You really don't get the context of that post, do you? It's really sad. Do you think I slipped up and accidentally buried myself? I challenge you to go back and re-read that whole thread, or at least a couple pages. You will realize how badly you are coming off right now.

I actually missed the part where CyNick was a Trump supporter until it was brought up by Dale in this thread. lol Amazing.

Transform what business? The sports entertainment business? They're the only game in that town. What is it that they're trying to transform?

And it still didn't answer my question. Are they a profitable company or are they losing money?

You say that, but here we are, in yet another thread, where everything revolves around me. Sounds like another grand slam for the bad guy.

Maybe if you had my insight and intelligence you would be able to hold court like I can.

Very profitable.

They transformed from being PPV dependent to moving into the VOD space. That was a major transformation which retired a lot of investment. It started paying off in 2015, and grew even more in 2016.

That's just sad. I'm all for intense or controversial discussions or debates, but I don't give a fuck if they revolve around me. Maybe you should seeks some help or re-examine your priorities.

Are you an illegal immigrant? Please say yes!

Proof?

Of course you don't, because they never do.

Use your Google machine

Sometimes it's a simple, generic insult to try to save face and avoid acknowledging another blatant strawman...

Sometimes it's responding with the truth in "joke" form to try to avoid acknowledging getting called out on your bullshit...

Either way... it's always wonderfully Trumptarded.

Totally. I flew over on a plane though. Better build an extra big wall.

He's the best at getting attention on internet message boards though. The best. He's got huge amounts of people who talk to him on internet message boards. HUGE. Other geeks wish they had as many. But they don't. They're losers. Now he's gotta go to another forum and talk about how many people talk to him on this forum. He's so busy getting so much attention on so many forums you wouldn't believe it. In fact, he was just talking to a very important person the other day and he was like "Wow. It's unbelievable how much attention you get on those forums. Just unbelievable." #BuildtheWall

Low Energy, sad.

Lol. Give CyNick a chance to prove his point and he tells you to look it up. Wonderful.

His point is right there to see. You can't not see it. It's huge. HUGE. Other people have points but they're so insignificant compared to his point. He talked to Google the other day and Google was like "CyNick. That's such a huge point you have. How do you do it, even?" #SomethingAboutChina

Again, you completely missed the context of the statement. Link the thread and let everyone see how badly you missed the point.

Why would I post something you can just look up?

Give a man a fish, you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life. Consider yourself fed for life.

lol Amazing. Especially since my quotes actually contain links to the threads. Trumptarded on 2 different levels.

I do, because I like to know what the future might hold for a television show, and I like to know what works and what is trendy, etc. I do a fair bit of work in the television industry (nothing glamorous, I'm not bragging like CyNick would), so I find the business itself very fascinating. That being said, ratings are important for wrestling fans who want to analyze the business.

You might think it is nerdy, but when a product has left us a bit dry and our fandom cries out for more, ratings are useful because it at least indicates whether or not something works for the general audience, even if we hardcores are left unsatisfied. That being said, we need to swallow a bitter pill when things are going down and our favorites are on top.

I'd be interested in ratings for Arrow in the same sense if I felt they were butchering this DC Comics character I enjoyed and I had this feeling that "No one is going to like this version of Green Arrow because they've fucked with him too much." If ratings were soaring, then it'd mean that my opinion is clearly out of sync with what audiences want. If ratings were going down the gurgler though, then it somewhat supports the suspicions my fandom has given me.

Also, generally television shows that keep losing viewers change something, and that the WWE loses viewers and keeps on the same path is incredibly frustrating and fuel for the hardcore fan/WWE love/hate relationship.

If you're enjoying the product, then I don't know why you'd bum yourself out with ratings. If you're not, there's something bittersweet about finding out that the general taste consensus is with you. It's the only authority a fan has to appeal to when they comes to disagreeing, cosmically, with Vince McMahon. And it's one that goes over even his head.

Guys, I know I have been a bit of a grouch lately, but you have GOT to tell me when a thread gets this good.

Touché.

Am I the only one who cracks up whenever I hear CyNick reference his intelligence? There are lots of smart people on this forum, brother. You got schooled by no less than three in this thread.

That insight there -- that's literally a Yahoo Answers response to the question about revenue vs. profit. This is the intellectual titan you are dealing with, folks. One week of business class and he thinks he's the Trumpster himself.

You talk about shifting goal posts, but you are the one constantly shifting them in order to stop BigCrippyZ from lodging that football so far up your ass it knocks your teeth out, son. You shift the posts in your last paragraph. I don't think you were being ironic.

BCZ pretty much explained that the data is manipulated to avoid other data. You can say it makes sense for a business to present itself in the best possible light all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is worked and doesn't address the overall health of the television product. That is right in line with "what you need to hear," right?

Jokes are supposed to make people laugh, and not betray a crippling sense of self-awareness in your own lack of arguments. Somehow I think that if you were a super-genius, you'd grasp that and be able to write wittier material. Maybe you can help Melania with her speeches? You seem proficient with Google.

This thread has been amazing. Thank you all. Please continue as CyNick believes he is trolling people, but doesn't actually get an emotional response out of anyone, and just gets logically dissected. Or as Vince McMahon would say "verbally eviscerated."

Well typically when you're arguing a point and stating it as fact you present proof that what you're saying is indeed fact.

If it's dio easy to find surely you'd have no issue proving your point. Unless you have no data to back up your claims and you telling me to look it up is a way to avoid admitting it.

No, I don't give a fuck because I don't have ego or arrogance that borders on narcissism.

Record breaking revenue in 2016.

Network subs up year over year. You mentioned hardcore fans, you would think The Network would be a solid indicator of what the hardcore fan thinks of the product.

TV ratings are down, yes, but they are still way above the average for both USA and Cable as a whole. What that will likely mean is a healthy new TV rights fees deal.

The issue for people like you, and Crippy falls into this category is you're just looking at television ratings for RAW and not grasping the larger context of what those numbers mean. The NFLs ratings are down, The Walking Dead's ratings are down (ask #1 fan), lots of things are down. However WWE continues to see growth in other areas, and have managed to grow a brand new revenue stream that will likely keep them profitable for decades to come. Until some of these metrics that actually matter (rights fees, Network subs, revenues, etc) start to decline, then the WWE will see a need to change. Right now things are going well. Guys like you don't seem to enjoy it, but the paying customer is enjoying, and they matter more than you.

Your goal posts comment makes no sense, when Crippy's lol WWE comment is what I was responding to in the first place. He didn't sufficiently explain why comparing the ratings for a show on cable is lol to compare it to the rest of cable. He made the comment because he didn't understand what he was talking about. Including a reference to ratings being over a year old but it's a year vs year chart. Again, he seemed to not understand what he was reading.

Why would you bring Network ratings into a chart about the health of a cable property. It would be worse to include Network ratings in the total number because it would be comparing apples to oranges. My guess is you don't understand the difference between the two anymore than Crippy does. Which explains why you think he's winning the debate.

I realized CyNick is doing Stephen Colbert's old gimmick. it's awesome

Record breaking revenue and yet their net profits are lower than pre-Network years. They simply are spending way too much money to the point they needed around a $200 million emergency loan to help cover costs late last year I believe.

Even the Network numbers are deceptive since they are only in the break even range and have to stay within it per month. WWE completely whiffed on their estimates since it was supposed to be around 2 million within a year and 3-4 million by now.

Also your last paragraph is barely true at all. If it wasn't for tv fees, WWE would be posting net losses and not net gains. Everything else outside of the tv revenues is down and has been trending that way the past several of years.

They do have a chance to improve their net profit for this year because of the tv fee being higher than last year but that can easily be eaten away by another Network based show if the stuff about the UK guys ends up happening.

This is my favorite thing about CyNick. Not only is he a condescending asshole, but he refuses to confirm any of his information.

Funny, since a while back he was all about people citing sources for rumors from the sheets. At least you're consistent, Nick!

Ouch at RAW's numbers this week since it hit 1997 levels of bad for significance.

Lol. Who the hell was sticking around for Charlotte and Bailey?

Raw would do so much better if their main events were as good as Smackdown.

The three hours is a killer. You have to wonder how much that extra money is worth it when they keep burning out their audience. You've lost 33% of your audience at this point -- maybe it's time to get them back and spending money on merchandise, live events and the Network? A big problem with WWE is that if you work out you can miss it and it doesn't matter, why watch it at all?

I'm curious. Where are you getting your break even numbers for the network? Take a look at their financial statements, it clearly shows the networks contribution to the bottom line. And it's positive. Stop reading BS reporting from people who don't know the business.

The $200M wasn't anything out of desperation, it was part of long term planning to grow various areas of the business. You have to spend money to make money. If the street would have seen that loan as a desperate move, the stock would be tanking. Instead it's nearing its nearing its all time high.

Another wrong statement about everything being down. Everything other than TV is not down. Network is up. Venue merchandising was up. Liscencing was up. WWEShop was up. Revenue in just about every segment of the business was up. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of an ignorant post.

Try to come back after you actually went through their numbers. Then we can discuss like gentlemen.

How many shows on cable did a better number?

A problem facing literally all forms of entertainment in TV. People still watch, they just use other means than cable. WWE generated the most revenue they ever did in 2016. That means people are shelling out their money to consume WWE.

Take a look at UFCs ratings in FS1, they are not great. But they are great for FS1. Therefore UFC will make a shitload in their next TV deal. Ratings for them are far worse than the Chuck and Randy days, but the money they get for a fraction of the ratings is much higher today.

Your arguments on this subject have been dismissed constantly. It is well established that you cannot be reasoned with. Goodbye, troll.

#1 - WWE and other financial related sources stated that was their break even number around the lead up to the Network's launch. Its a number that needs to be maintained for a long while because the WWE spent way too much money for the Network's launch. Also a big chunk of their monthly earnings goes to MLB and maybe others.

#2 - Kind of funny you use the WWE's exact words for the loan. Their stocks did tank a bit because ta da, the "streets" who are way smarter than you exactly saw it as a desperation move because of the very large amount asked, the very small window WWE was asking for the money, and some shenanigans related to the terms of it.

They were already spending a ton of money to begin with because of the Network and stood a risk of running out of usable funds for the quarter/period or having to cut back on a lot of spending. The biggest downside to the loan wasn't to the WWE but instead to investors who saw their stock value drop because it was likely cheaper for the WWE to just issue stocks than pay it back the normal way.



WWE's biggest non-sports juggernaut Love & Hip Hop 7 was one.

Wrong.

It's because you guys don't read financial statements, or understand how to read them, and just generally ignore facts. When I provide facts, like the WWE stock is nearing an all time high, I get a response of "the stocks did tank a bit". I don't know how a stock tanks a bit, but if you look at any stock ticker, they are currently sitting about 50 cents of their 52 week high. They have over $250m in gross profit and 82m in EBITDA. They have more free cash than debt. There's no tanking there.

These conversations with you people reminds me of when I was doing my undergrad in business and I would take electives and have debates with people taking useless degrees like history or women's studies about business matters. Because I was alone in a group of like minded individuals, they all thought I was wrong, and evil. But when I would go and recount the debate among my peers in degrees that actually require intelligence, they would laugh at how ignorant those people were to real facts.

lol you do not provide facts. You present information as fact, then say: "You guys just don't get it. Go look it up on the Internet." These are not the same.

Interesting you said "one", because it was the only show that did a better rating in the 18-49 demo. RAW was number two. But let's dig into the numbers a little too get a better representation. RAW did a 0.86 among women in that demo and was soundly beaten by LUSH at 1.75. with men, RAW was 1.43 and LHH was 0.64. when we look at total viewers, RAW easily beat LHH by nearly a million viewers. Now, for the sake of transparency, RAW was not #1 in total viewers, it was bested by some news programs on Fox News, but the vast majority of that audience is in the far less desirable 50+ demo, whereas RAW's big numbers come from the most desirable group men 18-49.

As an advertiser, RAW is far and away the most attractive property on cable that night.

I just provided a bunch of facts. You think I made those numbers up? I'd like someone to refute any of those numbers with actual proof that I'm wrong. Don't waste your time, I'm right.

Why is it on anyone else to prove you wrong? If you're so sure of yourself, why don't you provide the proof?

For example, if I were to say "WWE made more gross profit in 2016 than 2015" I would show this from NASDAQ...

http://i.imgur.com/mNMgfFV.jpg

...instead of being a dick and saying "look it up and get educated." It's really not that hard.

LOL meatball ate him alive and then he only responds to the final sentence.

Wish I remembered what site or source it was that broke down the weekly demographics outside of the Observer for wrestling because for a long time now, RAW's valuable 18-34 demo even for men was leaning heavily towards the end part.

Think the average viewer is in the 40s now and been growing older every few years. Has to do with WWE being unable to get Cena's massive youth base they spent years building to carry over as the new future base for the WWE.

This week's numbers sort of show how much stronger WWE's older base is compared to its younger one which is going to be a serious problem once Cena really goes away.
http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/wp-cont...eb-13.MON_.png

If something is so easy to obtain as doing a Google search, I'm not going to take my precious time to post an image. I feel like my reputation is strong enough here that my readers who are intelligent will take my word for it.

But hey, thanks for validating that I'm right.

So you'd rather just be an asshole who ignores anything that goes against you (i.e. the majority of Smelly Meatball's post up there).

Good to know!

Good post.

The thing is if you look at males 12 - 34 WWE they are still far and away #1 on cable, so you still have a healthy mix of young people watching the product. In terms of 50+, they do well, but other shows outperform them in that demo. If anything what that chart tells me when you look at his they colour code the demos, WWE does very well across all demos. Most shows like a LHH only really appeal to young women, they do okay with men and terrible with old people. Fox News has the old people cornered, but does average to below average numbers with young people. It's a testiment to hire WWE has managed to create a variety of characters and storylines that appeal to different folks.

I don't think that demo well disappear if Cena leaves. You can see they are still trying to create kid friendly babyface characters like Bayley.

People get their backs up when someone is right as often as I am. They are intimidated by people with more knowledge on a subject. If you were to analyze my posts on a scale of accuracy, you would see my numbers would be huge. My detractors are like the left wing media; fake news, and trying to insult me rather than debate me. It's the cross I carry for all of you to have access to my brilliance.

Since "anyone can look it up," you aren't really proving your intelligence/knowledge on anything other than how to use a search engine.

But as long as you're having fun, do the thing!

I love how Cynick ignores all of this, in particular the convertible note aspect. Granted, I'm not surprised, because most people here don't know or fully understand the intricacies or consequences of a convertible note, especially the one referenced here. Cynick claims to "truly understands the business" but doesn't address this critical aspect of it because he can't refute it and in fact doesn't "truly understand the business". So great. :lol:

Funny how he complains about not being debated while ignoring big points for debate.

Keep having fun doing you, Nick!

In fairness, we all know he's not here to really debate.

I mean, that's obvious. If he is as intelligent as he claims, you'd think he'd try to disguise it better.

But he seems to enjoy pushing his narrative/gimmick/whatever. And isn't that what really matters?

Cant lose a debate if you ignore all the facts

I would like to hear Heyman's take on CyNick's most recent posts in this thread.

Well, you can definitely lose the debate.

Cynick ignores the facts to preserve his own internal illusions that he won the debate and that he knows more than he actually does.

AKA illusory superiority or the Dunning-Kruger effect. If he truly believes what he says on here, Cynick is pretty much the personification of Dunning-Kruger.

I'm happy to have that debate, since I've done this as part of a start up. I would guess the finer details would go over the heads of most here. I'm curious, how you feel the convertible note will hurt the WWE going forward? I'm a free market type of guy (crazy, right?), So to me if the market has the stock at or near us 52 week high, that would indicate investors are not concerned.

Which ties into the over arching debate about WWE ratings. I've always conceded, yup they are down, can't deny that. But the context of being down is important. They have a very strong social media presence, the network continues to grow, rights fees for TV properties continues to increase. These are all measures that actually contribute to the bottom line of the company. One of the most under reported stories of 2016 was that NBCU in conjunction with WWE added 50+ blue chip advertisers. That coupled with their strong performance relative to other cable properties and other USA properties should result in a healthy rights fees deal in a couple years.

Heyman is an intelligent person, he weighs out what people say. I value his opinion because he hears both sides. Unlike others who think they know everything because they read a paragraph in 30,000 word newsletter.

this thread is more entertaining than RAW, proving that CyNick is great for ratings.

He makes a fine jester

He reminds me of Patterson and Brisco

not an insult btw best friend, Pat and Gerald had one of the most epic fucking runs as Mr. McMahon's trusted right hand men during the attitude era.

Ha!

So he would make...the 3rd stooge

lol


Mister MAC-MAH-HIN

I think the solution to WWE's plummeting ratings is to build a big, giant wall. It makes sense because walls keep people in AND out of things. I have been in TONS of buildings with walls and if not for doors I would NOT be able to go from one side of the wall to the other. So you build a wall. Mexicans can't come in, WWE fans can't leave. Problem solved.

Don't know about a wall, but WWE is going to be making some great deals.

Ouch.

I will also remind people that the most complicated thing CyNick has said re: business is an Investopedia reply to a question about revenue versus profit. When he tried to hang with BigCrippyZ in a ratings discussion, BigCrippyZ pulled out his lawyer and put CyNick in an ambulance for him to chase so he could school CyNick twice.

Not to get too political, but this is also a man who considers Trump an unblemished businessman, despite his Chapter 11 appeals. How are those steaks doing? As long as you back pocket a few billion nothing else matters, right?

You remind me of an old friend I used to have. I say used to, because he eventually got so tedious people stopped feeling sorry for him and his self-aggrandizing need to argue points, usually incorrectly, to the point where he thought he had won because people stopped conversing with him. He was the sort of prick that would hear an out-dated trivia fact and claim it as gospel until he was blue in the face, even if more modern information was available and proved him wrong. Sometimes he would be just plain wrong, but usually he was so firmly confident in his own intelligence, he would just embarrass himself and alienate others, who were actually more correct than he was.

Turns out people who think they are so much smarter than other people because they do "harder" degrees (and as I said in your rep, my sister did a Bachelor of Business and can't change her oil), aren't that smart at all. Isn't it funny how you're around a bunch of like-minded people in one scenario, but when it suits you suddenly you are around "smart" people when you are being agreed with? I've never met someone who describes themselves as a genius who wasn't an underwhelming bore. Real geniuses don't need to go around doing that.

You're constantly outsmarted by people on these forums and they never describe themselves as geniuses. While I do think you are trolling, I actually do think you believe yourself to be smarter than most people. The thing is, you're not very good at debating. You constantly make huge leaps in logic. You're constantly projecting and generalizing (you constantly reference people reading Meltzer like it's a fetish, but I can honestly say I've never read anything other than an extract -- this makes you WRONG). The straw-men are abundant and you shift the goals so much they aren't even on the field anymore. I mention RAW's audience being worse than decimated since it's gone to three hours and you respond with an IRRELEVANT side to this not being notable because cable television is generally decreasing. How does this at all retort the possibility that a two hour show would be more digestible, as the third hour drop-off seems to imply? Which other cable television show even goes three hours to compare it to? It completely evades the question and addresses a different issue. A smarter response would have been to point out that correlation is not causation, but you have already proven in the Baron Corbin thread that you do not understand that argument. Some genius you are. #AlternativeFacts

I used to buy the argument that you are a nice dude with some alternative viewpoints, but your inability to structure an argument, respond to what is being discussed, address criticisms of your arguments without resorting to personal dismissals and your displayed sense of superiority makes me think that you are probably the poster in here that I'd least like to catch up with over a beer. I bet you have a lot of opinions about things that you try to pass off as facts, and, perhaps even worse than that, I bet you're fucking boring.

You're worse than a troll pretending to be a WWE mark -- you're a mark for yourself. And it's clear that:

Where have I ever called Trump an unblemished businessman? His name does spot many skylines of the great cities in the world. He did build a multi billion dollar empire. And oh yeah, he did just become President even though the entire media was against him and he was up against the entire Republican party and a person who has literally lived her whole life to become President. But in Noid's world his steak business didn't hit it out of the park, so lol Trump. And this is the guy who's logic leads him to think I lost a debate. Sounds like a credible source to me!

And now #1 fan will quote that last sentence and miss the context in which it was written.

You're also not successful as a troll. You're the sort of person who thinks that people spending time on you means you are, but look at the time you spend here. You're breaking even at best. But you don't really understand business that well, so I can imagine that is lost on you.

Speaking of taking things out of context...

You're missing the point like a liberal arts student there, and proving it. Are you sure you didn't take calligraphy in college?

That sounds like a history wanker writing an introductory paragraph to their self-published book. Are you sure you aren't of the homosexual persuasion or a Hillary supporter?

Wow, now you're stealing fans gimmick. Sad.

I'll address the ratings piece, because the rest is a bore. My deal with ratings, and I've said this about a hundred times, is that WWE is a business. They are trying to make money. The state of the cable industry is RELEVANT because the WWE will generate a rights fee deal based on their numbers vs the competition and what USA or another network thinks that's worth. WWE was asked to add a third hour and they got paid big dollars for it. Unless WWE can drive ratings in two hours that would lead to a larger rights fee deal than the current three hour state, they would be stupid to do that. For USA, RAW doing the ratings they do still drives up their averages. That leads to more as money. The problem is I present these positions to guys like you, and then you claim I don't back anything up. You're just ignorant to the industry. And the guy who you think is spot on, doesn't even understand a year over year chart.

As for me as a person, I have met people from F4W and was universally well liked. I don't really care if you think I'm a mean person. But if you met me, I guarantee you would like me. Frankly, everyone does.

Hilary supporter? That's the worst thing you can call sound minded person. Didn't realize we were taking low blood at one another. Time to rise above hate.

The day after WWE's announcement of the notes, WWE's stock, which reached a near annual record high close the day prior, fell and remained below $19 for over a month. Sure, it was temporary, but WWE investors were at least initially concerned about the possibility of dilution of their stock.

What you're also failing to address is that WWE, not the note purchaser, has the option to convert these notes to common stock. While that's good for WWE in regards to the debt, in the event they can't repay the notes by 2023, it's actually bad for their existing investors and potentially for WWE's future stock value. If WWE elects or simply has no better alternative but to convert the notes to common stock, this will dilute the stock for existing shareholders and decrease the stock value.

I love how Cynick thinks I don't understand a year over year chart.

It never occurred to him the reason for the criticism of WWE's chart indicating "Top 25 reflects average U.S. national ratings from 2015" is that the chart compares WWE's ratings to Top 25 from 2015 and Top 25 from 2016 but using the top 25 national networks from 2015 as the basis for both top 25 2015 & 2016 ratings data. Why would you base top 25 2016 ratings on the top 25 networks from 2015?

Now sure, it's possible that the top 25 national networks from 2015 were the same in 2016. However, without that clarification on the chart or going and looking at the data, it's just as possible that the top 25 average of U.S. national ratings in 2016 that are actually based on the top 25 in 2016, were higher than those same top 25 ratings in 2016 that are (for some reason) determined from what were the top 25 networks in 2015.

If that's your logic for your criticism, you come off better if you just didn't understand how a year over year chart works. Have a look at the top 25 cable networks year over year and see what the difference would be using your methodology.

You're so anti WWE (well you pretend to be anyway) that you will grasp at anything to try to paint a Rosey picture with a doom and gloom brush. The company is very profitable, has more cash than debt, and is growing revenue in virtually every revenue stream.

So did it occur to you that investors dug into the deal and the numbers and came to the conclusion that it was a good business move? Considering the stock is now near their 52 week high, your fear about the deal is unfounded. Or are you smarter than the market?

I can't believe you haven't processed that it's not that one possible hypothesis you draw from the information that people don't like -- it's your fucking pigheadedness towards any other possibility. EVERYBODY has considered that the WWE will get offered more money for more television in the future. Fuck's sake, man. That does not mean that it also couldn't come tumbling down like a house of cards either.

There are several reasons that the USA Network might decide that WWE RAW isn't performing like they'd like it to when the contract comes up. In fact, given that they will be requested to spend more money for the same amount of content reaching a decreasing number of viewers each week, it'd be insane if they didn't try to get it for cheaper, and right now the WWE is depending a lot on that money.

Cable is going down. Clap, clap -- you fucking idiot. That doesn't mean that the WWE's downward spiral in ratings -- actually a greater decrease than most other shows on cable -- is a healthy trend. It feels obvious stating that, but it seems to evade you. It also is NOT relevant to whether or not three hours is detrimental to the product or not, you fucking muppet.

If I watch Smackdown replay on Hulu, am I watching TV or television? Also, lay off Trump steaks. They were really good it's justnthatnthe idiots that bought them were burning them. Medium rare ONLY.

Calm down PAL, you're getting really worked up.

USA asked for the extra hour because even with the decline it's still far greater than any show USA could air in its place.

WWE would be in more trouble if the demos were weak, but they are strong. WWE would be in more trouble if they had trouble getting advertisers, but they had a laundry list of new BLUE CHIP sponsors are to partner with them and USA. That's a direct result of the years of effort to change the image of the product.

So yeah, it could go down, rights fees could tank across the board, maybe Cable disappears in two years. If I were a betting man, I would say WWE either stats flat or increases their rights deal. The third hour of RAW will be a major factor in that. But to mention they will have other suitors, maybe an ESPN looking at them.

:lol:

Only an idiot would conclude that there's nothing worry about and everything is great.

I'm not smarter than the market, but I get paid everyday to help individuals and companies build and protect their wealth by spotting, analyzing and evaluating issues and risks, usually before they occur or become bigger problems.

Well at the end of the day, let's see what happens when the new contract is signed. We'll see what your vast vast experience is worth. Maybe you'll want to put this warning to WWE on your business card...or maybe not.

Again, you're projecting. It takes no energy at all to call you a moron. None at all. In fact, it keeps me calm as more important shit goes on around me. Calling you a cunt is like sniffing lavendar.

Medium-well or GTFO because you're not enjoying steak properly.

Raw broke the record this week for the lowest audience to watch the show since 1997 on a night when they weren't facing major sports competition or it being a major holiday, with 3.04 million viewers.

8 p.m. 3.16 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.12 million viewers
10 p.m. 2.87 million viewers

:|

The word "well" should not be anywhere in the same sentence as "steak".

Pls take it to the Trump Steaks thread

Oh, man. Raw's falling ratings and Trump steaks in the same thread? Someone's gonna have a rationalization field day with this!