Topps out---Fanatics in

[BBases31]

Originally Posted by Cavaliercards

Have you seen how many parallels they have added to the Bowman Products and how production on that alone has gone up.

Right and that's why I said they over the optimal line in 2021 but they are still nowhere near the amount of printing needed to make a real dent in the market by dampening demand.

Want to compare number of products from the 2010 to now?

They have run the presses hard just like every company.

The demand compared to 2010 is tenfold. Of course there should be a ton more product.

At the end of the day there's no argument that Fanatics is much more likely to overprint than Topps

[pewe]

Thought starter:

What if Topps signs w/NCAA to have exclusive rights to college players and their likeness (and feeder international leagues)… and every year through their career they use their younger images to represent the latest year???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cavaliercards]

Originally Posted by BBases31

Right and that's why I said they over the optimal line in 2021 but they are still nowhere near the amount of printing needed to make a real dent in the market by dampening demand.



The demand compared to 2010 is tenfold. Of course there should be a ton more product.

At the end of the day there's no argument that Fanatics is much more likely to overprint than Topps

They were over the optimal line years ago just like every company.

Demand is up but they are printing a lot of dogs.

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by Cavaliercards

Fanatics provided them with the most money, so they had to take that offer as Topps could not match it when offered.

Sure. I'm just saying maybe they didn't HAVE to take that offer. Maybe it was the best option on the table, but did they explore all options?

-revenue split or even better
-start producing their own cards

You produce and control your own product. Maybe it was too much of a headache to start up their own operations.

But it seemed to work out for Walter White and the Frank Lucas (for awhile).

[Cavaliercards]

Originally Posted by pewe

Thought starter:

What if Topps signs w/NCAA to have exclusive rights to college players and their likeness (and feeder international leagues)… and every year through their career they use their younger images to represent the latest year???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They could do this but the players would have direct deals not the colleges for their likeness. So a guy like Mahomes would want more money or might have a Fanatics exclusive.

Plus, they would have to outbid Panini and Fanatics for the Collegiate Licensing brand.

[Glowbug27]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Of course $$$ controls the game. Totally agree.

But in this case, MLB/MLBPA had a huge voice. Right now, the card market overall is as hot as it has ever been in the history of cards. Record sales are being set all the time.

Worst case scenario, MLB/MLBPA could have either started their own card company or negotiated something with Topps where they take a % of sales.

There was no reason for MLB/MLBPA to just take the Fanatics offer because they "had" to.

Of course, I wasn't privy to any of the negotiations. But if you know you have something incredibly valuable on your hands, you leverage it as best as possible. Maybe MLB did, maybe they didn't. We'll see how it plays out.

MLBPA start their own card company? This isn't an MBA master class - let's start a company. This is how do I guarantee the most money possible without risking anything. It is an opportunity to get paid for nothing other than signing your name regardless of the success or failure of the product. MLBPA did the best possible thing and got a guaranteed annuity that will pay them handsomely for years.

[Cavaliercards]

Originally Posted by Asian62150

Sure. I'm just saying maybe they didn't HAVE to take that offer. Maybe it was the best option on the table, but did they explore all options?

-revenue split or even better
-start producing their own cards

You produce and control your own product. Maybe it was too much of a headache to start up their own operations.

But it seemed to work out for Walter White and the Frank Lucas (for awhile).

They are already getting more revenue when companies do well now as part of their agreement.

PA is not going to go into production for themselves that is a headache as you mention.

This way the MLBPA is going into something that MLB has directly financed and which will increase MLB's stake in the company and the players future payouts. Not to mention a number of players are invested in firms that have stakes in Fanatics in other sports, so safe to assume MLB has players involved too.

MLB shares revenue with players.

MLB has equity stake in Fanatics.

Fanatics pays MLB for Card License.

MLB takes money and pays Players.

MLB revenue raises from Card Licenses.

MLB Fanatics equity stake, club owners, and MLB brand is worth more.

[IntergalacticSp]

Originally Posted by pewe

Thought starter:

What if Topps signs w/NCAA to have exclusive rights to college players and their likeness (and feeder international leagues)… and every year through their career they use their younger images to represent the latest year???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Topps could do it if the player was currently in college and did not use any logos of colleges. NCAA is under a long-term contract with Panini, and MLBPA would own the likeness of any players under contract in the pros.

[pewe]

Originally Posted by Cavaliercards

They could do this but the players would have direct deals not the colleges for their likeness. So a guy like Mahomes would want more money or might have a Fanatics exclusive.

Plus, they would have to outbid Panini and Fanatics for the Collegiate Licensing brand.

Building on your idea: what if Topps creates more exclusives, like they have with Trout.

They focus on having 1:1 contracts with all the in-demand players, and this prevents them from participating in Fanatics

That could be fun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bberns]

Originally Posted by Doodlegrass

I will personally be ok with that, as it won’t affect my paycheck in any way. And yes, the janitor at fanatics made up a story about being employed there.

But more importantly - you’re the type of person that looks down on people who don’t rank higher than executive and that says a lot - the service industry gets dumped on entirely too much, you flip off your garbage man too?

You may be smart. You may be right. But you are very unlikeable (or at least your internet persona is) and you sound like you are 22.5 and graduated college with a degree in knowing everything.

Before you proceed further, consider reevaluating your approach.

[Technochocolate]

Ultimately, there's a lot of different ways to collect in this hobby. Low-end, medium-end, high-end. Does Fanatics have enough of an understanding of the scope of this hobby to create a varied set of products that caters to everyone?

Because if they don't, there will be much anger.

I don't think Fanatics will just want to take Topps' catalog of products - they're going to want to create their own identity. That said, if I were them, I'd at least purchase the rights to duplicate the Heritage and Allen & Ginter lines. A homage to vintage products is successful in this hobby and they'd be beyond moronic to shun that part.

Beyond that, I expect new products. You don't spend this money just to not have your own identity.

[Aston14]

Originally Posted by pewe

Building on your idea: what if Topps creates more exclusives, like they have with Trout.

They focus on having 1:1 contracts with all the in-demand players, and this prevents them from participating in Fanatics

That could be fun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is what Upper Deck does with LeBron and Michael Jordan. Those relationships keep them in business, but they don’t produce compelling card offerings.

[CicadaMound]

Originally Posted by pewe

Building on your idea: what if Topps creates more exclusives, like they have with Trout.

They focus on having 1:1 contracts with all the in-demand players, and this prevents them from participating in Fanatics

That could be fun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So... Leaf, but worse, because Brian Gray is okay with non-exclusivity.

[forjlf]

Originally Posted by notoriousrmb

Alienating a major client base is not a good start.

You say "blindly follow", others may say "brand loyalty".

The alleged Fanatics employee just wanted to tell older people how stupid they are. Nice marketing! Probably should have stopped at the talk of new and wonderful designs.

If their effort is anything like their bloated website it's going to be a huge hassle just buying cards from them.

[Cavaliercards]

Originally Posted by pewe

Building on your idea: what if Topps creates more exclusives, like they have with Trout.

They focus on having 1:1 contracts with all the in-demand players, and this prevents them from participating in Fanatics

That could be fun


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Go for it, but people will complain about Logo Less Trouts in Topps like they complain about Logoless Trouts and Sotos.

Value will not be there, except for some of the dont cares

[WalterAZ31]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

Ultimately, there's a lot of different ways to collect in this hobby. Low-end, medium-end, high-end. Does Fanatics have enough of an understanding of the scope of this hobby to create a varied set of products that caters to everyone?

Because if they don't, there will be much anger.

I don't think Fanatics will just want to take Topps' catalog of products - they're going to want to create their own identity. That said, if I were them, I'd at least purchase the rights to duplicate the Heritage and Allen & Ginter lines. A homage to vintage products is successful in this hobby and they'd be beyond moronic to shun that part.

Beyond that, I expect new products. You don't spend this money just to not have your own identity.

just gonna be so weird though, not being any CHROME or PRIZM labeled cards?

what the heck would you call them? what if they REALLY go bonkers and completely faze out this era of the chrome/refractor parallel and revert back to just standard card stock or even vintage card stock and essentially start over, still keeping autographs oncard or sticker in play

[IntergalacticSp]

Originally Posted by Glowbug27

MLBPA start their own card company? This isn't an MBA master class - let's start a company. This is how do I guarantee the most money possible without risking anything. It is an opportunity to get paid for nothing other than signing your name regardless of the success or failure of the product. MLBPA did the best possible thing and got a guaranteed annuity that will pay them handsomely for years.

Based on the WSJ article, it sounds like the MLBPA is also getting a stake in the entity which produces cards. Meaning, they will likely get both a fixed payment every year + a share of profits (if any) from the card business.

[SaltThrow]

Originally Posted by Cardboard Dawg

So you would just buy any card with a players face slapped on it and an autograph? Leaf would like to have a word with you.

Originally Posted by NYBBFAN

Show me all your pajama cards while sipping a Dr. Thunder.

Hey, I love Topps. Love Bowman. Truly iconic and I get that it lives in a lot of people's hearts. But no brand gives a #@#@#@#@ about you. Fanatics makes absolute garbage, for sure. But they're all just brands trying to take your money.

[Cavaliercards]

Originally Posted by Technochocolate

Ultimately, there's a lot of different ways to collect in this hobby. Low-end, medium-end, high-end. Does Fanatics have enough of an understanding of the scope of this hobby to create a varied set of products that caters to everyone?

Because if they don't, there will be much anger.

I don't think Fanatics will just want to take Topps' catalog of products - they're going to want to create their own identity. That said, if I were them, I'd at least purchase the rights to duplicate the Heritage and Allen & Ginter lines. A homage to vintage products is successful in this hobby and they'd be beyond moronic to shun that part.

Beyond that, I expect new products. You don't spend this money just to not have your own identity.

Plenty of companies have spent money to acquire the identity and name products of others. Bowman brand is strong too.

[anusinha]

Originally Posted by sonnyday

Need to replace Indiana Jones with Brent Huigens

[fulltritty]

Originally Posted by Crosby 87

They will be replaced with 10% off coupons that can be used on basically nothing

I still have a $10 gift card that basically fits that description.

[Cavaliercards]

Originally Posted by Aston14

This is what Upper Deck does with LeBron and Michael Jordan. Those relationships keep them in business, but they don’t produce compelling card offerings.

UD is the MJ Memorabilia Company. They exist because of MJ and his desire to control his image. It is not a relationship, it is an ownership.

[regionrat]

Originally Posted by pewe

Thought starter:

What if Topps signs w/NCAA to have exclusive rights to college players and their likeness (and feeder international leagues)… and every year through their career they use their younger images to represent the latest year???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never thought of this. Could they sign some deals with some of the college mega conferences and players in those mega conferences? Could they produce some SEC football products every year in the future?

[RustyDawg37]

If reports are true that Topps could not afford to match the offer, thats a red flag to me that Fanatics Is going to have to majorly increase production in order to make a profit. I will always hope we dont head down the 1991 route, but the hobby is throwing red flags in a few spots.

[anusinha]

Also..... how long is the NBA/NFL agreement with Panini for and when does Fanatics take over that?