Topps going public via SPAC
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnb...spac-deal.html

Interesting to see what the new ventures are

CNBC has been talking about it pretty extensively this morning. The warrants have doubled in price since yesterday, but are still trading at under $2 pre-market. It will be interesting to see where the stock and the warrants open.

Just saw this...wow.

Another article... https://finance.yahoo.com/news/forme...120004064.html

smh on the NFT mention.

This will require them to open the books up to the world at large. If nothing else, it will be interesting to have some clarity on how many cards are printed in a given year.

I had a warrant order filled at $1.76 per at open. We.ll see what happens.

I thought Topps was already public? They sold stock back in the early 80's.

Think they were bought out in 2007. Then that shareholder wanted to cash out and they brought the company back to the public markets again

Probably a smart move for the company (or at least its shareholders). The valuations are generally quite generous. Seems to be the case here, as well.

I'm a big fan of SPACs when sponsored/organized well. I've never heard of Mudrick Capital, but that doesn't mean much, as I'm not in the industry anymore. The traditional IPO market has/had become such a racket, and not particularly useful for non-tech companies.

Anyway, I'm not a buyer at this valuation, mostly just because I don't know the industry well and can't judge. But I wish them luck!

Pete Is Right
 

From the press release:

"Topps had been publicly owned until 2007 when Madison Dearborn Partners and Tornante Company bought it for $385 million. Former Disney chairman and CEO Michael Eisner spearheaded that group and plans to stay on as chairman of the combined company’s board of directors. Michael Brandstaedter, will remain as President and Chief Executive Officer. The company will be traded on the NASDAQ exchange."

On a personal note, not a big fan of Eisner. He ran Disney for a long time. From all I have read about him he is difficult to work with. One story I remember reading: He wanted Tom Cruise to pay the role of Henry Hill in the classic movie "Goodfellas." Of course Ray Liotta ended up playing it and did an incredible job.

People do change. It will be interesting to see how this goes in the years ahead.

Peace.

Yes, he was difficult to work for. My ex-father in law was president of operations at Disney World when Eisner took over. He was eventually shown the door. Worked out for him though as he became president of Madison Square Garden, then a president of a division in the NBA then built the Kiel Center in St. Louis.

Eisner is an alum of my current wife's alma mater.

Eisner is sharp and a very competent executive. The level of "difficulty" permitted executive in Hollywood would probably be punished elsewhere, but he's chairman in this case...and as long as his interest is tied primarily to his ownership rather than annual compensation (as it appears to be), I expect he will fight hard for shareholder value.

My own limited experiences with him were of a hard-nosed, rather arrogant guy. But not that far afield....

When Shrek was being filmed, the producer, Jeffrey Katzenberg, had butted heads with Eisner when the two were at Disney, so everything about Lord Farquaad is a dig at Eisner. His castle is based on the one at Disneyland, and Shrek's first impression is "He's compensating for something." Then the name is a corruption of Eisner's behind-his-back nickname, that I can't type here because of forum rules about profanity.

On topic, Jason Zweig once wrote that IPO should stand for "It's Probably Overpriced." I won't be buying, though I wish the buyers good luck.

In general Id be very leery of SPACs. At Solly in 1998-1999 we were one of the first firms to bring SPACs to the market and they were not received well by institutional customers. During that period internet related names were flying as was the NDX, it looked like valuations were never going to come back down to earth (a valuation cycle we currently see in many high flying names). It was a time that was ripe for introducing a product that paid the issuer and sponsor handsomely. After a short period of time it was realized that these instruments far from benefited the investor and their issuance died out. In my opinion their use has only revived as a result of the current euphoric equity environment. I don't believe it will end well. I would be extremely careful investing in MUDS though there is a chance Topps is undervalued in this current soaring collector card mania. Again just my opinion.

For 70 years, the name Topps has become synonymous with baseball cards. That longevity was threatened Thursday, as The Action Network confirmed that Major League Baseball and the Major League Baseball Players Association have given their exclusive licenses to Fanatics. The union deal doesn’t start before 2023, and the MLB deal won’t start until 2026.

Terms of the deal are unclear, but sources say that both MLB and MLBPA will have an equity stake in the new company formed from scratch just to produce trading cards.

A Fanatics spokesperson declined to confirm the news. Calls made to Mudrick Capital were unanswered.

The deal presents a major issue for Mudrick Capital, which is taking Topps public in a deal valued at $1.3 billion. While Topps will have five seasons left on its MLB deal, losing the license in the future automatically makes it a shell of its former self.

This deal might completely undo the business combination between Mudrick and Topps. Shareholders are expected to vote on the deal next Wednesday morning.

Sources said that Major League Baseball offered Topps the right to match the deal proposed by Fanatics and was unable to reach the number — not a surprising result given the fact that Fanatics is worth nearly 14 times what Topps is worth.