jdw

Not sure what you mean. FS1 launched with about 90M households, about the same as USA. As far as finding them: 441 USA HD 468 FS1 HD My HD channels are largely in the 402-499 range, with some bleed over for pay channels (500-599) and "others" (in the 350-399 range). The others tend to be things like NFL Networks, PAC 12 networks, Fox Soccer networks, some Spanish language local ones, etc. ESPN is down in the 424-426 range for ESPN, ESPN2 and ESPNNews. But FS1 is up in the band of sports channels from 463-474 that also has the two local Fox Sports (Angels, Clippers, Kings, Ducks and formerly Lakers, Dodgers and USC/UCLA before they headed / are heading to their own channels), ESPNU, NBCSN, CBS Sports, NHL+NBA+MLB channels, etc. Given the content that's headed to NBCSports and FS1, it's likely an easy one to find. And I've got Time Warner, noted for being total assholes about this stuff. So I don't think people will have issues.

I don't think anyone portrays "TV Rights" as a rocket to the moon. "TV Money" was a rocket to the moon, and a significant change in the money the WWE brought in: FY1998 % of Corporate Revenue 35% PPV 27% Merch 23% House Shows 10% US TV Revenue FY2000 % of Corporate Revenue 30% Merch 28% PPV 21% US TV Revenue 18% House Shows FY 1998 to FY2000 Growth 406% US TV Revenue 335% Merch Revenue 242% PPV 239% Live Events They all were shot out of a cannon, but TV went from being a method to advertise other live events (PPV and house shows) to being a significant revenue stream. Rockets to the moon don't always keep going past it to Mars or Venus. And about that Advertising Revenue in the early part of the boom, there's a hidden cost in there - the WWF/WWE was paying a large chunk of that revenue back to USA / The Networks. Looking at their FY2000 10-K Revenue: Advertising revenue in FY1999 was $30.1M, up from $12.2M. Cost: Up $12.2M in advertising revenue, but they had to turn over $19.4M more to USA. There also was this buried in SG&A: They had a massive increase in SG&A costs due, a good chunk of it related to selling that advertising. A little more detail in the following year, the same 10-K, talking about FY2000 vs FY1999: Advertising went to $77.9M, which was an increase of $47.8M. Costs: Of the $47.8M increase, a large chunk was bled off to paying USA and UPN their cut of the ad revenues. I'd have to dig deeper into the filings to see if there's ever good detail to calculate the likely % of the Ad Revenue that was being turned over to USA and UPN. The WWE's current profit on TV Fees is in the 41% to 43% range over the last three years. It's a bit easier to pull that off the more recent 10-K's than the old ones, if it's possible at all off the old ones (I'm having a tough time finding what I need on the FY1999 and FY2000 ones). The costs are of course the production expenses, arena rent, performer payments (which likely have increased in terms of TV vs house shows), etc. I suspect, just by looking at that small amount of numbers that we have for 1999 and 2000 that the profit range in those years on TV Advertising was less. That's why Vince (or the more financially sound members of the WWF/WWE) wanted to get out of the Ad Revenue business: it was a fake revenue, and likely one where, once they did the math, they were far better off just taking a Rights Fee than running the Advertising end. In turn, I think we need to dig a little deeper before doing a direct 1-to-1 comp of Advertising Revenue vs Rights Fees given such a large chunk of that revenue was going right out the door via minimum guarantees (let alone going above the minimum guarantees).

I reckon if they show in 25 countries, they might get $2million from each one, or something like that. Their last 10-K: They're in more than 25 countries. They probably get good money from some of them, and perhaps pay to get on in other countries simply to advertise their PPV. The average would be meaningless given that number of countries.

Here's the FXX announcement: http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/fx-officia...ch-in-september Here's the FX push at about the same time: http://www.deadline.com/2013/03/fx-greenli...-limited-series They're going heavy with drama and new programing on FX over the next few years: Granted, what he doesn't mention is that FX series are short-run: 13 - Sons of Anarchy 13 - Justified 13 - American Horror Story 13 - The Americans 13 - The Bridge That's the number of episodes in the most recent season of each of the current dramas on FX. Pretty much all of them have always had 13 episodes seasons. Network tends to go in the 22-24 range now. So "25 original programs" for FX isn't the same in terms of eating up the programing schedule/slot as it would be on the networks... perhaps even more so if the "FX" up there means both FX and FXX, with about 12 shows per channel. You could fit Raw and Smackdown onto one of these. I'm not sold that Fox would want to run WWE content on either of them. Perhaps on FXX, but there's a big drop in households: 90M USA 72M FXX I've seen as many as 98M listed for USA, but NBC's own website has 90: http://www.nbc.com/nbc/NBC_Universal_Cable_Networks The last time the WWE went to a network that had less households, they blamed it for years of ratings drops. John

There's also a slight FS1 problem that people are overlooking: http://msn.foxsports.com/other/story/FOX-S...-network-030513 I'd add in the New Big East as another hoops property they have. ESPN loves them hoops on Monday, a/k/a Big Monday: http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballn...chedule-is-here That's January through March when the conference part of the schedule kicks in... or more importantly, Monday Night Football is over. Basketball season actually starts in November, and if FS1 is looking for TV content and a bit more stretched to find stuff, they might be more than happy to air hoops games in November and December as well. They have 4 conferences to draw from, though if you look at the Big Monday schedule for ESPN this year, the Big 12 is all over it. That very likely is an exclusive for ESPN: no competitor channel will air national games on Monday opposite ESPN. But they still can draw from the PAC, the New Big East, and Conference USA. The PAC really likes to play games on Thu/Fri and Sat/Sun, with an occasional Wed game thrown in. But perhaps Fox tempts them. The Big East would be all over being on Monday to flip the bird at ESPN. Problem? Games don't already end on time. ESPN's Big Monday is 7pm & 9pm ET. How does one fit an 8-11pm Raw into that? You don't. Vince doesn't want to be on delay or moved to another day from Jan-Mar, or worse Nov-Mar. Fox has already blocked off Monday and Thursday as their key exclusive nights for NCAA Hoops, straight up against ESPN's Big Monday. Raw doesn't fit into that.

I don't think Vince gives a shit about "FS1" bidding. He cares about "Fox" bidding. He really doesn't care too much about which Fox channel he airs on. John

I'm not sold that FS1 is a good fit. Fox has ducked getting a piece of the WWE *forever*. There's zero doubt that the WWE has long wanted to get Fox at least in the door to make serious bids, if only to drive up what they could get out of USA or anyone else. But let's be honest: SmackDown is on freaking SyFi, which is about the most non-WWE channel it could be on. Fox just hasn't given two shits about having Raw or SD over the years. Which is worrisome if they suddenly want it to be a part of their weekly programing. It's not really a sign of someone who is all that committed to you, and instead will take a bite now and pitch you to the curb as soon as they can: Real Sports content arrives to fill up their hours and draw reasonable viewers for them. But I totally agree with the second item: NBC and Fox are looking at the NBA as one of the last two big sports packages still out there to buy this decade, with the Big 10 being the other. There are smaller ones: Notre Dame football, Champions League soccer, etc. But the NBA is the biggest, with one big gun (ESPN) having a piece they don't want to lose to Fox or NBC, and a smaller gun (TNT) who is desperate to keep their #1 sporting content. It's going to take a lot of money to drive off ESPN or TNT. The WWE's rights aren't that much money in the big picture: even doubled up to $170M a year, that's small compared to what the NBA will go for. But it is more money. ESPN and TNT are already looking to offload their NASCAR next year to NBC (who has their part of the contract starting in 2015). They would just as soon cut their losses now rather than lameduck it, and save that money for something else... in addition to bleed NBC's fund as well.

I get the general premise of what Dave is saying. But that also generally was the case in the last go around: Raw and SmackDown were pulling in higher viewer numbers than most stuff on cable. There were loads of cable channels pulling in far fewer viewers. Not too many of them stepped forward to offer big money to the WWE at the time. Rates only went up a bit. Vince and the WWE are trying to take the novel approach that, "Hey! We're Sports!" at a time when sports rights are through the roof, often for programing that on average draws less viewers than the WWE. That has two issues: * pro wrestling doesn't pull in the ad money that Sports does * no one in the TV industry sees the WWE as the equiv of Sports programing The first is just reality. We all know it, and have talked about it for years. The second is reality too. The tv industry sees it as the equiv of Duck Dynasty, except that it's not hot like Duck Dynasty is right now. There also always is a chunk of advertising money chasing around whatever is hot at the moment, then quickly bailing out of it to what's hot next. WWE programing isn't getting that money. A third issue: * sports executives are pushing Sport and Real Sports Entertainment, not Fake Sports Entertainment They will gladly push First Take because it relates to the Sports they're pushing. In fact, it helps hype the sports they're carrying ("Free Te-Bow!" -Skip Fucking Bayless). Fake Sports Entertainment doesn't push FS1's Real Sports. Do viewers win out? Sure... except that pro wrestling is different, and we've yet to see a mad rush of people vying for the programing to drive up the WWE's rights like this: Old Contract: $23.0M per year New Contract: $83.3M per year = 362% growth It's because it's Pro Wrestling. I'd enjoy seeing that change. It always was odd that pro wrestling did great ratings but weaker stuff did better money. But... we'll see if it changes. Does Spike care? My guess is that the WWE isn't going to piss off USA until they either have USA locked up on renewal or sign with someone else. It also doesn't look like the WWE has badmouthed USA like they kinda-sorta were with Spike.

In 2012, they made $139.5M in TV Rights Fees split $88.9M domestic and $50.6M int'l (and a paltry $1.4M in TV Advertising). [...] Can they really expect to bring in an increase of $25M-$40M more in domestic TV Rights from this round of negotiations? Vince was talking about close to 90M in additional US rights, not 25M-40M. Sine he was talking about 4 contracts, and the 2 international ones are buried within the 50M of international rights, the only way they get "double" out of those 4 combined is if the US 2 go up close to double. John

The google is your friend.

Analysis is fun. Take the Spurs. You've probably spent some time over the past few years thinking about what they can do to win #5. You don't mindless turn on the TV and go, "I hope they win tonight and I have fun!" You actually give some thought to the team that you follow. Shit like can they keep Splitter, what's a good contract for him to keep space open for other guys, and what is his ceiling. Things like is Manu done, or does he have one more season in him. Wondering if Kawhi Leonard can take another big step forward, or if he was a flash. Etc. We do this all the time with sports. It's part of what makes us a sports fan. In contrast to non-sports fans who watch sports: my mom went to games when my dad had season tickets, and just went to have a fun night out. She couldn't talk baseball with my dad because she didn't really follow it, or roll any of it over in her head.When my dad when with a baseball fan, they'd talk the game, talk the Dodgers, compare the team to Dodgers clubs of the past, etc. We all do that as sports fans, and we all know the folks who are just casual compared to us. Hell... we do this all the time with Entertainment too. I've got the first three episode of Low Winter Sun on my DVR, and of course I'm going to analyze them when I watch them. I'm going to figure out whether it's worth keep watching them, using DVR space for them, or if it's a drama that turned out to be a waste of my time. It's not just whether it's "fun" or not... but whether it's any good. The first three or so episodes of The Wire weren't much fun, but you could get a sense of a story being laid down... a lot of shit being laid down. I also had a bit of faith in Simon from his prior works going back to his first book, so... worth giving it a look, thinking about it a bit, etc. Then 4-5 episodes in, it all started coming together and took off. The show was only intermittently "fun", and 50% of the second season drove me nuts with the Harbor storyline. But it was great TV in the end. Okay... I've used this one before: We analyze everything, including our relationships. The people we dated, were "fun" and ran through in 6-12 months until it wasn't "fun" anymore... those we figured out and moved on from. Our long standing one... we've given a ton of thought about, worked hard on the relationship, take the non-fun with the fun, good with the tough, and turned it over in out minds that it's all worth it. And hope that are partner has done the same. Life is about analysis. If it wasn't, we'd be dogs pissing taking a dump on the lawn, or smack heads just trying to numb are brains so we don't have to think. Analysis is tough, it's rewarding, it can be heart wrenching (wait until any of us to rolling over things about the loss of a loved one)... and it can be damn fun. I get a smile on my face when thinking about my girlfriend at Gettysburg breaking down different good and stupid things that the two sides did, with this fire and passion for what she's talking about, and spent decades reading and thinking about.

As a side tangent... If you have interest, my recommendation would be to do something like grab the 1992 or 1993 Yearbook. Watch the stuff in order, US, Mexico and Japan. Before or after watching the stuff, read the thread on each match. Rather than doing just pure "Best of" and jumping into the middle of the deep end, you're watching stuff in a little bit of context. Not just the Japanese stuff, but the US stuff as well. I think others could recommend which of those is a better set to get a wide variety of stuff on. I know 1990 is the start of the decade, but 1992 and 1993 have some of that interesting stuff like SMW in support of WWF and WCW, along with second level Japanese promotions in addition to AJPW and NJPW and AJW. Both are kind of loaded with good stuff.

You either find it enjoyable, or not. That's similar to wrestling in general, and pretty much everything else. There's no point in beating yourself up over it. Take futbol/soccer. I played it through high school. Watched it through that period in the 70s through mid-80s. Watch it now. So take it on two levels: Level 1 - The Most Basic Lots of people are bored shitless by the sport, period. That's fine. Folks don't have to enjoy it, no does it impact me if they don't like it. We have that will all sorts of sports and entertainment - some folks like something, and some don't. Level 2 - Specifics I can't watch the MLS. Just bores me to death, I find the quality mediocre, and I don't care about the teams or players. Call me a snob: I've been watching the EPL for 20 years, and the old English 1st Division back to the 70s. On the other hand, I really don't care to watch Stoke vs Sunderland either because, well... they kind of suck a lot too. Unless there's relegation involved, then it's morbidly fun. Anyway... Even within my love of futbol, there's some stuff I go out of my way to watch: my team Manchester United, along with usually one other team whose quality is high they I want to pick up stuff on. Barca is the current, but it was Chelsea in Mou's first run, or the Gunners before that, and Juve & Milan in the 90s. I follow my team, and also try to keep an eye on either the competitors or the state of the art as well. Two teams, I tend to grab all I can of them. In addition to that, I grab other games that look interesting, be it keeping an eye on rivals, or a match up of two good teams. I watch what I like most of the time, and some stuff that I feel I need to watch to keep up with the season and how other key teams are playing. Wrestling is the same. Watch what you like. With in the genre/type that you like, there may be some things that you probably aren't going to like... but fell like you have to. Before I pulled the plug on regularly watching the WWE, that would be Triple H matches: I knew I was likely not going to enjoy them, but they were kind of important to keep track of what was going on the WWE. In turn, I really didn't give two shits about TNA, and didn't have time to watch it compared to other stuff I wanted to watch, or read, or game-play in my rec&relaxation time. So don't worry about it if you don't care about Puroresu. I wouldn't put it in the context of Russo, since he's a totally fucking idiot. Just put it in the context of yourself: doesn't do much for me, and there's a lot of other things I want to spend time on. John

I'd pretty much say the same thing about Kobashi for his style. John

Anyone else read this and get a weird visual of JDW doing a vulgar dance to Slow Ride as a teen? Nah. I was more the type to sit on the couch watching a movie or TV, drinking beer and pulling bongloads all night with the girlfriend and/or friends. Going to a club and dirty dancing took too much energy.

It wasn't Sr's office. It was Sr & Young Jr visiting the law offices that Barnett's dad worked at, while Young Barnett was there. Jr was taking that arrogant little shit attitude on the road, rather than in a place where his dad was King. Vince's backstory is self invented. Those that would point out it's full of shit are dead, are aging and have lost their minds, or have Vince to thank for making them a lot of money. It's not like a lot of people now 30 years after he took over the business, and nearly 45 years after he started working for his old man's company, are going to question him. Come on... Vince was the lead announcer on his dad's TV show when he was 26. He was effectively the head of the company when he was 35. He was his father's heir and had been groomed by the old man to take it over. Is anyone buying the bullshit that Vince spins that his old man squeezed him in taking over the company?

Some of the other points: * I don't think the XFL and Bodybuilding and Sugar Ray fight are terribly relevant Geniuses can be gifted a one thing, and not another. Not just in the sense of apples and oranges, but even within a craft. I don't think we have to look hard to find partnerships where one people does one half and the other does the other half, but they might not be terribly great on the other half. Hammerstein was a playwright and lyricist, while Rodgers was the muscian. You can have that in business, where a CEO is a great "product" guy, but not so good on the marketing of finance side. Vince is a wrestling guy. Has been pretty much his whole life. He kind of sucks at other things, just like Linda sucked as a Senate candidate. But that really doesn't have any barring on whether Vince is a "wrestling promoter" genius. * semantics I suspect we're all hung up on the word Genius * It's freaking Vince I suspect we are also hung up on it being Vince, and the years of either hating Vince or being a fan of his shit. It's a bit like Hogan. It's very difficult to have an objective discussion about Vince because we all carry a ton of baggage on him. That was one of the things about the Vince & Hogan vs The World thread that Kris and I were kind of getting at: screw the baggage, what's the raw data/info/crap, how does it shift out, and let's give it some thought. All three of these thing effect how I look at Vince. He and Hogan were the Great Enemies when I became a wrestling fan of JCP/NWA. Satan and the Beast to Our Hero Ric. I laughed when those various things of Vince bombed, or worse, scratched my head at the insanity of the XFL folly even as Vince/WWF Fans were trying to find reasons why it would work. I also am one of the more annoying people when it comes to semantics. Is Vince a wrestling promoter genius? I don't know... it's a loaded word. It's just easier to say that he's the best wrestling promoter in US history, and we all would have a tougher time figuring out who is #2 than who is #1. He did have the right base to succeed from (the Northeastern Promotion), but there's a pretty ridiculous number of things we could point to that show his vision where others failed to have it. While there were some things that others got to first (WCW was slightly ahead of him in TV Content = Big Money), even on those things he ended up hitting it out of the park more, or "perfecting" it while others flamed out after the initial burst. I don't know if he's a genius. But a field might produce a few geniuses. They produce only one "best". He's it... so, chose your poison.

We've talked about this on the board before. It's a work. It would been very easy for Vince to downsize into (i) his old core markets, (ii) the new markets that we drawing a load of money for him, and (iii) cut back on his roster. In fact, we know not just that this would have been easy, but that it's exactly what Vince would have done. He has a long track record of cutting costs quickly and wisely when the WWF/WWE's business takes a dip. He's rather sharp about it, and doesn't let ego get in the way of decisions like that.

Who is stuck on it? The "self made" stuff is nonsense. On the other hand, he took a large regional promotion and turned it into a massive national promotion. In turn, he adapted to changing technologies and new revenue streams. What his company was in 1988 and in 1999 bore little relation to his father's company. Other than they promoted pro wrestling. It's a bit like Ted Turner. Ted wasn't completely "self made". His father had money and had a business. He dropped dead. Ted took the business and went well beyond what his father did. Kudos to Ted. Of course it's easier for Ted and Vince to get where they were going than someone growing up dirt poor without a pop with a good chunk of cash. So it's a balance.

This is a work. Barnett is the same age as Vince. He recalls Jr coming in with Sr to law offices of Barnett's dad when he was young, and already being an arrogant little shit at the time. Vince's whole backstory is about as much bullshit as Flair's "I was there when Brody got stabbed" crap from the other day. It's Vince McMahon, and he's been bullshitting since he took over the company. It's staggering anyone would buy a single thing either he or Linda say about their backstory.

That always struck me as a work. He bought out the other shareholders, but Sr. effectively gave it to him, acted as a buffer against the rest of the promoters to hide the national ambitions, and then dropped dead. Seriously... Jr. was the sole heir to his father who was 69, and his step mom was the same age. Jr. was going to get the company, and Sr set up the transition. It's a great part of Vince's worked bio... but it's just more nonsense. Hell, there probably was some tax benefit to Jr.

Love the Pour Some Sugar On Me / Cherry Pie / Girls Girls Girls tangent. Sid might be the perfect Pitbull. John

Pitbull is more (or less) than that. If it was just that, I could have used Britney... except that she's been wildly more successful, earning many millions more, making even more people happy, and pissing off more "real music fans".

Anything relating to attendance. "We packed the place." "We sold out three straight matches." 'Business went in the tank after they took the title off me." Etc. In another 10 years, it will be about Ratings.