OldStingberg

Awesome. This was always my go-to skin for the Thunderverse, and I was legitimately a little worried that the skin might not be around anymore. Glad to see that it's not only back, but there's gonna be more colors as well!

<p><span>http://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y446/wmarmorine/Random_zpspup6guov.jpg</span></p><p> </p><p> Bumped Danny's mic skills up three points.</p>

Super excited to see this. Easily one of my top 3 favorite mods. Glad to see it done so soon!

To be fair, for him it probably would have only been a 75 if he hadn't been high.

Unrelated to alts, but any idea on when the Thunderverse will available for the new game? I'm not saying I expect it out now or anything. Just wondering if there's a better idea of how much work needs to be done to properly convert it now that the game is released.

What is the story behind the Mexican titles available for purchase in the investment section? They don't look to be tied to an inactive promotion.

That's why I'm confused. I said, "From 2012-2015, though, yearly net income has averaged just $7 million." If you look at those income statements, add up the net incomes from 2012-2015, and divide by four to get the average, you get $7 million. Please don't make me show that math. The first half of the comparison was "From '98-'11, the WWE made around $50 million per year on average (though the XFL flop and a couple big movie flops dropped their net income in a couple years)." That came from the Wrestling Observer: http://www.gerweck.net/information/wwe-business-history/ And I trust the source since its figures also match the publicly available income statements. Again, if you take the average of the years listed minus a couple notable non-wrestling related losses (which I mentioned), you get around $50 million per year in net profit. There's nothing nefarious going on here. The numbers aren't wrong, unless you want to say that I should have included the XFL losses in the point I was making. If you were unclear, you literally could have just asked. Instead you did what you did and made a mess of it. And you're still digging in by insisting that I wasn't actually using net income figures. I was, and the point still stands. WWE's net income has dropped dramatically in the last few years. That is undeniable. Maybe there's a good reason for it. Maybe it's because the product really is getting worse. That's a reasonable debate to be had about that. There is not a reasonable debate to have about what the actual numbers are, though. As we have proven.

Honest question, can you point to where anyone in this thread besides you has brought up gain/loss? You responded to a post about net income, which was used because that is obviously pretty important to a business. It is the bottom line for a reason after all. This whole gain/loss tangent you're on seems wildly irrelevant and frankly kind of confusing.

No, I really didn't. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wwe/financials You can look up their net income yourself if you want. Those big numbers are their total revenue by year. They made $50.3 million in net income in 2009 from a total revenue of $475 million. In no way is that $475 million net of anything. Here's more income statements if you want. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/World_Wrestling_Entertainment_(WWE)/Data/Income_Statement#Income_Statement To repeat my original point, net income, the amount of money the WWE is actually making in net profit, is down considerably the past four years compared to the previous 10-15. That is not disputable. It's really not. You can try and claim the decline is due to something other than the perceived decline in the quality of the product. You can try and explain the numbers in a multitude of ways I'm sure. But you really can't dispute the actual numbers themselves.

Because gross profit can vary wildly depending on what a company considers its costs of revenue. Looking solely at gross profit means disregarding total operating expenses, which means disregarding salaries, marketing, etc. Net income is literally the bottom line. It's the final, complete measure of whether a company made or lost money over a given time frame. I'm not sure why you wouldn't measure their success by that.

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Devilb0y" data-cite="Devilb0y" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>That's probably true, but the point remains that for all the hatred Reigns gets he was still the main event of the highest grossing live event the WWE has ever put on. There might be money left on the table, there might not. I doubt the WWE care if they're already pulling good figures with Roman (a bird in the hand, and all that).<p> </p><p> Where is the motivation for the WWE to change things if that's the case? Fan's that pay to come and boo are still fans that pay to come. If I were in Vince's shoes I'd be looking at the bottom line and dismissing the boos as fans being contrary.</p><p> </p><p> I really don't care for Reigns, but I feel like a huge majority of modern wrestling fans delude themselves into thinking that they're making a difference by paying to show up and boo. The only time WWE will ever change is if they stop making money, and right now that's not happening, so neither will change.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> WrestleMania is pretty invincible, but WWE's net income is actually down quite dramatically in the last few years. From '98-'11, the WWE made around $50 million per year on average (though the XFL flop and a couple big movie flops dropped their net income in a couple years). From 2012-2015, though, yearly net income has averaged just $7 million. And that's not the WWE Network costs dragging things down. $4 million in network start-up costs were actually counted in the 2011 financials.</p><p> </p><p> The WWE is still making money, but they're making considerably less money than in the past even without adjusting for inflation.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Derek B" data-cite="Derek B" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>The point of Undertaker/Shane was that Taker is a huge draw and he didn't have an opponent due to so many people getting injured. To make it more interesting they dangled the carrot of change in front of us, they made it look like something incredibly unlikely could happen and we could get what we (the IWC) want with a change in authority. There was lots of talk and interest in that match and it may have helped buy rates for anyone without access to email addresses.... so it was what it was.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Yeah, but Disney doesn't advertise a new Star Wars addition to Disneyworld for months only to essentially say "ha ha, just kidding" when it was supposed to open and then justify it by saying "At least it got people excited for opening day!" Dangling something that consumers want in front of their face and then yanking it away from them is usually not a good idea. And that's what they did. And it's not like they even got a heel over in the process of doing that. It was just Vince saying '**** you' to his consumers.</p><p> </p><p> If they didn't want to actually do anything with Shane other than pop a WM buyrate, why not do something good with the appearance? Why just feed him to Taker? It's just stupid booking. Let him work with the New Day against the LON or something.</p><p> </p><p> Let Taker help elevate someone like Ambrose. Imagine Ambrose in Shane's position last night. It would have solidified him as a star for <em>years</em>, probably similar to Austin at WM13.</p><p> </p><p> Instead Shane was fed to Taker in a nonsensical story that ultimately meant nothing and Ambrose was fed to Lesnar, whose (German) suplex city thing is making his matches nearly unwatchable at this point.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Killagy" data-cite="Killagy" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>They aren't unfortunately. <img alt=":(" data-src="//content.invisioncic.com/g322608/emoticons/frown.png.e6b571745a30fe6a6f2e918994141a47.png" src="<___base_url___>/applications/core/interface/js/spacer.png" /></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Eh, **** it. Cancelled my subscription anyway and am going to go with Hulu. I see Takeover Dallas is on there already, and I don't mind waiting a day or two. Plus I'll gladly take the rest of Hulu's content over whatever else I could get on the Network. While I loved Breaking Ground and watching all the Legends roundtables, I'm not exactly chomping at the bit for Holy Foley or Camp WWE.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Atticus" data-cite="Atticus" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Can you imagine actually paying full price for that?<p> </p><p> That was so bad.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Even if it was free it literally wasn't worth my time. </p><p> </p><p> Does anyone know if Takeover events are shown live on Hulu? If they are, I don't see any reason why I wouldn't switch my WWE Network subscription over to a Hulu subscription.</p>

<p>That will go down as one of the worst WrestleManias ever. 7 hours and they wrapped almost no feuds up and yet managed to give us nothing compelling to look forward to. That's actually a pretty remarkable feat of terrible booking.</p><p> </p><p> It's incredible that NXT can be so good while the WWE can be so bad.</p>