MAY 2016 WRESTLING DISCUSSION THREAD

[Greggulator]

48 minutes ago, Playa Shunna Ver 3.0 said:

You didn't analyze the bad booking????  What about Vince going blind?  You aren't going to tank the stock because of this?

I think the overly critical nature of the company's most hardcore fans (who despite their complaints still hand their money over) doesn't have any impact on the company one way whatsoever.

Vince knows how to make money. Period. Maybe Roman Reigns's pop would be bigger but who gives a shit?

Vince's health is a huge deal. If he dies, the stock is going to tank. I know we all want him to retire but man if he ever does the WWE is going to tank.

[Technico Support]

25 minutes ago, Greggulator said:

Vince's health is a huge deal. If he dies, the stock is going to tank. I know we all want him to retire but man if he ever does the WWE is going to tank.

Just like USA thinks McMahons = ratings, Wall Street has the misconception that only Vince can successfully run a wrestling company.

[Greggulator]

1 minute ago, Technico Support said:

Just like USA thinks McMahons = ratings, Wall Street has the misconception that only Vince can successfully run a wrestling company.

I think history has proven that to be true.

[JonnyLaw]

1 hour ago, Playa Shunna Ver 3.0 said:

You didn't analyze the bad booking????  What about Vince going blind?  You aren't going to tank the stock because of this?

You did see who the poster was, right?

[Technico Support]

4 minutes ago, Greggulator said:

I think history has proven that to be true.

Ha!  Good point.  I should have put in more qualifiers.  "Wall Street has the misconception that only Vince can successfully run WWE."  Because I'm pretty sure the company will do okay without him.

[Greggulator]

1 minute ago, JonnyLaw said:

You did who the poster was, right?

The company made over $650 million in revenues last year. I think they're fine despite Bray Wyatt losing to The Undertaker.

[Patrick B.]

I just take the same attitude toward this board that I do toward Donald Trump supporters:  Nothing I could say would change anybody's minds, so I won't waste my breath.

[Greggulator]

1 minute ago, Technico Support said:

Ha!  Good point.  I should have put in more qualifiers.  "Wall Street has the misconception that only Vince can successfully run WWE."  Because I'm pretty sure the company will do okay without him.

It all depends. Who is the CEO after this? There's no secession plan in place. Is it Steph? Kevin Dunn? Someone else? The market will respond to that just as they do when any company replaces their CEO. And it's infinitely more important when the guy who essentially invented pro wrestling as we know it steps down/dies/etc. They had to put out a press release to stop stock fluctuations when he "blew up" in that angle years ago.

One thing that's really interesting: Vince barely says a word during conference calls. Their CFO George Barrios does all of the talking. I'd imagine it's because Vince doesn't want to trip himself up explaining some sort of ratio or formula. He'll talk about content (he spoke about the injury bug yesterday) but he doesn't get into things like retention rates of WWE Network subscribers. He knows one thing, and that's the creative side of the business. The finance stuff is left in the hands of a numbers wonk. And that's the stuff analysts and serious investors care about.

[Ace]

I think you may overestimate the CEO's position in WWE. Keep in mind that Vince has only been CEO for a couple years, and that's because the previous CEO (Linda) ran for public office.

Your outline also omits WWE Films.

 

[JohnnyJ]

Does anyone happen to know the story with Vince's shares? I remember reading something years ago that once Vince dies the family will not be able to hold onto a majority of the shares and have so much control. 

 

 

[Greggulator]

1 minute ago, Ace said:

I think you may overestimate the CEO's position in WWE. Keep in mind that Vince has only been CEO for a couple years, and that's because the previous CEO (Linda) ran for public office.

Your outline also omits WWE Films.

 

WWE Films generates 1% in revenues. It's a serious "who gives a shit" product.

Linda was CEO but it has always been Vince's show. Every knows that.

[Greggulator]

2 minutes ago, JohnnyJ said:

Does anyone happen to know the story with Vince's shares? I remember reading something years ago that once Vince dies the family will not be able to hold onto a majority of the shares and have so much control. 

 

 

I didn't see anything like that in any of the disclosures. There might be some sort of inheritance policy. I could have missed it but I read all of that stuff pretty carefully.

[Burgundy LaRue]

6 minutes ago, JohnnyJ said:

Does anyone happen to know the story with Vince's shares? I remember reading something years ago that once Vince dies the family will not be able to hold onto a majority of the shares and have so much control. 

I remember reading that Vince owns 82% of the major stock, thus ensuring no one can take WWE from underneath him without him selling it to them upfront.  I assume most of the rest is divided among Linda, Shane, Stephanie, and maybe grandchildren's trust funds.  What happens after Vince's death, I haven't seen anywhere.  I guess a living will would alleviate some of that issue, but I have no idea.

[Greggulator]

2 minutes ago, Burgundy LaRue said:

I remember reading that Vince owns 82% of the major stock, thus ensuring no one can take WWE from underneath him without him selling it to them upfront.  I assume most of the rest is divided among Linda, Shane, Stephanie, and maybe grandchildren's trust funds.  What happens after Vince's death, I haven't seen anywhere.  I guess a living will would alleviate some of that issue, but I have no idea.

He owns a gigantic stake in their restricted stock. I didn't see an exact figure anywhere but it could be that high.

That means he owns essentially as much stock as the general investing public does combined. And his shares are equal to 10 votes where the general public's is  1.

No one can take the company from him unless he sells.

But there is a trade off. The amount of shares that the general public can buy are a smaller percentage than most companies. If there is any big move with the company, the price goes up and down very fast because it lacks liquidity. 

[RIPPA]

If anyone needs a reminder about what will happen to the stock when Vince is gone just needs to remember that the stock plummeted because Wall Street legit thought Vince sold it to Donald Trump.

Yes - the Trump factor could have played a part there but in general Wall Street is stupid.

[Greggulator]

1 minute ago, RIPPA said:

If anyone needs a reminder about what will happen to the stock when Vince is gone just needs to remember that the stock plummeted because Wall Street legit thought Vince sold it to Donald Trump.

Yes - the Trump factor could have played a part there but in general Wall Street is stupid.

And there was the limo explosion thing, too.

[NikoBaltimore]

If you thought the stocks would plummet with Trump taking over then, imagine if they thought he'd take over now.

Greggulator, that's a pretty good writeup.  Meltzer does a similar deal in his newsletter but it's too damn long and bores me halfway into it.

[Burgundy LaRue]

A legitimate question:  who would be the best figurehead to take over once Vince passes?  I assume a true numbers person would stay in charge of finances, but who would be the best representation for the company that wouldn't send investors into a total panic?

[Greggulator]

Just now, NickMD said:

If you thought the stocks would plummet with Trump taking over then, imagine if they thought he'd take over now.

Greggulator, that's a pretty good writeup.  Meltzer does a similar deal in his newsletter but it's too damn long and bores me halfway into it.

I haven't read any of Meltzer's finance reporting. I wonder if he knows what he's doing. There aren't a ton of analysts who cover the WWE, so getting quotes and notes from those guys are hard to come by.

[Charlie M.]

I'm not sure I buy that WWE needed to toss all the PPV's on the Network. There's still a lot of money in PPV if you know how to promote. I prefer UFC's more reasonable approach to a streaming service where they're gradually building it up and it's there if they need it for more.

I don't think you can say they're way ahead of the curve with their streaming service without some context. What do you mean by that? The major league sports all have streaming services and most of them are miles ahead of WWE when it comes to the quality and functionality of their live streams.

[Ramsey]

2 minutes ago, Charlie M. said:

I'm not sure I buy that WWE needed to toss all the PPV's on the Network. There's still a lot of money in PPV if you know how to promote. I prefer UFC's more reasonable approach to a streaming service where they're gradually building it up and it's there if they need it for more.

I don't think you can say they're way ahead of the curve with their streaming service without some context. What do you mean by that? The major league sports all have streaming services and most of them are miles ahead of WWE when it comes to the quality and functionality of their live streams.

BUT MAGGLE! 9.99!!! MAGGLE, THAT'S A STEAL!!!

[Gomez]

1 minute ago, Charlie M. said:

I'm not sure I buy that WWE needed to toss all the PPV's on the Network. There's still a lot of money in PPV if you know how to promote. I prefer UFC's more reasonable approach to a streaming service where they're gradually building it up and it's there if they need it for more.

I don't think you can say they're way ahead of the curve with their streaming service without some context. What do you mean by that? The major league sports all have streaming services and most of them are miles ahead of WWE when it comes to the quality and functionality of their live streams.

He added context.  He stated that while the major sports leagues all stream better than WWE, all they stream are live games. 

[Cristobal]

WWE's competitors-slash-comparables for streaming aren't so much the sports leagues as they are the major TV networks and their subscription services. I can't find numbers for CBSN since 2015, but I'd bet WWEN has way more subscribers.

[Greggulator]

5 minutes ago, Charlie M. said:

I'm not sure I buy that WWE needed to toss all the PPV's on the Network. There's still a lot of money in PPV if you know how to promote. I prefer UFC's more reasonable approach to a streaming service where they're gradually building it up and it's there if they need it for more.

I don't think you can say they're way ahead of the curve with their streaming service without some context. What do you mean by that? The major league sports all have streaming services and most of them are miles ahead of WWE when it comes to the quality and functionality of their live streams.

They made $85 million with Network subscriptions last year. And that was really the first year they had the Network. No way they'd make that with just PPV's right now.

The WWE Network is essentially a niche-market Netflix. I have both the MLB and NBA streaming services. All I do with them is watch live games. In real sports, the only content that matters is the game itself. I might sit down to watch a 1986 Lakers/Celtics game but it's not really a narrative.

I'd go back and watch Bret/Austin though because it's a fictional story. People will rewatch TV shows and movies. Wrestling is more like that. Does HBO have its streaming service out yet? Does anyone else have anything out like the WWE Network that is a company that makes its content and distributes it without much of a middle man? I'm legitimately asking because I'm not too up on all of those things.

[RIPPA]

HBO Go has been out for awhile and might be the closest comp