Thursday, January 17, 2013

League War Heating Up?

Mr. Curious says in the aftermath of another failed (sale) (merger) (deal) between the NPPL and the PSP that things may be heating up. Rumor has it that the NPPL has more teams looking to get into their Pro division than they have slots available (currently). Of course all those teams would enter the fray sans pro experience though the amount of past pro talent on the hopeful teams is believed to vary widely. And with the seeming impasse over the August event date--each league has an event on the same weekend--word on the street is that the NPPL is advising its pro teams they must commit to playing all the events. Now just what that really means or if it's intended to be more than a trial balloon is open for debate. The announcement by TB Damage that it would not be competing in the NPPL this season seems to lend credence to the league's (seeming) intent. If this really is a heating up of the league war it will be very interesting to see if a team's sponsors have an impact on the outcome.


Mike said...

Any comment on J-rab and Mouse leaving Damage?

sdawg said...

Video of the NPPL this past week.

Baca Loco said...

No. Except this--imagine a day when on ESPN they coulda had an hour long special to announce their intentions to take their talents to Alberta.

Like a fly on the proverbial wall

Full Bore said...

I know you don't care, but the dates for HB also clash with the date released for the MS Mediterranean Cup.

NewPro said...

Coach, can you please post an intelligent response to an industry "leaders" posting supposed business "transactions" in the court of public opinion. My dear god PB is socially retarded. BTW, get the boys fired up for Dallas, they have many a fans here in the great white north

Anonymous said...

What's really funny is Valken complaining when they signed a deal with NPPL that banned KEE and GI paint from NPPL events first.

Anonymous said...

Kee pulled out of the NPPL to deny them funding. GI might be the same, but I thought Richmond was looking to buy in last year - not only that but PSP insiders were bashing him because of it.

But the ultimate fact is the PSP should simply decide it will have 2 and only two paint sponsors and leave it open to the highest bidders.

You don't hear ITT-tech complaining the they can sponsor University of Phoenix Stadium. If Pepsi wants in at Disney theme parks outbid them foe the spot.

The only troubling thing about the PSP is not what they are doing (capping paint sponsors) but how they are doing it - apparently insisting that as a part of sponsorship you can't do business with a competitor.

Imagine Disney saying, if you want us to offer coke products you can't sell coke at Six Flags - what?

The PSP consistently screws up its game even though it has better team, so to speak.

Why they even devote any attention to the NPPL is beyond reason. Just list two paint suppliers per event and let the highest bidders for each event win.

Baca Loco said...

Clearly the NPPL have decided enough is enough and they have decided to use the muscle of the devoted 7-man following to play some hardball.

I've been trying to avoid it to be honest--and I was distracted with a clinic this past weekend (shout out to dan and all the katana kids)--but I may have something tomorrow. [Mon 21]

Anonymous said...

@2:18: Your analogy is backwards.

If PSP and paint vendors worked like Disney and soft drink vendors, PSP would sell one brand of paint based on which paint vendor would pay PSP the most money.

Fortunately PSP is not like that. PSP is willing to allow more than one paint vendor.

PSP did decide that if they were going to allow more than one paint vendor, they were going to charge more if a vendor was going to support their competition.

The Disney-Coke analogy is a fairly weak one though, since Disney is one theme park and Coke is sold virtually everywhere people drink stuff. But if you're going to use it, it shows PSP being more generous than that situation, not less.

Anonymous said...

First of all, Coke is sold everywhere Cokie is sold, unless it's where Pepsi is sold. Go to Taco Bell and order a Coke. You'll get a Pepsi. This is silly though, because the point wasn't to say "restrictive distribution must be limited to 1". No, it's pretty clear a league could set limits, after looking at the competive situation, potential cash flows, etc. they may decide that 2 vendors is what they want to limit paint supply to. The details are not the same, but it's the exact same in principle.

Coke is a consumable. Paint is a consumable. There is only so much coke to be consumed in a single day at a theme park. There is only so much paint to be consumed in a single day at an event (obviously, both these numbers can vary). The more drink vendors allowed the less coke makes. The less coke makes, the less valuable the distribution channel is. The more paint vendors allows, the less the paint companies make. The less the paint companies make the less valuable the channel is. I didn't spell this out because I figured it was commonly understood.

The only difference is the following:
1. Competitive situation - Disney does not really care too much (other than lost revenue) what Coke will do if Disney allows Pepsi drinks as well. There is little worry of Coke running off to endorse and give lots of money to Disney competitors.
2. Direct Sales - Disney sells the Coke, the PSP does not sell the paint. This tells you how smart Disney is. BTW, Disney also sells the food and everything else.

BTW I never said the PSP wasn't being more generous than Disney (MCD, etc. etc.).

It's a perfectly solid analogy for what a company can do. If you perceive any objective criticism as an attack and have to defend the PSP on all fronts, then you'd be a shill. Are you?

In short, the PSP is smart to reduce the number of suppliers based on the declining value of a paint spot with every new paint vendor.

The are smart to seek to maximize their gain, their sponsors gain, while at the same time reduce the support given to a competitor.

They aren't smart in overtly attempting to control others.

It was a win-win for the PSP to simply say, "a paintball tournament should have some choice in paint, but due to limited demand at events we need to reduce paint sponsorships to 2 vendors".

It's a win-lose to do what the PSP is currently doing. It further cements whatever opposition their was to the PSP.

Anonymous said...


I objected to your conclusion. You said the ultimate fact is that PSP should just decide it will have two sponsors and give those two spots to the highest bidders.

You then set out an analogy that doesn't support that conclusion.

The ultimate fact is that we need one national tournament series, and PSP has proven they are far more capable at running one than NPPL is.

KEE and GI are willing to support one national series exclusively. If PSP has two current paint vendors who have agreed not to support a competing series, and who agreed last year to not support a competing series, it makes no sense for PSP to accept a third vendor at the same terms as the two existing sponsors.

But PSP wants everyone to be able to participate in PSP. So PSP made Valken an offer: Get with the "one league" program. Valken gets the same terms as the other paint vendors (plus a one-time $10k charge for being a year late to the game), and you're in.

With all three vendors exclusive to PSP, the other national league finally dies (after being given several opportunities to be bought out on generous terms), and teams consolidate to the better league that is now, with increased participation, able to support 3 vendors.

A business offering a deal based on the value of the deal to that business seems like a pretty reasonable approach.

In the future, if anyone asks "Why don't we have one national league?" the answer is Valken.

Anonymous said...

That should have been, "no sense for PSP to accept a third vendor on the same terms as the existing vendors unless the third vendor is also willing to be exclusive."

Anonymous said...

This is really strange, there are some people who want to play the NPPL. Valken has nothing to do with that. They make paint. It's like blaming Pepsi for the fact that people like Taco Bell.

The people to blame is not Valken. And seriously WTF are we talking about "blame" as if there is a problem with customers choosing to play the NPPL and Valken choosing to sell paint to players at the NPPL. Seriously? What are we, a bunch of little Obamas managing our paintball economy in our spare time?

How quickly the so-called businessmen resort to control and conspiracy to arrange things to their liking.

Let the consumers play NPPL, let NPPL find a way to survive, or die. If that means outside industry dollars chasing the elusive beer contract by Pev, or the sugar daddy Bart, or finding paint companies who (gasp!) actually agree to sell paint to their customers, so be it.

Blame? How childish can we be. You might as well take your wiener and slap it out on the table and tell us in a drunken stupor how big a man you are.

Anonymous said...

Here's what really happened: Valken has spent the past couple months telling their customers they will be at psp events without having an agreement with psp to be at psp events, or even asking psp what the fee will be. Valken then decides they don't want to pay the vendor fee and tries to make it look like psp's fault for, gasp, charging a paint vendor fee.

Anonymous said...

Or... even better conspiracy theory.

The paint vendor fee is just a token amount. Valken gets teams to sign on for Sly gear and Valken paint, promising to be at the PSP.

Valken walks and those teams are now stuck without paint sponsor.

How many of those teams would have signed with Valken if they knew they couldn't get paint at the events?

Mark said...

Yo mama's sooo dumb: when she took the Pepsi challange, she chose Jiff.