Fanatics buys PWCC

[Mungo Hungo]

Originally Posted by BobC

And speaking of moves and such by Fanatics, can't remember where but, I thought I had recently read/heard somewhere that in conjunction with MLB, the teams in future years were going to start having their rookies where some kind of MLB Debut patch on their uniforms the first few games or so they appear in. My understanding is those patches will then be removed after those first few games, and then get turned over to Topps for inclusion on designated rookie cards for those same players. Shades of the Logoman card successes NBA player cards have seen in recent years. How many of you think Topps would have been able to so easily set up and do something like that, before they were acquired and now owned by Fanatics? Being partly owned by MLB and the MLB Players Association can sure make doing such things happen that likely would never have happened when Topps was independent and on their own. Just another instance/example of how times are changing. Wonder what is next that they'll come up with.

Yes, there were some "articles" (really just dressed up press releases) about this at the end of March. Each player's patch, or part(s) of it, will be used for 1/1s in a yet-to-be-named set later this year or next year. But the larger context was left unsaid and undiscussed. If Topps/Fanatics will be releasing a 1/1 of every player who debuts, what else will they be doing for the same players? It hardly seems likely that the entire effort will go to issuing 300 1/1 cards. Presumably each debut player will get cards that are produced in sufficient volume so that more than one person can buy in ...

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Mungo Hungo

Yes, there were some "articles" (really just dressed up press releases) about this at the end of March. Each player's patch, or part(s) of it, will be used for 1/1s in a yet-to-be-named set later this year or next year. But the larger context was left unsaid and undiscussed. If Topps/Fanatics will be releasing a 1/1 of every player who debuts, what else will they be doing for the same players? It hardly seems likely that the entire effort will go to issuing 300 1/1 cards. Presumably each debut player will get cards that are produced in sufficient volume so that more than one person can buy in ...

Exactly right. And this is probably just a start for them. Like I mentioned earlier, people are going crazy for those NBA Logoman cards. These MLB Debut patches are sort of the same thing, but specifically for rookies. Can already imagine people clamoring for these whenever they do finally come out. And like you, am interested in what else they'll come up with now that the league and the players are basically in on making money off these cards also. I can see Fanatics/Topps churning out team specific items/sets, maybe special cards/items for players/teams that reach certain thresholds or accomplishments, and who knows what else. Will be interesting to see what else they come up with, and how well it takes off and how the hobby community sees and reacts to whatever they do.

[parkplace33]

I wonder if pwcc (or whatever their new name is) will be allowed back on eBay. Stranger things have happened.

[steve B]

Some good points, but I don't see them buying a grading company or a breaker as a move that would be seen as anything but a huge conflict.

Owning a manufacturer and a breaker? No, no way they'd feed the handful of "special" cards to the breaker....

Same for having a manufacturer, auction and grader. How could anyone take those grades seriously if it was the same owner?

[The Detroit Collector]

Fanatics is becoming a monopoly in the industry. You can decide yourself whether its good or bad.

They got their cards.
They got their Vault.
They got their auction site.
They need there grading company.

I dont see them "buying" any breakers, breakers are a subcategory of this hobby in my opinion.

[Casey2296]

Originally Posted by The Detroit Collector

Fanatics is becoming a monopoly in the industry. You can decide yourself whether its good or bad.

They got their cards.
They got their Vault.
They got their auction site.
They need there grading company.

I dont see them "buying" any breakers, breakers are a subcategory of this hobby in my opinion.

They already have their grading company, Michael Rubin, owner of Fanatics is a major investor in CSG. This will not end well for the "hobby" collector.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by The Detroit Collector

Fanatics is becoming a monopoly in the industry. You can decide yourself whether its good or bad.

They got their cards.
They got their Vault.
They got their auction site.
They need there grading company.

I dont see them "buying" any breakers, breakers are a subcategory of this hobby in my opinion.

Don't disagree. They are more or less looking to take over a substantial portion of the industry and put more of the profits others are making off cards into their own pockets. However, a monopoly is usually considered more applicable in cases where you have control of a horizontal market, such as when the American Tobacco Company (ATC) owned virtually every big/major cigarette or tobacco brand/seller there was. What Fanatics, and the major U.S. sports leagues and players associations that are invested in them, is doing is what is known as a creating more a vertical market. This is where you acquire different businesses/companies involved in all the aspects of a business from the creation/manufacture of a product, all the way through its sale/final distribution to the public. This way you do away with having to deal with "middle men", wholesalers, retailers, and the like, and can potentially pocket at least some of the profit those others used to make off selling/distributing your products. It doesn't necessarily create a monopoly, as there are still (and will be) other card manufacturers, wholesalers, dealers, Breakers, TPGs, and so on. It does potentially provide some advantages to the business that can set up such a complete vertical marketing enterprise though, by way of allowing more flexibility, control, quicker decision making, cross-utilization of duplicated work or functions, taking advantage of economies of scale, better overall planning and projections, and so on.

And also keep in mind when mentioning a potential "monopoly" situation that MLB has the somewhat unique position/status of being exempted from the applicability of the 1890 Sherman Anti-Trust Act, the same law that originally took down the ATC in 1911, via a SCOTUS decision back in 1922. This decision came about as a result of the lawsuit filed by the Federal League against MLB back in 1914, seeking to break MLB's stranglehold on the professional baseball market in the U.S. (And also why I've always felt MLB may have eventually made Kennesaw Mountain Landis its first Commissioner, as a sort bribe/payoff for his efforts in initially squelching this lawsuit as a federal judge himself, and maybe "assisting" through his federal court connections to the eventual favorable ruling by the SCOTUS.) So even if Fanatics, which is partly owned by MLB, were to end up in a more "monopolistic" situation, not sure how this exemption and MLB's ownership would ultimately impact anyone's ability to attack that business situation.

And as an FYI, ever since the exemption was passed just over 100 years ago, occasionally over the years different members of Congress have tried to present legislation to have the exemption removed, but all to no success, so far. The most recent unsuccessful attempt I'm aware of was just a couple of years ago as a matter of fact.

https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/04/14/ml...duced-congress

So, I don't think a potential monopoly issue is anything that Fanatics/Topps/MLB is worried about as being anywhere near the top of their current list of concerns.

[todeen]

This was on the ESPN article. Do you believe sportscards can balloon 10x in ten years? Honestly, where is that level of demand coming from?

"In 2021, the global sports memorabilia market, including trading cards, was valued at just over $26 billion; by 2032, it's expected to eclipse $220 billion. No company has a bigger footprint in that space, or stands to in the coming years, than Fanatics -- valued at $31 billion as recently as December, with a projected revenue of $8 billion in 2023."

https://www.espn.in/espn/story/_/id/...cc-marketplace

[rjackson44]

As long as they dont buy net 54 ill be happy😎😎

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by rjackson44

As long as they dont buy net 54 ill be happy😎😎

54 Fanatics sounds like LIV golf to me.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by steve B

Some good points, but I don't see them buying a grading company or a breaker as a move that would be seen as anything but a huge conflict.

Owning a manufacturer and a breaker? No, no way they'd feed the handful of "special" cards to the breaker....

Same for having a manufacturer, auction and grader. How could anyone take those grades seriously if it was the same owner?

Don't disagree at all Steve, but the TPGs have already been rife with huge biases and conflicts from their virtual start. Look at all the people who have owned/controlled these TPGs over the years, and also been involved in the hobby as collectors themselves to some extent. Want to make a bet on which TPG they would submit their cards to be graded to? LOL Or what about TPG contingent grading fees based on cards values? In supposedly providing a completely unbiased and equal service to ALL submitters, it should take approximately the exact same amount of time and efforts to grade and slab a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card as it does for say a common '52 Topps card from the low series. So why the huge difference in grading fees? This is an absolutely inexcusable, direct bias and conflict of interest on the part of the TPGs, yet the hobby community forgives and allows it to happen anyway.

So, before you go saying these acquisitions of related hobby companies would make for unacceptable conflicts of interest, the hobby community for decades now has already shown they don't really care about such conflicts of interest. At least not as long as they can still get the "stuff" they want. Again, another old adage at work, "Stuff trumps everything!?"

[raulus]

Originally Posted by BobC

Or what about TPG contingent grading fees based on cards values? In supposedly providing a completely unbiased and equal service to ALL submitters, it should take approximately the exact same amount of time and efforts to grade and slab a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card as it does for say a common '52 Topps card from the low series. So why the huge difference in grading fees? This is an absolutely inexcusable, direct bias and conflict of interest on the part of the TPGs, yet the hobby community forgives and allows it to happen anyway.

Bob: While you might pooh-pooh the notion that it's meaningful, PSA does offer faster turnaround time at the higher grading price points. So the upcharge also delivers faster service. And for a TPG with turnaround measured in multiple months at the lower price points, faster service isn't nothing.

Of course, there's room to debate whether that faster service is really commensurate with the upcharge.

As an added bonus, many of the service level price points cover value ranges, so if you happen to be right on the cusp of bumping into the next highest range, then your grading costs could double, for example, simply by going from $24,999 to $25,001 in value. I guess the good news from my perspective is that I've yet to see PSA attempt to get cute with it by bumping me up if I'm just a little over the limit.

[BobC]

Originally Posted by raulus

Bob: While you might pooh-pooh the notion that it's meaningful, PSA does offer faster turnaround time at the higher grading price points. So the upcharge also delivers faster service. And for a TPG with turnaround measured in multiple months at the lower price points, faster service isn't nothing.

Of course, there's room to debate whether that faster service is really commensurate with the upcharge.

As an added bonus, many of the service level price points cover value ranges, so if you happen to be right on the cusp of bumping into the next highest range, then your grading costs could double, for example, simply by going from $24,999 to $25,001 in value. I guess the good news from my perspective is that I've yet to see PSA attempt to get cute with it by bumping me up if I'm just a little over the limit.

Nic,

Are you kidding me?

How long have you been a CPA now? You know as well as I that the ONLY thing that a CPA license allows you and I to do, that no one else can, is give our OPINION on a company's financial statements and how good they are. Not really much different than a TPG giving their OPINION on the condition of a card they grade. Both CPAs and TPGs are paid to give their honest, UNBIASED, and INDEPENDENT opinions on certain things they are looking at.

And as a CPA, you know we are supposed to be independent of the parties we give our opinions on, in both fact AND appearance. You also know as well as I do that as a CPA, if you go and charge any clients/customers a contingent fee, they will take our CPA license away as that is not allowed, as it may be deemed or viewed as a type of bias, conflict-of-interest, or lack of independence. (Fact AND appearance, remember!?!?!?)

TPGs charge contingent fees based on the value of a card they grade, correct? And I'm not talking about different service levels. In fact, I don't know where (or even how) you got the idea I was making any reference to service or service levels at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I submit a '52 Topps Mantle card to a TPG for grading in what turns out to be say a 5 grade, along with a low series, '52 Topps common card that also ends up grading a similar 5, and ask for the exact same service level for both cards, I'm guessing I'm going to pay a hell of a lot more money in grading fees for my '52 Mantle because they charge more for grading it simply because it has a higher value. And this is even though they are supposedly providing the exact same services, work and effort as they are putting forth to opine on, grade, and slab my '52 Topps common card as they are for my '52 Topps Mantle, right? That is a contingent grading fee.......PERIOD!!! They are charging based solely on the value of the card they are giving nothing more than their opinion on when they are grading it. And in the case of that '52 Mantle card, even a slight change in the grade given can significantly increase (or decrease) the value of that card dramatically, which can also then impact what the TPG can then charge me for grading and giving their opinion on it. So, tell me, and everyone here on the forum, what is there really to stop a TPG grader from maybe bumping up the grade they give a card so that it results in a higher value, that they can then charge you more for grading? And before you even dare to say that no TPG would ever do that, fact AND appearance, remember!!! That contingent fee charge by TPGs is such a blatant, unquestionable conflict-of-interest and bias that it is truly laughable that apparently almost no one in the hobby calls them out for it, and we just blindly continue to let them get away with it and accept all their potentially tainted opinions on virtually every graded card that exists!!!

And if the TPGs have no problem giving their supposedly honest and unbiased opinions when such blatant bias and conflicts-of interest so clearly exist in what they do, it can only make one wonder what other areas of conflict or bias might they also be ignoring. For another example, I seem to remember that David Hall was known to have one of the greatest (if not THE greatest) T206 collections ever assembled. And if memory also serves, wasn't he also a major owner/officer of Collector's Universe for quite a few years, the same corporation that also just happens to own PSA? I'll give you three guesses as to which TPG Hall likely had all his T206 cards graded by, and the first two guesses don't count.

As a fellow CPA, you know as well as I do that if you, or the firm you work for, audits a company to opine on its financial statements, you and the people working on the audit can't also own a piece of the company that is being audited. That is a totally unallowable, biased, conflict-of-interest, and could potentially result in the loss of one's CPA license once again. I know in all my years working in public accounting, at least once every year I had to go through the checklist and let whoever I was working with/for know what stock holdings/business interests I, or my close family members, owned or had, so they could make sure they weren't doing any audit work requiring the giving of an opinion on a business/firm for which there was a conflict-of-interest because I or someone else at the firm owned or was otherwise somehow directly associated with a company we were hired and paid to audit and opine on. Once again, a CPA/CPA firm has to have and maintain a totally independent and unbiased relationship with any company/client they provide their audit/opinion servicers for, in both fact AND appearance. So, what does that say about people like David Hall, Nat Turner, James Beckett, or David Forman, if they ever went and had cards they, or family members, owned, and had them graded by the TPG companies they owned/operated at the same time?

This is what I'm talking about. Not faster services or different service levels.

And your last comment about you personally not seeing PSA ever getting "cute" with you and their valuation/grading process, potentially resulting in you being charged a higher grading fee, doesn't mean the potential still doesn't exist. Independent and unbiased in fact AND appearance, remember that from your own profession. And since TPGs do nothing but give their opinions, similar to what CPAs do, I would hope that one day they start to be held to similar, honorable standards, like CPAs as well. The fact that the hobby community has let TPGs, and the rest of the major players in the hobby industry, get away with this continuing non-independent, biased, and completely filled with conflicts-of-interest crap for decades now, is truly sad, and in my opinion, almost downright criminal on so many levels.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by BobC

Don't disagree at all Steve, but the TPGs have already been rife with huge biases and conflicts from their virtual start. Look at all the people who have owned/controlled these TPGs over the years, and also been involved in the hobby as collectors themselves to some extent. Want to make a bet on which TPG they would submit their cards to be graded to? LOL Or what about TPG contingent grading fees based on cards values? In supposedly providing a completely unbiased and equal service to ALL submitters, it should take approximately the exact same amount of time and efforts to grade and slab a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card as it does for say a common '52 Topps card from the low series. So why the huge difference in grading fees? This is an absolutely inexcusable, direct bias and conflict of interest on the part of the TPGs, yet the hobby community forgives and allows it to happen anyway.

So, before you go saying these acquisitions of related hobby companies would make for unacceptable conflicts of interest, the hobby community for decades now has already shown they don't really care about such conflicts of interest. At least not as long as they can still get the "stuff" they want. Again, another old adage at work, "Stuff trumps everything!?"

It's a bit of a paradox, we want the graders/authenticators to be entirely independent, essentially non-collectors in many ways.
But we also want them to have a lot of in depth knowledge, and non-collectors aren't likely to have that. Many collectors don't, which is part of the reason to have authenticators.(maybe less so for grading)

The difference in fees is common in several hobbies, I think it's based on a few things, like insurance risk while something expensive is in the building, how much value is added by the grading, maybe the cost of the more experienced person doing the grading, stuff like that.


I do wonder just how far things can be pushed along the lines they're headed. I want that answer to be "not much further at all" but realistically I think people will put up with any level of potential or actual crookedness as long a there's money to be made. The grading companies have pretty much proven that already.

[jchcollins]

Originally Posted by BobC

In supposedly providing a completely unbiased and equal service to ALL submitters, it should take approximately the exact same amount of time and efforts to grade and slab a 1952 Topps Mickey Mantle card as it does for say a common '52 Topps card from the low series. So why the huge difference in grading fees? This is an absolutely inexcusable, direct bias and conflict of interest on the part of the TPGs, yet the hobby community forgives and allows it to happen anyway.

PSA and the others charge higher fees for higher priced cards for the simple reason that it’s within their economic reality to do so.

If every ‘52 Mantle #311 submitted cost $25 to grade, they would likely be immediately inundated with every marginally ignorant collector flooding their offices with fakes to see what might happen “just in case” it’s real. The fees effectively prevent this on ‘52 Mantles, and a host of other pricey vintage and modern cards - and I don’t blame them in the least for taking that approach.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Peter_Spaeth]

The fee structure is a very minor issue in the scheme of troubling things, IMO.

[Ronnie73]

I'm not sure exactly where the TPG and their higher prices became a part of the topic. I guess I have to go back and figure out the post or two that I missed. But I understand why they do it. Mainly because if you can afford to own a high valued card, you should be able to afford a higher grading fee. I'm sure there are other smaller reasons, but money and greed is always going to be the number one reason, and that's fine, because it happen's everywhere.

The premiums on higher priced auctions, such as a card that sells for $25k compared to a card at $1k. The website resources being used are the same. I could see if the higher valued card gets a full page in an auction catalog, but overall, the same thing.

Any boat owners in here? Just another example. If you can use the word Marine in the part description, regardless if the vehicle part is exactly the same, as in quality and material, you will probably pay double or more for the marine version, because you can afford to own a boat.

That's just how life goes.

[BillyCoxDodgers3B]

Originally Posted by steve B

Same for having a manufacturer, auction and grader. How could anyone take those grades seriously if it was the same owner?

Watch it happen at some point. One company is already 2/3 of the way there. Why not complete the trifecta of conflict of interest hypocrisy? Makes me sick.

[Ronnie73]

A while back, I believe around the time of the last National, Fanatics was saying and teasing about a future release or news that would impact or change a whole generation. I sure hope that this PWCC thing is not what they were talking about. I had mentioned in the past what I would like to be the generation changer. Maybe some of you remember it. It was a very long post that dealt with a multi year, multi sport set that had no checklist or card numbers, and print runs of all cards would be secret, and the packs would only be issued in one format, back to the old school of 15 cards per pack, 36 packs per box, with a one dollar per pack price, and no inserts, auto's, serial numbered cards, or parallel's. Just simple cards, and back to building a set based on the card description. Almost as if the original T206's were released today, nobody would know who was in the set over the three years, or the different poses and print runs. The research and the hunt for the cards is the most fun part. Once you complete a set, it's no fun anymore, and most people end up selling what they finished and many also take a loss. Make a set that takes a generation to build, and keep it priced low, so everyone, including the kids can get involved in the same set as the most advanced collectors are building. A set where collectors everywhere are sharing information on the cards they have, including their extra's that other collector's would need. This would also eliminate the "common" card, because nobody would really know what is common, without research. Stop everyone from bypassing 99 percent of the pack, just to get to the section where the inserts and auto's could be, and toss the rest, I hate that. That's a generation changer.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by BillyCoxDodgers3B

Watch it happen at some point. One company is already 2/3 of the way there. Why not complete the trifecta of conflict of interest hypocrisy? Makes me sick.

Third party grading has been riddled with conflicts of interest and favoritism for a long long time, even if it wasn't institutionally inherent. As I like to say, all submitters are equal, some are more equal than others.

[Yoda]

I hate to sound like a merchant of doom, but if DC doesn't get their crap together and raise the debt ceiling by 6/1 then all bets are off. Current asset values, including our beloved cards, will naturally plummet.

"My PSA 8 '52 Topps Mantle has dropped 50% and where the hell is my social security check?"

[FrankWakefield]

+1 Exhibitman #8, and

+1 BobC #26.


I lament the demise of Topps. Tradition can be wonderful; you can't buy tradition... Topps had Tradition, and that's now gone.

The athletes and sham graders will be better off for this Fanatics transition; ball card collectors, ball fans, and the hobby will not be.

[Republicaninmass]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

+1 Exhibitman #8, and

+1 BobC #26.


I lament the demise of Topps. Tradition can be wonderful; you can't buy tradition... Topps had Tradition, and that's now gone.

The athletes and sham graders will be better off for this Fanatics transition; ball card collectors, ball fans, and the hobby will not be.

Like everything else, the greed will ruin it, and placate to the "new investors" who will subsequently have substantial losses and leave.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

+1 Exhibitman #8, and

+1 BobC #26.


I lament the demise of Topps. Tradition can be wonderful; you can't buy tradition... Topps had Tradition, and that's now gone.

The athletes and sham graders will be better off for this Fanatics transition; ball card collectors, ball fans, and the hobby will not be.

Mentally playing the first track of Fiddler on the Roof. I guess people are always nostalgic for the good old days, but I neither like nor understand the massive business this has become.

[Rhotchkiss]

Based on the article above, it looks like PWCC may have been in trouble financially. Reading between the lines, it looks like PWCC borrowed a bunch of money to lend on cards, the interest rate on that loan went way up while the value of the cards they lent on plummeted. PWCC takes back a ton of cards. PWCC cannot service it’s debt bc the lender does not want to get paid in cards. Now the entire company is at risk bc the assets are pledged as collateral; and perhaps the owners have personal liability too. Fanatics comes in and effectively assumes the position of the lender- they pay off the lender and take all of PWCC’s assets. I am not sure the owners got paid anything- it depends on how desperate they were; maybe they kept a slice of ownership.

Bottom line, I am guessing Fanatics had all the leverage in this deal, meaning they not only got a new platform/business, but they probably got a pretty good deal to boot

Again, I know nothing about this deal other than what is in the article and my (likely poor) intuition

[Leon]

Nice summation of a good possibility.

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Based on the article above, it looks like PWCC may have been in trouble financially. Reading between the lines, it looks like PWCC borrowed a bunch of money to lend on cards, the interest rate on that loan went way up while the value of the cards they lent on plummeted. PWCC takes back a ton of cards. PWCC cannot service it’s debt bc the lender does not want to get paid in cards. Now the entire company is at risk bc the assets are pledged as collateral; and perhaps the owners have personal liability too. Fanatics comes in and effectively assumes the position of the lender- they pay off the lender and take all of PWCC’s assets. I am not sure the owners got paid anything- it depends on how desperate they were; maybe they kept a slice of ownership.

Bottom line, I am guessing Fanatics had all the leverage in this deal, meaning they not only got a new platform/business, but they probably got a pretty good deal to boot

Again, I know nothing about this deal other than what is in the article and my (likely poor) intuition

[BeanTown]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Based on the article above, it looks like PWCC may have been in trouble financially. Reading between the lines, it looks like PWCC borrowed a bunch of money to lend on cards, the interest rate on that loan went way up while the value of the cards they lent on plummeted. PWCC takes back a ton of cards. PWCC cannot service it’s debt bc the lender does not want to get paid in cards. Now the entire company is at risk bc the assets are pledged as collateral; and perhaps the owners have personal liability too. Fanatics comes in and effectively assumes the position of the lender- they pay off the lender and take all of PWCC’s assets. I am not sure the owners got paid anything- it depends on how desperate they were; maybe they kept a slice of ownership.

Bottom line, I am guessing Fanatics had all the leverage in this deal, meaning they not only got a new platform/business, but they probably got a pretty good deal to boot

Again, I know nothing about this deal other than what is in the article and my (likely poor) intuition

Well said Ryan and completely agree

[BobC]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Based on the article above, it looks like PWCC may have been in trouble financially. Reading between the lines, it looks like PWCC borrowed a bunch of money to lend on cards, the interest rate on that loan went way up while the value of the cards they lent on plummeted. PWCC takes back a ton of cards. PWCC cannot service it’s debt bc the lender does not want to get paid in cards. Now the entire company is at risk bc the assets are pledged as collateral; and perhaps the owners have personal liability too. Fanatics comes in and effectively assumes the position of the lender- they pay off the lender and take all of PWCC’s assets. I am not sure the owners got paid anything- it depends on how desperate they were; maybe they kept a slice of ownership.

Bottom line, I am guessing Fanatics had all the leverage in this deal, meaning they not only got a new platform/business, but they probably got a pretty good deal to boot

Again, I know nothing about this deal other than what is in the article and my (likely poor) intuition

Makes a lot of sense Ryan, and also may point to an obvious technique/tactic used in business to take advantage of situations. Fanatics ownership/management appear to be quite savvy and up to the task from a business standpoint. After the move was made to strip Topps of their future player licensing agreements to be able to print cards of MLB players a little while back, the IPO Topps was in the process of completing was crushed, and soon after Fanatics swooped in and bought them for what would seem to be a huge discount. Whether the timing of the move by Fanatics to take over those future licensing rights was calculated and intentional, we'll probably never know for certain. But I wouldn't put it past Fanatics to have made that announcement, stripping Topps of future MLB licensing rights when they did on the eve of Topps' IPO, as a way to inflict the most noticeable and public damage to Topps' name and brand, and most significantly, its value. The timing of all those factors seems almost too good for Fanatics ultimate benefit to be simply coincidental.

This PWCC acquisition looks to be maybe a little more of an opportunistic move by Fanatics, rather than one they may have helped create. But again, shows their apparent ability, and desire, to take full advantage of the potential distress of other companies in the hobby industry, and possibly be able to grab them at greatly discounted prices.

As for Fanatics possibly going after a TPG next, I did not know about the relationship of Michael Rubin being a major owner/investor in Fanatics and also in CSG. Thanks for pointing that out Casey. with that kind of mutual ownership/rapport between Fanatics and CSG already existing. can easily see some kind of working arrangement/partnership, so to speak, being set up to mutually benefit the two companies. Sort of like the already existing partnership between CSG and Ebay regarding Ebay's Authenticity Program, and the services provided by CSG for it. Or even the existing partnership that CSG already had with PWCC prior to this acquisition of PWCC by Fanatics. In nothing else, this likely strengthens that pre-existing partnership between CSG and PWCC. And I wouldn't put it past Michael Rubin's involvement with CSG as a possible source of info that Fanatics used that allowed them to better negotiate and step in to acquire PWCC as well. After the fact, when more and more coincidences seem to start turning up, it becomes more likely those weren't all just random coincidences to begin with. LOL

So maybe Fanatics doesn't go after a TPG after all. Seems they don't necessarily need to in order to have a special working relationship with one that they can use to their mutual advantage. And as others have opined, not so sure that Fanatics would need to acquire a Breaker, as they already have their distribution system/network in place. And this acquisition of PWCC just further expanded their own marketing platform as well. The trick for Fanatics and their owners/investors will be to somehow supplant/replace the current Breaker distribution/sales system/network in place for the sale/distribution of sports cards so they can take those profits the Breakers have been realizing for more than a decade now, and put those in their own pockets instead going forward. And it may not be that difficult. Just like Fanatics saw to Topps being cut off from the future licensing to provide images of MLB players/teams, what is to stop Fanatics/Topps from figuring out ways to circumvent and not have to sell to Breakers? Breakers are really nothing more than retailers, and are totally dependent on being able to buy and acquire products they "Break" from wholesalers/manufacturers. I don't believe there are any laws that would force a company like Topps to have to sell their product through Breakers. Quite a few businesses these days directly market to the public, especially with the added ease and pervasiveness of the internet and online marketing and retailing. And Breakers would still be able to acquire products from other card manufacturers, like Panini, so trying to play the illegal monopoly card likely wouldn't work in their favor either. There can be many different ways for Fanatics/Topps to work things going forward. Hopefully what they choose to maximize their profits won't boomerang and work against the hobby itself, sort of how the junk wax era turned out for everyone, and turned many off to the hobby. But look how the hobby survived and came back anyway. These corporate entities may need to learn to temper their profit aspirations and goals at times, so as to not jeopardize the hobby itself, and the desire and passion of collectors/investors who are the sole reason for those profits to begin with. Sort of like the old adage, "Don't cut off your nose to spite your face!"

Will be very interesting to see and follow where this all goes.

[trambo]

Originally Posted by Rhotchkiss

Based on the article above, it looks like PWCC may have been in trouble financially. Reading between the lines, it looks like PWCC borrowed a bunch of money to lend on cards, the interest rate on that loan went way up while the value of the cards they lent on plummeted. PWCC takes back a ton of cards. PWCC cannot service it’s debt bc the lender does not want to get paid in cards. Now the entire company is at risk bc the assets are pledged as collateral; and perhaps the owners have personal liability too. Fanatics comes in and effectively assumes the position of the lender- they pay off the lender and take all of PWCC’s assets. I am not sure the owners got paid anything- it depends on how desperate they were; maybe they kept a slice of ownership.

Bottom line, I am guessing Fanatics had all the leverage in this deal, meaning they not only got a new platform/business, but they probably got a pretty good deal to boot

Again, I know nothing about this deal other than what is in the article and my (likely poor) intuition

Definitely plausible and even likely. I wonder how many of the cards they held as collateral were the new/shiny ones and how many were vintage/pre war. The higher % of new/shiny, the more I'd think you're right, Ryan.

It will be interesting to see where this goes. My PWCC vault is now empty, that's for sure (not that there was ever much in it).

[JollyElm]

Originally Posted by FrankWakefield

I lament the demise of Topps. Tradition can be wonderful; you can't buy tradition... Topps had Tradition, and that's now gone.

Wow...what you said led me to a stark realization. The way tobacco cards became a relic of an antiquated, bygone era, Topps cards, too, have now achieved that same obsolescent status. It's over. All that's left for us gum-chewing, card-collecting, perpetual adolescents are the memories of summer days at the corner store, begging our moms to let us rip open one more pack.

[MikeGarcia]

Originally Posted by parkplace33

I wonder if pwcc (or whatever their new name is) will be allowed back on eBay. Stranger things have happened.

.. Some of us graybeard observers of baseball cards and big money are pretty sure that there were a lot of I's dotted and a lot of T's crossed and a lot of questions asked and answered before this thing occurred . Just call it a hunch.

..Watch that space. And here's some cards , just for the joy that's in it :



..

[Yoda]

I would certainly hope that during their due diligence Fantastics made a thorough audit of the Vault to make sure all was in order, no cards missing, rightful owners, etc. Ryan makes a great point that if PWCC is in a financial jam who knows where they are getting money to service their debt outside of their weekly auctions, which have had lesser quality material than in the past.

And I would think that Fantastics made it part of the sale agreement for a PWCC reduced headcount.

I wonder what size yacht Brent and Betsy are going to buy? Gotta be bigger than some of those Russian oligarchs