mcarterbrown.com

mcarterbrown.com (https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/)
-   General Chat (https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/general-chat/)
-   -   MCB Thoughts on the PSP vs Valken Drama Unfolding (https://www.mcarterbrown.com/forums/general-chat/192169-mcb-thoughts-psp-vs-valken-drama-unfolding.html)

ThisIsPaintball.ca 02-15-2012 11:13 AM

MCB Thoughts on the PSP vs Valken Drama Unfolding
 
Hey so since I did not see anything posted here yet to this totally over the top drama that is unfolding with the PSP not accepting Valken and DYE as 2012 paint sponsors I thought there might be some good input from a wiser crew of paintball folks here on MCB.


If your not sure what I am talking about read this link on ProPaintball.com if it does not hurt you to much to go to that website.

There has been a total **** storm of players (Valken sponsored or those who support the brand) posting non stop on the PSP Facebook page demanding that the PSP sell Valken paint for 2012.

While I tend to stand back during these stupid politics of paintball eruptions I could not get my head around the attitude of entitlement to tell a business that they had to sell items that you like.

Here were some of my comments to try to calm the "Occupy" revolution against the PSP.
Sadly telling a business how to run their business is no ones business.

Does anyone complain when companies are excluded from the Olympics or from the NFL, NHL, MLB, NBA?

The company chose to work out a distribution deal with a competing league which was their choice having everyone cry and yell on Facebook about how unfair it is for players who support that company to not have access to their products at the PSP events should maybe looked at things a little more closely and maybe some of the criticism should go towards the companies decision to sign distribution with one league before working out an arrangement with others.
Okay yet again the comments about who gets to sell what where doesn't really depend on what brand it is. Nor does it really matter what league or sport it is. Contracts are created and distribution deals are created. Company A decided to sign a deal with league A and now is wanting a piece of the pie in league B. Having the supporters of that brand running to Facebook to vent their frustration honestly will only make the matter worse. Why is there no critical look at why one arrangement was made with one league before the other one?

Paintball is paintball go out and play and stop the complaining. Support both leagues if your so worried about "Keeping Paintball Alive."

Honestly I would be sure to not find 70% of the names posting here complaining on either leagues rosters this season or seasons past. The worst part of this is it's making one paintball brand look like its supported by a bunch of whiners. I do like Valken and when they first rolled out their paint line it was sort of shoddy they improved it and I'm glad players like their paint but to demand that you should be able to buy what you like where you'd like to isn't how business is done. Try going into Wallmart and crying because they don't carry Valken paint and you wanted to buy it there. You'll soon notice that everyone is looking at you weird because your just making a scene because your not getting your own way.

Coming online bitching is only weakening the image and brand that the company has built. Allowing these types of things to be worked out behind closed doors between those who are in control is the way to handle these things.

Last season we went out an bought a new NPPL field for much higher than we could have picked up any used Sup Air field, because it directly supports the league. This season if we could we would do the same with a new PSP field. This is all done out of pocket from one player who is self employed and isn't rolling in cash like many people who run teams or those who operate fields.

If I went out and got a loan for money to purchase and finance the equipment to make paint and to create a new brand would there be a small group of people crying out online that it is unfair that "Unknown Paint Company" doesn't get a chance to sell their products at larger events?

Like I had said earlier paintball is paintball go out and play and stop the complaining. If your going to start to complain about the politics of the sport it is probably about 12 plus years to late for that...
Sadly there isn't an up swell of online sadness from the players pool who support DYE when they weren't also allowed to sell paint with the PSP for 2012.

ProPaintball.com has an article which I'm not sure if you have read or not.

PSP, Valken, DYE, and Paintball Sponsorships - Paintball News | Professional Gear, Scenario Paintball

While i have yet to hear any real good retort to why a product should be sold by a business because a small group of people think it is unfair for them to not be able to purchase said items. I had only assumed that someone might be able to put together something more than a one sentence statement demanding Valken paint be sold to somewhat show me what the reason for such crazy online outbursts are happening.

Cheers,

Adam

Lohman446 02-15-2012 11:19 AM

Look up the autonomy principle in business. It is a major ethical pricinple of business and supports your position. In a nutshell it is inappropriate to tell another business how it must operate.

Chappy 02-15-2012 11:30 AM

Valken, eh? Probably Gino stirring up drama for marketing purposes:rolleyes:

Jaccen 02-15-2012 11:31 AM

I think there's many things not being said by both parties.

shadawg 02-15-2012 11:33 AM

Well, honestly my take on it is that it's price fixing, collusion and ultimately illegal. I will qualify this by saying I'm no lawyer but this stinks to high heavens.

The PSP product is their tournament. They have created a marketplace at this tournament, solicited vending fees from paint vendors, fixed the paint price between the vendors at X dollars and I quote the pro paintball article stating Lane as the source of the information that the reason they don't have more vendors as
"It created a race to the bottom environment that depressed prices in the short term"

Which translates to: It brought competition to our marketplace which is not good for us but great for players and we don't want it to be good for them, we'd rather line our pockets.

Not to mention Dye's application being denied is all b.s. Dye owns the PSP and they only sell paint in Asia. That little bit is spin to make it look like they are being fair and even handed when they are actually being underhanded sneaks.



The reality is KEE and DXS Procaps are getting handled in the marketplace so they strong armed an interested third party( The PSP being owned principally by Dave Youngblood) into blocking out a competitor in the hopes that they could then make moves on that competitors customers in a closed sales environment. They tried this with the NPPL and were rebuffed. Namely because Youngblood is trying to put the NPPL out of business.

Price fixing and collusion between competitors is never good for consumers. If I were a player who was interested in tournament play, the PSP effectively colluding with paint manufacturers to fix price and limit choice would have me looking to play elsewhere.

I wonder what the Dept. of Justice's take on this all would be in relation to the Sherman act and anti-trust laws.......

ThisIsPaintball.ca 02-15-2012 11:45 AM

I also was told some juicy info about the NPPL and paint stuff almost a month ago and it has yet to bubble to the surface which makes me wonder if something was worked out or if this little bit of info has yet to come out in an official press statement.

While I am certainly not going to be the person who let the cat out of the bag on that information it certainly will make this whole drama with the PSP look like small potatoes.

I also am glad to see the level headed discussion happening here because reading comments and other things online about this had started to get me very very worried that the Mayan calender was actually talking about the end of the world of paintball in 2012 with how crazy most people are acting with this.

Horizon 02-15-2012 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shadawg (Post 2212164)
I wonder what the Dept. of Justice's take on this all would be in relation to the Sherman act and anti-trust laws.......

Yeah, and while they are at it, they should look at all those other sports leagues and see why they are limiting suppliers. I don't want to be stuck with just one type of beer at the ball park!

And those commercial landowners as well. How can they sign contracts with companies for exclusive rights to a certain type of merchandising store in a mall? It shouldn't be allowed.

Protectionism in general is wrong. Free enterprise for the win. I'm going to leave now and start taking some Chinese classes, just in case everyone agrees with me.

Shane-O 02-15-2012 11:57 AM

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.

Angelballer 02-15-2012 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 2212191)
I'm going to leave now and start taking some Chinese classes, just in case everyone agrees with me.

:ROTFL:

If PSP doesn't want to sell brand X paint, I could care less. At the end of the day, it is their show. I don't go to a BP gas station and complain about how they don't sell Shell gasoline blends. If players really have a problem with it, don't go.

shadawg 02-15-2012 12:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Horizon (Post 2212191)
Yeah, and while they are at it, they should look at all those other sports leagues and see why they are limiting suppliers. I don't want to be stuck with just one type of beer at the ball park!

And those commercial landowners as well. How can they sign contracts with companies for exclusive rights to a certain type of merchandising store in a mall? It shouldn't be allowed.

Protectionism in general is wrong. Free enterprise for the win. I'm going to leave now and start taking some Chinese classes, just in case everyone agrees with me.

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.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:58 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO
© MCB Network LLC