kjh Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted May 1, 2014 Report Share Posted May 1, 2014 http://whatculture.com/wwe/wwes-q1-conference-call-everything-learned.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 Seems like the appropriate thread to mention that one reason Batista is ready to go is that he hasn't made great money since returning. Add in that Punk had money issues and that Dave said on WOR that there's general unease among everyone right now over money and I think this is about to become a major issue unless they finally address how they plan to handle payoffs now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 How big an issue can it become without a well funded alternative? Dave presumably has that to some extent in the movies. It sounds like Foley is set. Punk would have people believe he doesn't need to work again. But for those who do I don't see a stable option. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(BP) Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 They were supposed to have a talent meeting to address payoffs months ago, but I think it got rescheduled into oblivion. Hard to believe they haven't addressed it this long after Punk left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 5, 2014 Report Share Posted May 5, 2014 Well, if they lost Punk at least partially over it and are about to lose Batista at least partially over it, they are feeling the effects of it already. No way does someone like Brock stick around if the money isn't good either. It's not something that will affect everyone, but the top guys who already have millions in the bank will be less likely to tolerate it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 6, 2014 Report Share Posted May 6, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Farmer Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 The biggest shock will come when their Mania checks come in, and their royalty checks from that period. Revenue dropped dramatically, and their checks will be much smaller than they are accustomed to. Also I noticed they didn't go on an extended European tour like they often do after Mania. With the jakked up gates they get a good payday off those tours too. Â It will effect everyone of course, but the guys who've been around for some time may feel now is a great time to take aa break. Â Just yesterday a friend of Punk' from Chicago told me he bet me that Punk will be back by Summerslam, I told him it would require a new contract. But he said he was certain Punk would be back, which I doubt myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 The European tour is May 14th-24th, it's just been scheduled 2 or 3 weeks later this year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 I've got a new piece about "WWE: Investors Remain Confused how to interpret Domestic TV Rights Negotiation Delays" Â http://whatculture.com/wwe/wwe-investors-remain-confused-domestic-tv-rights-negotiation-delays.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kjh Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 It's nuts how much the video game money has traditionally been. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted May 7, 2014 Report Share Posted May 7, 2014 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. Interesting point.  In this case, the only say that NBCU will have is that they offer to a match a competitor (up to a certain point)for whatever WWE gets from a rival bid. But all Raw/Smackdown deals run out as of Sept 2014.  I just believe that Vince hates being in the pocket of a single media conglomerate and so he'd want to split the assets because: 1. Smackdown is just not worth as much when it's combined with Raw 2. It gives him future leverage should anything go South  But I hear what you're saying. At the very least it gives a place for people to start to stake their claims: Raw+Smackdown: one network or two? Which network(s)? I've said mine - NBCU (Raw) and Viacom (Smackdown). But that's in the absence of anything new in many, many weeks.  I'm speculating wildly, but I bet that the issue of rebroadcast rights (when can WWE Network get the content) and cable exclusivity are big points of contention right now. I also wonder how many years they're going to get. It's almost like the larger the multiple (double vs triple) the longer you'd expect them to announce because then the high cost is spread over more years (when presumably the value of this sort of content is supposed to rise). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 It's nuts how much the video game money has traditionally been. Â What's been typical on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Â It's nuts how much the video game money has traditionally been. Â What's been typical on it? Â Â Dave said: Â "Since Foley publicly said what he did, we got notes from three major names (these are not the Cena tier, but pretty close to it), and their video game checks were in the $10,000 to $15,000 range, and two years ago they were $70,000 to more than $100,000. Â The general rule of thumb is that if you are in the video game, you get a royalty check for about $75,000 in the first quarter of the year." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingedEagle Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Wow, much bigger dropoff than I would've expected. But I wonder how much of that is a one-time thing resulting from the change in companies due to difficulties at their previous partner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mookeighana Posted May 8, 2014 Report Share Posted May 8, 2014 Wow, much bigger dropoff than I would've expected. But I wonder how much of that is a one-time thing resulting from the change in companies due to difficulties at their previous partner. The conference call pretty much made it clear it's not a one-time thing. They signed a worse deal than they had before. Now, they only hit higher royalty rates when they achieve higher volumes of sales. So, it's possible that the money that wrestlers don't see in Q1 will come in during later quarters, but I am skeptical. Of the $10M drop, $8M was basically a like-to-like comparison with last year (they got a $2M settlement last year that was a one-time thing which they don't have the books this year; and I'm not even sure if any of that money would have been distributed to the wrestlers). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Farmer Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 A friend with the company, who is on the lower end of the spectrum. He'll work occasional house shows and TV, very rarely Raw and has been with the company for many years now. He showed me his royalty check, 2 years ago or so from his video game royalties and it was $65,000. His downside was maybe double that amount, so his royalty from the game was a HUGE part of his salary! Â Those guys that are being moved up from NXT with small downsides will be hurt tremendously, especially if they are not working house shows and are stuck in Orlando. And if your on the road, but the houses are small and your just getting your appearance guarantee. Your not taking home a ton of money. Â I'm sure an even bigger uproar will happen when Mania checks come in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rovert Posted May 9, 2014 Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 Yeah I remember Evan Bourne working on his OVW(?) deal on the main roster for the longest time. Maxine quit in part because of the same thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted May 9, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 9, 2014 A friend with the company, who is on the lower end of the spectrum. He'll work occasional house shows and TV, very rarely Raw and has been with the company for many years now. He showed me his royalty check, 2 years ago or so from his video game royalties and it was $65,000. His downside was maybe double that amount, so his royalty from the game was a HUGE part of his salary!  Did the royalty count against the Downside, or was it in addition to the Downside?  On other words:  $130K downside + $65K video royalty + other stuff above the downside  or  $130K downside with $65K royalty going against it and other stuff going against it until finally some amount popping over $130K  If it's the first, I doubt they're going to have a tough time finding guys on the "low end" willing to make $130K guaranteed + $10K video royalties + modest PPV add-ins taking all of it up over $150K rather easy.  Unless the indy circuit is paying all those people who would love to get into the WWE a hell of a lot more than I'd expect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loss Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 John, I would be interested in hearing your comments on the ethical side of cutting payoffs and not answering questions about pay that everyone has. Whether they lose talent or not, is that a good business practice? I feel like our posts about this are a little cold-hearted. "It's not like they're going to lose anyone" may be true, but it sucks for the wrestlers who are used to making more money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdw Posted May 10, 2014 Author Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 I'm pretty cold-hearted about it because the standard contracts call for various buckets of money to be set aside by Vince/The Company for different things (video bucket, merch bucket, TV bucket, PPV bucket) and to be split up in a way that Vince / The Company determines. So... if wrestlers don't negotiate something more clear ($5 a t-shirt / $1 for every dvd/video they appear on, etc), then... well... um... fuck them. They were happy with Vince's Buckets when it gave them more money than they thought. Now they're unhappy... tough shit. :/  Chris has a rather good explanation why the dvd/video royalty has gone in the crapper: that business is dead / dying / took a massive hit. It's easy enough for Vince to call a meeting and explain that.  The PPV thing... I think we all pretty much agree that the WWE is likely to make more $$$ next year off the WWE Network + PPV than they made last year with just PPV. Chris might crunch the number a little differently, but I think the revenue will get there. The profit probably won't, but it will eventually.  If there's an issue, it's that Vince has done a poor job of:  * explaining the finances of the company to the workers as a whole  * failed to show he will eat some "lean" times as well  The first is just stupid, but it's also something that he probably never has had to do to the Boyz. So I get it. But he also should get off his ass and explain.  On the second, there's a pretty easy solution: not payout dividends to the Family's class of stock. That would allow the company to retain a large chunk of money to throw at the costs of starting up the network, and the loss of revenue. They still would be paying dividend on the shares that are publicly traded, which would keep the shareholders who hunt for dividends happy.  So I'm mixed. I think the workers are a bunch of idiots for the most part, and have been for decades. But Vince is being a bit of a lunk head in getting across to the workers the issues the company is dealing with, and show them that he'll take a "cut" as well until the company gets to the other side. A cut which is vastly more than any of them are taking, not just in total $$$, but also as a % of "income" that any of them get in a year.  John Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 Stupid question but what % of the wrestlers have agents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Petey Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 If WWE leaves NBCU, I wonder if A) Raw will remain three hours and Smackdown stays on Friday nights or gets moved to a larger TV audience night Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt D Posted May 10, 2014 Report Share Posted May 10, 2014 http://money.cnn.com/2014/04/28/news/cheerleader-wage-lawsuits/?iid=EL Â This is pro wrestling mostly but it doesn't deserve its own note. They have their own independent contractor issues. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.