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

[evileddie10]

The interpreter was Smackdown's number 1 announcer FUNAKI! Indeed.

[djthefunkchris]

Who cares how much they are grossing if they aren't actually clearing it after expenses. Just because you are bringing in a lot of money does not mean you are keeping that money. It appears you attended the Enron school of finance if you think Gross Profit and bottom line is the same thing.

Net gain/loss is not including expenses. Gross income is doing exactly what your looking for.

You do realize that their gross profit can increase without their over all profit going up.

 

Prices of tickets are about 5 times more than they were in 1999 along with mercy prices, yet they have a lot more expenses to pay out.

 

They are not as good as they were 15 years ago. Those numbers really mean little to nothing.

"Gross profit is a company's total revenue (equivalent to total sales) minus the cost of goods sold. Gross profit is the profit a company makes after deducting the costs associated with making and selling its products, or the costs associated with providing its services. Gross profit will appear on a company's income statement or can be calculated with this formula: Gross profit = revenue - cost of goods sold."

Also, don't forget to adjust for inflation when looking at financials over a long period of time…the effect of inflation means $104.9 mil in 1999 was worth more than $104.9 mil in 2015.

 

Your figures weren't from net worth either, you were using figures from loss/gain. Example: If I made 10 million in 2014, and I made 9 million in 2015, I show a loss of -1 million dollars..... but I still made 9 Million.

 

Here are numbers you were using:

 

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). The figure under gain/loss is showing how much more or less they made than the year before.

 

The loss is with investor shares and stuff of that nature, Remi would be better to consult you with than I about investor burdens and how much a share is worth (If it's worth 20 dollars in 2014, but I take a loss of half, than it might only be worth 10 dollars in 2015, something like that).

 

When someone says "They took a loss last year" it simply means they didn't make as much as the year before. That's all I'm trying to share with you... You were using the gain/loss of net income, not the actual net income.

[djthefunkchris]

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.

 

I didn't include your post for obvious reasons. I think you accidentally had it all backwards. Unless you really want to use Net Income. Using Net over Gross is going to be like a 40% gain in their favor, but I would rather go by Gross, after expenses.

[kingjames]

"We've got this really charismatic Japanese guy that understands and speaks passable English... let's give him an interpreter!"

 

Itami and Asuka didn't get one. Then again, those twice weren't twice as charismatic as everybody else on the roster not named Enzo Amore.

 

Not being familiar with Nakamura before NXT outside of watching the occasional YouTube clip of a match, just how good is his English? That's a legit question, not suggesting it's good or it's bad. I think NXT audiences would deal with occasional stumbles or such, if he's at that level of fluency, but I don't know if an audience on Raw or Smackdown would go for it without "WHAT?"ing Nakamura to death. Would he be able to handle a MizTV segment, should he get put in one?

 

I'm not sure he needs a translator, but he might benefit from a Paul Heyman-type - hell, Brock's a native English speaker and he most definitely benefits from having Paul do most of the speaking for him. Letting Nakamura get in a couple of really good lines, while a manager - call him an "agent", since Nakamura essentially is a rock star - does a lot of the grunt work in getting through dialogue segments might be the better option than having him be only passable on the mic. Especially if Dallas and last night's NXT was indicative of the physical charisma, expressions and body language he has, he doesn't need to be on the stick to say things.

 

Main roster fans aren't patient, they aren't known for cultural sensitivity, and they have no idea why Nakamura is a big deal. My fear is that he stumbles on a few early promos, gets "WHAT?" to hell and back, and then gets shuffled into midcard hell or into the generic "foreigner" role.

 

A lot of WWE today, for better or for worse, is dialogue heavy. If other people who have a better handle on his English think he's going to do fine, then I absolutely think the translator was unnecessary/showing that Nakamura didn't need a translator, as suggested. But if he's not quite fluent, why not give him someone to do a lot of the heavy lifting, at least for a time while he continues to improve in his English language skills? I suspect it'd get him to the main roster faster, if that's something the company plans on having happen sooner rather than later.

 

Of course, whether he should want to get to the main roster quickly is a whole other can of worms...

[djthefunkchris]

Agree with everything kingjames said. I think anyone could benefit from Heyman these days though.

 

I think your best chances right out the gate from NXT are the ones that can talk, hold their own, think without stuttering, etc. Obvious example being Enzo, but they don't have to be able to do that great (none of the rest of the main roster does). Just being able to handle themselves with words (for better or worse as kingjames put it), is going to give them a huge break at the start.

[OldStingberg]

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.

[djthefunkchris]

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.

 

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).

[OldStingberg]

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.

[djthefunkchris]

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.

 

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.

 

From a fans perspective, I've watched less WWE in the last year or so than I ever have. I check this forum to see if there is anything worth checking out. If your point is that the product has gone downhill, or has become less entertaining, or unwatchable at times, I'm actually in agreement. I just try to be more positive, say something when it's good to me, nothing when it's bad. I try to be that way anyways...

 

I'm not attacking your post or point is all I'm saying. I read stuff, I check on it and I don't see what is being implied (maybe I am getting the wrong point from the post), so I try to put out what was maybe being implied to understand the actual point. If I'm mistaken its an honest mistake, not an attack, which is how you seem to be reacting. Just trying to understand is all, and tried to take anything out of my (tends to be) long winded posts that could be taken as an attack. If I left something in that was not as objective as I meant it to be, I just missed it when I proof read it.

[Fleisch]

Not being familiar with Nakamura before NXT outside of watching the occasional YouTube clip of a match, just how good is his English? That's a legit question, not suggesting it's good or it's bad. I think NXT audiences would deal with occasional stumbles or such, if he's at that level of fluency, but I don't know if an audience on Raw or Smackdown would go for it without "WHAT?"ing Nakamura to death. Would he be able to handle a MizTV segment, should he get put in one?

 

I'm not sure he needs a translator, but he might benefit from a Paul Heyman-type - hell, Brock's a native English speaker and he most definitely benefits from having Paul do most of the speaking for him. Letting Nakamura get in a couple of really good lines, while a manager - call him an "agent", since Nakamura essentially is a rock star - does a lot of the grunt work in getting through dialogue segments might be the better option than having him be only passable on the mic. Especially if Dallas and last night's NXT was indicative of the physical charisma, expressions and body language he has, he doesn't need to be on the stick to say things.

 

Main roster fans aren't patient, they aren't known for cultural sensitivity, and they have no idea why Nakamura is a big deal. My fear is that he stumbles on a few early promos, gets "WHAT?" to hell and back, and then gets shuffled into midcard hell or into the generic "foreigner" role.

 

A lot of WWE today, for better or for worse, is dialogue heavy. If other people who have a better handle on his English think he's going to do fine, then I absolutely think the translator was unnecessary/showing that Nakamura didn't need a translator, as suggested. But if he's not quite fluent, why not give him someone to do a lot of the heavy lifting, at least for a time while he continues to improve in his English language skills? I suspect it'd get him to the main roster faster, if that's something the company plans on having happen sooner rather than later.

 

Of course, whether he should want to get to the main roster quickly is a whole other can of worms...

 

Nakamuras English is pretty good from all accounts, and he'll no doubt improve on his English whilst in NXT. He already has the ability to cut charismatic promos so it is doubtful he'd need a manager. Hell, with the charisma he shows in just his movement he might not even need to speak!

[OldStingberg]

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.

[iruleall15]

That promo from Gable and Jordan on NXT after they won the titles is amazing. The real emotion from Jordan who most likely before him and Gable got together was potentially one to be let go.

 

 

These guys are the best thing in WWE easily. Maybe even the best duo in the world right now. I dont like many faces. These guys make me excited to watch them wrestle.

[kingjames]

That promo from Gable and Jordan on NXT after they won the titles is amazing. The real emotion from Jordan who most likely before him and Gable got together was potentially one to be let go.

 

 

These guys are the best thing in WWE easily. Maybe even the best duo in the world right now. I dont like many faces. These guys make me excited to watch them wrestle.

 

It's amazing how a little bit of character development, and just letting them tell their real stories with a little bit of kayfabe mixed in, can make you really want them to succeed. It's so simple and old-fashioned, but it works. All you have to do is make me care about someone winning, and make me care about wanting to see someone receive their richly deserved comeuppance.

[K-Nection]

Net gain/loss is not including expenses. Gross income is doing exactly what your looking for.

 

 

Definition of Gross Income

1. An individual's total personal income, before accounting for taxes or deductions. 2. A company's revenue minus cost of goods sold. Also called gross profit and, when it is expressed as a percentage of revenue, gross margin.

 

Definition of Bottom Line

The final total of an account, balance sheet, or other financial document

 

 

Gross Income was most certainly not what I was asking for. Bottom line is. Just because the government says I've taken home X amount money does not mean I end up with X it means I end up with Y. This is not taking into the company's own payroll, travel expenses, legal fees, ect. The only cost that is shown in this number is cost of goods sold.

[crownsy]

That promo from Gable and Jordan on NXT after they won the titles is amazing. The real emotion from Jordan who most likely before him and Gable got together was potentially one to be let go.

 

 

These guys are the best thing in WWE easily. Maybe even the best duo in the world right now. I dont like many faces. These guys make me excited to watch them wrestle.

 

All those "right after the match" promo's were very good, Sami's and Baylee's were standouts too. I don't get why they don't try that on the main roster, NXT has that down. They often have people cut promo's minutes after walking through the curtain, while they are still running on raw adrenaline and emotion, then save those promo's for later video feud recap packages/ to be shown on the next show.

 

Who knew you get raw, unscripted emotion that connects with the crowd far better than bad acting segments when you shove a mic in someones face right after an emotional moment eh?

[K-Nection]

All those "right after the match" promo's were very good, Sami's and Baylee's were standouts too. I don't get why they don't try that on the main roster, NXT has that down. They often have people cut promo's minutes after walking through the curtain, while they are still running on raw adrenaline and emotion, then save those promo's for later video feud recap packages/ to be shown on the next show.

 

Who knew you get raw, unscripted emotion that connects with the crowd far better than bad acting segments when you shove a mic in someones face right after an emotional moment eh?

 

You know if Superstars and Main Event featured these I would probably watch those B shows more because it gives you a reason to seek those out besides mid card throw away matches. I think these promos would be perfect for these shows instead of a repeat of the same video packages they play on RAW every week. Honestly I think they need to move Smackdown's time slot in the week closer to RAWs like on a Wednesday and then have Main Event play off that show instead of another Superstars clone. This was one thing I thought WWE did correct in the early 2000s with Velocity playing off Smackdown and Heat playing off of RAW.

 

They are spending all these resources to regurgitate the exact kind of show and none of them has an identity.

[crownsy]

You know if Superstars and Main Event featured these I would probably watch those B shows more because it gives you a reason to seek those out besides mid card throw away matches. I think these promos would be perfect for these shows instead of a repeat of the same video packages they play on RAW every week. Honestly I think they need to move Smackdown's time slot in the week closer to RAWs like on a Wednesday and then have Main Event play off that show instead of another Superstars clone.

 

They are spending all these resources to regurgitate the exact kind of show and none of them has an identity.

 

Agreed on all points, that would be great.

 

another highly underrated segment i wish they'd find a way to work in to TV for guys is "cole's weekly interviews" segments. Owens and Styles have been doing amazing work on those, and no one ever sees them, since WWE just goes "eh, it's on our website somewhere, sure people will see it"

[K-Nection]

Agreed on all points, that would be great.

 

another highly underrated segment i wish they'd find a way to work in to TV for guys is "cole's weekly interviews" segments. Owens and Styles have been doing amazing work on those, and no one ever sees them, since WWE just goes "eh, it's on our website somewhere, sure people will see it"

 

I think between you and me we just fixed their ratting issues...book it vince!

[milamber]

All those "right after the match" promo's were very good, Sami's and Baylee's were standouts too. I don't get why they don't try that on the main roster, NXT has that down. They often have people cut promo's minutes after walking through the curtain, while they are still running on raw adrenaline and emotion, then save those promo's for later video feud recap packages/ to be shown on the next show.

 

Who knew you get raw, unscripted emotion that connects with the crowd far better than bad acting segments when you shove a mic in someones face right after an emotional moment eh?

 

NXT has been using backstage segments for a few years now to get the talent over as characters first, then use matches to get them over as wrestlers. On the main roster they don't even bother with hype videos any more, just throw guys in at the deep end and hope for the best. No wonder a guy with a specific gimmick like Tyler Breeze was dead on arrival when they didn't put any effort into getting his gimmick over first.

 

Also, some of the funniest promos in the last year were backstage youtube videos involving the likes of Owens and The New Day.

[Lucas]

One thing I dearly miss on the main roster is use of backstage segments, I pretty much grew up on them in the late 90s.

 

Some Raws feel disjoined as its just match after match, and its not too often we get a sequence of segments throughout the show that really keep the viewer watching. I think it was this past Raw where I watched the opening segment and then the contenders with Reigns, and realised after the show that for the most part (except for Miz), I could have skipped the rest of the show.

 

It disappointed me watching live that Crews and Corbin were sortve just thrown in there, with little fanfare. The Womens segment was a let down as many (inc. myself) were wanting Bayley and instead got Nattie. Whatever happened to hyping up guys before they appear, getting to know them before they have matches? I think this is part of a reason why guys like Breeze have suffered, as I actually think his gimmick is a very relevant one and funny in its own way.

 

Occasionally there are some good matches not in the main event on Raw, usually for me featuring New Day and Kevin Owens. But I am tired sometimes that the vast majority of angles even speaking parts, take place in the ring. Some of the best stuff in the past is with backstage members of the roster, even the Cole interview segments that are on Youtube these days like someone mentioned in the thread.

 

I don't know, just think WWE are missing a trick sometimes. I do enjoy the wrestling fwiw, but I like fresh matchups too, things like running through 5 or 6 bouts of AJ v Y2J on TV weekly and Kalisto/ADR in recent past have killed some of the excitement I would have had on a PPV. One thing that really works well for Lucha Underground is that its vignette and angle segment heavy, and heightens the anticipation of matches when they finally do come. I appreciate this is harder for WWE now with the amount of hours they need to fill.

[milamber]

R-Truth's off-air birthday surprise on Smackdown (featuring Roman Reigns with added charisma!):

 

 

One of Sasha's video diaries from Wrestlemania weekend:

 

 

Cole interview with AJ Styles about being #1 Contender:

 

 

New Day's internet feud with The Elite is still going:

 

[Jaysin]

I love that 2K title. It's awesome.

[K-Nection]

R truth is actually 44 which is still impressive.

[Jaysin]

R truth is actually 44 which is still impressive.

 

Goldust will be 47 on Monday.

[Texas_Forever]

it would be great if they had more back stage segments. You could have breeze trying to give people beauty tips or the miz and maryse in a roped off vip area, similar to the apa's office. it would really help establish their characters.