Should Show Promoters Include Clauses That Prevent Dealers From Working Other Shows?

[ThoseBackPages]

what year is it again? 1987?

Unreal that ANY promoter in 2011 would turn away business

[4815162342]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

what year is it again? 1987?

Unreal that ANY promoter in 2011 would turn away business

+1

[basesareempty]

I believe that this will be the beginning of the end for the Philly show as most serious dealers and auction houses have chosen CSA. I think this policy is rediculous and I think there will be other dealers to follow. Table fees for CSA about 60% of Philly for the same amount of space is a no brainer in this economy. Plus the Valley Forge site is awful especially with all of the construction going on in and around the hotel.I perfer the Expo center sites for these shows as there is usually easy access and ample parking. CSA just needs to beef up their advertising and I think that the Eastern PA market is theirs for the taking.

[HRBAKER]

Based on any show that I have been to in the last five years (sans The National), I don't see any room for running off dealers. The show business must be healthier than it appears.

[D. Bergin]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

what year is it again? 1987?

Unreal that ANY promoter in 2011 would turn away business

What I was thinking. There were some greedy promoters in certain regional locations in CT who used to pull this crap back then. Of course this was back in the day when every table at every show used to be filled.

Didn't think anybody would be stupid enough to pull this kind of move in this day and age. Really short-sighted thinking.

[HRBAKER]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

what year is it again? 1987?

Based on the website, maybe.

[vic]

We're Sorry! Memory Lane NOT attending Philly Show this weekend!

[basesareempty]

Originally Posted by vic

We're Sorry! Memory Lane NOT attending Philly Show this weekend!

Very telling! Also Steve Hart at Baseball Card Exchange who is the largest vintage unopened dealer has not set up at the last few Philly shows. He used to have a large booth of vintage unopened packs and boxes just as you came in the door and I would always stop by to buy a pack or two. Now I think he just sends one of his guys but it now for just buying opportunities. Not sure if they even have a table. To be fair I do not think he is setting up at Oaks, but he should.

[Buythatcard]

Seems like the Philly show is dying. With the Casinos coming to the Radisson Hotel, I wouldn't be surprised if Radisson no longer rents out the space to an empty show.

If the Oaks show becomes the show of PA, let's hope they schedule more dates in the area.

[jcmtiger]

Originally Posted by ThoseBackPages

what year is it again? 1987?

Unreal that ANY promoter in 2011 would turn away business

Yes, I agree, this happened in the 80's and 90's at shows here in Michigan.

If it is spelled out in the contract though, the promoter can do this. But, why he would turn away business is crazy.


Joe

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by jcmtiger

Yes, I agree, this happened in the 80's and 90's at shows here in Michigan.

If it is spelled out in the contract though, the promoter can do this. But, why he would turn away business is crazy.


Joe

Isn't it meant to be a punishment so that they won't do it again next year?

Edited to add: the clause was probably put in initially because he thought the dealers would honor it and skip the earlier shows. Now he has to enforce it, or dealers won't take his contracts seriously. Now he has to decide whether or not it's a good idea to include such clauses in future contracts. I think the consensus is "no", but I'd be interested to hear Hunt's opinion on this.

[GrayGhost]

Its "heavy handed" and may hurt the overall dealer "quality" of a show, but the promoter has EVERY RIGHT IMO to do this, IF IT IS IN A CONTRACT. That is simply why when u sign a contract for anything in life, YOU READ IT.

Not liking it being in there is understandable, but the best thing to do is not do the show then, if you can't agree to terms in the contract, even if they seem to be restraint of trade, etc.

[Leon]

I hope any of the folks that voted yes to this will let us know their thinking? It baffles me how anyone would think this is a good thing?

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Leon

I hope any of the folks that voted yes to this will let us know their thinking? It baffles me how anyone would think this is a good thing?

Look at the title of the thread, then the title of the poll. They contradict and probably confused some people.

[brianp-beme]

Originally Posted by Runscott

Look at the title of the thread, then the title of the poll. They contradict and probably confused some people.

I voted yes for exactly the reason Runscott mentioned...a second after I pushed the tab I went "hey, that's not what I wanted to vote", but it was too late.

Brian

[GrayGhost]

Originally Posted by Leon

I hope any of the folks that voted yes to this will let us know their thinking? It baffles me how anyone would think this is a good thing?

I voted " I don't care" as it really doesn't matter much to ME. That said, I never said it was a "good thing", just IN THE PROMOTERS Right to do it. So, maybe my reply above wasn't clear enough?

Scott Roberts

[Buythatcard]

My title did contradict the Poll question. I changed the title to match the poll question.

I do apologize for screwing that up.

Two screwups in one thread.

Hope Leon doesn't kick me off Net54.

Sorry