[Rovell] NFLPA terminates relationship with Panini effective immediately

[glassofwater]

Originally Posted by auburn35

(D) Failure to resort to any remedies referred to herein shall not be
construed as a waiver of any other rights or remedies to which NFLPA
is entitled under this Agreement or otherwise.

(E) Upon termination of this Agreement, Licensee shall have ninety (90)
days to dispose of and liquidate all inventory. This inventory shall
not be available to consumers after this ninety (90) day period
expires. Such disposition shall conform to this Agreement in all
respects. Players Inc shall have, at its election, the right to
conduct a physical inventory at the time of termination.

Wow. So if I read that correctly it doesn’t matter if they have product they must destroy it. Can’t release any new sets

[Brobocop]

Originally Posted by glassofwater

Wow. So if I read that correctly it doesn’t matter if they have product they must destroy it. Can’t release any new sets

Liquidate it as well. Maybe we will see some sales but I doubt it since it seems like Blowout and others are already circling the corpse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[abovethesink]

Originally Posted by glassofwater

Wow. So if I read that correctly it doesn’t matter if they have product they must destroy it. Can’t release any new sets

I am missing where you are getting that from. Doesn't pretty plainly say that they have 90 days to move the inventory still?

[baseballbunez]

Originally Posted by abovethesink

I am missing where you are getting that from. Doesn't pretty plainly say that they have 90 days to move the inventory still?

It does, you are correct. No idea how other poster took that as "must destroy sets".

IF this deal is representative of the current iteration between Panini and NFLPA, I hope Panini SLAMS the gas pedal and prints as many new sets as they can shove out the door in the 120 day window (30 day notice to terminate and 90 day period to dispose/liquidate) that they may or may not actually have

Until there is any guidance actually provided from either manufacturer, all just speculation

[rmw10]

Originally Posted by baseballbunez

It does, you are correct. No idea how other poster took that as "must destroy sets".

IF this deal is representative of the current iteration between Panini and NFLPA, I hope Panini SLAMS the gas pedal and prints as many new sets as they can shove out the door in the 120 day window (30 day notice to terminate and 90 day period to dispose/liquidate) that they may or may not actually have

Until there is any guidance actually provided from either manufacturer, all just speculation

Fanatics owns the print facility Panini uses. Either way, highly doubt they’d be able to produce anything else, just what’s already in or completed production.

[Zauron]

Originally Posted by Fenway55

For those arguing monopolies are good, you must enjoy paying $18,000 for a case of Prizm.

This isn't automobile manufacturing or interstate highway construction. These are sportscards. Retail prices for wax would be much, much lower if there was no monopoly.

Why is Panini increasing the price on all their products crazy high? Prizm hobby boxes were $200 at most 4 years ago. Now they are $1k+ a box.

People defending panini are weird. Not to mention their retail is crap and overpriced as well.

[mc1]

Originally Posted by Zauron

Why is Panini increasing the price on all their products crazy high? Prizm hobby boxes were $200 at most 4 years ago. Now they are $1k+ a box.

People defending panini are weird. Not to mention their retail is crap and overpriced as well.

Thats called supply and demand. If people didnt pay high prices, then prices would come down.

[auburn35]

Originally Posted by baseballbunez

Until there is any guidance actually provided from either manufacturer, all just speculation

For sure, what I posted is from the Topps/NFLPA agreement 20 years ago. The current agreement could look completely different.
Just thought it might be interesting to reference, as this story unfolds.

[49erRCCollector]

Originally Posted by BayAreaChris

What I don’t agree with is they “overpaid” or paid so much that the decisions they need to make will be shortsighted.

I think Fanatics:

2. Provided an offer that the leagues couldn’t refuse.

These two statements don't match. If you made a financial package someone couldn't refuse? One that didn't invite competition? You overpaid. You did.

Now - Does Rubin have the moxy and power to make it look like a great deal because of how much $$$ he squeezes out of it? That has yet to be seen.

[CapMarvelous]

So, what's the over/under before Fanatics weasels the NFL license away from Panini years earlier than the contracts say OR just flatout acquires Panini?

NFL and Fanatics are two strong (and very corrupt) powerhouses who refuse to take no for an answer to not have this solved by January 1st.

[BayAreaChris]

Originally Posted by 49erRCCollector

These two statements don't match. If you made a financial package someone couldn't refuse? One that didn't invite competition? You overpaid. You did.

Now - Does Rubin have the moxy and power to make it look like a great deal because of how much $$$ he squeezes out of it? That has yet to be seen.

Not necessarily.

A few examples:
1. Most people when they get job offers are offered a certain amount. Often times the candidate might have taken less. Does that mean the employer overpaid? No. It was what they valued the job at and also might avoid any back and forth or bad feelings.
2. NFLPA is paid a flat sum of $20k a year by Panini. Fanatics wants to get into a similar business as Panini and values what NFLPA provides as $100k conservatively. Fanatics company offers to match the $20k a year flat sum but adds 5% revenue sharing that could be up to another $20k and 1% equity in the company that is valued at $1 million, so essentially an add'l $10k that could grow. Did Fanatics overpay or was NFLPA being grossly underpaid and Fanatics found a way to still pay them less than the believed market value, but not have a bidding war? Also NFLPA realizes no company like Panini could even offer them something like the equity stake with upside, so it's a no brainer to them to pick Fanatics.

[49erRCCollector]

Originally Posted by BayAreaChris

Not necessarily.

A few examples:
1. Most people when they get job offers are offered a certain amount. Often times the candidate might have taken less. Does that mean the employer overpaid? No. It was what they valued the job at and also might avoid any back and forth or bad feelings.
2. NFLPA is paid a flat sum of $20k a year by Panini. Fanatics wants to get into a similar business as Panini and values what NFLPA provides as $100k conservatively. Fanatics company offers to match the $20k a year flat sum but adds 5% revenue sharing that could be up to another $20k and 1% equity in the company that is valued at $1 million, so essentially an add'l $10k that could grow. Did Fanatics overpay or was NFLPA being grossly underpaid and Fanatics found a way to still pay them less than the believed market value, but not have a bidding war? Also NFLPA realizes no company like Panini could even offer them something like the equity stake with upside, so it's a no brainer to them to pick Fanatics.

It doesn't work that way in real life, and this isn't a job. That's apples to oranges. I've negotiated for a living for the past 20 years. For an athlete - where they want to live might factor in, or for an artist - maybe creatively the gig factors in. For a company or an organization whose sole purpose is to make money?

You work to get the best deal.

The only time I've ever accepted a deal straight up with no negotiation is when myself and my client could not believe that the other party offered the money they did and we wanted to lock it in before they could re-think it.

Again - Rubin could be such a genius we don't question it down the line.... but there's good reason to believe he overpaid.

[BayAreaChris]

Originally Posted by 49erRCCollector

It doesn't work that way in real life, and this isn't a job. That's apples to oranges. I've negotiated for a living for the past 20 years. For an athlete - where they want to live might factor in, or for an artist - maybe creatively the gig factors in. For a company or an organization whose sole purpose is to make money?

You work to get the best deal.

The only time I've ever accepted a deal straight up with no negotiation is when myself and my client could not believe that the other party offered the money they did and we wanted to lock it in before they could re-think it.

Again - Rubin could be such a genius we don't question it down the line.... but there's good reason to believe he overpaid.

What about my second example?

Also what about Fanatics acquisition of PointBet? They negotiated a deal with them that was under market value. Then DraftKings countered since PointsBet was public with shareholders and then Fanatics paid more which closed the deal.

I don't think it's an overpayment when you find a mutually beneficial agreement even if no one else could offer that; especially when you have an existing relationship. If you're a professional negotiator, you know that people close for the known quantity / peace of mind all the time.

[49erRCCollector]

Originally Posted by BayAreaChris

What about my second example?

Also what about Fanatics acquisition of PointBet? They negotiated a deal with them that was under market value. Then DraftKings countered since PointsBet was public with shareholders and then Fanatics paid more which closed the deal.

I don't think it's an overpayment when you find a mutually beneficial agreement even if no one else could offer that; especially when you have an existing relationship. If you're a professional negotiator, you know that people close for the known quantity / peace of mind all the time.

People do when they question their worth, successful corporations mostly don't. And people who have something of worth/something coveted certainly don't close just for peace of mind. Trust me. They really don't.

Having said that - and maybe the NFLPA announcement indicates this - but if the NFL/NFLPA wanted to move off of what they felt was bad deal (Panini) at this point, or the business relationship had eroded and they just wanted away, then possibly?

But if that were the case, Fanatics' previous relationship with the NFL/NFLPA should have gotten them a much. much more favorable deal than what I'm seeing. Fanatics went all in on this like a company that wanted this badly. Vacuuming up the related businesses was sort of a push all your chips in move. They need this to work on a lot of levels to pay off.

The X factor here is Rubin. If he can do to cards what he's done in his apparel biz, it won't matter if he overpaid or not.

[mjwoop]

I don't know how I feel about this to be honest. I've saved a lot of money due to Panini having that exclusive football license. Now I may have to consider buying football cards again.

[rmw10]

Originally Posted by CapMarvelous

So, what's the over/under before Fanatics weasels the NFL license away from Panini years earlier than the contracts say OR just flatout acquires Panini?

NFL and Fanatics are two strong (and very corrupt) powerhouses who refuse to take no for an answer to not have this solved by January 1st.

The NFL is absolutely going to go with Fanatics. There’s no money in it for them with Panini at this point. Probably working up some of the legal stuff now to make a move once the NFLPA and Panini settle.

[oldgoldy97]

[PrimeTimeScott]

Originally Posted by Grid

Yup. Believe it or not, most card shops get their boxes from the same place we do. Online from Blowout or DA Cards. They then mark those up for profit, and hope someone needs to scratch the itch.



But the thing is, the Hobby was all game used for Vets from 1996-2008. Some player used Pro Bowl jerseys started popping up into cards after that. And for the past 10 years, most everything is just player used. And not game worn.

So you had a bunch of companies using game used in cards, for a good stretch. So it isnt like it hasnt been done before. Panini just doesnt want to pay for it, and the hobby sadly doesnt seem to care anymore.

And to add to your math, we now have 17 games in the NFL. Add in 3 preseason games, plus any post season games. And you could have nearly 2 dozen gamers for any given player. While baseball has more games, the NFL has more jerseys. Since each team has 52 players. So there is a lot of content that could be used for cards.

I still type 16 when it should be 17. I would think that Playoff jerseys would be even cooler to collectors in cards, but I wonder where people would stand on preseason jerseys in cards? Still better than a Walmart jersey that has never been in the same state as the player. Also, jokingly, Panini only uses the same five players from each team in most every product. It doesn't matter that there are 53 guys on the team!! Not attacking your math, just attacking Panini for always using the same guys in every release!!

[CarmenOhio]

Originally Posted by auburn35

Not sure what, if anything is still the same within the current NFLPA but thought these sections from an old Topps/NFLPA agreement were interesting.

14. TERMINATION BY NFLPA.

(A) In the event Licensee does not commence in good faith to cause the
manufacture, distribution, and sale of the licensed product(s) in substantial quantities, NFLPA shall have, in addition to all other remedies available to it, the option to terminate the License granted hereunder upon written notice of such
termination to Licensee.

(C) If Licensee shall violate any of its other material obligations under
the terms of either this Agreement or the Service Agreement, NFLPA
shall have the right to terminate this Agreement upon thirty (30)
days' notice in writing, and such notice of termination shall become
effective unless Licensee completely remedies the violation within the
thirty (30) day period and provides reasonable proof to NFLPA or
Players Inc, as applicable, that such violation has been remedied. The
obligations of Licensee hereunder shall include, without limitation,
any payment owed and unpaid by the Licensee to NFLPA in accordance
with any previous license agreement between NFLPA and Licensee (or its
predecessor) under which the parties operated, without regard to
whether such license agreement was formally executed by an authorized
signatory for each party. If this Agreement is terminated under this
paragraph, all royalties theretofore accrued shall become due and
payable immediately to NFLPA and NFLPA shall not be obligated to
reimburse Licensee for any royalties paid by Licensee to NFLPA.

(D) Failure to resort to any remedies referred to herein shall not be
construed as a waiver of any other rights or remedies to which NFLPA
is entitled under this Agreement or otherwise.

(E) Upon termination of this Agreement, Licensee shall have ninety (90)
days to dispose of and liquidate all inventory. This inventory shall
not be available to consumers after this ninety (90) day period
expires. Such disposition shall conform to this Agreement in all
respects. Players Inc shall have, at its election, the right to
conduct a physical inventory at the time of termination.

Main takeaway from someone who has seen tens of thousands, if not more, contracts, there almost certainly needs to be a cure period available to Panini. Maybe that happened in the background, but I doubt it. Immediate terminations without a cure period usually require some kind of bad behavior or serious, unfixable default by one party, and I doubt that's present here. Injunction time.

Also, Fanatics is flying awfully close to the sun if they communicated with the NFLPA and played a role in this decision. Interference with third-party contracts, or some variation of same, surely exists wherever this will be filed.

[itsinusall]

Originally Posted by CarmenOhio

Main takeaway from someone who has seen tens of thousands, if not more, contracts, there almost certainly needs to be a cure period available to Panini. Maybe that happened in the background, but I doubt it. Immediate terminations without a cure period usually require some kind of bad behavior or serious, unfixable default by one party, and I doubt that's present here. Injunction time.

Also, Fanatics is flying awfully close to the sun if they communicated with the NFLPA and played a role in this decision. Interference with third-party contracts, or some variation of same, surely exists wherever this will be filed.

What about Fanatics allegation that Panini misrepresented the profits so the CEO could get a huge payout. Could this be the exemption from a cure period??

[Asian62150]

Originally Posted by PrimeTimeScott

I still type 16 when it should be 17. I would think that Playoff jerseys would be even cooler to collectors in cards, but I wonder where people would stand on preseason jerseys in cards? Still better than a Walmart jersey that has never been in the same state as the player. Also, jokingly, Panini only uses the same five players from each team in most every product. It doesn't matter that there are 53 guys on the team!! Not attacking your math, just attacking Panini for always using the same guys in every release!!

It's really not that hard if the card companies wanted to use a jersey from a specific game and use a picture of the player in that game on the front and take a pic of the actual jersey on the back.

Call it "Get in the Game" and have different levels for players:

-training camp /999
-preseason /499
-regular season /299
-post season /99
-super bowl /10

[ArmyDC]

Originally Posted by mc1

Thats called supply and demand. If people didnt pay high prices, then prices would come down.

I would argue that breakers are the reason prices went up. It’s not the average consumer. There will most likely be legislation to regulate breaking because its a game of chance and why Fanatics purchased a gaming/gambling company. If casinos were able to get places like Dave and Busters regulated because of their prizes you can bet casinos are pushing for breaking to get regulated.

[tyrith]

Originally Posted by ArmyDC

I would argue that breakers are the reason prices went up. It’s not the average consumer. There will most likely be legislation to regulate breaking because its a game of chance and why Fanatics purchased a gaming/gambling company. If casinos were able to get places like Dave and Busters regulated because of their prizes you can bet casinos are pushing for breaking to get regulated.

Who buys spots from breakers if not consumers? Like most businesses, breaking is driven by big accounts - whales and degens - but it's still consumer buying, it's not B2B.

That said - yeah, the breaking business is 100% cruising for a bruising if state law ever gets interested in most places. I looked into it a lot a few years ago, and I don't see how it doesn't break most gambling/raffle/lottery laws. The question is if it ever becomes material enough, business wise, for a state to want to deal with all the litigation that'll come out of it. But if they do, there's room for there to be a tremendous mess, I think.

[ohio_mba]

Breakers days could be numbered. If speculation is true that Panini under-reported sales to avoid royalties to the league, then surely those sales numbers will be looked into further.

Paper trail goes right to breakers.

[Grid]

For everyone arguing what Fanatics paid to do all of this. Be it overpaying to gain control, or paying 10 fold whatever Panini paid. That isn't how any of this works.

Fanatics did, what Panini couldn't. And that is sharing the company with these leagues/groups. I'd be shocked if Fanatics paid anything beyond more stock options. Or at the very least, returning some of the money these leagues/groups already paid Fanatics.

The NFL gave Fanatics an additional $320MIL to buy more stock last year, from their recent round of investment fund raising.

The NFL Players Association also made more of an investment. As did Major League Baseball and its players union, as well as the National Hockey League. All on top of the money they have already given Fanatics, to share in their gains.

Look at it this way. If Fanatics was worth $25BIL, and gave back or gave away stock/capital worth $1BIL to all of these companies/associations, for them to push the trading card licenses over to them. But then Fanatics is worth $2BIL more due to that. Did they really pay anything?