>>9506278>The licensor can sometimes choose not to give the licensee that option, though. If you recall, the Disney buyout had experts (not just toy sites, actual financial journalists) speculating that Disney wouldn't renew their contracts with HasbroIf you actually paid attention, this rumor existed because licenses need to be renegotiated when ownership changes hands. Mattel was the bigger company back in 2012, so they had more money to shovel into Disney's path.
Obviously, Disney allowed Hasbro to renew their contract because they were making a boat load of money. In fact, in 2015, financial people were saying Hasbro saved the Disney princess from Mattel, because of waning sales on dolls.
You can't break a contract without stiff fees and lawsuits, so even if the contract wouldn't need to be renegotiated like you seem to believe, there was no way Disney would just give the license over to Mattel just because they were buddy-buddy.
>>9506229>Doubt.jpg. They were releasing products literally until the last possible second they could.So? They have to fulfill their contractual obligations till the very end. They planned that shit out over a year ahead of time.
>You're entire post is nothing but assumptionsMy assumptions are based on how licenses are written. YOU, however, like
>>9506278, are making assumptions based on absolutely nothing and are creating some cartoon drama to replace how licenses actually work.
See pic in how they have EIGHTEEN months before the contract expires to reup. This is how licenses are written almost universally. Again, this points toward how Jazwares up to over a year to decide if the license was worth what they paid for. Again, this shows that the licensor had to solicit the license to other hopeful-licensees because Jazwares didn't want it or thought it was too expensive for their actual sales are.
Again, even McFarlane dropped the license because it was was too expensive for what its worth and no one is picking it up.
