General

[Angelballer]

Originally Posted by shadawg

Colluding to fix prices to sacrifice competition in the marketplace is wrong.
If the PSP bought the paint from the paint vendors and sold it as a product provided ancillary to it's tournament product, much like any other paintball field or event in a FPO environment, then they could proceed entirely in their right offering whatever goods they desire at the price they determine as the re-seller. Nothing wrong with that at all.

However this is not that.

Coke pays Ohio State $2M/year to have it so that only Coke products are sold on campus. How is that any different than this scenario?

[tarakian]

So according to Shawdawg, we should be suing EMR also. They are field paint only. Sorry, but Sherman Anti-trust laws do not apply here. There are many paintball options, the fact that one group has chosen not to deal with one vendor is just business. Gino burned a lot of people in the past, and left many with very bad feelings towards him. That may also be playing a part in this. For my part, because of Gino, I wouldn't use anything Valken, even if it was free.

[shadawg]

Originally Posted by Shane-O

This is normal practice in many sports. Take Nascar for example, there is only one brand of fuel allowed to be used in Nascar racing. Sunoco brand I believe. There are many good reasons for this. Balancing the playing field, everyone has to use the same thing, no wealthy teams buying an advantage in that area. Consistent color of paint and fill type/quality to assist in officiating the matches. Making money for the league, surprise people! If a league does not make money it will not be in business, so they contract companies for the right to sell paint at their event to make some money. Many tourneys are/were field paint only, so why should the "Pro" leagues be any different?

Shawdawg: I understand you have to support your "Sponsors", but stop spouting crap like: "The reality is KEE and DXS Procaps are getting handled in the marketplace so they strong armed an interested third party" This is what Gino will have you to believe, not necessarily the fact. Keep in mind Gino will, and has done just as bad and worse as your accusing others of doing. Not a single person in this drama is "innocent" if you get my meaning.

Shane-o I have no dog in this fight, purely an intellectual exercise. I can assure you I do not have to do anything besides pay taxes and die. Sponsorship does not require my handing over the keys to my brain and keyboard and you most certainly do not know me well enough to suggest otherwise. I do not play tournament ball, don't care if either league succeeds or fails. At heart I am a capitalist and believe in the system of you do your best, put your best product out there and let them market tell you if you are right. I do not like artificial manipulation of the marketplace. I do not like seeing consumers choices limited.
As to my statement, It is my opinion, it is based on my direct observation as well as conversations with many industry insiders. There is a reason procaps went bankrupt, sales haven't exactly been strong. I believe we were asked for our thoughts on this and I believe I expressed them in a forthright manner. If you take umbrage with my statement might I suggest you do your part and either spend some money to reverse their dire financial situation, put me on your ignore list, or click the x at the upper right or left sides of your screen as I can assure you I shall continue to post in accordance with the rules of this site, which I am pretty sure my last as well as current posts fall well within

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by shadawg

Colluding to fix prices to sacrifice competition in the marketplace is wrong.
If the PSP bought the paint from the paint vendors and sold it as a product provided ancillary to it's tournament product, much like any other paintball field or event in a FPO environment, then they could proceed entirely in their right offering whatever goods they desire at the price they determine as the re-seller. Nothing wrong with that at all.

However this is not that.

If I own a private business, buy a product from a supplier (or suppliers) and then resell it at a "fixed" price, how is that different than signing a contract with a supplier (or suppliers) and having them sell the product at a "fixed" price at my place of business? (not saying that paint prices are "fixed" at PSP events, but I'm sure the prices will be set, just like at every other business)

[shadawg]

Horizon it is my understanding that the marketplace was open to anybody who wanted to pay the sponsorship fee. The marketplace became closed when a serious competitor was preparing to come on board as a sponsor at the insistence of the other two players. Again for me this is just questioning the sense of fair play in the marketplace with regard to consumer choice.
The appearance is that the 3 parties(PSP. KEE, DXS/Procaps) colluded to eliminate competition by blocking out the 3rd vendor and then fixing prices amongst the remaining two vendors to the detriment of the players.

take a look at this and see if you draw any parallels to the topic of discussion.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/exclusive_dealing.shtm

[Chappy]

Originally Posted by shadawg

Horizon it is my understanding that the marketplace was open to anybody who wanted to pay the sponsorship fee. The marketplace became closed when a serious competitor was preparing to come on board as a sponsor at the insistence of the other two players. Again for me this is just questioning the sense of fair play in the marketplace with regard to consumer choice.
The appearance is that the 3 parties(PSP. KEE, DXS/Procaps) colluded to eliminate competition by blocking out the 3rd vendor and then fixing prices amongst the remaining two vendors to the detriment of the players.

But it would seem to me, that because this series is a private entity, that they have every legal right and precedent to do so, no? If so then the outcry of the masses will fall on deaf ears, and they should simply vote with their dollars.

[dcroenne]

I don't like it because I like Valken paint.
I want to shoot it because I think it is the best.
The business practice itself is shady too which
I do not respect. If the introduction of a competitor
who has met all of the qualifications to the barriers to
entry is denied it limits competition and does not help
the consumer.

[shadawg]

Originally Posted by Chappy

But it would seem to me, that because this series is a private entity, that they have every legal right and precedent to do so, no? If so then the outcry of the masses will fall on deaf ears, and they should simply vote with their dollars.

If I am reading what the Sherman act, the Clayton act say then no it's not ok because the collusion to exclude Valken effects competition between vendors for their respective piece of the marketplace. If the price is fixed between the two vendors then they do not compete and the consumer is fleeced as the vendors have already agreed between themselves to carve the pie.


I added this to my above post, take a look at some of the examples and see if you see parallels, the fire pump one jumps out at me.
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/antitrust/exclusive_dealing.shtm

Like i said not a lawyer but this entire situation has my interest peaked strictly as a consumer in the marketplace who may benefit from an all out paint war which seems to be brewing.

[Horizon]

Originally Posted by shadawg

Horizon it is my understanding that the marketplace was open to anybody who wanted to pay the sponsorship fee. The marketplace became closed when a serious competitor was preparing to come on board as a sponsor at the insistence of the other two players. Again for me this is just questioning the sense of fair play in the marketplace with regard to consumer choice.
The appearance is that the 3 parties(PSP. KEE, DXS/Procaps) colluded to eliminate competition by blocking out the 3rd vendor and then fixing prices amongst the remaining two vendors to the detriment of the players.

take a look at this and see if you draw any parallels to the topic of discussion.
Federal Trade Commission Bureau of Competition - Resource Guide to Business Competition

No doubt it's a gray area. But take into consideration, what the affects for the business (in this case the PSP) would be by allowing unlimited access to paint companies. It's no secret that for the business (PSP) to continue surviving, it needs outside resources (dollars). If allowing unlimited access by all paintball companies results in withdrawal of resources in the future (and probable bankruptcy for the company), what is accomplished?

I'm not going to disagree that the whole thing is probably a bit shady and there aren't some big boy club type things going on, but unfortunately, that's how the business world works. Like it or not, we live in a real world and not a hypothetical Shangri la.

[shadawg]

Originally Posted by tarakian

So according to Shawdawg, we should be suing EMR also. They are field paint only. Sorry, but Sherman Anti-trust laws do not apply here. There are many paintball options, the fact that one group has chosen not to deal with one vendor is just business. Gino burned a lot of people in the past, and left many with very bad feelings towards him. That may also be playing a part in this. For my part, because of Gino, I wouldn't use anything Valken, even if it was free.

First of all, it is Shadawg, if you are going to misquote me at least get my name right.
Second, no I don't see a field selling FPO falling under the same rules as they are reselling as a dealer product they secured from a vendor, which is different than securing a vendor which then sells to a closed marketplace at a fixed price.


Horizon, I agree nothing is perfect, but up until just now apparently that was the case, an open door as long as you paid your sponsorship fees. i find it curious how that just changed. I await new developments as something tells me this is far from over and many shoes will drop in the future.