Blowout Cards Forums
Advertise On Forum

Go Back   Blowout Cards Forums > GENERAL INFORMATION AREA > News & Announcements

News & Announcements Case Deals! and General Info about the Hobby

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-22-2011, 02:22 PM   #76 (permalink)
Member
 
redsoxx11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: TACO BELL BATHROOM
Posts: 3,460
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemur01 View Post
Why does UD want to control who profits from their product? How does UD benefit from that?
He who controls the spice controls the universe
__________________
Collecting smiles
redsoxx11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 02:35 PM   #77 (permalink)
Member
 
Zerokruel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 6,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WCTYSON View Post
Said the board troll .......................so let me get this straight, you are the computer lawyer who does know what legality of the case. You go bye-bye now and see you on the next trolling opportunity.
As far as I knwo he is right also. I use to sell die-cast cars - and most companies have the same exact policies as UD is implimenting.

While I was selling GMP diecast cars - I had almost the same exact contract given to me. I also received one from GreenLight and M2.

I don't really care for the set up, as profit margins were small - so I no longer sell die-cast.

I will say this, I have opened up some UD under this new contract - and I did very well. However, I opened up non-sport - but it was some of the best and most solid numbers yet.
__________________
Currently looking for the following comic Books:
United Comics: 21,22,23,24,26
Tip Top: 173 & 184
Peanuts 1 (1953)
Peanuts: 1-4 (1963-64)
Zerokruel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 02:35 PM   #78 (permalink)
Member
 
Nicnac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redsoxx11 View Post
He who controls the spice controls the universe
The tighter you squeeze your fist, the more sand will slip through your fingers.
Nicnac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 02:40 PM   #79 (permalink)
Member
 
Andrew Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemur01 View Post
Why does UD want to control who profits from their product? How does UD benefit from that?
I'm not saying I agree with it, but the rationale behind it is that it allows a company like UD to protect its brand and the courts have given quite a bit of deference to manufacturers when it comes to allowing them to be able to take steps and impose measures designed to protect their brands.
Andrew Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 03:00 PM   #80 (permalink)
Member
 
lemur01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Jones View Post
I'm not saying I agree with it, but the rationale behind it is that it allows a company like UD to protect its brand and the courts have given quite a bit of deference to manufacturers when it comes to allowing them to be able to take steps and impose measures designed to protect their brands.
Protect there brand from what? Wholesale prices?
__________________
Pull my Finger Have you been Lemur'd today?

Currently hoarding mountains of cards that I should be trading.
lemur01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 03:02 PM   #81 (permalink)
Approved Group Break Host
 
jlzinck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Posts: 17,625
Default

1 of 2 things will happen.

1- LCS's will get more foot traffic from the degenerate gambler types who have to crack product when it hits. If you think that distributors will still not sell to their best customers then you are crazy....the brentandbeccas's of the world will still get their cases but not out in the open. If the LCS's see increased business they will order more.

2- It will have no affect of the LCS's, distributors will "hold" product for the 90 days and sell it for as low as they will be allowed to.

That being said the HUGE case breakers will still get their product like they always have.
jlzinck is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 03:13 PM   #82 (permalink)
Member
 
Andrew Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemur01 View Post
Protect there brand from what? Wholesale prices?
Different companies may have different reasons, but I would think that's one of the more prevalent ones. Right or wrong, products that are "more exclusive" and only available for sale at higher priced stores like, say, Saks Fifth Avenue tend to be viewed as more prestigous and valuable than products that are sold at a discount retailer like Big Lots. The Big Lots product may be of equal or better quality, but large segments of our society either don't care or apparently value the image of a product moreso than the quality of the product.
Andrew Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 03:14 PM   #83 (permalink)
Member
 
barberromo2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 7,500
Default

I just can not stand upper deck, I hope that upper deck gets what is coming to them.
__________________
Collecting 2008 Select Inscriptions and Dallas Cowboys
barberromo2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 03:22 PM   #84 (permalink)
Member
 
lemur01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Jones View Post
Different companies may have different reasons, but I would think that's one of the more prevalent ones. Right or wrong, products that are "more exclusive" and only available for sale at higher priced stores like, say, Saks Fifth Avenue tend to be viewed as more prestigous and valuable than products that are sold at a discount retailer like Big Lots. The Big Lots product may be of equal or better quality, but large segments of our society either don't care or apparently value the image of a product moreso than the quality of the product.
That makes sense. Thanks for the insight.
__________________
Pull my Finger Have you been Lemur'd today?

Currently hoarding mountains of cards that I should be trading.
lemur01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 03:41 PM   #85 (permalink)
Member
 
jasonadkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 2,931
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr24ai3 View Post
If you are a dealer and pay $70 for a box, you would price it around $100 with a 40% markup. That is a profit of only $30 on a $100 sale (and this is not counting credit card processing/overhead/etc). $30 profit on a $100 sale really isn't that much. If you buy a box for $70, what would you price it at? If you price it any less that $90-$100 you will have a very tough time staying in business, especially if wax is a major part of your sales. If a $70 box was marked up to $120-$140, that may be a bit much. But 40% is far from a high markup.
When I owned Baseball Card Heaven in Las Vegas from 2003-2005, on brand new products we would be at 40-45% the day it came out, unless it was a product that was preselling much higher (like Bowman Chrome baseball products or SP Authentic and SPx football/hockey, anything Exquisite at that time). I would max out my case allotment on most products and I had customers knowing when products would hit and I would even call several of them the day it came out.

In those years all four producers had contracts (Upper Deck, Topps, Donruss, Fleer), so there were so many products out there (and many were bad) that the wholesale prices would often fall to half of what factory direct prices were within a few months. That is when I would bring many of those products back in and those I would generally charge a 60% markup (must have gone through 200 boxes of 2004 Leaf Limited baseball this way), sometimes a little bit more if I could get loose retail packs (killed it with 2004 Topps Traded and my customers still were doing great on it).

The main money I made in the Card Shop was by always willing to buy and trade, for literally just about anything, including junk 80's/90's stuff. At the right price I could find a buyer for everything. My card shop was organized with 10 cent boxes, $1 boxes, a display case with Jerseys and inserts that were 75% off book, and then of course nicely organized and displayed Vintage and modern display cases.

I think Upper Deck and Panini trying to give advantages to the LCS is a step in bringing the LCS back to life, and if this holds true I might be willing to open one up out here again in Vegas. I'm sure there are others out there who can see that this might be a good time to open one up also, which I would say could be done for as little as $10,000 (I opened mine up with about $20,000). If anyone has any interest in opening one feel free to PM me and I can tell you everything you need to know about opening one successfully.
jasonadkins is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 03:50 PM   #86 (permalink)
Member
 
golferphil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by redsoxx11 View Post
He who controls the spice controls the universe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicnac View Post
The tighter you squeeze your fist, the more sand will slip through your fingers.
The sleeper will AWAKEN!
__________________
This body holding me reminds me of my own mortality.
Embrace this moment. Remember; we are eternal,
all this pain is an illusion.
--Maynard James Keenan
golferphil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 04:16 PM   #87 (permalink)
Member
 
JDK16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 5,676
Default

hobby enforcement department that video was funny)
__________________
MY CARDS- http://s1181.photobucket.com/home/JDK16_28/index
COLLECTOR OF ERIC BERRY AND FREDDIE FREEMAN
MOST WANTED CARD ERIC BERRY TOPPS CHROME SUPERFRACTOR
JDK16 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 04:45 PM   #88 (permalink)
Member
 
Nicnac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bradical View Post
While I see UD as more of a Oligopoly than a Monopoly,
Quote:
Originally Posted by jr24ai3 View Post
Upper Deck is not a monopoly:
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonedef2oo8 View Post
Its not a monopoly but dont let a little thing like facts get in the way of a tale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kajshack View Post
He may be a troll, but he's right. Way too many people babbling about stuff they know nothing about.
Did any of you actually read about the lawsuit?

From Beckett:
a select few licenses (NCAA, MLS) and a roster of exclusive athletes whose autographs can only be found in Upper Deck products such as Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, LeBron James and Landon Donovan.

and:
Specifically, Frontline contends that Upper Deck is in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act with its policy.

Part 2 of the Sherman act says: Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce ...
Nicnac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 04:50 PM   #89 (permalink)
Member
 
Nicnac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,106
Default

Section 3 of the Clayton Act is pretty interesting:

It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.
Nicnac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 05:16 PM   #90 (permalink)
Member
 
Andrew Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,396
Default

Are you an attorney Nicnac?
Andrew Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 06:04 PM   #91 (permalink)
Member
 
Nicnac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 8,106
Default

No. I merely asked if anyone had bothered to read any of the filings or the related Acts.
Nicnac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-22-2011, 06:42 PM   #92 (permalink)
Member
 
Andrew Jones's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,396
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicnac View Post
No. I merely asked if anyone had bothered to read any of the filings or the related Acts.
The filings are merely allegations and the language of the Acts themselves is not nearly as important as the interpretation the courts have given that language. Back in the 60s, the US Supreme Court (which not coincidentally was much more liberal at the time) defined a market under the Sherman Antitrust Act much differently than how it has been defined in recent years. Without getting into too much legalese, I think the chances of UD's actions being found to have substantially lessened competition (there are still several authorized internet retailers and hundreds of authorized B&M locations) or created a monopoly in the sports card market (assuming the court(s) define the market that narrowly; it wouldn't shock me if the market is defined more broadly to include, say, team merchandise that is also licensed by the various leagues) are almost zero. Topps and Panini are bigger companies with bigger market shares within the very same market.

Without getting too lawyery, the best example I can give would be what Apple recently did with the iPhone. If you wanted an iPhone, you had to buy it from one of the few authorized retailers (Apple, AT&T, etc.) and you had to have AT&T service. What wasn't that wasn't illegal or unlawful? IMO, it was because you could buy the iPhone from multiple retailers (even though, like UD, Apple placed pricing restrictions on those retailers) and because Apple didn't have a monopoly within the defined market which was defined as the broader mobile telephone market, not the more narrow iPhone market.
Andrew Jones is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2011, 06:58 PM   #93 (permalink)
Member
 
dreamweaver1984's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,378
Send a message via AIM to dreamweaver1984
Default

FWIW, any company in business reserves the right no to sell to anyone they dont want to. UD can decline to sell to blowout if they choose. Fact is this is good for the Card shops, as they will be able to get more of the product, and the market will be decided by them and not a a Wholesale Realtor like blowout or one of the other ones.
__________________
Lexington Sports Cards Owner!Best Pulls:
Kobe Bryant Logoman AUTO 1/1 timeless treasures
Kyrie Irving Prizm GOLD 8/10 and 4/10
Kobe Bryant Totally Certified Black 1/1 AUTO
dreamweaver1984 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2011, 07:00 PM   #94 (permalink)
Member
 
lemur01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 4,889
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamweaver1984 View Post
FWIW, any company in business reserves the right no to sell to anyone they dont want to. UD can decline to sell to blowout if they choose. Fact is this is good for the Card shops, as they will be able to get more of the product, and the market will be decided by them and not a a Wholesale Realtor like blowout or one of the other ones.
Agreed, but can they legally stop BO from getting it after the fact and selling it?
__________________
Pull my Finger Have you been Lemur'd today?

Currently hoarding mountains of cards that I should be trading.
lemur01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2011, 09:24 PM   #95 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lemur01 View Post
Agreed, but can they legally stop BO from getting it after the fact and selling it?
I would think they wouldn't be able to stop anyone from selling it. But if a dealer sells to blowout and UD finds out, that original dealer could lose their UD license.
jr24ai3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2011, 09:27 PM   #96 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,850
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicnac View Post
Did any of you actually read about the lawsuit?

From Beckett:
a select few licenses (NCAA, MLS) and a roster of exclusive athletes whose autographs can only be found in Upper Deck products such as Tiger Woods, Michael Jordan, LeBron James and Landon Donovan.

and:
Specifically, Frontline contends that Upper Deck is in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act with its policy.

Part 2 of the Sherman act says: Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce ...
Every card company has exclusive athletes. Topps has exclusives with a lot of the old timers, Panini has exclusives with basketball players. If part of blowouts argument has to do with exclusives, they are basically throwing all card companies under the bus.
jr24ai3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2011, 10:15 PM   #97 (permalink)
Member
 
Highcheese4U's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 2,751
Default

I've ALWAYS said Upper Deck F@$(&(!#^* Blows... this is just one of many fine examples.

I hope they get B-slapped yet again...lol!
Highcheese4U is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-26-2011, 02:32 PM   #98 (permalink)
Member
 
esaslo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 1,523
Default

Actually have a bit of knowledge regarding this, historically back to to the CAct and associated allegations/rulings since then. There have been some interesting once since then, believe it or not. Besides AntiTrust Rulings -- which are in some instances involved in the same situations -- stay outside of IT Industry, as much of it has DoD interest in the USA. Outside of it -- especially in Europe -- there are different issues.

More importantly, though, are Fortune 500 Companies who have gone through the same issues over the past 50 years and have either been able to get legal rulings in their favor or "arrangements" before then.

I'm under a couple of NDAs on these, but a couple to think about are 3M Corporation -- think of "ALL" of their divisions, as most people don't really know what they actually do -- Major Airline Engine/Private Plane manufactures, and another one for reference would smaller companies (at least in the 80s) which now provide huge staples in the US Economy for things as office products, Manufacturing, and other related.

A lot has changed, but for a long time in US History price-fixing has been a serious charge, albeit hard to prove. Until the more recent era (past 30 or so years) the government finally realized the national damage it could cause (mostly due to international competition, not to mention the taxation issue within the US -- read loss of USGovt Rev -- and also their own personal interests... and I need to leave that comment at that, just think 'big' on it).

Hope this gives you all some insight. There's a chance here for a settlement, and there have been some great points made by members -- though it will probably take all of the history, and compounded "intent to exclude" and "fix" pricing within the "fair market".

My best of luck to them.

ES

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew Jones View Post
The filings are merely allegations and the language of the Acts themselves is not nearly as important as the interpretation the courts have given that language. Back in the 60s, the US Supreme Court (which not coincidentally was much more liberal at the time) defined a market under the Sherman Antitrust Act much differently than how it has been defined in recent years. Without getting into too much legalese, I think the chances of UD's actions being found to have substantially lessened competition (there are still several authorized internet retailers and hundreds of authorized B&M locations) or created a monopoly in the sports card market (assuming the court(s) define the market that narrowly; it wouldn't shock me if the market is defined more broadly to include, say, team merchandise that is also licensed by the various leagues) are almost zero. Topps and Panini are bigger companies with bigger market shares within the very same market.

Without getting too lawyery, the best example I can give would be what Apple recently did with the iPhone. If you wanted an iPhone, you had to buy it from one of the few authorized retailers (Apple, AT&T, etc.) and you had to have AT&T service. What wasn't that wasn't illegal or unlawful? IMO, it was because you could buy the iPhone from multiple retailers (even though, like UD, Apple placed pricing restrictions on those retailers) and because Apple didn't have a monopoly within the defined market which was defined as the broader mobile telephone market, not the more narrow iPhone market.
__________________
I'll save you the PM: Yes, I collect Peanuts Fine Art.
esaslo is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO
Copyright 2013, Blowout Cards Inc.