Blowout Cards Forums

Blowout Cards Forums (https://www.blowoutforums.com/index.php)
-   BASEBALL (https://www.blowoutforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Is FANATICS in over their head? (https://www.blowoutforums.com/showthread.php?t=1549022)

whitmm 03-19-2025 01:35 PM

[QUOTE=marinocollector;19850515]The printing presses is definitely a huge issue. It is not secret that manufacturing in the US has become much more limited. Add in that Panini had contracts with companies prior to Fanatics purchasing them, and allegedly, Fanatics did not honor the contracts, cut back on printing time, and slowed down Panini production to damage the product in the eye of the consumer while expanding their grip on the marketplace and licensing? Well, thats about as antitrust as it gets in my small understanding of the law.[/QUOTE]

Owning the manufacturing in itself is not illegal. Panini could have tried buying the company, just as Fanatics did. Panini could have built it's own manufacturing plant.

When did Fanatics buy the facility Panini used? Was it before or after they had obtained the licenses?

marinocollector 03-19-2025 01:38 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850529]Owning the manufacturing in itself is not illegal. Panini could have tried buying the company, just as Fanatics did. Panini could have built it's own manufacturing plant.

When did Fanatics buy the facility Panini used? Was it before or after they had obtained the licenses?[/QUOTE]
What? did you just gloss over the portion that highlights why it would be an antitrust issue? That's some kind of special.
Y'all have fun discussing things while omitting key allegations!

Fenway55 03-19-2025 01:42 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850401]UD and Panini have every opportunity to buy or build their own manufacturing plant.

There's nothing illegal about owning the manufacturing and distribution infrastructure. [/quote]No, but it [I]is[/I] illegal for one company to purchase the manufacturing and distribution infrastructure and renege on contracts already in place with that company's top competitor.

Those facts are [I]definitely [/I]in dispute but if Panini can demonstrate what they allege, that would be quite the bombshell.

whitmm 03-19-2025 01:44 PM

[QUOTE=marinocollector;19850533]What? did you just gloss over the portion that highlights why it would be an antitrust issue? That's some kind of special.
Y'all have fun discussing things while omitting key allegations![/QUOTE]

The printing press is not an issue in anyway. Fanatics not honoring contracts is a different issue.

How about you stay on my topic before you bitch about me not addressing your other topic?

Fenway55 03-19-2025 01:53 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850544]The printing press is not an issue in anyway. [/quote]Panini claims that Fanatics bought the printing company with the deliberate purpose of damaging them by reneging on contracts already in place.

An awful lot of smart people on this board believe the above is indeed what happened so, if we are being honest, it isn't exactly the most far-fetched accusation. If the Judge ends up agreeing with this allegation then trust me, it will be a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE issue.

whitmm 03-19-2025 02:00 PM

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19850541]No, but it [I]is[/I] illegal for one company to purchase the manufacturing and distribution infrastructure and renege on contracts already in place with that company's top competitor.

Those facts are [I]definitely [/I]in dispute but if Panini can demonstrate what they allege, that would be quite the bombshell.[/QUOTE]

Way to add a bunch of irrelevant crap to your sentence. Purchasing the company and reneging on contracts are two separate items. You are trying to group them together to make it sound like buying the company is illegal.

Just like a judge ruling that they can move forward with the case doesn't mean the final ruling will be in favor of Panini. But since you believe that, it should be noted that the judge also ruled that Fanatics could move forward with their suit as well.

Fenway55 03-19-2025 02:02 PM

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;19850377]I would say the difference between Fanatics and Upper Deck -- or Panini previously -- is Fanatics has exclusive deals for all three major US sports licenses and wields manufacturing and distribution infrastructure to completely control the market. Upper Deck and Panini only have a few exclusives and must rely on traditional distribution channels.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/pdB1rDp4/adffa4c5-3dbd-429d-bcc1-83df1e900b23-text.gif[/IMG]

Fenway55 03-19-2025 02:16 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850565]Way to add a bunch of irrelevant crap to your sentence. Purchasing the company and reneging on contracts are two separate items. You are trying to group them together to make it sound like buying the company is illegal.

Just like a judge ruling that they can move forward with the case doesn't mean the final ruling will be in favor of Panini. But since you believe that, it should be noted that the judge also ruled that Fanatics could move forward with their suit as well.[/QUOTE]I don't know what I did to make you so mad at me and lie about things I have steadfastly maintained, but I am just respectfully sharing my opinions on what we know and doing some good faith projection about what might happen down the road.

Why this is making you, and several others, so mad remains as yet a complete mystery.

whitmm 03-19-2025 02:20 PM

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19850552]Panini claims that Fanatics bought the printing company with the deliberate purpose of damaging them by reneging on contracts already in place.

An awful lot of smart people on this board believe the above is indeed what happened so, if we are being honest, it isn't exactly the most far-fetched accusation. If the Judge ends up agreeing with this allegation then trust me, it will be a HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE issue.[/QUOTE]

So there's nothing illegal about them buying the printing company, got it. Reneging on contracts in place is a completely separate issue.

And how about you stay in context. I specifically responded to fab's comment about how there couldn't be a case against UD because UD doesn't own the manufacturing and distribution infrastructure. Sorry, but there is nothing illegal about that. Again, this has nothing to do with reneging on contracts already in place.

whitmm 03-19-2025 02:35 PM

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19850587]I don't know what I did to make you so mad at me and lie about things I have steadfastly maintained, but I am just respectfully sharing my opinions on what we know and doing some good faith projection about what might happen down the road.

Why this is making you, and several others, so mad remains as yet a complete mystery.[/QUOTE]

Good faith? You've been acting like the judge has already ruled on the case. The judge made some statements based on the assumption that everything Panini is claiming is factual and true. That's it. The judge didn't declare that anything Panini has claimed is actually true. The case has just moved to the discovery phase. It's not even close to reaching a ruling.

I'll keep saying it, Panini is acting like a child that is mad because Fanatics played the game better than them.

fabiani12333 03-19-2025 02:37 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850590]So there's nothing illegal about them buying the printing company, got it. Reneging on contracts in place is a completely separate issue.

And how about you stay in context. I specifically responded to fab's comment about how there couldn't be a case against UD because UD doesn't own the manufacturing and distribution infrastructure. Sorry, but there is nothing illegal about that. Again, this has nothing to do with reneging on contracts already in place.[/QUOTE]

There's obviously nothing illegal or inherently anti-competitive to own a printing plant. But when combined with all the other things Fanatics has done -- signing exclusive licenses for the three big US sports; having the three major US sports leagues and unions part owners in their new collectibles venture; buying the printer that their chief competitor contracted with; poaching employees from their chief competitor suddenly and in mass; strategically signing exclusive deals with top athletes who would otherwise be featured in their chief competitor's products; instituting new rules and requirements for dealers with direct accounts, like special events to promote their products only -- it all comes across as pretty anti-competitive from Panini's perspective.

fabiani12333 03-19-2025 02:51 PM

No one is disagreeing with the idea that if Panini could have done what Fanatics is doing that they would have. That doesn't excuse the fact that Fanatics' strategy has been to capture and dominate the sports trading card space. If they could acquire the NHL rights, they would. The only thing that's going to slow them down is legal action. The leagues and unions are greedy and are financially invested in the success of Fanatics.

The best thing for consumers would be for there to open trading card licenses like in the 90s where any company could produce trading cards, as long as they pay the fees. The consumer deserves to have options. They deserve to have a free and open market where they can choose what to spend their money on.

Fenway55 03-19-2025 02:52 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850616]Good faith? You've been acting like the judge has already ruled on the case. [/quote]I have read the MTD ruling the Judge made in full and it is my opinion she is very sympathetic to Panini.

Reasonable people can disagree, but it is not like my opinion is coming from nowhere.
[QUOTE=whitmm;19850616] The judge made some statements based on the assumption that everything Panini is claiming is factual and true. That's it. [/quote]My friend, you need to understand that that is no small thing. It is not at all uncommon for a Judge to rule "well.... even if everything you say is true, you still lose your case (or you have no standing) so I am throwing it all out."

The case is far from over but it cannot be denied that Panini cleared a major hurdle last week. Having the Judge say "well if what you say is true, you sure as heck have a great case!" is no small thing. [i]Most[/i] of what Panini is claiming has indeed been reported on. Now I certainly agree that they need to bring more to court than a Sports Collectors Daily news article, but I don't see Panini making any factual claims from way out of left field. Their claims are all things we've been discussing in this very forum the past year+.

Honest question (to anyone in here): Do you see any claims Panini is making which you personally believe is untrue? I am not asking for proof or anything like that, just your gut feeling on the veracity of Panini's claims.
[QUOTE=whitmm;19850616] The judge didn't declare that anything Panini has claimed is actually true. The case has just moved to the discovery phase. It's not even close to reaching a ruling. [/quote]Yes, these things take years to resolve. No one in here ever claimed differently. This particular case is already over a year old and, as you mention, has not even started discovery.

All this is not to mention that an out of court agreement could pop up at any time.

whitmm 03-19-2025 02:58 PM

[QUOTE=fabiani12333;19850621]There's obviously nothing illegal or inherently anti-competitive to own a printing plant. But when combined with all the other things Fanatics has done -- signing exclusive licenses for the three big US sports; having the three major US sports leagues and unions part owners in their new collectibles venture; buying the printer that their chief competitor contracted with; poaching employees from their chief competitor suddenly and in mass; strategically signing exclusive deals with top athletes who would otherwise be featured in their chief competitor's products; instituting new rules and requirements for dealers with direct accounts, like special events to promote their products only -- it all comes across as pretty anti-competitive from Panini's perspective.[/QUOTE]

Quit combining three sports leagues and their PAs into one group. Each sport is a separate thing. Fanatics tried obtaining the NHL and NHLPA license and they chose to stay with Upper Deck.

There is nothing illegal about have exclusive licenses with multiple exclusive licenses. Quit acting like it's illegal since it's Fanatics with three, when Panini had two major sports leagues for years. Why is it illegal now?

There's nothing illegal about offering equity in a contract negotiation.

Exclusive deals with top athletes are not illegal.

Headhunting and recruiting happens all the time. Especially when a company looks like it could go under.

Upper Deck has had rules and requirements for dealers for years. Nothing illegal about it.

whitmm 03-19-2025 03:03 PM

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19850639]I have read the MTD ruling the Judge made in full and it is my opinion she is very sympathetic to Panini.

Reasonable people can disagree, but it is not like my opinion is coming from nowhere.
My friend, you need to understand that that is no small thing. It is not at all uncommon for a Judge to rule "well.... even if everything you say is true, you still lose (or you have no standing) so I am throwing it all out."

The case is far from over but it cannot be denied that Panini cleared a major hurdle last week. [i]Most[/i] of what Panini is claiming has indeed been reported on. Now I certainly agree that they need to bring more to court than a Sports Collectors Daily news article, but I don't see Panini making any factual claims from way out of left field.
Yes, these things take years to resolve. No one in here ever claimed differently. This particular case is already over a year old and, as you mention, has not even started discovery.

All this is not to mention that an out of court agreement could pop up at any time.[/QUOTE]

So, the same judge ruled that Fanatics could move forward with their suit, that means they are going to rule in favor of Fanatics, right?

Yes, in terms of a final ruling, it is a small thing.

Fenway55 03-19-2025 03:17 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850649]So, the same judge ruled that Fanatics could move forward with their suit, that means they are going to rule in favor of Fanatics, right?[/quote]I'd appreciate it if you would please stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting things I have said. To be clear: After reading the full 20 page ruling that the Judge made, it is my opinion the Judge is very sympathetic to Panini's case.

Yes, Panini still has a lot of work to do. They have to establish in court the facts they are claiming as their basis, which is no small task. I made a late edit to my last post which you didn't see before responding, so I would like to repost it:

Honest question (to anyone in here): Do you see any claims Panini is making which you personally believe is untrue? I am not asking for proof or evidence or sources or anything like that, just asking what is your gut feeling on the veracity of Panini's claims?

whitmm 03-19-2025 03:34 PM

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19850661]I'd appreciate it if you would please stop putting words in my mouth and misrepresenting things I have said. To be clear: After reading the full 20 page ruling that the Judge made, it is my opinion the Judge is very sympathetic to Panini's case.

[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19850290] I am curious what Perry Mason moment you think is going to come forth at the last minute to radically change Her Honor's leanings...?
I agree the court is not going to make a finding of fact in an MTD, which I why I said her ruling is "as hard hitting as you're going to get [U]at this stage of the game[/U]."
I disagree.

I understand anything could happen but, with all respect, are you [I]honestly [/I]saying that there's nothing in this ruling which gives insight as to how the Judge is leaning on the relevant issues?

At this point, I am so confident Panini will win that my biggest fear is that Fanatics moves to settle the case and/or buy them out.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19849925]

Based on what we've seen so far, the Judge obviously thinks Panini has a strong case. That's not a bad position to be in.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19842603]trust me.[/QUOTE]


Your words.

I do like how you've ignored Ohio's comment about having seen judges act sympathetic towards one side pre-trial and rule the opposite way.

Fenway55 03-19-2025 06:40 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850673]Your words.

I do like how you've ignored Ohio's comment about having seen judges act sympathetic towards one side pre-trial and rule the opposite way.[/QUOTE]He and I have a difference of opinion. It happens. Differences of opinion are why we have courts in the first place.

Now, speaking of ignoring, do you have any plans to answer the question I asked or do you plan on ignoring it?

seanbros55 03-19-2025 06:42 PM

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19849863]whuh huh? "Hundreds of thousands"?? How many companies do you think there are in the U.S. that are in the business of licensing sports items?

I could definitely see, say, a video game maker filing suit to prevent exclusivity in the video game industry. But it ain't like there's 100,000 companies making video games out there.
Well, you just described every single ruling every single court has ever made. But if Fanatics' actions are deemed illegal at the lower level court, I like that chances of them being deemed illegal at the higher level court.
I think [B]the whole point of "knock off" merchandise is to sell it for cheap dollars. [/B] If [B]a company making knock off gear goes and pays for an official license[/B], well that kinda defeats the whole purpose there.[/QUOTE]

Fanatics has been making knock-off-quality merchandise for years! :D

Fenway55 03-19-2025 06:44 PM

[QUOTE=seanbros55;19850858]Fanatics has been making knock-off-quality merchandise for years! :D[/QUOTE]
[IMG]https://i.postimg.cc/qBKRZTvm/only-doom-3.gif[/IMG]

whitmm 03-19-2025 07:46 PM

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19850855]He and I have a difference of opinion. It happens. Differences of opinion are why we have courts in the first place.

Now, speaking of ignoring, do you have any plans to answer the question I asked or do you plan on ignoring it?[/QUOTE]

Sure, can you provide me with a full list of everything Panini has claimed?

I can tell you this, I don't think Fanatics did anything illegal in securing the exclusive licenses. Offering way more money and equity in the company is not illegal.

Don't think I didn't notice that you quickly moved on after I proved I wasn't putting words in your mouth.

And I've given you my opinion on this multiple times. Panini was playing the exact same games. Panini tried obtaining all 6 exclusive licenses for the big 3 sports (which is not close to 100% of the sports card market) and were unsuccessful. It's real funny how Panini thought it was perfectly legal when they were the only company that could make fully licensed NFL and NBA cards, but now that Fanatics beat them out that it's illegal. I also think that you have to separate all sports. Baseball is its own thing, football is its own thing, basketball is its own thing, hockey is its own thing. Upper Deck absolutely needs to get lumped into this. There's no free pass because it's just one sport. You can't say it's illegal for Fanatics to have rules and requirements in order to sell their products and say it's legal for UD to do the same thing.

Fenway55 03-19-2025 07:52 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850937]Sure, can you provide me with a full list of everything Panini has claimed?[/quote]You have spent all this time arguing and arguing and you don't even know what Panini is claiming in their lawsuit?

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

I mean seriously, if you want to argue the merits of the lawsuit that's fine but it sure doesn't fall on me to hold your hand and walk you through precisely what those merits [i]are[/i].

Go educate yourself and then come back here with an informed opinion instead of the nonsense you've been endlessly spouting.

whitmm 03-19-2025 08:02 PM

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19850943]You have spent all this time arguing and arguing and you don't even know what Panini is claiming in their lawsuit?

:doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh::doh:

I mean seriously, if you want to argue the merits of the lawsuit that's fine but it sure doesn't fall on me to hold your hand and walk you through precisely what those merits [i]are[/i].

Go educate yourself and then come back here with an informed opinion instead of the nonsense you've been endlessly spouting.[/QUOTE]

So you can't do it. Just like you quickly shut up about your Jerry Jones suit because you were wrong about what he was doing and realized it wasn't close to being remotely similar to what is going on here.

I want you to give me a list so I know exactly what you want so you can't backtrack and move goal posts.

You came running your mouth, acting like a judge allowing both sides to move forward with their cases was some ruling that Fanatics was guilty of something illegal.

By the way, read my amended comment. And next time, don't delete the part where I answered your question to try and say I don't know what they are claiming.

LondonGames 03-19-2025 08:03 PM

[QUOTE=LondonGames;19850343]Everyone can see it. If he cannot at least appreciate the truth to the words you're writing and take a step back and acknowledge them, [B]you're really not going back and forth with someone who is acting in good faith.[/B][/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Fenway55;19850587]I don't know what I did to make you so mad at me and lie about things I have steadfastly maintained, but [B]I am just respectfully sharing my opinions on what we know and doing some good faith projection[/B] about what might happen down the road.

Why this is making you, and several others, so mad remains as yet a complete mystery.[/QUOTE]


So you went nearly a decade on the site without ever saying "in good/bad faith" a single time...

Then you get called out for not acting in good faith for your back and forth with OhioLawyer. You don't respond directly to the claim, but then portray yourself as "acting in good faith".

Defintion of in bad faith. You've not responded to the above clarifications OhioLawyer made, yet you continue to try to spin everything possible to defend your opinion/agenda. You are most clearly NOT simply "sharing your opinion".

Fenway55 03-19-2025 08:12 PM

[QUOTE=whitmm;19850962]So you can't do it.[/quote]I have read the full initial filing (which you clearly have not) and I have read the full MTD ruling (which you clearly have not) and I even linked the MTD ruling earlier in this thread. Every single factual basis Panini is alleging is included in that ruling.

if you want to argue the merits of the lawsuit that's fine but it sure doesn't fall on me to hold your hand and walk you through precisely what those merits are.

Go educate yourself and then come back here with an informed opinion instead of the nonsense you've been endlessly spouting.
[QUOTE=whitmm;19850962]
I want you to give me a list so I know exactly what you want so you can't backtrack and move goal posts. [/quote]What "goal posts"? I asked your opinion on Panini's factual allegations against Fanatics. I specifically stated I am not asking for proof or references or anything like that, just your gut feeling on which (if any) of Panini's allegations are true and which (if any) false.

But since you don't even know what Panini is alleging in the first place, you can't form an opinion.
[QUOTE=whitmm;19850962]By the way, read my amended comment. And next time, don't delete the part where I answered your question to try and say I don't know what they are claiming.[/QUOTE]
You have misrepresented my argument many times in this discussion. Don't get all triggered just because I called you out for it.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 2019, Blowout Cards Inc.