 |
|
||||||
 |
|
|||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
||||||
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
07-19-2020, 08:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
I found an article online that mentions in passing that Topps held the NFL license from 1956 through 1963 and that it hadn't been renewed, allowing Philadelphia to pick it up from 1964 through 1967. There was no explanation as to why Topps would allow the contract to expire without renewing it.
It probably came down to money, as usual, but Philadelphia was able to pony up the cash, so why couldn't Topps? And why Philadelphia? They were essentially unknown in the trading card market, yet they are able to swing a four year contract with the NFL. Why not Fleer or Leaf, both of which had a much bigger presence in the trading card market? 
|
 |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Anyone Else Know this Answer? | ezez420 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 10 | 03-03-2017 07:11 AM |
| Is Retail the Answer? | 4815162342 | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 21 | 02-18-2016 09:21 PM |
| I'm willing to bet NO ONE on NET 54 knows the answer! | GoldenAge50s | Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk | 1 | 04-06-2015 03:47 PM |
| Why can't they just answer the question? | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 12 | 09-22-2005 05:34 AM |
| SGC- the answer | Archive | Net54baseball Vintage (WWII & Older) Baseball Cards & New Member Introductions | 2 | 02-05-2002 04:54 PM |
Hybrid Mode
