If you owned "Select" would you keep the Cards Numbered #1

[Dr Grange]

As Mr Grasshopper says in the post above this one, if there's no controls over them stating how many they've produced and not disclosing how many are available in packs and cases, then they can do whatever they like. Imo it needs to be clarified in their advertising etc how many of each card is available to the public.[/quote]


What other card producer states what they keep & what is supplied to the public?? If you can enlighten me please do. None that I can think of.
They self regulate as most private companies do & everything they do is approved by the NRL.

 

[Dr Grange]

Hay George, they have no right to keep number 1's and what stops them keeping more than one card? It's not stupid buddy.

Why don't they have the right to keep No1 card?? They would shoot themselves in the foot if they did what you accuse them of. They had the licence & paid all the fees the NRL required them to have that right.

 

[Mr Grasshopper]

Why don't they have the right to keep No1 card?? They would shoot themselves in the foot if they did what you accuse them of. They had the licence & paid all the fees the NRL required them to have that right.

 

[King Collector]

lol

 

[thenamesgould]

What other card producer states what they keep & what is supplied to the public?? If you can enlighten me please do. None that I can think of.
They self regulate as most private companies do & everything they do is approved by the NRL.

I honestly wouldn't have a clue, I don't collect anything other than NRL cards. It just strikes me as not the correct way to do business. Customers should know the actual odds of hitting cards in the product they're buying, not the "odds if we included cards that we're actually keeping for ourselves". But what would I know, as you say, I'm very very stupid.

 

[thenamesgould]

As this double post proves!

 

[shane_sharks]

pretty sure dr grange gets commission from select

 

[footypugs2011]

What if they had a comp each series and you had to send in the wrappers or something to let the common collector a chance of getting the number 1 card. I'm sure they would have a card that is like the player issue ones. Maybe they could of called it select and that is there card to collect.

 

[Dr Grange]

I honestly wouldn't have a clue, I don't collect anything other than NRL cards. It just strikes me as not the correct way to do business. Customers should know the actual odds of hitting cards in the product they're buying, not the "odds if we included cards that we're actually keeping for ourselves". But what would I know, as you say, I'm very very stupid.

I never said you were stupid. What I did say it was a silly & stupid comment. I also only collect NRL & Cricket Only . The customer dose know the odds as its on the packets & MAINLY by the case. If select keep a Master set of cards Then whatever amount of cases it takes are kept & not sold so the odds don't change. It's like Wang keeping 1/2 pallet for resale at a latter date at a higher price, the odds are based per case.

 

[Dr Grange]

pretty sure dr grange gets commission from select

I WISH.

 

[1967Sharks]

APCS- Keep all the No1s & last No of the run. Also Select don't keep the Jersey No they Release them.
I'm sure most card producers keep No1 in their museum or private Stock.
I don't know why everyone is worried about it. Grant puts up big money to produce his products & takes all the risks!!

You know how most of the stars of today are Fullbacks?
Newsflash - They wear #1

 

[thenamesgould]

I never said you were stupid. What I did say it was a silly & stupid comment. I also only collect NRL & Cricket Only . The customer dose know the odds as its on the packets & MAINLY by the case. If select keep a Master set of cards Then whatever amount of bcases it takes are kept & not sold so the odds don't change. It's like Wang keeping 1/2 pallet for resale at a latter dateat a higher price, the odds are based per case.

Whatever.

 

[Wattsup]

so would it be ok for tattersalls to keep to keep 1 million of the 50 million first division prize pool aka 1/50th of the advertised amount as it is 'their product' as select are doing with the black captains? I think it's appalling they keep the #1's.

 

[the_all*cards]

The fact of the matter is if Select say there are 50 "official" signature cards for release to the public, all 50 should be available -- numbers #01 through to 50. If on their sale sheets they say there are "100" or "200" signature cards made, in my opinion this implies that all 100 of 200 will be released in cases (I am thinking this is the same view that the Office of Fair Trading will take).

Maybe if they said upfront on their sale sheet that only "99" or "199" signature cards are made and #01 is not available, it would be less of an issue. While collectors wouldn't be happy with that, at least they have disclosed it upfront so that collectors know that #01 is not available to them.

The number they keep is irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether it's number #01 or #38. They should not be able to keep any of the cards which they say (whether implied or not) will be released to the public.

And it's not picking on Select -- if any company in any industry did this it would be an issue -- some members here have already given some good examples.

As many members have pointed out already, if Select the company or the owner of Select wanted to keep 1 of each signature card for themselves as a special unreleased edition for themselves, no one would have an issue with it and there are many alternatives open to them - they could have each player sign 1 unnumbered version of the card in red if they wanted to.

We all know they probably get the player to sign extra cards in case of damage or the need to replace a card which is not a problem as long as they are used as replacements only (ie. the original is destroyed) and not back-doored.

The distinction is what should be and should not be released to the public, and in my view #01 has to be made available to the public.

 

[troy titans]

why cant card companies stamp on a #000 card for "their" use that way theres no fuss! and there is a chance to get a fullbacks jersey number

 

[hobo]

I wonder if the #1's are a "corporate asset" or a "personal asset" and how they are treated by the ATO. I know as a company owner if I produced a product worth $'000s and took it home because I liked it without accounting for it either through my company or on my personal tax then I would have a case to answer.

To me with all the Grant keeps them quotes on here they don't sound like they are a company asset.

FBT is a bitch.

Ross

 

[AyiosYiorgos]

Maybe he has great Mojo, when he bust a box/case, he is just lucky enough to get 001 all the time, its possible you know

 

[Mr Grasshopper]

Maybe he has great Mojo, when he bust a box/case, he is just lucky enough to get 001 all the time, its possible you know

Yes it is possible, when you press stop on the production line, remove the number 1, put it in a penny sleeve, then put it in a top loader and then put it in your pocket and then smile, it is possible.

 

[Carter]

Why don't they have the right to keep No1 card?? They would shoot themselves in the foot if they did what you accuse them of. They had the licence & paid all the fees the NRL required them to have that right.

What right do they have to keep any cards let alone a #1 card which states the fact that they are corrupt!
I buy a packet of cards or a box or a case i want to know that i have the chance to get the #1 card and yet you say that they have the right to keep any numbered cards is not right at all!

I am sure that we are all well aware that select have kept hidden many cards for their own personal gain and only the future will tell that story!

Which shows how corrupt card collecting can be!

 

[Sanctum]

Clearly I'm not normally around the Footy sections but some of you guys are a crack up.

As long as a card is not part of the advertised content in a product released to the public then anything else they make is fair game. If it's advertised as publicly available and they keep it then they're in the wrong. Seems pretty simple.

and to answer the question, I voted no.