kjh

One quick point re: Dylan suggesting Dave is naturally defensive because it's often his past opinions being critiqued. I think it's worth remembering that it's the old workers he talks to that convinced Dave of this stance by telling him that it's unfair to rate decades old matches with today's eyes because they weren't working a match for today's audience, they were working a match for the fans in that arena on that night. So if anyone is being defensive it's the wrestlers, not Dave. That may have been true for handhelds of matches in the '80s or '90s that the wrestlers didn't know were recorded, but with the business changing to the point where all major matches happen on television and the participants know its recorded for posterity's sake, I don't think that argument can stand in the future. Clearly, at WrestleMania, people will want to put on performances that will stand the test and still be talked about as great matches for many years to come.

Doesn't appear so http://www.insiderslab.com/PR4/WWE/ It is striking how much Stephanie dumped last year. The story that the money was being used to build a house always seemed fishy. Would make more sense if she was flipping it into safer investments No, it's not fishy at all, as she sold her stock before the huge increases.

The panic was a combination of under delivering on the network deal and revealing at the same time in their press release on the matter that (a) the Network now needed 1.3-1.4 million subscribers to break even and ( the company was going to post a huge loss for the year as a whole. Most analysts thought that they'd lose money in the first two quarters, but make the losses back in the second two quarters of the year and break even for the year.

The profitability of WWE's core business (house shows, merchandising, DVDs, licensing, etc) is declining, which is one of the things worrying investors. I'm not sure it really is hysterical overreacting when WWE's cash on hand is down to $87.3 million with projections of another $37-44 million in losses for the rest of the year and another $27 million in dividends to pay up. That doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room if the WWE Network takes longer to become profitable than expected.

The smart people short sold the stock and are now calling for the company's Board of Directors to replace their executive management team or explore the option of selling the business. http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2014/5/17/5726192/wwe-investors-call-for-vince-mcmahons-head-on-a-platter

Here's the thing: it was just launched in the US. They're talking about a Global number, as they launch the Network around the world. Is it realistic? Who knows. I do tend to think that over time they will be doing comfortably over 1M in the US. By the end of the year? Maybe, maybe not. By some point in 2015? No doubt... almost certainly by the time Mania airs. WWE in their latest press release is still touting 2.0-3.0 million potential subscribers in the US and 0.5-0.8 million in the international markets of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong and the Nordics (the countries they'll launch the Network in by the end of 2014) for a total of 2.5-3.8 million at steady state. Partly that's because they expect a higher take rate of 4-6% domestic compared with 2-3% elsewhere. Of course, that's based on 52M WWE Broadband Homes in the U.S. and 25M in the other markets.

To be fair, even though WWE is more episodic soap opera than real sporting competition, people watch it live at levels very close to the major sports. For that reason, it was the right comparison to make. Personally, I think it's the better route to go down than comparing themselves with the most popular scripted dramas in television. WWE may be more theatrical than ever, but it's not like the quality of their writing has improved in tandem. Many of their characters are still stereotypical one-dimensional characters (see Rusev and Lana), while those that aren't, their character motivation is usually a mess.

http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2014/5/15/5722104/details-on-wwe-tv-rights-deal-with-nbcuniversal-stock-plunges

You say that, but No Way Out 2002 for the nWo's WWE debut drew a strong buy rate and a huge rating on Raw the next night, although the angle didn't have great legs admittedly.

Even though he was just a jobber, you'd think they'd be more careful than to use a convicted sex offender after the Mel Phillips & Terry Garvin scandal of 1992.

Liger doesn't have the greatest rep among Japanese hardcores. I'm not sure why, but they always play down his importance. Perhaps Dave has heard something similar. I will say from my experience that Liger is not a hugely recognisable star in Japan, but neither is Tanahashi. That makes sense given that Liger's just been a guy on the card for most of the last decade. Still, I guess Liger is better known due to the comic book gimmick and being the top junior heavyweight in the country when wrestling was much, much hotter.

That actually sounds more believable to me, but Meltzer didn't give that indication on his radio show. He didn't know how much they got, but from the way he was talking it sounded like they got at least one better offer from elsewhere and NBCU decided to match it. The way he was talking made it seem like a doubling of the rights fees wasn't out of the question. Regarding WWE not shouting the news from the rooftops, I think NBCU wanted to be the ones to make the big announcement during broadcast upfront week on Thursday. I think that's why everything has been so tight lipped.

WWE rumored to have re-signed with NBCUniversal, announcement likely coming on Thursday: http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2014/5/11/5707194/wwe-rumored-to-have-re-signed-with-nbcuniversal-announcement-likely Looks like an exclusive deal.

There was a really bizarre argument between Dave and Bryan today on Wrestling Observer Radio over why Jushin Thunder Liger got the biggest pop out of the NJPW wrestlers on last night's ROH show in Toronto. Dave argued that it was because people had to trade tapes and pay to see the Liger era stars back in the day, while today's New Japan matches can easily be seen for free all over the Internet today. When you have to pay to see wrestlers they are perceived to be bigger stars. He also said Tanahashi was much bigger in Japan than Liger ever was. I know New Japan has a cult following online today, but clearly there was more interest in Japanese wrestling 20 years ago with hardcore fans and that's mainly because there was more big name stars, the quality of wrestling was higher, the shows were bigger, etc. A lot of people stopped watching when that generation of stars broke down, the next generation of stars weren't as good as the previous generation, Antonio Inoki killed New Japan with his shoot fetish, etc, and they haven't come back. Bryan attempted to argue this, but got shot down by Dave.

I think it's understandable that they've decided to keep him off Extreme Rules and use him on the September pay-per-view instead. They'll need a big match then to ensure the least amount of people cancel their WWE Network subscription.

I don't know, I just find the whole column a bit odd. Clearly, Punk is rightly fed up of being harassed and just wants to be left alone. I'm just not sure the best way of going about it was to agree to his friend's idea of her writing a column complaining about it in a local newspaper. It was just going to court more attention on him and the vile, misogynistic reaction from the nuttiest elements of the online wrestling community had to be expected if you freely give out your Twitter handle and an email address. On the other hand, without knowing that she was his high school girlfriend, one of his best friends and had Punk's prior agreement to write the column, you can't really blame people for jumping to the wrong conclusion that this was just someone wanting their five seconds of fame. If the whole aim was to get people to leave him alone, then it wasn't written in a manner that would be successful to achieving that goal.

My recent pieces on WWE business: WWE Network: Desperate decisions expose corporate spinhttp://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2014/5/6/5688202/wwe-network-desperate-decisions-expose-corporate-spin WWE wrestlers feel the McMahons are stealing from their pockets to fund the Networkhttp://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/2014/5/8/5696674/wwe-wrestlers-feel-the-mcmahons-are-stealing-from-their-pockets-to-fund-the-network

I'd be very surprised if Raw and Smackdown end up on rival cable networks. Cable exclusivity has always been part of the deal with NBCU and before them Viacom (remember Spike TV thwarted the WWF's first attempt to buy WCW over this issue). I also think they can get more money from offering exclusivity than shopping both shows separately.

The European tour is May 14th-24th, it's just been scheduled 2 or 3 weeks later this year.

Shawn Michaels claims the decision to end Undertaker's streak at WrestleMania 30 came four hours before the show: http://www.cagesideseats.com/2014/5/7/5690130/decision-to-end-undertakers-streak-at-wrestlemania-30-came-four-hours-before-the-show

I'm not sure the WWE "creative" team could resist the tired trope of demonic Kane terrorizing Bryan's wife.

Brock's got a huge seven figure guarantee, as have Undertaker and Triple H for working a handful of matches a year, so no way are they getting screwed over. I imagine the big stars in the Battle Royal are the people that will be most unhappy.

WWE posted an $8 million loss for the first quarter of 2014, which was slightly better than projected. They're still pushing that they're on target to double or triple their 2012 OIBDA in 2015, which is hard to see, unless they get the huge increase in TV rights fees they're promising.

Isn't that the case with most wrestling start ups that strive to be bigger than a small local independent wrestling company? The only reason ROH is alive today is because the people in charge found a succession of increasingly wealthy money marks to invest into / buy the company when the previous one was about to tap out. It's not because it's been a profitable or break-even venture or there was a sound business plan backing it up. Same goes with TNA.

It will be a huge quarter for revenue for sure, but due to the costs of running the Network, it will be unlikely to be a profitable one.