Hope it's not true - rumours Topps has lost it's NFL licence ??

[taffster74]

So who's going to start the "Panini is forcing everyone out and monopolising the market" argument? C'mon - seriously? If Topps wants to do a runner, how can panini be blamed if they're the only ones who are prepared to meet the require of the deal that the NFL puts forward? Being the only company left with money (and means) to produce a product does not a monopoly make - especially when the competition puts up whiny excuses as to why they have chosen to not renew their license. Yes, it is sad to see topps - who has had a long history with football - walk away, but it's not like they haven't done it in other sports. Ice Hockey - that was all the NHL's fault. Basketball? 1959 - not enough support to warrant continuing with the license. What did they miss? Bill Russell, Bob Cousey and the Celtics dominating the next decade; Wilt Chamberlain RC (among other legends). 1982 - again, not enough popularity to warrant continuing with the license. Hello?!!!! Magic Johnson, Larry bird and the renewal of the Celtics/Lakers rivalry; MJ. 2009 - "Due to the financial distress of the economic times we are choosing to end our agreement with the NBA at this time". At least someone is still prepared to put out product. So they aren't doing to the liking of all fans. Big whoop-de-doo. When Panini took over the license for DonrussPlayoff LP in 2009, they inherited the NFL licensing and commitments. They then approached the majority of sports card collector forums and asked us - the collectors - what we wanted to see then went with the most popular responses. If you're fed up with multiple parallels, game-used cards and autographed cards coming out the Wazoo ... well, blame yourselves (collectively) for asking for these very same things. Panini is only giving you what the majority of collector's asked for.

 

[AusRam]

So why do Panini need exclusive rights ? Why can't they just continue as they are, in competition with others ? Perhaps because they fear competition if someone else gets a license ?

Exclusivity gives them the ability to produce whatever rubbish they want as the only licensed trading cards we have access to. Zero competition won't be a good thing...

If their products are truly good enough, they should succeed on their merit and not need the protection of being the only company able to make NFL cards.

 

[spanishsahara]

So why do Panini need exclusive rights ? Why can't they just continue as they are, in competition with others ? Perhaps because they fear competition if someone else gets a license ?

Exclusivity gives them the ability to produce whatever rubbish they want as the only licensed trading cards we have access to. Zero competition won't be a good thing...

If their products are truly good enough, they should succeed on their merit and not need the protection of being the only company able to make NFL cards.

You think that maybe Panini went for the exclusive rights because they're a business?

Are you saying that if you are the owner of a card company and you get offered the chance to be the only one making products for a huge percent of the market, you'd say, "no thanks, let other companies have a slice, it will be good for our business if we have to keep finding ways to get ahead of other companies."?

The nfl are known for being very protective of their brand, hence why one company has the license to make the video games. They want everything as streamlined as it can be so they can keep a close eye on it, this is why they sell their rights out exclusively. Even if they didn't, which card company could afford to keep up with panini the way they're going? Maybe topps, but you can refer to Taffsters post as far as the merits of topps are concerned.

 

[Lazlow]

Panini won't be forcing anyone anywhere, they lost the NHL to Upper Deck getting an exclusive deal.

 

[AusRam]

You think that maybe Panini went for the exclusive rights because they're a business?

Are you saying that if you are the owner of a card company and you get offered the chance to be the only one making products for a huge percent of the market, you'd say, "no thanks, let other companies have a slice, it will be good for our business if we have to keep finding ways to get ahead of other companies."?

The nfl are known for being very protective of their brand, hence why one company has the license to make the video games. They want everything as streamlined as it can be so they can keep a close eye on it, this is why they sell their rights out exclusively. Even if they didn't, which card company could afford to keep up with panini the way they're going? Maybe topps, but you can refer to Taffsters post as far as the merits of topps are concerned.

That's what I mean, I'm arguing against Taffster's point - they ARE after a monopoly, any business would, but it's a terrible thing for the hobby. I'm sure in the negotiations with the NFL this was what they're really after, same as they now have exclusive deals with a lot of the college programs. They are tying up the market and soon the only Gridiron cards with official logo's etc on them will be Panini.

Whatever tender/offer they made to the NFL was likely contingent on them being the sole company able to produce licensed cards - and their offer likely was better than any other card company could manage so the NFL took it, exclusivity and all.

But if their product was the best in a competitive field, we'd all just be buying it anyway! Now though, without the competition, what will be their motivation to improve the products for us the collector ?

 

[spanishsahara]

Well obviously man, that's just business 101. "Monopoly" isn't great for anyone, but it's what we're facing, and I really don't see the point in arguing over it.

My post was more related to you saying that panini "fear competition" and "If their products are truly good enough, they should succeed on their merit and not need the protection of being the only company able to make NFL cards".

Like I said, it's just pointless to argue or get worked up about it, because if any other company came in to a bunch of money, they'd end up doing the exact same thing, yeah, as collectors, it's not great, not at all, but it's just simple business. And unfortunately as businesses, they're all there to make money

 

[taffster74]

AusRam, I don't think you fully understood my point. The card company's do not put forward a tender for the league to consider - the league puts together a package that satisfies their (the league's) needs and it is up to the card companies to decide whether they can A) afford the deal and B) meet the requirements put forward by that package. I'll refer you to the NBA deal of 2009. Among other things, the NBA wanted more international coverage - Topps and Upper Deck clearly were not able to meet that particular requirement. Panini was. Panini had stated from the beginning that were looking to enter into the US market as a Third Wheel behind Upper Deck and Topps (fourth in NFL and MLB) and suddenly found themselves in a position where they were the first (NBA) and Second (NFL, MLB) wheels. As to the Ice Hockey deal ... again that is the NHL's fault. Two lockouts in the last 10 years including one that lasted 18 months and cost two entire seasons? A league that refuses to heavily penalise fighting where the other major sports do? I think it's a no brainer that Panini walk out on a flailing product.

 

[AusRam]

You may be right Taffster, but if the NFL is putting forward the package, why would they give exclusivity to a single card company and not give licenses to all who are capable of producing suitable products ? It wouldn't be in their (the NFL's) best interests to do so - especially as there have been multiple licensees in the past?

 

[taffster74]

It all comes down to what Topps has said. If Topps has pulled out voluntarily (and by the sound of it they have), then Panini cannot be accused of monopolizing the market.

 

[Lazlow]

, As to the Ice Hockey deal ... again that is the NHL's fault. Two lockouts in the last 10 years including one that lasted 18 months an cost two entire seasons? A league that refuses to heavily penalise fighting where the other major sports do? I think it's a no brainer that Panini walk out on a flailing product.

lolwut?

Within the last 3 decades there's been 4 lockouts and only one of those cancelled and entire season - 2004-05.

Panini didn't enter the NHL card market until 2010-11.

As for fights, cards cater to fans, and the fans have no problem with the fights.

No doubt the 12-13 lockout didn't help sales but Panini also did what it always does; flood the market with an ever changing lineup of product.

 

[ekalb]

AusRam, I don't think you fully understood my point. The card company's do not put forward a tender for the league to consider - the league puts together a package that satisfies their (the league's) needs and it is up to the card companies to decide whether they can A) afford the deal and B) meet the requirements put forward by that package. I'll refer you to the NBA deal of 2009. Among other things, the NBA wanted more international coverage - Topps and Upper Deck clearly were not able to meet that particular requirement. Panini was. Panini had stated from the beginning that were looking to enter into the US market as a Third Wheel behind Upper Deck and Topps (fourth in NFL and MLB) and suddenly found themselves in a position where they were the first (NBA) and Second (NFL, MLB) wheels. As to the Ice Hockey deal ... again that is the NHL's fault. Two lockouts in the last 10 years including one that lasted 18 months and cost two entire seasons? A league that refuses to heavily penalise fighting where the other major sports do? I think it's a no brainer that Panini walk out on a flailing product.

I love NHL for the simply fact they the players fight! It's a competitive brutal batal and sometimes emotions flare up. Nothing wrong with a bit of biff!