September 30, 1959.

Mre Edward Je Medart, President,
Fred Medart Menufacturing ee
Ste Louis, Missouri e

Dear Mre Medart :

Your favor of the 27th instant has been received and
I wish to thank you for your fulsome explanation regarding your
many troublesome angles that a manufacturer is confronted with
in producing and promoting a product that may or may not goe

To my untutored business mind, I em still hazy as to
why the American public can be sold on an article for the same
relative appearence for the difference in the quoted prices of
the two articles, namely Uni-goal and Goal<Ifi. Lowe and Campe=
bell, with at least a 30% "take", advertise the Uni-goal at
$15.75, and Roy Weinzettel tells me that he will have to have
$21.75 for the non-adjustable height permanent goal which con-

. Peres with Uni-goal. To my way of thinking it does not take an

experienced business mind to see what the American buying public
a ae yet these two are set up side by side with each

other regardless of any amount of money that is spent on an ad~
vertising schemes

You did explain very definitely to me, Mr. Medart,

You protably are correct in the fact that I became
& little impatient, and I am sorry to say this is always the
case when you have an individual who is an accessory to the fact /

in regard to the special machine that you are build-
roll the base, I wrote Roy that the heavy iron base if it
rs is very impractical. We tried a game indoors
fron base and 4¢ causes the players to stub their
p as the reach for the ball near the basket. The
ad Waiaia, Sak 44 WE ce cea Ge & ccointtn
was for that reason that I wrote Roy about the rubber
as ean alternate for the indoor work. Or, instead
suction cups there is a possibility of using a
base with a steel frame-work inside to give it the

ceplitete
autre