AEW/ROH Finances, Ratings, etc.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

12 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

And that's what Fox probably figured out and then realized, yeah not that many people are interested in WWE and you're not going to find a bigger brand name in pro wrestling. Keep in mind, Fox picked up UFC when they were destroying WWE in terms of ad dollars and a few years later Fox decided that "screw it, imagine if we got a more family oriented product....". Whoops.

That said, if PFL (which I am still convinced in an elaborate Ponzi scheme) can exist as an alternative to UFC and get probably 1/16th of the ratings on ESPN then AEW will somehow still exist in some form and fashion and likely on as viable a platform as TNT or TBS. I think the larger issue AEW faces outside of issues of their own creation (creatively speaking) is how do you build a bigger audience when a bigger audience doesn't necessarily mean what it did a quarter century ago. It's extremely difficult to compare the MNW of 25 years ago when ALL the variables are different. I am as least hard on Bischoff as probably you will find, but he's coming from a position of understanding TV years and years ago. When worse came to worst, his idea was just to throw more shit at the wall, which to be honest, is the same thing TK is doing. Maybe at best he can be like, "well, don't do what I did.". However, he didn't make it through the calendar year of 1999 after two amazing years business wise you will ever get in pro wrestling and moreover they felt comfortable replacing him with obsessive Howard Stern fan #6528 and the dude who wrote Duckman. So yeah, gotta take what he says with a grain of salt even if he does have some good points.

Time buys are totally still a thing, that's how cornhole got on the air originally. I wouldn't be surprised if that's how PFL is on the air too.

I do think AEW's in a much better position now than WCW was, but I also think the cable TV landscape is a total mess and these next five years will probably be the last big media rights buys for anyone, so the best time to develop a secondary strategy was a couple of years ago but the next best time is now. (For funsies, look at how many smaller cable companies are either folding or focusing solely on internet while pushing towards streaming. And by funsies, I mean "look forward to teaching your parents how to use a Roku or an Apple TV next Thanksgiving".)

[Curt McGirt]

Quote

Brandon Thurston estimates AEW will generate about $154 million in 2023. The company led by Tony Khan probably hasn't had a profitable year yet but could become profitable with a strong upgrade in U.S. media rights fees.

Yeah, I know, I know -- money coming in versus going out. Still though. Calling that unprofitable boggles the mind and is, needless to say, WAY above my personal pay grade. 

[NoFistsJustFlips]

This is my own personal theory, not backed up by any facts yet. Just a gut feeling I feel safe throwing out there based on what's been reported. $34 million in losses is the estimate. My theory (again just a theory) is if Collision wasn't a thing that gets them to a profitable year. They doubled their production & travel costs by doing a second live show. Think about that. Buying the transmission time. Renting double the buildings. Hauling the equipment and paying employees to do the setup. Double the plane tickets for talent. A second live show that does not move tickets like the other show. A second live show that does not drive ads like the other show. A second show that gave them cause to expand their roster and keep signing more than they need.

And on a slightly different note, the fiscal irresponsibility of ROH doesn't help the problem. The AEW company is owned by Tony, Shahid, and possibly minority stake by WBD and maybe others. ROH is own solely by TK. He's using AEW books to rent buildings he's using for his own company to run. I know it all blurs together but it's kind of shady when you do the digging. ROH is getting free accompaniment by piggy backing off of AEW's rent buys & production costs. And the bloated roster doesn't really have a discernible split in talent expenses. It appears to all fall on AEW's books since it's all shared talent.

So long story short scrap ROH as a brand, scrap Collision as a show, and you're golden now. As is, even a 2x rights increase I don't see them getting to a profitable year. Not at the current infrastructure & spending.

[Niners Fan in CT]

The biggest question for me is let's say AEW doesn't stay on WBD.   There's just not many networks that I feel would pay good money for wresting content no matter what the ratings are.  Who else is left when you remove WBD and NBC/Universal from the conversation?  

 

But anyway,  I would need to see better sources on all of this before believing RAW is going to WBD.   Warner Bros. is slashing costs,  not adding to them.  

[Elsalvajeloco]

21 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

The biggest question for me is let's say AEW doesn't stay on WBD.   There's just not many networks that I feel would pay good money for wresting content no matter what the ratings are.  Who else is left when you remove WBD and NBC/Universal from the conversation?  

Who would pay NASCAR a multiple of what they should be getting when their business isn't what it use to be?

I think everyone is betting on getting overpaid before the market absolutely collapses. If your deal is expiring in the next 2 years, you feel comfortable. Anything that is coming due in the next five years or so, you're nervous as fuck.

There will be someone will pay AEW, but what is the plan going forward? UFC got lucky in they went to ESPN before ESPN went crazy with the cuts (IIRC they had started it when they got there but hadn't went all out) and Fox already decided they weren't bothering even doing anything with the UFC. That's why you got stories of even Rupert Murdoch believing the WWE product would be beneficial for both sides (WWE and Fox). I mean he guessed wrong as I've already mentioned, but shit, that's where the landscape was headed. UFC was trending downwards even though their big PPVs were still doing well. PBC just got cancelled by Showtime, but just got this deal with Prime which probably pays them more than what they had with Showtime. That said, I dunno how well Prime can do in a boxing space when everyone else isn't doing good in the boxing space. Outside of ESPN, boxing has absolutely disappeared from linear TV. The Showtime boxing card tomorrow is the last one ever and then premium boxing cable dies after being in existence for over 40 years. So the thing is especially now is do you want the money (which you probably need even though your owner is wealthy) or do you want to be on a platform that can grow your product for the future after being on two platforms in TBS or TNT that's stagnate outside of NBA, March Madness, and playoff baseball? WWE has already decided they will take the money cause the latter isn't a real possibility in today's TV landscape. They tried on Fox. It really didn't work to the satisfaction of both parties so it's time to move on. They haven't found a better TV partner than USA in four decades now. IMO as much AEW should want more money from WBD, I think it's time to get away from TBS and TNT. Those aren't destination channels and as a product that needs to grow, you're not in a situation where they bring enough incentive wise to just stay. Unless they are going to pay you gobs of money, then hey, let them get WWE and figure out what Fox just did. 

 

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

53 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

But anyway,  I would need to see better sources on all of this before believing RAW is going to WBD.   Warner Bros. is slashing costs,  not adding to them.  

They may be slashing costs, but if they feel they get a better return on investment to have Raw rather than an AEW package, even if it costs more for Raw, then that's a justifiable expenditure. Given the choice between spending $150 million to make $200 million in ad buys or $200 million to make $275 million, the latter option gets picked every time.

But therein lies the rub... is that actually the better option?

[Elsalvajeloco]

With that way these things usually turn out, the answer is probably no. I've seen this too much especially with all the major combat sports (real or choreographed) is the first year is usually a rousing success, the 2nd year is a success but could've been better, and then gradually it's just waiting for the deal to come up again cause you've ran out of ways to market what you're putting on. 

When Al Haymon got (some say swindled lol but YMMV) a half billion dollars in funding for PBC, they were on CBS, Fox, ESPN, NBC, and Spike and a few other channels. They had Sugar Ray Leonard and this and that big name celebrity there ringside. They had Laila Ali doing ringside reporting for like the first show on NBC. Fast forward to like year three, and we're doing shows in Carson, California at what's now Dignity Health Sports Park and Robert Guerrero and some journeyman they dug up are fighting in front of like 500 people at like 3 in the afternoon on a Saturday. Shit got crucial real fast. Two years from that, they got cancelled from everything that wasn't Fox and they integrated the PBC brand into Showtime Boxing which lasted all the way until tomorrow night. Similar things happened with UFC and the Fox deal, but UFC managed to pivot from that cause they already dealt with something similar when Spike wanted to move on from them. 

WWE is much bigger than USA, but who is going to remain loyal to them in the way USA has had to be? Moreover, if AEW isn't doing gangbusters on TBS and TNT when WBD should be motivated to make it work, then what makes ANYONE believe WWE stands a chance? All WWE is proved is that there are a million folks and change who will follow them religiously. For them, that's great. However, for those who expect more like Fox and likely WBD, that's not going to make them happy. All you did was just take their money. Good on WWE, but this is following into the same trap Fox did from a business point of view if you're WBD.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

45 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

With that way these things usually turn out, the answer is probably no. I've seen this too much especially with all the major combat sports (real or choreographed) is the first year is usually a rousing success, the 2nd year is a success but could've been better, and then gradually it's just waiting for the deal to come up again cause you've ran out of ways to market what you're putting on. 

When Al Haymon got (some say swindled lol but YMMV) a half billion dollars in funding for PBC, they were on CBS, Fox, ESPN, NBC, and Spike and a few other channels. They had Sugar Ray Leonard and this and that big name celebrity there ringside. They had Laila Ali doing ringside reporting for like the first show on NBC. Fast forward to like year three, and we're doing shows in Carson, California at what's now Dignity Health Sports Park and Robert Guerrero and some journeyman they dug up are fighting in front of like 500 people at like 3 in the afternoon on a Saturday. Shit got crucial real fast. Two years from that, they got cancelled from everything that wasn't Fox and they integrated the PBC brand into Showtime Boxing which lasted all the way until tomorrow night. Similar things happened with UFC and the Fox deal, but UFC managed to pivot from that cause they already dealt with something similar when Spike wanted to move on from them. 

WWE is much bigger than USA, but who is going to remain loyal to them in the way USA has had to be? Moreover, if AEW isn't doing gangbusters on TBS and TNT when WBD should be motivated to make it work, then what makes ANYONE believe WWE stands a chance? All WWE is proved is that there are a million folks and change who will follow them religiously. For them, that's great. However, for those who expect more like Fox and likely WBD, that's not going to make them happy. All you did was just take their money. Good on WWE, but this is following into the same trap Fox did from a business point of view if you're WBD.

I think realistically, WWE is just doing what they always do during their renewals - negotiating with other companies to try and see what the market is, then get USA to be within the neighborhood of said market.

To go onto the point I made earlier, I would absolutely not be surprised to see WWE end up in a situation similar to the Premier League, with USA as their main cable station and speeding up the archiving on Peacock to next day, or maybe even simulcasting on Peacock in future.

That's something AEW should be looking at, but really, the most likely property to pull that off would be a CBS network to get on Paramount Plus, and um... their basic cable options are a little lacking.

[Elsalvajeloco]

33 minutes ago, Sparkleface said:

I think realistically, WWE is just doing what they always do during their renewals - negotiating with other companies to try and see what the market is, then get USA to be within the neighborhood of said market.

To go onto the point I made earlier, I would absolutely not be surprised to see WWE end up in a situation similar to the Premier League, with USA as their main cable station and speeding up the archiving on Peacock to next day, or maybe even simulcasting on Peacock in future.

That's something AEW should be looking at, but really, the most likely property to pull that off would be a CBS network to get on Paramount Plus, and um... their basic cable options are a little lacking.

IMO There isn't any real clear cut right answer when it comes to AEW other than CAREFULLY weigh your options. To me, that's it.

Funny you should mention CBS network and Paramount (the linear channel more than Paramount+ though) because that's what ultimately ended up killing Bellator. Or at the very least, was a very big part of that whole process. That along with signing a DAZN deal just for money (BUT HEY THEY'RE GETTING EIGHT FIGURES OVER THE LIFE OF THE DEAL SO THAT'S GOOD, RIGHT?) when DAZN didn't market Bellator at all cause the lionshare of their content was then on Spike and then eventually the rebranded Paramount Network. Then, when they were getting soundly outrated by Cops reruns from the early to mid 2000s, they went to the CBS Sports network. The last ditch effort to save it was move it to Showtime cause they had a history of MMA. However, it was too late cause such irreparable damage had been done hopping across platforms with little to no concern of how to grow it outside we just hope UFC fucks up and lets bunch of big names go. However, that free agency signee money dried up quick and so did their chances of competing with the UFC. 

You have to be in the position of knowing that you're trying to build on what you already have so you need visibility as much as you need money. And to me, TBS or TNT no longer offers (new) visibility. Now is there a clear quick replacement? No, but that's what the negotiating process and open market is to determine.

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

6 minutes ago, Elsalvajeloco said:

IMO There isn't any real clear cut right answer when it comes to AEW other than CAREFULLY weigh your options. To me, that's it.

Agreed. Well, that and find a streaming home... I can't emphasize enough how much the cable TV market is shrinking and AEW really needs a streaming home of some kind. Pairing a streaming home with a cable network would be ideal, but there aren't many options on that front.

Although I can always headcanon that they wind up on Paramount Plus and we get an AEW version of the Challenge, which I think would be fantastic.

[JLowe]

I saw it mentioned but if WWE causes AEW to get bumped from their WBD TV deal, well, the Khans have the kind of lawyers who can make an anti-trust suit real and have a case.

[odessasteps]

I would think a network choosing the industry leader over a well-bankrolled upstart, especially when the optic are that one company is hot and the other is not, seems like a justifiable decision.

Edited December 16, 2023 by odessasteps

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

11 hours ago, JLowe said:

I saw it mentioned but if WWE causes AEW to get bumped from their WBD TV deal, well, the Khans have the kind of lawyers who can make an anti-trust suit real and have a case.

They'd have to prove that WWE forced them off as opposed to WBD choosing WWE over them, which would require finding something in (no pun intended) discovery.

WWE's definitely capable of forcing people off of a station, but if WBD picks WWE over AEW and the Khans sue WWE over it, unless there's some pretty explicit evidence saying WWE mandated that WBD make that decision, it's going to be a very difficult case to prove.

[Elsalvajeloco]

5 minutes ago, odessasteps said:

I would think a network choosing the industry leader over a well-bankrolled upstart, especially when the optic are that one company is hot and the other is not, seems like a justifiable decision.

I don't think you've been following:

When you're signing long term deal, objectively between four and six years, you're betting on what it looks like towards the end of the deal not so much the beginning. This goes especially when discussing something that can usually be unquantifiable. WWE was trending in the right direction. That still wasn't enough for Fox to keep them because optics isn't enough. Fox took the proven commodity (WWE) over the upstart (UFC) and that didn't work. Right now, UFC is hotter than it was in 2011 when they first got on Fox. Fox was betting on being able to build UFC into something that Spike and Brian Diamond (then VP of Sports for Spike TV IIRC) couldn't do, which was elevate it from a niche sport to something bordering on mainstream. Keep in mind, that's always been Dana's pipe dream. Nonetheless, even though UFC elevated some of the lesser Fox channels like FS1 and FS2, it became clear that Fox was pretty much disinterested in making UFC into a prominent pillar of Fox sports like the NFL and Major League Baseball. So by the time 2016 rolled around, it became clear that the UFC and Fox relationship was on borrowed time. The biggest mistake Fox made was having that wandering eye and believing that because WWE had surpassed a lot of the stages UFC hadn't progressed to that the prevailing idea should be "imagine if we put the Fox muscle behind WWE". What in what year of the WWE/Fox deal? Do you honestly believe  Fox thought that WWE would still be hovering around 1.7-2 million viewers at this point? Cause I sure as hell don't. 

And that's not to say upstarts or what have you can automatically work. When Spike move from UFC into Bellator (although I think Viacom probably played a much bigger hand in that) and tried to make it UFC v.2, it didn't work outside of maybe a few ratings that Ken Shamrock or Kimbo Slice popped. Instead of doing something organic, they screwed up and tried to just replicate the same thing that did six or seven years earlier with zero of the same vision (The Ultimate Fighter -> Fight Master: Bellator MMA lol).

The same way I am not sure what industry leader means in boxing and MMA, I am not sure what it means in pro wrestling. This goes especially knowing that WWE tries to navigate the sports or entertainment space when it benefits them the most. With that in mind, I think WBD would think WWE is a better choice only cause once you get out of seasonal sports, both TNT and TBS might as well be the Brazilian Jazz Fusion/Bossa Nova music video channel. If folks didn't like the constant talk of ratings a few years ago when Raw was doing all time low numbers, the talk of Raw barely scratching a million viewers will be more insufferable than the talk of AEW ratings on TNT or TBS. If I am WWE, I am not sure TBS or TNT would be the best home for Raw. The only upside if WBD is willing to pay them an absurd amount of money. However, you have to keep in mind and ask yourself, how invigorated would WBD be if they won't able to capitalize on having a hot commodity when AEW first got there? Lets not act like AEW wasn't trending in the right direction in 2019. So if WWE goes there in 2024, what do you bet TNT/TBS makes it as compelling in 2028/2029 as it was in pre-TNT/TBS. If what they've done with AEW in the past few years is any indication, it won't be as "hot". 

 

[Niners Fan in CT]

On 12/15/2023 at 8:05 PM, Elsalvajeloco said:

However, for those who expect more like Fox and likely WBD, that's not going to make them happy. All you did was just take their money. Good on WWE, but this is following into the same trap Fox did from a business point of view if you're WBD.

Reportedly, FOX expected something like 3 million viewers and that's just insane.  I think there's 30 people or more just on this board alone that could have told the FOX executives that was never going to happen.  Apparently, WWE didn't bring in the type of advertising dollars they expected either.  So while SD! was on many Friday nights the "winner" sometimes in all of television,  FOX didn't really care.  It wasn't worth it to them.  And that's WWE.  That's a company that is bringing in 10x the revenue as AEW.  

That's my concern for AEW.  They are doing well for WBD and reportedly, WBD has been happy with the numbers but does that automatically mean AEW is looking at a 40% or more increase like NASCAR just got?  I don't know.  You stated AEW isn't likely to grow on TBS/TNT at this point but are they going to grow on a subscription service?  I feel like MLS is hidden over on Apple TV. Messi obviously made a huge splash coming over and doubled the subscriptions by himself but that's not a sustainable model for them.  I feel like most sports programming (and wrestling) still want to be on cable because that's where they are still receiving the most exposure.  You don't have to go around searching for them. 

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

17 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

Reportedly, FOX expected something like 3 million viewers and that's just insane.  I think there's 30 people or more just on this board alone that could have told the FOX executives that was never going to happen.  Apparently, WWE didn't bring in the type of advertising dollars they expected either.  So while SD! was on many Friday nights the "winner" sometimes in all of television,  FOX didn't really care.  It wasn't worth it to them.  And that's WWE.  That's a company that is bringing in 10x the revenue as AEW.  

That's my concern for AEW.  They are doing well for WBD and reportedly, WBD has been happy with the numbers but does that automatically mean AEW is looking at a 40% or more increase like NASCAR just got?  I don't know.  You stated AEW isn't likely to grow on TBS/TNT at this point but are they going to grow on a subscription service?  I feel like MLS is hidden over on Apple TV. Messi obviously made a huge splash coming over and doubled the subscriptions by himself but that's not a sustainable model for them.  I feel like most sports programming (and wrestling) still want to be on cable because that's where they are still receiving the most exposure.  You don't have to go around searching for them. 

Grrr board ate my original post. Let's try again.

You should take a look at this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/10/10/with-cord-cutting-cable-tv-industry-is-facing-financial-challenges/?sh=36754b24756c

Here's the big beats though:

- The peak of households for cable was in 2011 with 105.1 million, or 90.7% of all TV households. It's at 75.3 million (60.8%) now.
- In August 2022, the audience share for cable was 34.5%, and for streaming it was 35.0%. One year later, for cable it's 30.2% and for streaming it's 38.3%.
- At the peak, 19 cable channels averaged a million viewers in prime time. Now, only three do it - ESPN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

Viewers' habits are changing as cable costs continue to grow and people decide it's not worth it to maintain. People need to shift accordingly or get left behind.

[Niners Fan in CT]

10 minutes ago, Sparkleface said:

Grrr board ate my original post. Let's try again.

You should take a look at this article: https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradadgate/2023/10/10/with-cord-cutting-cable-tv-industry-is-facing-financial-challenges/?sh=36754b24756c

Here's the big beats though:

- The peak of households for cable was in 2011 with 105.1 million, or 90.7% of all TV households. It's at 75.3 million (60.8%) now.
- In August 2022, the audience share for cable was 34.5%, and for streaming it was 35.0%. One year later, for cable it's 30.2% and for streaming it's 38.3%.
- At the peak, 19 cable channels averaged a million viewers in prime time. Now, only three do it - ESPN, Fox News, and MSNBC.

Viewers' habits are changing as cable costs continue to grow and people decide it's not worth it to maintain. People need to shift accordingly or get left behind.

There's no doubt cable is slowly fading away.  I'm just not sure streaming is the answer quite in the way that people may think. There's going to have to be deals worked out like what we see with Max having AMC+ content on their platform or like how Netflix is buying rights to distribute some HBO shows on their platform.  I don't think it's going to be 6-10 streaming services all with exclusive content.  I think some services will likely end up merging as well.  For a company like AEW,  you would still want to position yourself somewhere that's easy to find or you risk going dark to everyone except your biggest hardcore fans.  

[odessasteps]

We've already seem the advent of "stream cutting" once they all seemingly started both raising prices and removing content. 

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

19 minutes ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

There's no doubt cable is slowly fading away.  I'm just not sure streaming is the answer quite in the way that people may think. There's going to have to be deals worked out like what we see with Max having AMC+ content on their platform or like how Netflix is buying rights to distribute some HBO shows on their platform.  I don't think it's going to be 6-10 streaming services all with exclusive content.  I think some services will likely end up merging as well.  For a company like AEW,  you would still want to position yourself somewhere that's easy to find or you risk going dark to everyone except your biggest hardcore fans.  

As I posted before, the best option for AEW (or any company, really), would be to cast as wide a net as possible and go with a property that has both a cable and a streaming environment. Unfortunately, that "best option" may not be an actual option, because NBC Universal/Peacock is definitely out. I don't see them getting on a Disney property and bundling up with Hulu. A CBS/Paramount property doesn't have the cable home for them that would fit in terms of a channel people watch for sports. Staying with WBD and going on the sports tier of Max would probably be their best bet, assuming Max doesn't completely crater. AEW having their own streaming service is a bad idea, especially as people are struggling to justify costs and there needs to be some kind of value added service to make them want to part with their $10-15 each month.

It also wouldn't hurt for them to have a FAST channel, similar to Impact. They've got five years of a library built up now, just run old shows in whatever order and run it with ad support on Pluto TV. The cost is phenomenally cheap to do. Heck, do it on YouTube too.

In this environment the goal should be to capture as many eyes as possible. Putting all ones' eggs in one basket, whether it's just cable or just streaming, is a bad idea. You're trying to sell a product, cast a wide net.

[Elsalvajeloco]

9 hours ago, Niners Fan in CT said:

Reportedly, FOX expected something like 3 million viewers and that's just insane.  I think there's 30 people or more just on this board alone that could have told the FOX executives that was never going to happen.  Apparently, WWE didn't bring in the type of advertising dollars they expected either.  So while SD! was on many Friday nights the "winner" sometimes in all of television,  FOX didn't really care.  It wasn't worth it to them.  And that's WWE.  That's a company that is bringing in 10x the revenue as AEW.  

That's my concern for AEW.  They are doing well for WBD and reportedly, WBD has been happy with the numbers but does that automatically mean AEW is looking at a 40% or more increase like NASCAR just got?  I don't know.  You stated AEW isn't likely to grow on TBS/TNT at this point but are they going to grow on a subscription service?  I feel like MLS is hidden over on Apple TV. Messi obviously made a huge splash coming over and doubled the subscriptions by himself but that's not a sustainable model for them.  I feel like most sports programming (and wrestling) still want to be on cable because that's where they are still receiving the most exposure.  You don't have to go around searching for them. 

@Sparkleface just beat me to some of the things I was gonna bring up so I will put it like this: 3 million, even in this landscape, is on the conservative side. We're talking about network TV. That's bare minimum. Thing is, WBD would be expecting the same thing because they don't have anything else. Even their marquee basketball games top off at 2-2.5 million. 

I don't think that's troubling for AEW as much as it is for WWE ten or fifteen years down the road. If the bubble does indeed burst or the numbers on the rights deal, they're going to start cutting costs like crazy and that's going to include personnel (i.e. talent). I think over the last few years and the reason I haven't really about hasty decisions regarding removing AEW programming is it's clear the folks in charge unlike the olden days with WCW post Ted Turner falling from power is they're willing allow AEW to grow. The thing here is will WBD make the foolhardy decision of saying, "we're running out of patience so let's get WWE" or will they do the big increase and expect AEW to move to the next level. Either way, both promotions are going to a TON of expectations over the life of their next deal. I think folks are kinda losing sight of that in favor of "LOL AEW WWE IS HERE NOW" like WWE is getting a bunch of money to do nothing. WWE losing out on Fox means it's going to be tougher for ANYONE to get back on Fox or networks, period. Even though they do have a strong relationship with NBC Universal, if WWE does have some NBC specials, they have to be successful.

[AxB]

Meanwhile, AEW+ subscribers on Triller.tv (Fite TV got renamed) just got free access to All In 2023, Full Gear 2019,  and All In 2018 (edited version, I assume), and are getting Revolution 2020 on January 16th.

Which is nice.

[Dog]

On 12/15/2023 at 6:30 PM, NoFistsJustFlips said:

This is my own personal theory, not backed up by any facts yet. Just a gut feeling I feel safe throwing out there based on what's been reported. $34 million in losses is the estimate. My theory (again just a theory) is if Collision wasn't a thing that gets them to a profitable year.

This hypothesis is easily falsified because TK has said on more than one occasion that WBD has kicked in money for Collision costs, because obviously they have. And yes, Thurston accounted for WBD's Collision contributions in the calculation that ultimately led to the $34 million loss guess.

"According to Khan (at a press conference in May), WBD is paying AEW more since Collision was added as an additional weekly touring event. At a minimum, I believe WBD is compensating AEW enough to allow the wrestling company to cover substantial costs from the added weekly live event." - Thurston

On 12/15/2023 at 6:38 PM, Niners Fan in CT said:

The biggest question for me is let's say AEW doesn't stay on WBD.   There's just not many networks that I feel would pay good money for wresting content no matter what the ratings are.  Who else is left when you remove WBD and NBC/Universal from the conversation?   

The frontrunners for Raw (if you exclude USA, which I don't necessarily think you should) have long been considered to be Disney (probably for FX), Netfilx, and Amazon Prime. If they don't get Raw and AEW becomes available, I see no reason why one or all of those companies wouldn't jump at the chance.

Again folks, you don't have to guess at these things when the info is out there and accessible.

On 12/16/2023 at 11:55 AM, Sparkleface said:

WWE's definitely capable of forcing people off of a station, but if WBD picks WWE over AEW and the Khans sue WWE over it, unless there's some pretty explicit evidence saying WWE mandated that WBD make that decision, it's going to be a very difficult case to prove.

If MLW can get a settlement out of WWE for basically the same thing, I have to assume the Khans and their super lawyers would, too.

For those who aren't familiar:

Quote

MLW first filed its antitrust suit against WWE in January 2022. It alleged WWE put pressure on third parties, such as streaming service Tubi TV, to abandon relationships with MLW. The lawsuit also alleged WWE put pressure on Vice TV to stop working with MLW as well. 

https://www.f4wonline.com/news/mlw/wwe-mlw-reach-settlement-in-antitrust-lawsuit

On another topic, it would probably also be bad optics for WWE, at least to the wrestlers who are just now starting to think that WWE might be an okay place to work again.

Edited December 18, 2023 by Dog

[Stefanie Sparkleface]

20 minutes ago, Dog said:

If MLW can get a settlement out of WWE for basically the same thing, I have to assume the Khans and their super lawyers would, too.

For those who aren't familiar:

https://www.f4wonline.com/news/mlw/wwe-mlw-reach-settlement-in-antitrust-lawsuit

On another topic, it would probably also be bad optics for WWE, at least to the wrestlers who are just now starting to think that WWE might be an okay place to work again.

That depends - was what MLW asking for in damages less than the lawyer fees to defend the case? If so, settle and get it over with rather than risk not getting lawyer fees back on a countersuit since that’s not a guarantee anyway.

[Technico Support]

On 12/17/2023 at 11:22 AM, Sparkleface said:

 

It also wouldn't hurt for them to have a FAST channel, similar to Impact. They've got five years of a library built up now, just run old shows in whatever order and run it with ad support on Pluto TV. The cost is phenomenally cheap to do. Heck, do it on YouTube too.

 

That's a great idea, but I'm pretty sure AEW agreed as part of their last deal that WBD would be the only outlet for AEW programming (that was the reason Dark and Elevation went away).

[Dog]

15 hours ago, Sparkleface said:

That depends - was what MLW asking for in damages less than the lawyer fees to defend the case? If so, settle and get it over with rather than risk not getting lawyer fees back on a countersuit since that’s not a guarantee anyway.

I imagine WWE is also pretty squeamish about entering any kind of discovery process, if they really don't have to.