Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,861
|
Post by Legion on Jan 27, 2022 8:01:05 GMT -5
Tell people you've had offers, people start to consider the possibility you might accept one - stock price likely goes up, Vince can then sale some stock and make extra money off the value.
WWE stock is down almost half since 2019, anything that bumps it will make Vince happy if he wants to generate some extra cash through selling some.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jan 27, 2022 9:02:04 GMT -5
Disney isn't buying the WWE, they want IP and the WWE owns very little. If the WWE want to do a Hulk Hogan project, they need to pay Terry Bollea because the character is modelled after a real human being who did not sign away his likeness in perpetuity. Most of their income comes from rival broadcasters and Disney won't pay billions for a company based on revenue streams they'll pull the plug on as soon as possible for exclusivity. The WWE own a bunch of names, logos but the thing that makes the most money is the wrestlers and they only have those for the length of their deals.
If any bid is coming, it'll be either Venture Capital looking to drain the cash reserves and sell it on with a massive amount of debt in a decade before it collapses, or NBC/Fox around the time for TV deal renewals.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,604
|
Post by cjh on Jan 27, 2022 9:11:43 GMT -5
Disney isn't buying the WWE, they want IP and the WWE owns very little. If the WWE want to do a Hulk Hogan project, they need to pay Terry Bollea because the character is modelled after a real human being who did not sign away his likeness in perpetuity. Most of their income comes from rival broadcasters and Disney won't pay billions for a company based on revenue streams they'll pull the plug on as soon as possible for exclusivity. The WWE own a bunch of names, logos but the thing that makes the most money is the wrestlers and they only have those for the length of their deals. If any bid is coming, it'll be either Venture Capital looking to drain the cash reserves and sell it on with a massive amount of debt in a decade before it collapses, or NBC/Fox around the time for TV deal renewals. That's not entirely true. It is in the case of action figures, video games, T-shirts, and the like but not with footage. WWE released a Hogan DVD in 2009 when he wasn't with the company. It came out the same month he signed with TNA.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Jan 27, 2022 9:22:30 GMT -5
Disney isn't buying the WWE, they want IP and the WWE owns very little. If the WWE want to do a Hulk Hogan project, they need to pay Terry Bollea because the character is modelled after a real human being who did not sign away his likeness in perpetuity. Most of their income comes from rival broadcasters and Disney won't pay billions for a company based on revenue streams they'll pull the plug on as soon as possible for exclusivity. The WWE own a bunch of names, logos but the thing that makes the most money is the wrestlers and they only have those for the length of their deals. If any bid is coming, it'll be either Venture Capital looking to drain the cash reserves and sell it on with a massive amount of debt in a decade before it collapses, or NBC/Fox around the time for TV deal renewals. That's not entirely true. It is in the case of action figures, video games, T-shirts, and the like but not with footage. WWE released a Hogan DVD in 2009 when he wasn't with the company. It came out the same month he signed with TNA. They released a Hulk Hogan DVD made of footage from the period where Hogan had signed his likeness to the company, and give or take royalties negotiated in contracts, which WWE has been eliminating and working around since the Network first launched, they don't need new permissions or fees. What Inferno is referring to is, say, a Hulk Hogan cartoon. They can't make a new Hulk Hogan cartoon featuring all new stuff with the character because the likeness isn't theirs for any future content. That's the key difference. Disney loves making stuff out of what they own, adaptating across all their media platforms to push their IPs harder. Theme parks, television, toys, movies, comics anything they can possibly squeeze out of a name. Wrestling is way more complicated in that regard and owning WWE's trademarks on names won't just magically let them do that kind of stuff. Footage isn't what Disney would want and Inferno is referring entirely to new venture.s
|
|
|
Post by Feyrhausen on Jan 27, 2022 9:48:44 GMT -5
Disney isn't buying the WWE, they want IP and the WWE owns very little. If the WWE want to do a Hulk Hogan project, they need to pay Terry Bollea because the character is modelled after a real human being who did not sign away his likeness in perpetuity. Most of their income comes from rival broadcasters and Disney won't pay billions for a company based on revenue streams they'll pull the plug on as soon as possible for exclusivity. The WWE own a bunch of names, logos but the thing that makes the most money is the wrestlers and they only have those for the length of their deals. If any bid is coming, it'll be either Venture Capital looking to drain the cash reserves and sell it on with a massive amount of debt in a decade before it collapses, or NBC/Fox around the time for TV deal renewals. NBC or FOX are the most likely IMO. But then again they may look at Turner and WCW and now Turner and AEW and say that its much easier to pay someone else to deal with the BS of running a wresting company.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,604
|
Post by cjh on Jan 27, 2022 9:51:41 GMT -5
That's not entirely true. It is in the case of action figures, video games, T-shirts, and the like but not with footage. WWE released a Hogan DVD in 2009 when he wasn't with the company. It came out the same month he signed with TNA. They released a Hulk Hogan DVD made of footage from the period where Hogan had signed his likeness to the company, and give or take royalties negotiated in contracts, which WWE has been eliminating and working around since the Network first launched, they don't need new permissions or fees. What Inferno is referring to is, say, a Hulk Hogan cartoon. They can't make a new Hulk Hogan cartoon featuring all new stuff with the character because the likeness isn't theirs for any future content. That's the key difference. Disney loves making stuff out of what they own, adaptating across all their media platforms to push their IPs harder. Theme parks, television, toys, movies, comics anything they can possibly squeeze out of a name. Wrestling is way more complicated in that regard and owning WWE's trademarks on names won't just magically let them do that kind of stuff. Footage isn't what Disney would want and Inferno is referring entirely to new venture.s True, but Disney apparently does see value in the WWE content because starting soon, Disney+ in Indonesia is going to start having WWE Network in it like Peacock does in the U.S.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jan 27, 2022 9:59:47 GMT -5
They released a Hulk Hogan DVD made of footage from the period where Hogan had signed his likeness to the company, and give or take royalties negotiated in contracts, which WWE has been eliminating and working around since the Network first launched, they don't need new permissions or fees. What Inferno is referring to is, say, a Hulk Hogan cartoon. They can't make a new Hulk Hogan cartoon featuring all new stuff with the character because the likeness isn't theirs for any future content. That's the key difference. Disney loves making stuff out of what they own, adaptating across all their media platforms to push their IPs harder. Theme parks, television, toys, movies, comics anything they can possibly squeeze out of a name. Wrestling is way more complicated in that regard and owning WWE's trademarks on names won't just magically let them do that kind of stuff. Footage isn't what Disney would want and Inferno is referring entirely to new venture.s True, but Disney apparently does see value in the WWE content because starting soon, Disney+ in Indonesia is going to start having WWE Network in it like Peacock does in the U.S. I mean, that’s not really the same thing, though. Like, Disney+ could sign a deal for that to happen most places (they won’t since it seems like Peacock has got a lot of western rights for the network to go on Sky boxes since Comcast owns Sky so it was only inevitable that’d be the case) and it wouldn’t be that different from the Comcast deal. It’d be a different thing entirely for them to own the company flat out and being basically responsible for its past and keeping the IPs they have going.
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Jan 27, 2022 10:11:14 GMT -5
They released a Hulk Hogan DVD made of footage from the period where Hogan had signed his likeness to the company, and give or take royalties negotiated in contracts, which WWE has been eliminating and working around since the Network first launched, they don't need new permissions or fees. What Inferno is referring to is, say, a Hulk Hogan cartoon. They can't make a new Hulk Hogan cartoon featuring all new stuff with the character because the likeness isn't theirs for any future content. That's the key difference. Disney loves making stuff out of what they own, adaptating across all their media platforms to push their IPs harder. Theme parks, television, toys, movies, comics anything they can possibly squeeze out of a name. Wrestling is way more complicated in that regard and owning WWE's trademarks on names won't just magically let them do that kind of stuff. Footage isn't what Disney would want and Inferno is referring entirely to new venture.s True, but Disney apparently does see value in the WWE content because starting soon, Disney+ in Indonesia is going to start having WWE Network in it like Peacock does in the U.S. Which has nothing to do with a purchase of the company. Hell, there's no saying that the decision even went above the people in charge of Disney+ in Indonesia. That's galaxies removed from anything that indicates a value in purchasing the whole of the company, and the IP purchase moves Disney makes have strongly been about broad brand lines across every medium they have a finger in the pie of. WWE won't work that nicely with it.
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jan 27, 2022 10:17:34 GMT -5
They released a Hulk Hogan DVD made of footage from the period where Hogan had signed his likeness to the company, and give or take royalties negotiated in contracts, which WWE has been eliminating and working around since the Network first launched, they don't need new permissions or fees. What Inferno is referring to is, say, a Hulk Hogan cartoon. They can't make a new Hulk Hogan cartoon featuring all new stuff with the character because the likeness isn't theirs for any future content. That's the key difference. Disney loves making stuff out of what they own, adaptating across all their media platforms to push their IPs harder. Theme parks, television, toys, movies, comics anything they can possibly squeeze out of a name. Wrestling is way more complicated in that regard and owning WWE's trademarks on names won't just magically let them do that kind of stuff. Footage isn't what Disney would want and Inferno is referring entirely to new venture.s True, but Disney apparently does see value in the WWE content because starting soon, Disney+ in Indonesia is going to start having WWE Network in it like Peacock does in the U.S. A Disney owned sports broadcaster. There is a difference between acquiring additional sports content for your sports channel at a time sports content is at a premium due to that whole plague thing going on, than out and out buying a company whose primary income source is business to business, with few solid IP assets they can exploit. The asking price would be too high for what they'll get out of it.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,604
|
Post by cjh on Jan 27, 2022 10:23:33 GMT -5
True, but Disney apparently does see value in the WWE content because starting soon, Disney+ in Indonesia is going to start having WWE Network in it like Peacock does in the U.S. Which has nothing to do with a purchase of the company. Hell, there's no saying that the decision even went above the people in charge of Disney+ in Indonesia. That's galaxies removed from anything that indicates a value in purchasing the whole of the company, and the IP purchase moves Disney makes have strongly been about broad brand lines across every medium they have a finger in the pie of. WWE won't work that nicely with it. Disney not thinking the WWE IP is valuable enough to be worth a purchase is one thing, but they wouldn't be that limited as far as being able to use it. The "Legends" contracts exist just so they can put people in the games and the toy lines without having them be regular characters on the shows.
|
|
|
Post by Baldobomb-22-OH-MAN!!! on Jan 27, 2022 10:26:25 GMT -5
Disney will never buy WWE. on top of having very few mass marketable IPs, there are so many skeletons in WWE's closet that would spill out if such a thing happened. Much easier to just do arm's length business with them than out and out buying them.
IMO if WWE does get sold to a network it's the beginning of the end of WWE. The second it isn't profitable (which is easy considering the overhead costs), that's it for the company. AEW would win the second promotion war by default.
|
|
cjh
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,604
|
Post by cjh on Jan 27, 2022 10:29:56 GMT -5
True, but Disney apparently does see value in the WWE content because starting soon, Disney+ in Indonesia is going to start having WWE Network in it like Peacock does in the U.S. A Disney owned sports broadcaster. There is a difference between acquiring additional sports content for your sports channel at a time sports content is at a premium due to that whole plague thing going on, than out and out buying a company whose primary income source is business to business, with few solid IP assets they can exploit. The asking price would be too high for what they'll get out of it. True, though they could have accomplished that by just licensing the rights to the live events. They instead chose to also license old footage, too. Licensing old wrestling footage is more like buying a library of movies or shows rather than sports.
|
|
|
Post by James Fabiano on Jan 27, 2022 10:33:42 GMT -5
"We’ve taken calls to sell but we’re not selling"
Undertaker in 2000's new slogan!
|
|
|
Post by This Player Hating Mothman on Jan 27, 2022 12:11:10 GMT -5
Which has nothing to do with a purchase of the company. Hell, there's no saying that the decision even went above the people in charge of Disney+ in Indonesia. That's galaxies removed from anything that indicates a value in purchasing the whole of the company, and the IP purchase moves Disney makes have strongly been about broad brand lines across every medium they have a finger in the pie of. WWE won't work that nicely with it. Disney not thinking the WWE IP is valuable enough to be worth a purchase is one thing, but they wouldn't be that limited as far as being able to use it. The "Legends" contracts exist just so they can put people in the games and the toy lines without having them be regular characters on the shows. Right, Disney could get people to sign likeness rights so they can keep making that stuff. But here's the problem; that's added expense. That's the struggle of having to sort out who owns what and what gets done and who has to be paid. And that's an easy sell when it's "We have Star Wars, let's bring back members of the original cast" and they're collecting a paycheck primarily for the acting gig with likeness rights related to it rolled in as a thing underneath that. Disney would have to buy WWE and then also get shaken down by The Rock, for instance, to use the character of The Rock. But how much value is having a cartoon of The Rock worth? How much actual value comes from inheriting all the risk and overhead and cost of running pro wrestling shows just to get Roman Reigns into their theme park? They have to do all this extra image legwork for names that for the most part have little to no cultural value, or are mired deep in scandal. When Disney bought Marvel it wasn't to buy a failing comic books company, it was because their nascent studio was picking up some major steam and Disney knew that if it panned out they would have a juggernaut franchise they could pump a ton of movies out with, and even if it didn't succeed, they knew they could just make more superhero movies later; The Dark Knight had just made a billion at the box office, they saw the potential. And if no movies worked? Still tons of stuff those characters have gone through over the decades they could simply recycle to slow burn their profit out. WWE doesn't have that. You can't make a move about Xavier Woods the character. Stuff like the Scooby Doo WWE crossover movies were never more than direct to DVD affair, a market that was already contracting when Wrestlemania Mystery came out in 2014 and which, if Disney wants to pursue, they can do with their own properties as they've done all this time. There just isn't that audience there to position WWE adaptations and side projects on the levels as the sort of stuff Disney is looking to buy for the price tag WWE has on it, and I don't think a willingness to license their content and little risk and zero logistical pressure to them is really an indication they want to get into producing WWE's content themselves, because that's so much overhead and work for very little in the way of gains for at best content they can slap onto ESPN 3 as active competition for Monday Night Football.
|
|
|
Post by Fade is a CodyCryBaby on Jan 27, 2022 12:14:55 GMT -5
|
|
Legion
Fry's dog Seymour
Amy Pond's #1 fan
Hail Hydra!
Posts: 22,861
|
Post by Legion on Jan 27, 2022 12:47:38 GMT -5
Baby steps for The Mouse… If Disney+ in the UK carried the Network, I'd have the Network again. This is the sort of deal I like to see, regardless of who owns what, but streaming services are all getting too much. Some deals where you can essentially get a package of streaming services for cheaper than them all separately would certainly encourage me to watch more of things I can't currently be paying out for when I only want one or two things on the whole service.
|
|
|
Post by defectiveepitaph on Jan 27, 2022 13:17:44 GMT -5
Come on Disney🤞🤞 What? Pixar/Disney presents "Steph," a tale about a wealthy child that found true love and one day got a boob job. Tagline: Not all princesses are poor or good. No thanks. I’d rather not have Disney own EVERYTHING.
|
|
john84
Fry's dog Seymour
Proud Father of 3 :)
Posts: 23,865
Member is Online
|
Post by john84 on Jan 27, 2022 13:42:43 GMT -5
''We're not selling'' translates ''we are trying to sell'' probably lol.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2022 13:51:34 GMT -5
I am good with Disney buying WWE. As much as crap we give on Vince, I rather not have Bill Chapek touch wrestling in general and should stay far away from it.
|
|
|
Post by eJm on Jan 27, 2022 18:28:43 GMT -5
I said this before and I’ll say it again, the second the deal is announced and the shareholders get wind on even a smidge of what the wrestling business is like, they’ll mob Disney HQ and get Chapek to drop the deal and absolutely tank the shares in the process.
Also, like, the lawsuits will rise to such a staggering level, the settlements alone will probably make the deal just not worth it now that people know WWE has infinite cash.
|
|