Colt Cabana's Art of Wrestling Podcast

[evilwaldo]

The WWE wants to keep the door open a crack in case Punk does movies and the studio asks him to go back and use the WWE as a promotional vehicle.

 

It is not a black and white situation like many people think.  

 

Vince knows how important Punk is to his brand and does care about him but at the same time he has a global business to run.  Things get said, words get used, and you have to tread lightly in your reactions.

 

I hope they both do well in the future and are happy.  If anyone should be worried about the interview it should be HHH who comes off as someone not ready to take over the reigns from Vince.  He may be doing great with respect to creating NXT and developing talent but in terms of working with the main roster he has a lot to learn.

 

The medical team may come off even worse.  I do know that they made changes but it appears as though there are some major holes to be filled.  But, given the nature of the business it is hard for guys to be on TV one week and off the other.  You become like UFC where there are multiple changes with respect to every card.

 

It is a very tough balancing act.

[Cristobal]

I'd be surprised to discover many shareholders care one way or the other about individual performers.  I;d be surprised if most shareholders have any idea who is on the roster.  The average shareholder isn't a fan.  As large and diversified as the company is, the absence or presence of any wrestler on the roster isn't likely to affect the financial performance of the company.

Punk would be a convenient excuse. If I was a WWE shareholder, (maybe someone gave me a share as a gag gift,) my concern wouldn't be whether Punk showed up on Raw again, it would be Vince and WWE's management team. As successful a wrestling promoter as Vince is, he's got blind spots a mile wide, and I'd have even less confidence in Hunter and Stephanie as his apparent successors.

Vince probably did mislead shareholders, but it's not a material omission.  The guy wasn't performing for the company at that point.  That's really all the shareholders need to know.

Debatable. Especially if it's argued that Punk and his merch represent a significant source of revenue, one that Vince knew wouldn't be back. You can argue that that's not open-and-shut, but it's clear that Vince should've been a lot more nuanced with his answer.

[Cristobal]

Almost totally off topic, if fans don't own the majority of WWE stock (and I'm willing to believe that's true), who are the supposed serious business people that do? Surely anyone outside "the bubble" can see what a horrible investment it is?

Vince outright owns >80% of the voting power, because he's got Class B shares (10x the votes of a Class A share,) and with Linda and the rest of his family, that's probably over 90%. WWE is not vulnerable to a hostile takeover. The only way to remove Vince and his team would be if he could be found guilty of some form of malfeasance. Which is why he needs to choose his words more carefully.

[Dre013]

The SEC would only really have cause to investigate if WWE put out blatantly false information in the public filings (such as the 10K or Q which are audited by a public accounting firm). The rules are much murkier in regards to analyst calls (especially about employment status semantics with regards to someone who is not in a decision making capacity in the company).

I'd be more concerned that if they pursued this further, the old "independent contractor" issue could become a large class action lawsuit or legitimate attempt to unionize. Probably why they paid the royalty checks and wanted this to go far away.

[Cristobal]

It is not a black and white situation like many people think.

Jesus. Craig was right about you. Can you read? At all?

The situation is not black and white. The statement "He is on sabbatical" is. Suspension is not sabbatical. The statement is false. Demonstrably so, if Punk or his lawyer has a copy of the suspension saved.

Vince knows how important Punk is to his brand and does care about him but at the same time he has a global business to run.  Things get said, words get used, and you have to tread lightly in your reactions.

Yes. Which makes it understandable why Vince wouldn't want to come out and say "He said he was out of here, left, and we've suspended him." THE POINT you have repeatedly failed to grasp is that not wanting to do that does not excuse misleading your shareholders.

[Cristobal]

The SEC would only really have cause to investigate if WWE put out blatantly false information in the public filings (such as the 10K or Q which are audited by a public accounting firm). The rules are much murkier in regards to analyst calls (especially about employment status semantics with regards to someone who is not in a decision making capacity in the company).

This is a better point, and I agree that the SEC is unlikely to pursue this on their own, but if analysts or shareholders complained, (and I'd note again that the endgame there would have nothing to do with Punk, but with ousting the McMahons,) especially if the complainants were connected enough to get someone's ear, then Vince could have problems, and they'd be entirely self-inflicted because he doesn't understand a CEO can't be a carny, (or, at least, can't be caught being one.)

 

I'd be more concerned that if they pursued this further, the old "independent contractor" issue could become a large class action lawsuit or legitimate attempt to unionize. Probably why they paid the royalty checks and wanted this to go far away.

WWE's only real move here is to shut up and hope shit blows over. Which, to their credit, is mostly what they've done so far. I would pay real money to be a fly on the wall when Austin and Vince talk about this before the recording starts.

[StretchMediatedHypertrophy]

 

It is not a black and white situation like many people think.

Can you read? At all?

The situation is not black and white. The statement "He is on sabbatical" is. Suspension is not sabbatical. The statement is false. Demonstrably so, if Punk or his lawyer has a copy of the suspension saved.

 

 

"He is on sabbatical" was not the statement though. The statement was "He's taking a sabbatical, let's just put it that way". As I have stated, not nearly as black and white.

[Cristobal]

Well now I wish the transcript was "He's taking a sabbatical, let's just put it that way. Wink wink."

I don't think "When I said 'let's just put it that way', I was implying that my statement had some other meaning I was choosing not to disclose at the time" is much of a defense, though.

[The Nature Boy]

If I were a shareholder, I'd be concerned about Vince handing over the reigns to his son-in-law who has no business background, no education beyond high school and no documented track record of success in business. Stephanie has a college education so I assume that that placates shareholders. But her track record is murky at best.

 

If I were Vince, I'd have Triple H at least working towards getting a bachelor's degree in business or economics. 

[Cristobal]

That's one of Vince's blind spots. He really should be finding a more competent executive to run the business side of things, and let Hunter handle the wrestling side, but he did it all himself goddammit (with mixed results) so he expects his successor to do the same.

[The Nature Boy]

That's one of Vince's blind spots. He really should be finding a more competent executive to run the business side of things, and let Hunter handle the wrestling side, but he did it all himself goddammit (with mixed results) so he expects his successor to do the same.

 

Vince forgets how much his father made him prove himself before he even thought of selling (not handing) him the WWF. Look up some of the odd business venture that Vince tried in the 70s, it's fascinating. His first wrestling venture was promoting out of Bangor, Maine. 

 

I'd like to see what a non-McMahon, non-wrestling CEO would do with WWE. 

[Cristobal]

It's not entirely analogous, but if I were structuring a post-Vince WWE, I'd be looking at well-run sports franchises as my model. You need wrestling people (which does not necessarily mean wrestlers or promoters, though that's most likely where you'll draw your talent from) to run the wrestling side of the business, preferably with minimal interference from the non-wrestling people, only oversight, but you need an actual executive to run the administrative side of the business.

The biggest problem is, as far as the wrestling side goes, WHO? (No, not Neidhart.) Any scenario that ousts the McMahons pretty well removes them from consideration, and with the McMahons out of the picture, the number of people who've successfully run large, profitable wrestling promotions in the US market is nil, (though of course you'll have no shortage of carnies willing to say that they have. Bischoff would be lurking somewhere around that mess, I'm sure.)

[Greggulator]

 

There are CEOs of gigantic international banks who lie red-handed about fixing LIBOR and other rates. The SEC did nothing.

Vince McMahon hedging his words while dealing with a contractual dispute with talent on his roster isn't going to mean a thing.

Erm...what did you expect the US Securities and Exchange Commission to do about banks fixing the London Interbank Offered Rate? That's oversimplifying, a bit, but the SEC's got a hard job at the best of times. The LIBOR scandal had jurisdictional issues on top of who it would have been the SEC would be going after.

Now, there's a wider (true) point about corporate cronyism, but if you think Vince freaking McMahon gets a pass like Bank of America or Citi, you're dreaming.

 

 

Thanks for correcting me about issues of finance. I've only written about finance and the SEC and the like professionally for about the past decade of my life.

Not one person in finance is going to give one crap about this.

[Big Fresh]

The rest of us are just rolling our eyes at you

I think by "rest" you mean you and one other guy. If you can't see why Punk is unlikable and not as sympathetic as you'd like, fine.No, Cristobal is 100% right. There's no "fake tough guy" thing going on here. Giving a guy your body and getting injured by said guy is a lot different than punching a nerd on Twitter for being a douche.

[Cristobal]

Thanks for correcting me about issues of finance. I've only written about finance and the SEC and the like professionally for about the past decade of my life.

Not one person in finance is going to give one crap about this.

Oh simmer down. I've agreed with that exact point, in this thread. My point that the scenario under which Vince escapes punishment would be markedly different from BofA doing same remains accurate.

[The Nature Boy]

It's not entirely analogous, but if I were structuring a post-Vince WWE, I'd be looking at well-run sports franchises as my model. You need wrestling people (which does not necessarily mean wrestlers or promoters, though that's most likely where you'll draw your talent from) to run the wrestling side of the business, preferably with minimal interference from the non-wrestling people, only oversight, but you need an actual executive to run the administrative side of the business.

The biggest problem is, as far as the wrestling side goes, WHO? (No, not Neidhart.) Any scenario that ousts the McMahons pretty well removes them from consideration, and with the McMahons out of the picture, the number of people who've successfully run large, profitable wrestling promotions in the US market is nil, (though of course you'll have no shortage of carnies willing to say that they have. Bischoff would be lurking somewhere around that mess, I'm sure.)

 

Stephanie and Triple H would be well-served to work to their strengths. Stephanie has been in creative for almost 15 years and Hunter is obviously a wrestling guy. That works, it suits them and that's great. A competent CEO does not have to know anything technical about the company he runs. He just has to manage numbers and hire the right people who do know what's going in. A good CEO (at their core) is good at delegating. 

[Skeeball Wizard]

I was dubious about the claims that the Big Guy was hurting him on purpose but that table spot is pretty damning.

The spot didn't look particularly bad or careless, the table probably should have been positioned parallel to them though.

[ExcellenceofAirPollution]

 

I was dubious about the claims that the Big Guy was hurting him on purpose but that table spot is pretty damning.

The spot didn't look particularly bad or careless, the table probably should have been positioned parallel to them though.

 

 

They shouldn't have done that spot at all.  The worst part was the upturned table which Punk whacks the back of his head on before he barely grazes the table he's supposed to go thru and hits the concrete.

 

Punk has to accept some blame for agreeing to do that spot when he's already banged up and he doesn't trust the big green steroid guy to do it safely.  And the agents/producers whoever are to blame to.  I remember seeing that happen live and was just like, "wtf are they thinking?!?!"  It was so unnecessary.

[Skeeball Wizard]

Based on the gif i couldnt tell if Punk whacked his head on the blue box they were on, if so then yeah, that part was careless. The fact that the table broke speaks to the fact that it broke his fall therefore the landing on the concrete had minimal impact. Granted Im not Punk so i dont know for sure but based on my experience thats how i see it.

[Big Fresh]

 

I was dubious about the claims that the Big Guy was hurting him on purpose but that table spot is pretty damning.

The spot didn't look particularly bad or careless, the table probably should have been positioned parallel to them though.

 

 

You gotta be kidding....

[Niners Fan in CT]

No, Cristobal is 100% right. There's no "fake tough guy" thing going on here. Giving a guy your body and getting injured by said guy is a lot different than punching a nerd on Twitter for being a douche.

You were the "other guy" and who is to say who is right? People agree with me, disagree with me.. whatever. But it is my opinion as well as many others on here that Punk is a fake wannabe tough guy. Oh well. Life goes on, right?

[Skeeball Wizard]

I was dubious about the claims that the Big Guy was hurting him on purpose but that table spot is pretty damning.

The spot didn't look particularly bad or careless, the table probably should have been positioned parallel to them though.

You gotta be kidding....

Are you seeing something I'm not? Not being a dick but I've seen far more careless stuff than that. Its not like he missed the table completely or something.

[Big Fresh]

 

 

 

I was dubious about the claims that the Big Guy was hurting him on purpose but that table spot is pretty damning.

The spot didn't look particularly bad or careless, the table probably should have been positioned parallel to them though.

You gotta be kidding....

Are you seeing something I'm not? Not being a dick but I've seen far more careless stuff than that. Its not like he missed the table completely or something.

 

 

It would be better if he completely missed the table, because then he could spread the impact across his back. As is, all the impact went to one spot on his hip ON THE CONCRETE.

[Big Fresh]

 

No, Cristobal is 100% right. There's no "fake tough guy" thing going on here. Giving a guy your body and getting injured by said guy is a lot different than punching a nerd on Twitter for being a douche.

You were the "other guy" and who is to say who is right? People agree with me, disagree with me.. whatever. But it is my opinion as well as many others on here that Punk is a fake wannabe tough guy. Oh well. Life goes on, right?

 

 

Sure, but when your evidence for it so blantly grasping at straws and absurd, then you make it pretty obvious that you just don't like the guy and are willing to say crazy things about him as a result.

[Niners Fan in CT]

Sure, but when your evidence for it so blantly grasping at straws and absurd, then you make it pretty obvious that you just don't like the guy and are willing to say crazy things about him as a result.

Okay, one more time. Punk says "These twitter people, keyboard warriors, don't bother me because they don't have the balls to say anything to my face and if they did I would punch them in the throat!"

Are you still with me?

Then he goes on to say later in the podcast that Ryback "PURPOSELY" kicked him in the midsection and broke his ribs. His words, not mine. Did he go and punch Ryback out? That is what I call a fake tough guy and it's unnecessary. He could have just said Twitter doesn't bother him and left it at that but no.. he needed to tell us how tough he is.