Recession

Shaneomac

Just heard WWE need to cut costs by approx $20 million. If u were in charge of the funds where would u make the cut backs to the the tune of the above figure?

Release the useless divas.

Since when are WWE stuck for money anyway?

I think they'd have an easier time making an extra $20m rather than trying to cut back and save $20m.


For example, they could advertise and release some of their media like WCW stuff, etc. (I know thats more a short term investment, but it generates cash)

Open an online shop on WWE.com where people can buy and directly download WWE's theme music, titantron videos, PPV and show graphics, weekly editions of RAW/SD!/ECW, etc. I mean, that doesn't cost anything (sure, it would cost a few $$$ to set it up on their website, but considering the media that would be for sale already exists and doesn't have to be created, they could make huge profit from it).

They could also make a fair few $$ by making WWE 24/7 a worldwide kinda thing.



Bet they regret Mr. McMahon's Million Dollar Mania now :P

rovert

Stop spending like drunken sailors which one shareholder called them on their new production facilaty. Jobs a good um, WWE are doing this already.

Isn't Adamle costing them an arm and a leg, too?

And Torrie Wilson is supposedly returning?


They do make some financially stupid decisions.

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't Adamle costing them an arm and a leg, too?.

Not to be thick but what do you think is an arm and leg? Anyway it was only a one year contract.

Deleted User wrote: »

And Torrie Wilson is supposedly returning?

Whaaa?

rovert

rovert wrote: »

Not to be thick but what do you think is an arm and leg? Anyway it was only a one year contract.

Don't know how much he's earning, its a lot though (apparently). Especially considering he does essentially nothing. Is it true he's just an on-screen character?

Whaaa?

I can't remember where i head it to be honest, but I know i've heard it.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't remember where i head it to be honest, but I know i've heard it.

Is there many wrestling pundits up in Louth ? Did you hear this down the boozer one night ? :pac:

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't know how much he's earning, its a lot though (apparently). Especially considering he does essentially nothing. Is it true he's just an on-screen character?

If they release him now likely they still have to pay his full contact. So they wouldnt actually save any money.

rovert

rovert wrote: »

If they release him now likely they still have to pay his full contact. So they wouldnt actually save any money.

I'm aware of that. I was just remarking that it was a foolish decision (to hire him).

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Is there many wrestling pundits up in Louth ? Did you hear this down the boozer one night ? :pac:

Do you have her myspace? I can't remember properly, but i think it was mentioned on that? (I don't care much for her, so i didn't really read too much into it, but i think wherever i was reading it said something about her myspace blog or something along those lines)

Red Sleeping Beauty

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have her myspace? I can't remember properly, but i think it was mentioned on that? (I don't care much for her, so i didn't really read too much into it, but i think wherever i was reading it said something about her myspace blog or something along those lines)

Heh , nah. I just had a funny image of you in a pub with a few auld lads dishing out scoops and you caught wind of a Torrie Wilson comeback :pac:

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you have her myspace? I can't remember properly, but i think it was mentioned on that? (I don't care much for her, so i didn't really read too much into it, but i think wherever i was reading it said something about her myspace blog or something along those lines)

Was this before or after she was released?

CMpunked

Shaneomac wrote: »

Just heard WWE need to cut costs by approx $20 million. If u were in charge of the funds where would u make the cut backs to the the tune of the above figure?

I always knew WWE would listen to our advice :pac:

Fozzy

Spend less on developmental :pac:

rovert

rovert wrote: »

Was this before or after she was released?

I heard it some time this week.. I think, so obviously after.

I dunno.. I wouldn't pay too much attention to it. As i say, you could check her Myspace (i dont have or like MySpace, so i can't check it) and see if she writes something about it there.

brendansmith

They should go back to the days when the big names like razor ramon and the likes used to wrestle ordinary guys called Pete Goobenstein who would just where a plain red lycra pants.

Hard times!

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Isn't Adamle costing them an arm and a leg, too?

And Torrie Wilson is supposedly returning?


They do make some financially stupid decisions.

Sack Kane and bring back Torrie . I love her, and not the kind of love between a man and a woman but the kind of love between a stalker and a woman .

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

Sack Kane and bring back Torrie . I love her, and not the kind of love between a man and a woman but the kind of love between a stalker and a woman .

No you didnt :eek::D

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Sack Kane and bring back Torrie . I love her, and not the kind of love between a man and a woman but the kind of love between a stalker and a woman .

Ohh... So close to reporting. Lets just drop it now, shall we.

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

Ohh... So close to reporting. Lets just drop it now, shall we.

Reporting? SRSLY

dsmythy

brendansmith wrote: »

They should go back to the days when the big names like razor ramon and the likes used to wrestle ordinary guys called Pete Goobenstein who would just where a plain red lycra pants.

Hard times!

I don't think squash matches are ratings winners anymore.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Ohh... So close to reporting. Lets just drop it now, shall we.

Which part , the Torrie bit or the Kane bit

rovert

rovert wrote: »

Reporting? SRSLY

No point in going down the "lets drag every thread off topic and ruin the forum for a week" route, though is there?

Deleted User wrote: »

Which part , the Torrie bit or the Kane bit

Kane of course. a request to bring back Torrie is a ban-worthy offence on most forums. I assumed Fozzy would deal with that part :P

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

No point in going down the "lets drag every thread off topic and ruin the forum for a week" route, though is there?

Fair enough but dont be so precious with the whole "as a fan if Kane is mentioned I MUST defend him" lark.

Personally Ive gotten more erm...enjoyment out of Torrie than Kane.

rovert

rovert wrote: »

Fair enough but dont be so precious with the whole "as a fan if Kane is mentioned I MUST defend him" lark.

In fairness, there's a difference between Kane coming up in conversation and people discussing him, than someone purposely quoting me and bringing up Kane for no reason other than to start an argument (although i do feel Dre was just joking).

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

In fairness, there's a difference between Kane coming up in conversation and people discussing him, than someone purposely quoting me and bringing up Kane for no reason other than to start an argument (although i do feel Dre was just joking).

So why raise to the bait every single time?

rovert

rovert wrote: »

So why raise to the bait every single time?

I didn't realise he may have been joking until his follow up post.


And in fairness, post 17 and 19 weren't really required. Don't give out to me for something that you do too. :P

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

And in fairness, post 17 and 19 weren't really required. Don't give out to me for something that you do too. :P

I dont do about one particular wrestler every time though.

Anyway back on topic

Rjd2

Deleted User wrote: »

. I love her, and not the kind of love between a man and a woman but the kind of love between a stalker and a woman .

Sorry mate but why on earth would the WWE bring Torrie back? She was rubbish in the ring and without trying to sound cruel in the looks department,nearly all the diva's such as Maria, Marysse, Natalya and Michelle are much hotter than she ever was:mad:

rovert

Rjd2 wrote: »

Sorry mate but why on earth would the WWE bring Torrie back? She was rubbish in the ring and without trying to sound cruel in the looks department,nearly all the diva's such as Maria, Marysse, Natalya and Michelle are much hotter than she ever was:mad:

Bull ****ing **** did you ever see her in WCW or even nowdays in her RF shoot interview I posted the Video thread.

Rjd2

rovert wrote: »

Bull ****ing **** did you ever see her in WCW or even nowdays in her RF shoot interview I posted the Video thread.

Yeah just had a look Il admit it she was a bit of a stunner, but the only reason she would be brought back is for her looks and sorry but their is enough pretty diva's on the roster to provide eye candy.

KKV no offence it was just a bit of banter. Im not a Kane basher. Dont mind him really .

Tricity Bendix

Rjd2 wrote: »

Sorry mate but why on earth would the WWE bring Torrie back? She was rubbish in the ring and without trying to sound cruel in the looks department,nearly all the diva's such as Maria, Marysse, Natalya and Michelle are much hotter than she ever was:mad:

Natalya? Really?


Torrie Wilson for RAW GM.

rovert

KKV, See No Evil lost the company $1.9 million during 3rd financial quarter by not meeting financial projections. Tsk tsk

CMpunked

rovert wrote: »

KKV, See No Evil lost the company $1.9 million during 3rd financial quarter by not meeting financial projections. Tsk tsk

Just stop now, feck sake.

Take your own advice and keep it on topic man.


How to lose 20 million? Fire half the creative team and hire people in that will work for nearly nothing because they would actually have some sort of passion in it.

Fozzy

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

Just stop now, feck sake.

Take your own advice and keep it on topic man.

That is on topic. WWE released that information during a report in the last week. It's one of the reasons why they have to cut 20 million from their spending

rovert

Comic-Book-Guy wrote: »

How to lose 20 million? Fire half the creative team and hire people in that will work for nearly nothing because they would actually have some sort of passion in it.

How would that recoup $20 million exactly?

Red Sleeping Beauty

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/WWEFilms.php

• The Condemned
  grossed about $8M worldwide
  - source; source 2
• The Marine
  did just over $20M on a production budget of $15M
  - source ; source 2
• See no Evil took
  in $15,032,800 Domestic ; Foreign: $3,386,556
  with a budget of $8million it seems that it's the most successful of the bunch.-source; source 2

There's a sentence on "The Condemned's" wikipedia page that Vince wasn't happy with Lionsgate's marketing and that's what led it to do so poorly. There's no source for the claim though. - wiki

As a general rule of thumb in Hollywood, a picture is only truly successful if it makes back two and half times it's budget. The figures for "The Rundown" or "Walking Tall" don't look too great either, both of which the WWE co-produced.
*nb. The Rundown had a working title of "Helldorado" and "Welcome to the Jungle" , the latter was the title used for many European regions.

I was going to jump in and say that the WWE should pull out of the film business altogether because the films were so rubbish and never really made much of a mark over here. But after looking at the figures, I reckon if they produce and market them well enough there's a profit to be made.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Here's a link to their quaterly report. http://corporate.wwe.com/news/documents/Q3PressRelease115pmFINAL.pdf

WWE Studios (formerly WWE Films)
WWE has released three theatrical films, two films in 2006, See No Evil and The Marine, and one film in 2007, The Condemned. We recorded revenue of $5.6 million in the current quarter related to these theatrical releases as compared to $12.8 million in the prior year quarter. In the prior year quarter we recorded our first revenues related to these theatrical releases, which included the successful results of The Marine DVD. In the current quarter we recorded a $1.9 million charge related to revised expectations for our film See No Evil.

WWE Studios
WWE has released three theatrical films, two films in 2006 and one film in 2007. Revenues from our WWE Studios segment were $19.5 million as compared to $12.8 million in the prior year period. We also recorded a $1.9 million charge related to revised expectations for our See No Evil film. During the prior year period, we recorded a $15.7 million asset impairment for The Condemned. We have approximately $32.1 million of capitalized film production costs on our balance sheet as of September 30, 2008, including $24.4 million related to projects currently in production, $6.7 million for films currently in release, and $1.0 million for projects in development.

It looks from that that revenue from WWE Studios is up this year compared to last year.
Also, last year they incurred a charge of $15.7 for The Condemned. So $1.9M for See No Evil doesn't seem that bad in comparison. That charge could be related to promotional costs. It doesn't mention anything about the See No Evil dvd though.




Oh and I remember reading a post the other week that half of WWE's revenue comes from DVD sales . I think their report says otherwise...

WWE 24/7™ revenues were $1.4 million in both the current and prior year quarters.

Consumer Products

Revenues from our Consumer Products businesses were $26.6 million versus $19.0 million in the prior year quarter, representing a 40% increase.
• Home Video net revenues were $11.0 million as compared to $5.7 million in the prior year quarter. The increase in Home Video revenues primarily reflects the strong performance of new titles released in the current quarter, as well as titles released earlier in the year. Also, there were no new titles released in the prior year quarter, excluding the releases of pay-per-view events, as the timing of the release dates shifted to the fourth quarter of 2007.

I suppose it could very well be their most profitable source of income as they already own the footage that gets put on the majority of their dvds and manufacturing costs of DVDs aren't that high and they have their own in-house directors, cameramen and editors. In terms of consumer products Home Video is just behind Licensing for revenue. WWE 24/7 is classed as Live Entertainment.

Fozzy

Fozzy wrote: »

That is on topic. WWE released that information during a report in the last week. It's one of the reasons why they have to cut 20 million from their spending

Was it necessary for him to start his post with "KKV,"? No.


Rovert;

rovert wrote: »

Post on topic or GTFO and stop trying to start something.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57839982&postcount=32

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

* See no Evil took
in $15,032,800 Domestic ; Foreign: $3,386,556
with a budget of $8million it seems that it's the most successful of the bunch.-source; source 2

It obviously can't have done that bad then, anyway. Although i do think that their upcoming Kennedy film is bound to flop.

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

Was it necessary for him to start his post with "KKV,"? No.

You were in this thread talking about Kane.....

I also think you wouldnt have asked this question if I posted something positive about See No Evil.

Deleted User wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57839982&postcount=32

http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57885946&postcount=35

Again if I posted something positive about the movie you wouldnt have posted this. Stop back seat modding and if you think my post is off topic take it up with mods. See No Evil not living up to projections is nearly 1/10 of the reason for the $20 million of cuts. Things only seem to be off topic for you if you dont like it.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Deleted User wrote: »

It obviously can't have done that bad then, anyway. Although i do think that their upcoming Kennedy film is bound to flop.

No it didn't do badly, they just incurred a charge of just under 2million for this quater. Rovert's post was to try and bait you into another Kane-flame-war (pardon the pun), ignore it.

What Kennedy film are you talking about ? The "sick" Nick Mondo film or the Behind Enemy Lines sequel ? Cause the latter is a DTV release afaik and the former hasn't a hope in hell. I reckon though McMahon will have his eyes on Arnofsky's upcoming "The Wrestler". If it does big business he may very well change his focus from cheesy action/horror B movies. I reckon it'll get critical praise, it's already won an award, don't know if Vince would be too interested in awards though.

rovert

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

No it didn't do badly, they just incurred a charge of just under 2million. Rovert's post was to try and bait you into another Kane-flame-war (pardon the pun), ignore it.

Im not trying to bait him, it is on topic as Fozzy said so. It is as much of the discussion as your current talk about Kennedy is. Again if it was positive news it wouldnt be seen as baiting. Pick The Irish Times there is plenty of baiting in there this morning. :rolleyes:

Red Sleeping Beauty

rovert wrote: »

Im not trying to bait him, it is on topic as Fozzy said so. It is as much of the discussion as your current talk about Kennedy is. Again if it was positive news it wouldnt be seen as baiting. Pick The Irish Times there is plenty of baiting in there this morning. :rolleyes:

Have a good long read of my posts and all the sources. See No Evil made a profit. The Condemned cost them $15M in the same quater last year.

rovert

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Have a good long read of my posts and all the sources. See No Evil made a profit. The Condemned cost them $15M in the same quater last year.

No ****, read my sources See No Evil lost the company $1.9 million during 3rd financial quarter by not meeting financial projections. Right or wrong?

I never said See No Evil never made a profit, I said what I said. You should read other people's posts before you ask someone to "have a good long read" of your own.

I cant believe in a thread called Recession news of poor financial preformance is seen as baiting. Do you lads live in the real world or what? Seriously.

Red Sleeping Beauty

Where's your source ?

rovert

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Where's your source ?

The 3rd financial quarter. The same as yours btw.

rovert

rovert wrote: »

No ****, read my sources See No Evil lost the company $1.9 million during 3rd financial quarter by not meeting financial projections. Right or wrong?

I never said See No Evil never made a profit, I said what I said. You should read other people's posts before you ask someone to "have a good long read" of your own.

I cant believe in a thread called Recession news of poor financial proformance is seen as baiting. Do lads live in the real world or what? Seriously.

You quoted me, then began your post by addressing me, and then informing me of something negative, Kane-related.

There are only two people on this forum who are blind to your constant baiting:

Yourself and Fozzy.


(Callaway doesn't count because he knows what you're doing, and he doesn't like me because i called him out on spamming before. That, and he seems to be in virtual love with you).


Anyway, I give up. I shall no longer reply to you Rovert.. not for the sake of the board, but for my own sanity.

rovert

Deleted User wrote: »

You quoted me, then began your post by addressing me, and then informing me of something negative, Kane-related.

There are only two people on this forum who are blind to your constant baiting:

Yourself and Fozzy.


(Callaway doesn't count because he knows what you're doing, and he doesn't like me because i called him out on spamming before. That, and he seems to be in virtual love with you).


Anyway, I give up. I shall no longer reply to you Rovert.. not for the sake of the board, but for my own sanity.

Instead of repeating myself I post this reply:
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57887377&postcount=40

Posting objective data is baiting now KKV? :rolleyes:

You know what baiting is right?

Red Sleeping Beauty

rovert wrote: »

The 3rd financial quarter. The same as yours btw.

Do you usually read their quarterly reports ?

rovert

alan dunne 27 wrote: »

Do you usually read their quarterly reports ?

I read them via the Wrestling Observer and Figure Four Weekly normally. They cover the top level stuff and then give their opinions on it. Dave Meltzer always devotes a lot of space to it. It can be very interesting. I do have a business background so I know my way around them.

CMpunked

rovert wrote: »

How would that recoup $20 million exactly?

Meh. you know what i'd do?

Hire you rovert.