|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Apr 19, 2024 17:05:01 GMT -5
Regardless of reputation, this will be a bit of a back of a fag packet calculation from Forbes. AEW is a private company that has never been up for sale and has never disclosed any financial records. But I guess the point here is that, regardless of whether it's $2b or $1b or $3b, they have built a very valuable brand. It's why any talk of them disappearing is nonsense. Even in a worst case scenario where Tony wants out, they could contract quite significantly and still be an attractive proposition. You only have to look at how hard it's been to kill TNA, and AEW are several times what they were at their peak. I thought about going into great detail about why there's close to no chance AEW's value is $2 billion but as a poster a couple up from me correctly points out it really doesn't matter, they'll be here as long as Tony is willing to fund them and they can get a TV deal.
|
|
|
Post by THE FVNKER on Apr 19, 2024 17:34:00 GMT -5
Regardless of reputation, this will be a bit of a back of a fag packet calculation from Forbes. AEW is a private company that has never been up for sale and has never disclosed any financial records. But I guess the point here is that, regardless of whether it's $2b or $1b or $3b, they have built a very valuable brand. It's why any talk of them disappearing is nonsense. Even in a worst case scenario where Tony wants out, they could contract quite significantly and still be an attractive proposition. You only have to look at how hard it's been to kill TNA, and AEW are several times what they were at their peak. I thought about going into great detail about why there's close to no chance AEW's value is $2 billion but as a poster a couple up from me correctly points out it really doesn't matter, they'll be here as long as Tony is willing to fund them and they can get a TV deal. Well in the spirit of education, let’s hear it.
|
|
|
Post by polarbearpete on Apr 19, 2024 18:21:34 GMT -5
I thought about going into great detail about why there's close to no chance AEW's value is $2 billion but as a poster a couple up from me correctly points out it really doesn't matter, they'll be here as long as Tony is willing to fund them and they can get a TV deal. Well in the spirit of education, let’s hear it. I’ll put Meltzer’s blurbs :
|
|
|
Post by simplydurhamcalling on Apr 19, 2024 18:33:46 GMT -5
I thought about going into great detail about why there's close to no chance AEW's value is $2 billion but as a poster a couple up from me correctly points out it really doesn't matter, they'll be here as long as Tony is willing to fund them and they can get a TV deal. Well in the spirit of education, let’s hear it. Forbes pretty much did it themselves 8 months ago. www.forbes.com/sites/jessesilvertown/2023/09/20/the-eyes-of-wrestling-investors-shift-to-aew/?sh=58dad10431dfTo be clear, if the company has a value of anything close to $1 billion that is fantastic for TK. I'm not shitting on them, I just think the article isn't at all accurate.
|
|
Chiral
Salacious Crumb
Posts: 73,657
|
Post by Chiral on Apr 19, 2024 19:13:37 GMT -5
I have taken some business classes in the past so here's my take on things.
You know they say that all wrestling companies are created equal, but you look at WWE and you look at AEW and you can see that statement is not true. See, normally if you go one on one with another wrestling company, you got a 50/50 chance of winning. But WWE is a genetic freak and is not normal! So you got a 25%, AT BEST, at beat them. Then you add TNA to the mix, your chances of winning drastic go down. See the 3 way, at Forbes, AEW got a 33 1/3 chance of winning, but WWE, WWE got a 66 and 2/3 chance of winning, because TNA KNOWS they can't beat the WWE and they're not even gonna try!
So AEW, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus WWE's 25% chance and you got an 8 1/3 chance of being highly valued by Forbes. But then you take WWE's 75% chance of winning, if we was to go one on one, and then add 66 2/3 per cents, I got 141 2/3 chance of winning at Forbes. See AEW, the numbers don't lie, and they spell disaster for you at Forbes.
|
|
|
Post by Mike Strike on Apr 19, 2024 19:55:12 GMT -5
Naturally a bunch of total dumbasses on Twitter are reacting to this with, "No it isn't because I say it isn't!" I'm starting to suspect they're the "Nintendo is DOOMED" crowd forced to go after a new target.
|
|
|
Post by Ronny Rayguns Is All Elite on Apr 19, 2024 19:58:59 GMT -5
I wonder if that includes the library for ROH as well.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Apr 20, 2024 8:51:58 GMT -5
I wonder if that includes the library for ROH as well. I think, and this might be ignorance on my end, it probably wouldn’t because technically TK owns ROH and it’s not the case of AEW owning it. So if you sign a joined AEW/ROH contract, you’re working for Tony Khan and not either company specifically. Also, these things have always been rough estimates. There’s no real possible way to say how much a company is worth because they’re all just elements of guesswork. WWE could put themselves in the market worth $10 and a subscription to Entertainment Weekly and it might be dramatically undervaluing their assets but it’d be as accurate. It’s always about what makes the most sense with the assets in front of the people doing the worth.
|
|
|
Post by jean0987654321 on Apr 20, 2024 12:47:18 GMT -5
Forbes hasn't been the Forbes of old so I take this with a grain of salt. Obviously, Tony will keep funding the company until he doesn't want to
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Apr 20, 2024 13:07:08 GMT -5
I think this is basically "if Tony Khan were to sell AEW tomorrow, this is how much he could get for it from interested parties." If that's why it comes off as overvalued, it probably says more about how big media companies overvalue regular, live content than anything else.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Apr 20, 2024 18:01:44 GMT -5
Forbes hasn't been the Forbes of old so I take this with a grain of salt. Obviously, Tony will keep funding the company until he doesn't want to Forbes claimed the SuperBowl is a more valuable brand than the World Cup and the Olympics. Ever since then I stopped listening to anything to they say.
|
|
|
Post by Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story on Apr 21, 2024 12:46:29 GMT -5
Forbes hasn't been the Forbes of old so I take this with a grain of salt. Obviously, Tony will keep funding the company until he doesn't want to Forbes claimed the SuperBowl is a more valuable brand than the World Cup and the Olympics. Ever since then I stopped listening to anything to they say. I worked at Forbes for a bit and also wrote for them. This isn't the "contributor" Forbes doing this and it's a bit more legit. A guy named Mike Ozanian leads this report for them every year and when I was around (like 10 years ago), he had a team of folks (interns and staffers) that researched this stuff. I was slated to help him work on the 2010 report but I left to go into public relations. I wouldn't say it's like 1,000 percent accurate and I'm sure the AEW math has to be a little fuzzy. I'd take it more as entertainment than actual journalism. The reality is that AEW's value is somewhere between "OMG THEY'RE WORTHLESS AND GOING OUT OF BUSINESS" and "2 BILLION DOLLARS," which drives the tribalists crazy because they need things to be all or nothing.
|
|
|
Post by EvenBaldobombHasAJob on Apr 21, 2024 12:57:59 GMT -5
Forbes hasn't been the Forbes of old so I take this with a grain of salt. Obviously, Tony will keep funding the company until he doesn't want to Forbes claimed the SuperBowl is a more valuable brand than the World Cup and the Olympics. Ever since then I stopped listening to anything to they say. I mean the United States is the richest country in the world and they love their Superbowl but never have and never will give a shit about the World Cup so it's probably not as much of a stretch as you'd think.
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Apr 21, 2024 13:08:24 GMT -5
Forbes claimed the SuperBowl is a more valuable brand than the World Cup and the Olympics. Ever since then I stopped listening to anything to they say. I mean the United States is the richest country in the world and they love their Superbowl but never have and never will give a shit about the World Cup so it's probably not as much of a stretch as you'd think. The Super Bowl is also a yearly event while the World Cup happens once every four years. It sounds like an apples and oranges comparison.
|
|
Kalmia
King Koopa
Happy to be here
Posts: 11,690
|
Post by Kalmia on Apr 21, 2024 13:27:02 GMT -5
The Superbowl is probably more valuable in advertising money. I'm sure the cost of advertising during the Superbowl is way higher than getting ad space during halftime of the World Cup final.
I think virtually every country in the world that isn't the US would probably laugh at you if you said the Superbowl was a bigger brand though. Around 1.5 billion people supposedly watched the last World Cup final.
|
|
|
Post by gentlemengreg1 on Apr 21, 2024 14:27:12 GMT -5
In true Meltzer fashion he misses a major part of the story.
You can’t possibly put out a valuation on WWE without including TKO’s total debt…which is substantial.
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Apr 21, 2024 15:23:09 GMT -5
The Superbowl is probably more valuable in advertising money. I'm sure the cost of advertising during the Superbowl is way higher than getting ad space during halftime of the World Cup final. I think virtually every country in the world that isn't the US would probably laugh at you if you said the Superbowl was a bigger brand though. Around 1.5 billion people supposedly watched the last World Cup final. I’d say overall the advertising in the World Cup final would be more. Twenty times more people watched the World Cup final than the Super Bowl and each country it was shown in would have different adverts for the final. And that’s just the final, there’s the dozens of matches in the tournament before it. And if you want to go with only yearly events, the Champions League final gets half a billion viewers. And then there’s the Tour de France, damn near half the population of the world apparently watches that bastard at some point!
|
|
|
Post by daaave on Apr 21, 2024 15:48:26 GMT -5
The Superbowl will have tons more money in ads then the World Cup. Americans love adverts and the whole Superbowl ads is a massive thing.
The World Cup final might have a bigger global audience but its spread out across every country and each countries specific channel so not like all eyes are on one channel.
And in the UK at least as an example, most people watch it on BBC which don't have adverts
|
|
|
Post by DiBiase is Good on Apr 21, 2024 16:08:13 GMT -5
The Superbowl will have tons more money in ads then the World Cup. Americans love adverts and the whole Superbowl ads is a massive thing. The World Cup final might have a bigger global audience but its spread out across every country and each countries specific channel so not like all eyes are on one channel. And in the UK at least as an example, most people watch it on BBC which don't have adverts No doubt that in the US the ad space in the superbowl would be more valuable. But every country that shows the World Cup final will also be commanding a high price for ad time during their broadcast of one match. One match, that bears repeating. The World Cup has sixty four (or thereabouts) matches. Some of those group matches probably have a higher global audience than the Super Bowl. Admittedly for the following, I just did a quick Google search but apparently the Super Bowl makes on average $750m. The last World Cup made $6b. I just don’t see how globally, the Super Bowl is a more valuable brand than the World Cup or the Olympic Games.
|
|
Kalmia
King Koopa
Happy to be here
Posts: 11,690
|
Post by Kalmia on Apr 21, 2024 16:50:44 GMT -5
The Superbowl will have tons more money in ads then the World Cup. Americans love adverts and the whole Superbowl ads is a massive thing. The World Cup final might have a bigger global audience but its spread out across every country and each countries specific channel so not like all eyes are on one channel. And in the UK at least as an example, most people watch it on BBC which don't have adverts No doubt that in the US the ad space in the superbowl would be more valuable. But every country that shows the World Cup final will also be commanding a high price for ad time during their broadcast of one match. One match, that bears repeating. The World Cup has sixty four (or thereabouts) matches. Some of those group matches probably have a higher global audience than the Super Bowl. Admittedly for the following, I just did a quick Google search but apparently the Super Bowl makes on average $750m. The last World Cup made $6b. I just don’t see how globally, the Super Bowl is a more valuable brand than the World Cup or the Olympic Games. I don't think either of us are saying that the Superbowl is bigger. Just that the airtime for an advert is. No companies are spending millions hiring celebrities just for an ad that will be shown during the World Cup, after all. I doubt any channels are charging $7 million for a 30-second ad during half time either. Who even watches the ads during half time in a football (soccer) match? It's only 15 minutes - just enough for a bathroom break and to get a drink.
|
|