Vince McMahon Loses Millions

[Maxximus 353]

World Wrestling Chief Vince McMahon

Lost Nearly A Third Of His Fortune Today

 

Vince McMahon is no longer a billionaire.

 

Forbes reports that the World Wrestling Entertainment chairman and CEO lost a whopping $350 million when the company's stock crashed today upon news that its new streaming online video network would not replace its pay-per-view revenues until 2015.

 

McMahon's wealth was previously estimated at around $1.1 billion, meaning he lost more than 30% of his fortune in today's crash, which sent the stock plummeting from $19.93 a share to $11.27.

 

The crash, WWE's largest drop since its 1999 IPO, was precipitated by news that the company's new television deal with NBCUniversal was not as lucrative as investors had expected.

 

According to Forbes, investors were expecting the new deal to be worth between two and three times as much as the previous one, when in fact the contract's value is expected to be a mere 50% increase.

 

Additionally, the company said in a statement yesterday that it will need 1.3 million to 1.4 million subscribers to its over-the-top service to replace revenues it is losing from its monthly pay-per-view events, which previously cost around $50 but are now available to WWE Network subscribers as part of their $9.99 monthly fee. Currently, the WWE Network only has 670,000 subscribers.

 

More ~

[Guest Foil1212]

That's a big hit, but I think the Network will pay off for them in the long run. I'm guessing they got more people to watch Extreme Rules than in years past just because of availability.

[Omega 354]

The network will pay off once it goes global, I think wwe have missed a trick in not immediately getting it out to the wider world where people are generally starved of wrestling content. Hell, if it was £10 a month and it meant I could watch raw when I wanted plus all the old school content I'd probably sign up and I'm not even watching the product right now.

[Guest The Beltster]

$11 per share, it was over $30 a few weeks ago. 66% drop, thats rough.

[dsrchris 190]

So come on then, who's gonna buy shares in WWE in the hope of them coming back up when the Network goes global? :lol

[Guest Ciaran The King]

To be honest I'm surprised the WWE network didn't go global to begin with, surely it would have made more sense to get the product out there to all markets from the get go????

[dsrchris 190]

Larger set-up costs, legal costs with thrashing out the various deals that they'd have to make in the various countries that already show WWE programming, and mainly because it's something untried and untested so they rolled it out on a smaller scale to test the waters.

 

I can understand them not going global immediately, but I think it's something they need to look into doing in the near future.

[Guest Ciaran The King]

I get that but I just think how much they've ploughed into non wrestlings projects without hesitation and ignoring the losses

[dsrchris 190]

And they've ALL gone wrong. Can you blame them for being cautious?

[ViciousPrism 177]

XFL. Failed. WWE Films. Largely Failed (still pluggin away... why? F*ck knows.) . WWE New York. Failed. World Bodybuilding Federation. Failed. ICOPRO. Failed. Natch.

[Guest John Hancock]

Add to that politics, WWE Niagara Falls, the Fan Nation social network and, financially, the WWE Network.

 

Every single thing he's done that didn't involve promotion a professional-wrestling show has flopped, this idea that he's this genius who can make anything work is observably ridiculous. He is, or at least was, if you really look at the figures, a very good wrestling promoter who has achieved literally nothing else.

Edited May 17, 2014 by John Hancock

[DC 536]

WWE Films. Largely Failed (still pluggin away... why? F*ck knows.)

WWE Studios are moving away from the "let's make a WWE Superstar the lead" and are focusing more on helping to produce, finance and / or distribute movies with WWE wrestlers in roles.

 

Films like -:

 

• The Call (Halle Berry, Abigail Breslin, Michael Eklund) had David Otunga in a minor role
  
• No One Lives (Luke Evans, America Olivo, Adelaide Clemens) had Brodus Clay in a minor role
  
• The Day (Ashley Bell, Shannyn Sossamon, Dominic Monaghan, Shawn Ashmore) had no WWE wrestler in a role
  
• Barricade (Eric McCormack, Jody Thompson) had no WWE wrestler in a role
  
• Dead Man Down (Colin Farrell, Noomi Rapace, Dominic Cooper, Terrence Howard) had Wade Barrett in a minor role
  
• Road to Paloma (Jason Momoa, Sarah Shahi, Lisa Bonet, Michael Raymond-James, Wes Studi) had no WWE wrestler in a role
  
• Term Life (Vince Vaughn, Hailee Steinfeld, Jonathan Banks, Bill Paxton, Jon Favreau, Taraji P. Henson, Mike Epps, Jordi Mollà) had no WWE wrestler in a role
  
• Oculus (Karen Gillan, Brenton Thwaites, Rory Cochrane, Katee Sackhoff) had no WWE wrestler in a role
  
• That's What I Am (Ed Harris, Molly Parker, Amy Madigan) had Randy Orton in a minor role

 

There are still a number of films coming out with wrestlers in the lead, but they are normally now straight-to-DVD or cheaper budget fare in the horror genre (Leprechaun: Origins and See No Evil 2 for example).

 

The belief is that if the company is putting less of their own money into the projects, they are more likely to make it back or, if not, the losses aren't as high.

 

Another reason for Vince to maintain the film division as a distribution / production arm is that the films that star A-list talent like Halle Berry or Colin Farrell automatically associate WWE with those same A-list talents. It also gives McMahon a link to a more "legitimate" entertainment medium and makes him feel that he is a part of the Hollywood machine in a way WWE programming never could.

 

A lot of the WWE films have at least broke even once they've hit the DVD stage, with See No Evil still being the most profitable movie they've made "in-house" (US$15 million at the box office, plus just over US$45 million on DVD from a US$8 million budget), while The Marine is considered the most successful "in-house" film in regards to just box-office takings, while The Call is their most financially successful movie overall.

 

The Call's record may be broken though as WWE Studios are involved in the movie remake of The Fall Guy, with Dwayne Johnson in the lead role.

[Chris2K 176]

Let's not forget Tout, the social media platform they invested in heavily, then gave up on completely.

[DC 536]

It's all about THE WWE APP and THE WWE NETWORK these days, so something had to give.

[Guest John Hancock]

• The Call (Halle Berry, Abigail Breslin, Michael Eklund) had David Otunga in a minor role
  
• No One Lives (Luke Evans, America Olivo, Adelaide Clemens) had Brodus Clay in a minor role
  
• The Day (Ashley Bell, Shannyn Sossamon, Dominic Monaghan, Shawn Ashmore) had no WWE wrestler in a role
  
• Barricade (Eric McCormack, Jody Thompson) had no WWE wrestler in a role
  
• Dead Man Down (Colin Farrell, Noomi Rapace, Dominic Cooper, Terrence Howard) had Wade Barrett in a minor role
  
• Road to Paloma (Jason Momoa, Sarah Shahi, Lisa Bonet, Michael Raymond-James, Wes Studi) had no WWE wrestler in a role
  
• Oculus (Karen Gillan, Brenton Thwaites, Rory Cochrane, Katee Sackhoff) had no WWE wrestler in a role
  
• That's What I Am (Ed Harris, Molly Parker, Amy Madigan) had Randy Orton in a minor role

 

Using the mythical and mysterious rule that a movie only made money if it made twice it's budget (a weird rule, but everyone seems to agree with it for some reason), two of those eight movies were profitable.

 

That's What I Am made a particularly impressive $6,400 at the box office.

[Maxximus 353]

Is that the movie where Orton said he was gonna take it to the papers? BAH GAWD THE PERFORMANCE!

[Guest John Hancock]

I can't confirm or deny that. The only thing I can confirm is that it made $6400 at the box office.

[ViciousPrism 177]

According to wiki, it made less than Knucklehead?! F*ck me. I could have sworn Knucklehead made $200...

[Guest The Beltster]

And people shit on No Holds Barred as a massive box office flop...

[DC 536]

Using the mythical and mysterious rule that a movie only made money if it made twice it's budget (a weird rule, but everyone seems to agree with it for some reason), two of those eight movies were profitable.

It is a weird quirk of Hollywood that making more than the initial budget for the movie does not automatically mean it made a profit overall, but with the movies listed, WWE would not have lost much if any money on them due to their part being mostly a distribution deal, which is why they moved away from their original model in the first place.

That's What I Am made a particularly impressive $6,400 at the box office.

With that, the film was released in only ten theatres worldwide and even then it was only for three days.

 

The reason for that is simply because the contracts agreed by all parties was that they were making a theatrically-released film and not a straight-to-DVD one. No-one was banking on it making any actual money in the cinemas and this is a practice that isn't all that rare. Even higher-quality movies like Milk and The Artist (prior to it's award-winning ways) had limited releases.

 

Zyzzyx Road, widely considered the lowest-grossing movie ever (US$30 - although US$10 of that was refunded), was released in one theatre and shown at noon for six days in a row to fulfil a contractual obligation.

 

Another weird thing is that some movies are considered box-office flops despite being nothing of the kind. Waterworld, Exorcist II, Howard the Duck, Bio-Dome, Batman & Robin, Daredevil, Planet of the Apes (Burton edition), Jumper, Ghost Rider, The Day The Earth Stood Still (Keanu edition) and The Last Airbender are all considered flops even though they all made a profit and, with some of them, a very healthy for profit.

 

EDIT - As Belty mentioned it while I was writing this post, No Holds Barred also made a healthy profit despite being labelled a flop. Throw in Suburban Commando too.

Edited May 18, 2014 by DC

[Guest Ciaran The King]

Suburban Commando is a classic