj
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 11,871
- 2
The bigger schools always get the "best recruits" anyways. But not everyone can go to Florida, LSU, Bama, Texas, Texas A&M, Ohio, USC, etc. those schools fill up yet there is still talent elsewhere. It's not like no other schools do well or have good players. Money or not, the big names tend to end up at the big schools. Money won't change that. If anything it will help solidify it. So what changes?
RStadlerASU22
Active member
- Jan 2, 2013
- 8,883
- 16
This has been my view. Of course there is always exceptions but the top schools for their sport usually fill with the top recruits. And as you stated, say Alabama isn't going to bring in and pay the top 10 QBs, as they can only slot so many and the top recruits want to play, not get buried behind others. So regardless if the players were getting paid by boosters, I am not sure it would swing the competitive balance much. It could even help if a "lesser" school has some rich boosters who could get a kid to their school or keep more kids in state if they could see a benefit to it.
I was listening to a show the other day, and I was surprised that basically the colleges (public at least) work on a zero sum game. Meaning although some schools make a lot of profit, it is all put back into the program, facilities, etc. There is no "banking" of the funds.
Ryan
notjomommasclint
Active member
Take Oklahoma State.. T can throw literally a billion dollar promise for autos over a 5 year period. Tell me that won't sway a 5 star from a conventional powerhouse like bama, Florida, etc..
That to me isn't in the good nature of amateur athletics. I'm not 1000% against paying players or 1000% for it. But I think there is a medium ground and they just need to find it.
Either way the cookie crumbles what Johnny Football did isn't kosher with what he signed up for and if proven his ass needs to be tossed!
That to me isn't in the good nature of amateur athletics. I'm not 1000% against paying players or 1000% for it. But I think there is a medium ground and they just need to find it.
Either way the cookie crumbles what Johnny Football did isn't kosher with what he signed up for and if proven his ass needs to be tossed!
You're a fool if you think these kids aren't already massively benefiting from the work they are putting in.
hive17
Active member
- Aug 7, 2008
- 21,426
- 24
The problem with paying football/basketball players is that, according to Title IX, you have to pay everyone.
If the schools are going to pay athletes, there should be a cap. All money earned from jersey sales, etc., would go into a fund that was then split evenly among every scholarship or varsity player. You HAVE to share it with scholarship and non-scholarship player alike to be fair to walk-ons that might spur increased revenue (take Jim Leonhard at Wisconsin, who was All-Big-10 w/o a scholarship). Also, Title IX makes it a law.
The final pay-out comes ONLY after graduation AND the Pro Draft for that sport has finished. Also, anyone signing a pro contract do not receive the money from the "trust". This adds incentive to complete the valuable education these players are awarded in the first place, simply by coming to the school. The final pay-out can be no more than say 2X the tuition for the 4 years of starting eligibility the player had available.
So T. Boone Pickens can buy all the Oklahoma State University Weeden jerseys he wants, funnel tens of millions of dollars into the university (which, I'll add, is the inherent problem with giving players cuts of merch sales; it un-levels the field for college competition); in the end, ALL the players (men, women, field-hockey players, etc.) will get a cut, but it will be the same as everyone else, and won't be more than the tuition rates allow (and since tuition rates are state-controlled, the school can't just raise rates to raise pay-outs; and private schools are tethered to the highest state school rate in their respective states). The rest of the money get used like all donations get used.
If the schools are going to pay athletes, there should be a cap. All money earned from jersey sales, etc., would go into a fund that was then split evenly among every scholarship or varsity player. You HAVE to share it with scholarship and non-scholarship player alike to be fair to walk-ons that might spur increased revenue (take Jim Leonhard at Wisconsin, who was All-Big-10 w/o a scholarship). Also, Title IX makes it a law.
The final pay-out comes ONLY after graduation AND the Pro Draft for that sport has finished. Also, anyone signing a pro contract do not receive the money from the "trust". This adds incentive to complete the valuable education these players are awarded in the first place, simply by coming to the school. The final pay-out can be no more than say 2X the tuition for the 4 years of starting eligibility the player had available.
So T. Boone Pickens can buy all the Oklahoma State University Weeden jerseys he wants, funnel tens of millions of dollars into the university (which, I'll add, is the inherent problem with giving players cuts of merch sales; it un-levels the field for college competition); in the end, ALL the players (men, women, field-hockey players, etc.) will get a cut, but it will be the same as everyone else, and won't be more than the tuition rates allow (and since tuition rates are state-controlled, the school can't just raise rates to raise pay-outs; and private schools are tethered to the highest state school rate in their respective states). The rest of the money get used like all donations get used.
