Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

thawu

Easton selling divisions, Bauer Performance Sports rumored to buy baseball/softball

Recommended Posts

I would think that Bauer would have some antitrust concerns to address if they were to buy Easton's hockey division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my interpretation is that it's selling the baseball/softball division to bauer. not hockey.

"As a result, the company, an $800 million diversified sports equipment maker owned by New York private equity firm Fenway Partners, with divisions that produce hockey, cycling and baseball gear and accessories, will look to sell individual brands, a source with direct knowledge of the situation said.

Under that changed strategy, Fenway is now very close to selling the company’s growing Easton baseball and softball helmet and bat business to publicly traded Bauer Performance Sports, two sources close to the situation said."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that Bauer would have some antitrust concerns to address if they were to buy Easton's hockey division.

They would.

The article also mentioned that they would be selling baseball/softball division to Bauer, nothing is mentioned about hockey division.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that Bauer would have some antitrust concerns to address if they were to buy Easton's hockey division.

This^

Im not the biggest fan of Easton sticks and their helmets don't fit my head but I love some of their protective (shins) and their apparel is top notch with their bio-fri stuff. I wish they still made the apparel bc for $15 I got two of their sweatshirts which are perfectly soft and breathable yet great to keep you warm (wearing one right now) and their practice jerseys were great for me and their comp shortjock fits me very well especially for such a delicate spot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, you'd be hard-pressed to find a buyer for hockey.

I think the thinking in this situation is that by buying the bb/sb division, it just cuts the legs out of hockey and it'd go away on it's own.

I wonder what happens to the plant in Mexico though.

But once again, these rumors have been swirling for quite some time - although when I first heard, it was New Balance instead of Bauer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bauer acquiring Easton baseball/softball would make some sense, hockey, not as much.

Didn't make much sense to buy Mission-Itech and kill all kinds of product but Bauer did that. Article is directed at baseball but until a deal gets done, you can rule things out. Everything has a price where it makes sense. maybe they like ridell too... but not at the current price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't make much sense to buy Mission-Itech and kill all kinds of product but Bauer did that. Article is directed at baseball but until a deal gets done, you can rule things out. Everything has a price where it makes sense. maybe they like ridell too... but not at the current price.

Buying hockey (at the right price) makes a lot of sense. I don't think anyone wants the potential liability on the football side right now. Frankly, I would be surprised if they could get insurance coverage moving forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I am a huge hockey and gear fan...I believe Bauer buying Easton hockey would be anti-competitive to us...that being said I am not sure if the FTC would even sniff at a deal and industry this size? Am I off base here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying hockey (at the right price) makes a lot of sense. I don't think anyone wants the potential liability on the football side right now. Frankly, I would be surprised if they could get insurance coverage moving forward.

Chadd (aka AFLAC), I was illustraing a point, further to that, all helmets having liability coverage build into cost. So of course they get will still get coverage just at higher premiums. The issue going forward is less of an issue because statements are being made on packaging and products.

IMO the NFL issues are really seperate from overall football helmet issues. NFL case is more about not sharing the knowledge of inherient risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a fan of Easton, I have no allegiances but most of my gear is Bauer and Easton, so I hope this isn't true. Competition breeds innovation.

However, I'll live either way, unless Easton kills off Hoyt. Now *that* would be a travesty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would think that Bauer would have some antitrust concerns to address if they were to buy Easton's hockey division.

Having personally been through a couple of business transactions that had to be approved by Canada's Federal Competition Bureau, all I can say is that if Bauer and Easton want it to happen, it will eventually happen. Worst case is that Bauer is forced to divest itself of some irrelevant/immaterial part of their hockey business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think its ludicrous to sue the helmet mfgr for concussions, unless they were somehow negligent.

It's not "ludicrous". You have to sue everyone that could possibly be at fault, and figure out the details through investigation. You can't afford to find out later that someone you didn't sue was at fault, and the statute of limitations for suing them has expired. And liability for products isn't based exclusively on negligence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not "ludicrous". You have to sue everyone that could possibly be at fault, and figure out the details through investigation.

That's.... a really backwards way of thinking (to my mind, anyway). I mean, it makes sense when you say it, but I would have never in a million years thought to use the "spray and pray" mentality for lawsuits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reebok merge with CCM will likely add some motivation for Bauer to eliminate part of the opposition. When the whole Reebok/CCM thing comes to fruition, they will have the same number of product lines as Bauer, which I'm sure Bauer isn't exactly thrilled about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Reebok merge with CCM will likely add some motivation for Bauer to eliminate part of the opposition. When the whole Reebok/CCM thing comes to fruition, they will have the same number of product lines as Bauer, which I'm sure Bauer isn't exactly thrilled about.

Reebok has owned CCM since 2004, so I assume it was a marketing decision to sell their product lines under two different manufacturer names. Am I wrong? Because the way I see it, they have always had two product lines, and will now have 3 when they reintroduce the Tack lineup this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rumors that the lawsuit was going to be a drain on Easton have been out for a while now. BPS is clearly trying to expand into other sports equipment verticals so baseball/softball makes sense, I doubt that it has anything to do with undercutting the hockey brand. There are less expensive ways to do that. I also don't think that Bauer buying Easton would create that much of an anti-trust issue. What you've got is an industry with four big players (Bauer, Easton, Warrior, CCM/Reebok) and a number of small niche players that are nowhere near them in size/scale. Given the relative market shares I've heard anecdotally I would think Bauer is #1 and Easton is #4 in terms of market share. So going by those market shares I don't think that merger would create a large enough shift in the market power metrics to trigger an investigation. It might get a cursory glance just because of the fact that its further power consolidation within the group, but what I'm sensing is that Easton's market share is small enough relative to Bauer (and CCM/Reebok) that it probably wouldn't trigger a full fledged inquiry or risk rejection. If anyone has decent market share numbers for the four brands I could run some quick math and have a better idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's.... a really backwards way of thinking (to my mind, anyway). I mean, it makes sense when you say it, but I would have never in a million years thought to use the "spray and pray" mentality for lawsuits.

It's not "backwards", it's not "spray and pray"; it's simply the law, and it's what it is for a number of reasons. There's quite a lot to product liability law; I would think that if you looked into it, you wouldn't say that. The statutes of limitation exist so that companies don't have to worry forever about surprise liability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...