Jump to content

OldStingberg

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    457

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Posts posted by OldStingberg

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    From the post I quoted of yours, I just did the math and I couldn't find anything similar until I averaged out gain/loss, than it come up almost exact, our figures are slightly different, but almost everywhere I get information from including the sight you linked, have slightly different figures.

     

    I wasn't meaning to have a big debate, I was just trying to point out that you weren't actually using the actual income (net or gain) for those figures. I don't know if you did the math or if you got it from somewhere else.

     

    Your point might even be more solidified using the right numbers, I don't know. I just couldn't find anything that actually added up that way until I did the net loss/gain numbers.

     

    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.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    That's why the rest of my statement said unless it was purposeful to use Net Income. Also the reason my original post didn't use Net Income (totally inflates the numbers).

     

    My point is that they still made money, not lost. I wasn't disputing they weren't making as much. The original post was going by gain/loss which doesn't show real numbers... it's comparing one year from the year before. We know they make more today than any other time outside of the attitude era (if you actually compensate for inflation).

     

    If I made 50 million in 1990 and 100 million in 1991 I show a gain of 50 Million. IF I made 400 million in 2014 and 300 million in 2015 I show a loss of 100 million. Comparing gain loss in 1991 to 2015 will make it look like I made less than I did in 1991... in fact it makes me look like I lost 100 million and doesn't show that I made 300 million. SO it appears like I'm hurting alot more than I was in 1991, although I'm making much better money.... But my investors are going to be pretty upset (probably downright mad) with me not making as much (loss of 100 million).

     

    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.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    I didn't include your post for obvious reasons. I think you accidentally had it all backwards.

     

    No, I really didn't.

     

    http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/wwe/financials

     

    You can look up their net income yourself if you want.

     

    Year Net Income Gain/Loss

    1994 $87.35 ($4.43)

    1995 $85.82 ($1.53)

    1996 $81.86 ($3.96)

    1997 $126.23 $44.37

    1998 $250.34 $124.11

    1999 $377.90 $127.56

    2000 $438.14 $60.24

    2001 $409.62 ($28.52)

    2002 $374.30 ($35.32)

    2003 $374.91 $0.61

    2004 $366.43 ($8.48)

    2005 $400.05 $33.62

    2006 $415.30 $15.25

    2007 $485.66 $70.36

    2008 $526.46 $40.80

    2009 $475.16 ($51.30)

    2010 $477.60 $2.44

    2011 $483.90 $6.30

    2012 $484.01 $0.11

    2013 $507.97 $23.96

    2014 $542.62 $34.65

    2015 $658.76 $116.14

     

    The numbers under gain/loss in Parenthesis shows a loss. The actual money made is under Net Income. All numbers are in Millions. Net Income is going to be considerably MORE than Gross Income.

     

    They took a loss in 2009, but they still made 475 Million (Net).

     

    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.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Why would you compare it like that? I'm just curious, because that's not saying much of anything. Your comparing Net Revenue Profit/Loss margins, and not what they actually made. That's more for shareholders and investors, and done quarterly, letting them know if the company (and therefore themselves) is/are gaining or losing. I originally had a longer winded statement on this, but I think I can simplify things to what matters to a fan.

     

    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.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    <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>

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    <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>

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    <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>

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    <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>

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Unions ruins companies. It ends up with those who run the union stealing more from the workers than it helps the workers. Unions are an outdated corrupt system. Look at the NFL PA. They can hold the NFL at borderline gun point to get whatever they want during the negotiation deals.

     

    In the last CBA extension, the players' cut of league revenue was reduced by about 4%. In exchange they got some minor safety increases, some benefits for retired players, and the length of the season staying at 16 games.

     

    I'm not sure I'd consider that "whatever they want."

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    Not being corporate employees does not remove the incentive for the company to act on their own and implement something like this. Many companies that do not have unions still make an effort to care for their employees.

     

    Exactly. I'm not saying the WWE is legally required to, I'm saying they should choose to do so. It would keep wrestlers happier and healthier and give creative easy opportunities to work guys in or out of storylines depending on a wrestler's time off.

    ThunderVerse 2014 Platinum Release Thread

    in Total Extreme Wrestling 2005-2013 Mods

    Posted

    THUNDERVERSE BECOME A STAR ENTRY FORM

     

    http://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y446/wmarmorine/Larry%20Lightning_zpsz2dxdfcf.jpghttp://i1275.photobucket.com/albums/y446/wmarmorine/Larry%20Lightning_alt_zpswl87fugb.jpg

     

    Name: Larry Lightning

    Short Name: Larry Lightning

     

    Biography: Lawrence "Lightning" Smith was a minor-league baseball player on the verge of breaking into the big leagues until a shoulder injury ended his baseball career. A lifelong wrestling fan, Lomas turned to professional wrestling and created his newfound persona, Larry Lightning, as a smaller version of his childhood hero Terry Thunder.

     

    With his father a professional baseball player and mother a collegiate track star, Larry Lightning's natural athleticism combined with his unique charisma could lead him to be a force on the American wrestling scene.

     

    Age: 23

    Nationality: American

    Race: Black

    Ring Style: Entertainer

    Size: Middleweight

    Finishing Move (Impact): Lightning Strike (Shining Wizard)

    Face Gimmick: Fun Babyface

    Heel Gimmick: Cocky

    Mask: No

    Hair: Yes

    Languages: Fluent English, Passable Spanish

    Other Areas Active: USA, Canada, Mexico

     

    Please describe your character's personality using the categories listed in game: Party animal template, except very driven

     

    Please describe your character's performance stats (face, heel, wholesome etc.) using the categories listed in game: Very good face and heel, strong performance in cool, cocky, and comedy

     

    Camera Skills Grade:

    Great star quality, average sex appeal, poor menace

     

    Physical Skills Grade:

    Excellent athleticism and stamina, above average toughness, average power, below average resilience

     

    Performance Skills Grade:

    Below average performance skills

     

    Entertainment Skills Grade:

    Excellent charisma, above average mic skills and acting

     

    Flying Skills Grade:

    Above average aerial, great flashiness

     

    Technical Skills Grade:

    Below average technical skills

     

    Rumble Skills Grade:

    Good brawling, below average hardcore and puro skills

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    In that case, you'd have to plan house shows meticulously. You'd have to divide your roster into 12 and give every person on the roster at least one month off. And WWE's policy now is to run two shows in one day. They ran a house show in Atlantic City (Kevin Owens vs. AJ Styles, 30 Minute Ironman) on the same day they were running RoadBlock live on the Network. So, you're already spreading your roster super thin as is and you're now going to give guys time off as well? There's a lot of other factors too which I won't go into, but this kind of policy just doesn't work IMHO.

     

    You realize that practically every company in the world has to make paid time off work, right?

     

    I have four weeks of paid time off per year. It's not like my company has someone chilling in a conference room somewhere waiting for someone to take some PTO in order to fill in for them.

     

    You make it work. Can it be an inconvenience for a business owner? Sure. But it's a bigger inconvenience having your guys retire early or leave your company or become unmotivated or get injured.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    WWE are making more money now than they ever have before.

     

    Depends on how you look at it. Yes their revenue is at an all-time high, but their profit in 2015 was at a relatively modest $22 million (following a $30 million loss in 2014).

     

    Compare that to 2000, where their profit not even adjusted for inflation was nearly $85 million according to the numbers I've found. Adjusting that for inflation brings that up to around $117 million. And while that was certainly their high, nearly each year since 1998 has shown a profit of considerably more than $22 million without even accounting for inflation.

     

    The WWE has grown revenue, but they've shrunk their consumer base and have had to spend and invest much more to raise that revenue than they've had to in the past.

    The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

    in The Dog Pound

    Posted

    It's not about Vince, at least not 100%. I've heard main roster talent going on record to say they love house shows. They get pretty much complete creative freedom to go and do whatever they want out there, as well as far more time than the TV to actually work a crowd and have a match. Wrestling is performance art but working for WWE usually means that you heed to a script. The talent pretty much jumps at any chance to break those shackles and express themselves.

     

    Besides, nobody is under any illusions. It's been well established how demanding the schedule is, physically and mentally.

     

    I love my job, too, but I love paid time off even more. Even more so if my body was constantly on the verge of breaking down.

×
×
  • Create New...