Nick Khan’s comments on merger, media rights

Spring is finally here! Get super spring savings now at all three CODLEN FOURTH locations! Get 0.9% financing for 60 months on New Ford Escape, Edge and X4. Or choose 2.9% for 72 months on New F-150s. Buy a new 2022 Escape, only 28 grand! Visit CODLEN FOURTH in Patezcala, Heath and Circleville or CODLENFOURTH.com. CODLEN has the CODFOURTH here! A lot of smart people don't feel so smart when it comes to their money. So Morgan Stanley made a podcast to help. Listen to What Should I Do With My Money? To hear real people, ask real questions about money and get helpful answers from experienced financial advisors. Hello everybody and welcome to another edition of Wrestleomics Radio. I'm Brandon Thurston, Broadcasting. Live and on demand from Buffalo, New York, where today is Sunday, August 16, 2023. And finally, the entire locker room here is back together. We are joined as we often have been as we have not been in a while. Both. I have the good fortune, as Nikon might say, to be joined by both Chris Gullo. Hello? And recently having participated in a Lucha Day a Puesda's match with a fresh haircut. One of the foremost thought leaders when it comes to limb work, Jesse Collins. Hello? Yes. I did. I was in Arena, Mexico last week, which is why I wasn't on the show, of course. And as you can see, I was unsuccessful in my challenge for someone's match. As you lose. As you lose. Your hair too. I lost it too. Did someone upset with your limb work tweets? Not in Mexico. Of course not. Mexico. There's no limb work in Mexico. It was Hetchus Saro. He was really mad that I... What about that? What about that? Vyrus is Vyrus still around? Vyrus? Yeah. Nothing he's still around. Yeah. I thought he died recently. Or he suffered a serious nightmare. But he's like one of the technical Lucha guys, right? Man, I don't want to talk. I'm going to expose myself pretty quickly about wrestling style and Ujali Bra. I believe you're correct. I know Hetchus Saro is very much like a... He's a bigger guy for Lucha standards. But he's kind of like a technical guy. And all those guys, most of those guys possess a pretty strong base of technical wrestling. Contrary to popular belief. Okay. We have to discuss on the program a few things, including a Nikon interview that no one is talking about. That you'll hear only... Post Wrestling has the summary of it, but we will discuss here an interview that he didn't look like shed earlier this week. HBO Max will no longer be HBO Max. It will only be the Max. And we'll look at AEW All Access as it compares to power slap in the ratings. And then the big stadium show coming up this August that everyone is talking about... AEW No. WV Summer Slam. Tickets have... I got tickets to Summer Slam in Detroit. I'm planning on going. We'll talk about it when we get there. And yeah, I think we will talk to you on as well. The presale activity surrounding all in London. Tickets are not on sale yet for that. And we may... Who knows where this free-willing conversation may or may not go. So if you do want to participate and send it to Super Chat, you are encouraged to do so. We will comment or answer your question. But we'll start by talking about Nick Khan's appearance. So this past... Gosh, I think it was Thursday. John Pollack and I talked to Brandon Ross of Light Shed Analysis firm, Light Shed. And he mentioned that he had done an interview with Nick Khan. And I was like, this was news to me. So we did get audio of this. And there is a summary of it on post wrestling by Neil Flanagan. And it's a pretty interesting interview. I would say it's more business focused than the last few... Naturally, last few interviews we listened to from Nick Khan. It's not as if he was talking to Colin Coward, who was a sports talk guy. He was talking to Brandon Ross, Rich Greenfield, and Walt Pysick. The big names from CNBC World. And they were asking questions that would be relevant and then are... The interesting questions to ask about the media business. So there's a lot of talk in there. And there's a lot of... Of course everyone wants Nick Khan's view on the broader media ecosystem. But we could go through some highlights here. Any major takeaways before we start in that? Yeah, I mean, so it's about an hour long show. So they get to a lot of topics. And I think Nick elaborates on a lot of topics in a way that we haven't seen with some of the interviews over the last few weeks. You mentioned Colin Coward, but even when he's appeared on CNBC and some of these other TV news shows where it's kind of like Nick Khan's going to be here for five minutes and we're going to ask him a bunch of questions in a row. And that's going to be it. This is much more of a... it's a podcast, so it's got a lot more conversation back and forth. And he says a lot. It's much more interesting than I think the typical in the con. At this point we've seen a lot of like 10 minute Nick Khan interviews in a lot of different media formats. And I kind of know exactly what he's going to say and I kind of know what all the questions he's going to be asked are. And this one, I wouldn't say that his attitude or his demeanor is any different, but they do get to a lot of different topics that you probably wouldn't see normally discussed at this level of depth on some of the shorter burst interviews he's done recently. Yeah, and I guess it's... Like I understand, at least this podcast is for people who are their clients or who have corporate access to their podcasts. So I think you're probably going into this interview for Nick Khan, not expecting a huge audience, certainly like you would for CNBC or even when he's talking to Colin Coward or Pierre Kafka or whatever the big public podcasts are. But anyway, he's talking about here, I'm just going to go through it in order. But they talk about sponsorships. Obviously this is done just after the merger. The merger has already happened. And he's talking about sponsorships. He says, look, at... look at what Endeavour has done with the UFC. I believe the UFC pre-acquisitioned. Their sales and sponsorship was around $35 million. I think that's an annual number. Anyway, it's my understanding that that's now borderline $200 million a year. Okay, which is far in advance of us. If you think about it, UFC, an amazing sport, everything's wonderful, is a far grittier sport than WWE. So the fact that their sponsorship dollars far exceed us, that comes down in our opinion to endeavor, obviously working in conjunction with the UFC to maximize those dollars. It's what we want for our company. That's that's end quote. He's talking about how UFC have some code words to be interesting to decode. UFC, a far grittier sport. What does he mean by that? And he's saying that, look, there are more violent sport. So if anything, that should be less advertiser friendly. But they're able to do better than us when it comes to media sponsorships. These ads and sponsorships and bumpers that you see on the PLEs and on the TV show. They're able to do better than us in generating those dollars. Despite their more violent sport, despite us, you know, there is talk in this interview too about Walt brings up because he's not a big wrestling fan, but he had watched WrestleMania. And he brought up the fact that in the edge and Finn Balor match, when Finn Balor got busted open, they took the camera away from him and Walt wanted to see more blood and guts. But anyway, UFC is able to do better in ad revenue, despite being more violent. What is that a credit to? The endeavor flywheel. It's because endeavor is so good at making these deals apparently. And that's that's one of the big revenue accretion opportunities coming up, I guess. Well, it's also a real sport. Does that make it more attractive to advertisers? I think it definitely does. And I definitely think early in this interview, Nick Kahn puts over, you know, Vince McMahon, he took wrestling out of the smoke field. He did. He used that exact terminology. And, you know, he took, I went Nick Kahn talks about how he went to a show with like the LA City Coliseum or whatever, when he was a kid and an old woman threw a battery at somebody. That's the way it was before Vince. Yeah. And you know, Vince turned, you know, made it sports entertainment and whole chameleon, all this stuff like that. But in the process, Vince also created a product that was probably very unappetizing to advertisers for a lot of different reasons. Main of probably a lot of it is due to the storyline content that permeated throughout the company for. It's not just the attitude era. You can go well into the 2000s and find many distasteful storylines that existed. And that probably hurts their ability to negotiate with advertisers. I think a lot of what I would call it, sophomore humor and gross out humor that Vince apparently loves judging by the... Right. Toilet humor and things like that. People get uncovered in stuff, which is Vince's favorite joke of all time. It wasn't that long ago that I think Fox had to black out the screen when was it shameless through like a cup of urine at Jeff Hardy. Yeah, that would have been during the pandemic. A couple years ago. Yeah. So is it part of because that a never has a more robust advertising department ability to generate that revenue stream? Maybe. But it also has to do with WWE's content and the historical aspects of WWE's content. You can make the argument that they're more family friendly and therefore that means it's better for advertisers. But that's not a one to one core layer. There's plenty of things that are not family friendly that do quite well with advertisers. It's not like it's a scale where the more family friendly you are, the more advertising dollars you can get. There's always going to be a wrestling cinema. Even in the 80s, Rockin Wrestling, boxing got more. I'm assuming boxing got more advertising revenue than they did in the 90s and the editor as well. So I don't even think it's content. I just think it's the wrestling stigma does not go away from advertising. Wrestling is this fake, carny thing. And it's something that's probably protected Vince from a lot of criticism over the years. But you're right that it's not just an attitude or an issue where like, there was this one period where wrestling was sleazy. It's like that the reputation of the business is still stigmatized even if Nikon can pretty credibly argue that the actual content on screen has been cleaned up a lot in the last decade or so. Is there, I agree that there's a stigma to wrestling. And is that about the nature of the content? To what extent, the answer is yes to both things I'm about to raise here. To what extent is that the nature of the content perhaps? I mean, it's not just Vince's content, but we could see it in WCW, certainly in the later days with WCW. And in other products, at least throughout the US, I would say. The stupid comedy, the toilet humor, the bad content of US wrestling. How much of it is that? And how much of it is just the fact that this is a thing that's pretending to be a sport and these matches are actually pre-termned. I mean, I think that's a big portion of it because I brought up like, okay, so we're young, we're all fairly young. So we don't remember a lot of that late 80s, early 90s, but there wasn't a lot of that toilet humor and stuff like that. There was a lot of characters, but it wasn't what we got in the 90s and early 2000s. And I still think that was, oh, you know, it's fake. You know, it's fake stigma. You know? I think the number one thing that someone who doesn't really want wrestling at all, the number one thing that they know about pro wrestling is that's fake. It's definitely the first thing, if I ever mentioned like, oh, I like pro wrestling to somebody who's not a wrestling fan. The first thing they'll mention usually is, oh, like, you know it's fake, right? Like that stigma exists in pro wrestling in a way that doesn't exist for things like, I've pointed this up before, but the stigma that doesn't exist for things like reality television, which often is scripted and has people recreating things that never happened for television drama. But people watch that with the assumption that a lot of the stuff is real. Oh, yeah, you know, it's a little scripted, but it's really real. And that attitude only exists in pro wrestling. Everything else that might have a hint of show business and entertainment to it is not as impact as pro wrestling. It's the number one stigma about pro wrestling is that it is to the uninhibited viewer. Pro wrestling is these people who are trying to lie to the viewer and the viewers who are watching it are dumb. So they believe that it's real, which obviously hurts and impacts advertisers if that's a belief that exists in society. I think a lot of this is due to a perception that may or may not be supported by data. It's suspected it's somewhat supported by data that the audience that you've got on television watching wrestling tends to not have income levels that are as high as other programs. I would think. But why do they, and part of the why is that and why do they believe that? Is that because the belief that pro wrestling is catered towards dumb-heart people who naturally are not going to maybe have college degrees that are maybe not going to make as much money as a more intelligent audience. So how much of that is that a stigma attached to who pro wrestling is catering towards? And is there any way to address that stigma? Some of it is just a reputation from the content. The choices that creative has made with content in pro wrestling over the years and the decades. And some of it, I think we're agreeing, is just the fact that it is a predetermined pseudo sport. You're not going to change pro wrestling to be a shoot, obviously. So is there anything that could be done to address the first issue? That is the immature, sophomoric nonsense that happens in US wrestling without hurting the content in some other way that damages the audience. If you follow me. Absolutely. You could obviously. Some people probably tell you no. Part of it is impossible to destigmatize it. Some people are just setting their ways and you're pushing the storm. Do we need to do what I think we certainly need to do? Is run show high babbas version of pro wrestling every night in prime time? One thing that I think about guys is I do wonder if the stigma of pro wrestling or the idea that pro wrestling is a problem. I think the idea that pro wrestling is catering towards all these very dumb people that don't have any money. I think it's real. I do kind of think that philosophy is an outdated thought that maybe older executives might have. But younger executives, maybe Gen Xers or people younger than that, are more tolerance of the idea that pro wrestling is mainstream entertainment. That seems to be more in line with the pop culture shift we've seen over the last 20 years where things that maybe were stigmatized like comic books or cartoons have things that were dismissed as childish amateur properties have become major mainstream sources of our pop culture entertainment. I do think pro wrestling in some ways has benefited from that with a younger generation of media, younger generation of working professionals who are not afraid to say that I really like pro wrestling and they're not the stereotypical hillbilly wrestling fan that maybe some people have in their imaginations. Are you guys familiar with the CBS Sunday morning when they do like the people that we lost that year, all the celebrity deaths or whatever? Every year I watch Oscars. No, they do. So CBS Sunday morning does it. Usually the first episode of January and it's everybody. Every single form of entertainment, theater, Broadway, every single sport you could ever think of. Every single movie TV show. It's a point in viewing for you. Wrestling is the only thing they never ever they never talk about a wrestler past the wedding. It's even even like the biggest names who passed away. Yeah, I'm never. Like all who are the some all the warriors not on there. Warrior. He was not dusty roads was not like. See roads. Okay. Yeah. Like Randy's. Nope. Nope. Nope. They skip over him too. I remember they like I watch it every year and yeah it's it shows me what the perception is a pro wrestling. And they're and they're going to names that are obscure enough that like yeah Broadway people that I've never heard of. Like really obscure Broadway people obscure like this person was on three's company is the sixth lead like like that type of thing. Yeah. People that are not nearly as famous as like dusty road or ruddy Piper. And that watching that every year shows me while pro wrestling is just in a different world than these people think. At least in the viewpoint of whoever's producing those segments. Yeah. Right. Yeah. And we see a lot of changes in media. I think it's like Jesse is kind of what you're getting at and that you know where we see I mean even things like ESPN covering wrestling to an extent sports illustrator covering wrestling to an extent. This is not something that would have been as normal in even say the mid 2000s or something like that. I think right in ESPN showed wrestling. I've got a point in a different time period and right in the ESPN's prominence. But you're right. I think that there's way more like I said there's way more mainstream media coverage of pro wrestling seems like pretty much every major. And so now it's a it's kind of weird getting as it's little bit of it's it's now people who are in editorial and decision making positions who maybe are my agent grew up in in the attitude era grew up in the 90s when that was especially something that was directed at kids. I think that people that are I think like Gen Xers that grew up in the 80s that you know people say about Gen X that what they're the generation that never really grew up in part of that is because of. Well every generation ever grew up. But are you millennial or are you I am I'm like a very young your borderline. I was I believe millennial cut off is 96 and I was born in 94. Okay. But I think like like you take like so people who were born in the you know late 70s let's say who are now in their mid 40s or so. They they were maybe working their way into more executive positions and things like that. Just across the board I think those people are naturally more tolerance of things that would be previously dismissed as childish is the best way I can say it. And we see that across there's such a just in our culture now there's such a huge interest in adults consuming things from their childhood and nostalgia and people buying toys as adults you know people buying collect collecting things that they collected when they were a kid. Obviously comic books and interest in comic books is like the main driver of Hollywood right now. It is this attitude I think in our society. Thirty thirty wrestling podcasts. Yeah. No I'm serious but the flood of wrestling podcast just as an example. Now this is obviously a wrestling podcast for the intellectual class only. You should at least have an MBA if you're even thinking about. You should see our CPMs there through the roof. Yeah. Median income level is just astounding. Yeah. But I just think in general like the society is I don't know I don't know if tolerant is the right word but there's clearly seen more value appreciated in things that maybe were dismissed earlier in by previous generations. And I think that makes an impact as far as people viewing something like pro wrestling is a viable mainstream entertainment source that maybe is worth advertising. And you know maybe you know I don't know this but maybe WWE's like marketing department needs to kind of prioritize that aspect of it that this is what they're selling as opposed to maybe what they've been doing in the past which is talking about how many viewers they have and talking about the company you know what. Like as far as WWE being a place sponsor might want to you know sponsor and put advertising money into. But what are you saying the emphasis should be. I'm saying that and I can I don't know what they're sitting there and if they're negotiating with you know one of their big responses let's say into it. Turbo tax because they sponsored the main event of WrestleMania. Two days left to your taxes. Taxes are complete. The. But like say you're saying if you're sitting down there are you are in if you listen to Nick Kontok you know it's a lot about. We had X amount of viewers we do this amount of viewers compare us to compare our ratings each week to what the NBA does or what the NHL does or what MLB baseball does or whatever their competitors are look at how you know we've got. You know we did a point eight zero with a demo when was last time a show and what it I did that like. Maybe part of selling your brand is also talking about the position that pro wrestling and WWE has in the hearts and minds of its audience and how it is this viable emotionally invested product that can read that not only has a lot larger viewership as viewership that's very emotionally invested in what's going on and that's good for your advertising probably doing that there they seem to be good professionals when it comes to that but I do think that's an aspect of we're talking about like growth or talking about how could pro wrestling remove a stigma and if you're selling that to advertisers you might want to present it as this you know thing that has this hugely invested fan base of people that are willing to put a lot of money into consuming this hobby and that's good for your advertising. Because you're pointing to how loyal and passionate your fans are in particular relative to other kinds of content out there. One way to not diffuse or to not remove the stigma is probably to have your executive chairman who has multiple allegations of sexual misconduct come back to the company with a creepy mustache that probably doesn't help. But anyway, there's some discussion of how there are going to be the cost energies here. Something we've been thinking a lot about I'm sure the employees have been thinking about is to what degree are they're going to be layoffs. I imagine it's going to be to a significant degree here. But Nikon does point out that we want to always be protective of our creative team, our production team. So it sounds like there's going to be layoffs but it's probably not going to affect the creative team relatively small team I would think or their production team which is probably a larger team than the creative team. So I think this is going to be a lot of headquarters employees unfortunately maybe less so people who are actually on the road. Well realistically are that for talking about redundancies between the two companies. I imagine there's not that many redundancies in regards to the creative team. It's not like endeavor UFC have a bunch of wrestling writers also on their payroll. But they would have production people but it's not like they would definitely have production people. But would they have production people on the road all of each week. Or it's not like you have production people who are going to do the W job because you probably still need them both to do whatever the respective jobs are I would think. Right and it seems like let me ask you this Brandon because there's a lot of like uninformed speculation. I'll put it about when we would actually start seeing cost cutting moves take place. I know that there are a lot of people that think that because the merger has been announced and obviously we're coming after WrestleMania where there have traditionally been talent cuts in prior years. When do we expect to see a lot of releases because the deal isn't official yet right the deal and the deal probably won't be official official until later this year correct. Yeah so would we expect any really significant changes whether they're in you know releasing people or just changes to the product or changes to WWE's presentation or changes to business deals. Should we really expect anything different until this agreement is official official. Because I think it's not like I expect there's going to be hundreds of employees were laid off and that's out of what I would what I think is 800 to 900 corporate employees that they have not including contractors talent. I think you can't you can't use those redundancies you can't use the employees from that you're going to become part of your merge company until you're actually merged right. If you think about how things went at WBD after Warner media and Discovery were merged it was pretty quickly after the merger was official I believe go back and find news articles about it I'm sure but to my memory. There were big layoffs pretty much immediately after that merger was official. When you say official do you mean like because because now correct me if I'm wrong it'll be embarrassing if I'm wrong but that's okay. The WWE endeavor merger is not official yet. No it's there is an agreement there's a legal agreement between we expect it to be official but it is not but the merger has not been completed. So I should maybe I should not say official I should say when the merger is completed which will be sometime towards the latter part of this year. Right and then is when we'll probably start seeing some of the changes we won't see them before that date. I think people that are waiting on Friday afternoon for WWE talent releases because they're going to start shedding talent because they're going to cut costs or whatever due to the merger. Are probably going to keep on waiting and if they do release talents probably not going to be related to that. Yeah there's a Mandela effect that every I think I think every time that I've tweeted there's going to be a w earnings call coming up on this date. It's just get it gets attacked with quote tweets say all that's when they're going to do the talent cuts which is the only thing that most wrestling fans for better or worse really care about. Those are the names and faces that they know there was the one day I don't have several quarterly reports ago now where they did do talent cuts like during or like right after the conference call and now ever more ever forward we think that you know people think that there's going to be talent cuts on that day but I don't necessarily expect that although I do expect them to be later in whatever week they may or may not happen because that's when they always do them that's probably like the the best practices corporate thing to do is to cut people later in the week rather than on Monday. Do you think though that we're probably going to see really not a lot of moves until this merger is going to be hiring certainly why would you hire? Even big cuts too like they're probably just kind of go with it until maybe the fall you start to see some major moves. I know there are reports about whether or not there's a hiring freeze. I mean I have no information about that but I wouldn't surprise me that they're not going even when it comes to talent that they're not going to take on a lot of cost right now just because they don't know about the budgets of their company yet until this merger is completed I would think. That doesn't mean I'm not refusing to believe that they won't hire talent. They won't hire certain positions that need to be filled that are vacant especially if they're I don't know higher level positions but I don't think there's going to be huge hiring right now either of talent or of employees. Moving to talent pay they referenced I didn't even know about this tweet but this is not Logan Paul but is Jake Paul who tweeted on the day that the merger was announced UFC plus WWE makes too much sense. Great path to increasing fighter pay. On that subject. He says in terms of our performers we think a lot of them are well compensated. Certainly all talent wants to be paid more management wants to try to manage those costs. Each individual is unique each individual deal is unique in and of itself. We're confident with our position in the marketplace in terms of our w superstars and depending on what the rights fee increases on the media rights are we expect a lot of that to drop to the bottom line. Nick Nikon is very skilled at saying things that are truisms and doesn't really say much of anything other than sort of say things that are somewhat obviously true. But he is saying here if I can pull any meaning out of the statement we expect a lot of that to drop to the bottom line. I guess saying as any executive would we're going to enhance our profitability a lot if we get a good upgrade in media rights. But it does raise the issue which is it gives a real issue and there are a lot of different reasons that if you make more money probably your talent and in fact all your workers should get paid at least a little bit more. And if we're going to compare which we may have this discussion if we're going to compare wrestling or WBE or you see for that matter to other sports major professional sports in the sports ecosystem. You know those sports which are where whose players are represented by unions by the way or associations I think in fact is technical term. Those players. They all have collective marketing agreements. Those players are getting something like 50% of the entire company's revenue, the entire business's revenue. Whereas UFC I don't know the percentages maybe somebody could Google that but that's pretty small. And in WBE's case we could do a really easy aggressive estimate and let's say let's go way way way insanely too high and say every wrestler on average has paid a million dollars which is I think obviously way too high. And let's say they have 200 wrestlers under contract that's 200 million dollars how much revenue did they generate in 2022 1.3 billion. So that's a 15% of their revenue. So certainly the be talent are getting compensated less than 15% of revenue perhaps less than 10% of revenue. So pretty low percentage. I would say you know what's the percentage of revenue that actors make relative to the entire gross of whatever their you know movie or television show is it may be it's less than 50% maybe wrestlers should fall somewhere in the middle. But obviously it's a it's been the case for decades that you know wrestlers are not compensated as well as they would be if there was some talent. Yes I find it representing them. Yes I find it very funny that Jake Paul. So Jake Paul has kind of like this online crusade. The de facto de corpsman. Right and he likes to tweak Dana about fighter pay and things like that. And I do like that his idea is that because UFC's merging with WWE that's going to lead to a great path to increase fighter pay. If anything they're going to do less because WWE is the company that pays their talent even less of a percentage than UFC does. Now to get to Nick Khan's response I guess we don't know WWE's you know salary structure really. But can we say that WWE got a big increase in rights fees during their last round of negotiations. Can we see that impact have we seen that impact wrestler salaries. I think what's clearly at wrestling wrestling salaries and we don't have great data to verify this. And how much of that impact is also because of AEW and also because AEW being able to put competitive bids in for talents. That probably has a much bigger increase in talent pay. That's certainly the more immediate source of leverage is that if you've got another company that's willing to pay you a lot of money. And competing versus just the argument that you're making more money so I should make more money too. Well what leverage do you have to force me to do that. And as we mentioned every week the rights fees the expected upcoming rights fees are largely baked into the stock valuation correct. I think there's at least a base case of 1.5 perhaps 1.8 baked into the stock price. So if it's more or less than that the stock price will move accordingly. Right so if we're talking about WWE's you know what what is WWE trying to do what is Nick Khan trying to do what is Vincent McMahon trying to do what is Aria Manuel trying to do. They're trying to deliver for investors and that is if they already have that stock price is already baked in or in some way being valued in the stock price already. Then record does that price by the way close right right so we're not 69 the highest ever close that we're talking about not only are we going to get more money for our rights fees negotiations but also how are we going to make sure that money is going to be seen as a price. We're going to be seen as profitability by the company to increase our profits and then deliver for our stock investors and that is probably part of their plan is probably not. Oh let's increase you know wrestler pay by X percent because we're making more money now. It definitely gives WWE the ability to pay more money because of that extra revenue rolling in but is their top priority going to be. So I don't know a lot of information about UFC salaries but it's very top heavy right like you have your big name fighters but then it's a huge drop like isn't it like 8000 a fight for your typical undercard fighter that fights maybe three times a year. I think so you're looking at it 24,000 you know your salary so I think the big thing would be like is endeavor going to place any tip of their financial model into WWE when it comes to salaries like because we don't know a lot about data but I heard the starting salary at the end of the day. I heard the starting salary and next to you was like 70, 80,000 a year. That's significantly more than an undercard UFC fighter. Yeah I would think that's close to right. Yeah. That number for people starting to develop metal. Another thing that's been raised to me is that on one hand the merging of these two entities increases their power over workers probably it's probably true. Yet on the other hand is there more regulatory scrutiny towards this company because it's a bigger company. You know we're going to go from like a $6 billion $7 billion market capital company in WWE something more than that marginally more than that UFC to a company that perhaps is going to have an enterprise value of $22 billion or something like that. I say $6 million $6 billion market capital for WWE but maybe being a bigger company will put a bigger target on them in terms of certainly the worker worker misclassification which I think is easily provable just by going through. You know what the IRS considers factors towards determining whether somebody is an employee or a contractor. Ultimately though I think it's not going to be the workers themselves who are going to take the risk of starting an association or union but maybe some other technicality or some. Imagine if WWE like lost access to and maybe an endeavor the relationship with endeavor might put some interesting tension on this because some endeavor represents I think thousands of actors who are probably largely represented by sag after and maybe other associations. Even if they lost access to certain celebrities I mean Snoop Dogg is probably represented by a union of some sort. If they lost access to some of these celebrities that they love putting on their programming, maybe that would start to put some pressure not that that would be the obvious boom now now they're going to be a representative of a union but maybe something like that might start to put pressure on WWE or create other stories that we talk about. Let's see on control of WWE creative he was asked is Vince involved in WWE creative is still Paul Vek Nick alluded to the company wide email that we believe we published in its entirety for subscribers. He's now a company wide email Nick mentioned he said specifically Vince articulated that Paul Vek remains the sole chief creative officer soul. These are Nick Nick's words he emphasized soul. He went on to say Paul and Vince have a relationship a family relationship that stands that goes back to the mid 90s. Paul's in charge of creative if he wants input from Vince or Vince has ideas that he and Paul then he and Paul are going to communicate. That's always going to be the case. We're lucky to have Vince. We're lucky to have Paul in control of creative. So it's look it's and I think it took credit to the light shed guys this was being asked from a place of I mean they didn't make it like explicitly explicit and like they were grilling him but but it was asked from up from a place that I think understood that. So I think Vince has been a detriment to creative or at least we could say that you know Paul Vek his leadership of creative has coincided with a lot of improvements in business including TV ratings most importantly attendance as we down in the straight. But what can he say here. God it's great to have Vince so grateful for him so appreciative. So lucky to have Vince McMahon. Why wouldn't you want Vince McMahon. The follow up question I would ask is why if Vince is such an incredible asset and he's responsible for building this entire model why wouldn't you want to do that creative charge. Like I know you like Paul Vek but if Vince is this amazing asset like in Aria Manuel is like I demand Vince McMahon be part of the audience. I've done like why doesn't Vince should Vince have a larger role then why isn't Vince still in charge. Yes that would be my follow up but it's the company line is what they've said you know pretty much last month or so about Vince is denying that he's involved for sure but the public face of the creative for an out of strip bleach. Yes on the big scary story our PL is going to become pay per views again or all those PL is going to go behind a 60 70 80 dollar pay wall like they did in a previous generation before 2014. Nikon says we didn't like traditional pay per view because 50% or so the dollars go to in demand dish direct TV just for plugging it in which is absurd absurd. So getting out of that going direct to consumer got around that he's talking about the network direct to consumer which launched in 2014. You see even with the USC ESPN plus deal there's no in demand dish and direct TV that money however UFC and Disney car carved up. It goes to them they have their split but there's no middle person taking 50% so we might so we might we consider so we might consider going back to digital pay per view if it is accessible to our fan base and if the price is right of course we would consider it. So that sounds more open to the idea than he sounded on the lead was the John O'Ran and Andrew Marchan sports business podcast where he said well if somebody gave us a 5x increase you know offer offer then sure we would consider it. This sounds more realistic now again that that podcast with Marchan O'Ran was before the merger. So this is something I think is giving wrestling fans a lot of fear that they might have to start paying $60 $70 $80 for a pay per view rather than getting it as part of their $4.99 bundle on peacock. But I was thinking this through and like I guess I'm turning the corner towards believing that maybe some of these pay per views or maybe WrestleMania would end up on pay per view. You look at AEW still doing paper view look at other wrestling products even like New Japan just did a pay per view this past weekend. That was on paper and doing more pay per views and they still have their direct consumer streaming service. Everybody else in the wrestling business is still in pay per view and if anything we're seeing a turn back into putting certain pea content on pay per view. I mean start them. I don't think you can watch the Cinderella semi finals and finals on start world yet you have to buy the pay per view. Yeah I mean from a negotiating standpoint it's another leverage point right which is okay peacock do you want to give us an increase in what you've been paying us before or we can watch the same thing. Or we can we also have this alternative idea where we'll just go back to pay per view model. I think what they're talking about there is like let's say peacock could offer the pay per view. So he's talking about one of the points he's trying to emphasize here was Vince's justification for launching the network to say why should I give why should I give a 50% split or something near that to to in demand or to direct TV or to dish network. And that's why the such a low price point nine ninety nine made some sense. But if they go to let's say they do pay per view on peacock or let's say they make a deal with the SPM plus there's no middle man pay per view provider to split that with although I don't know let me think about this isn't ESPN plus and isn't peacock wouldn't those in theory be the pay per view provider because it's not like there would be another. Why would why would they why would it actually why would ESPN why would ESPN would be is paying for WWE to be like the host of the pay per view server as it is now see you see an ESPN have a deal so that is p plus is the exclusive provider of pay per view you can't get it on. And the belief is is that ESPN has been has made a great ESPN is getting great value out of that ESPN is not paying UFC probably their market worth for the pay per view so they've gotten out of it. And it's a hundred and fifty million dollars average annual value just for the pay per view piece plus an additional one hundred fifty million dollars for their other traditional TV. Yes, like fight fight fight like that. Brandon you're of the you floated this theory many times that WWE's increase in other business metrics lately can be somewhat attributable to peacock and WWE's PL is becoming more accessible for the general public. And if they were to go back if they were to say WrestleMania is going to be on pay per view rumble is going to be on pay per view you have to buy it now with that hurt WWE's consumer metrics and other areas because you go from twenty million people or or many peacock subscribers there are having easy access to WrestleMania rumble to people who only are going to make the much more sizable financial investment purchasing the individual events and that's going to shake you down to more hardcore fans who in root out some of those maybe casual or lapsed fans who would be they like what they see would maybe become more frequent viewers of Monday Night Raw or Smackdown. I think the lesson of the network in 2014 the lesson of peacock in 2021 which wasn't really clear to me until the peacock thing happened because it was kind of a second data point is that reach has a huge value. And it's specifically the reach of the pay per view of that right. What do you value that reach what's the value of that reach what's the value of the increase engagement that you have downstream to your other businesses that comes with exposing that pay per view product to not just the 300, 300,000 that may be willing to pay $60 for it. What's the value that you get by giving that product away at a fraction of the cost versus charging $80 for that product. Right. And there's also this idea I think in Nikon's dream world in WWE's dream world they are still getting a really big deal of the market. Where they are giving peacock the B paper views and the video library and some streaming shows and things like that. But they're also getting their hands on the honeypot of the sense of we're going to take our most marketable and we're going to take our most marketable and we're going to take our most marketable and we're going to take our most marketable. Assets things like WrestleMania for sure the Royal Rumble and maybe some are slam and maybe a few other events. Which at this point, $200 million is probably a lot more than they would make on a direct consumer pay per view service. Well, I should say a traditional pay per view service with a split, let's say a 50% of the money that's going to be in the market. I mean, what would they do? Let's say 12 pay per views a year and most of them do. Let's be nice and say 300,000 on average. So let's say 11 and then add in like another million for WrestleMania. They end up doing something like let's say 3 million pay per view buys in a year at like I don't know, let's say $70 price. That's what's 30 million times 70. That's I don't know, I have to do that here. 30 million times 70 dollars is $2.1 billion? No, that's not right. 30 million times 70 is I don't know, not 30 million. 3 million times 70 is $210 million. So let's close. And I think I'm being probably too aggressive in assuming that every pay per view on average would do 300,000. Because you're doing less than that just before the network launched. And I think this is going to be a tougher sell if you if you broke entirely from paper, which is probably not what we're talking about here. But if you broke entirely from streaming and went into paper view, you'd have it be a tougher sell because you'd be causing a lot of customer upheaval putting things back behind the paywall. You know, six times in the price or something like that. So that's probably doing less than that. More of the story here is they're probably making more on this peacock deal per year than they would if they were selling this in a traditional pay per view format. And they're getting the reach benefit of being on peacock. So this is a far better deal right now for W to be on peacock. All of those pay per views on peacock every month. Now, could they get a similar amount of value from peacock while just selling WrestleMania for $80 every year and getting the I don't know. And that's like if they were getting if there was not a split to that $200 million, they were splitting half of that with a pay per view carrier. Obviously half of that goes away and doesn't become gross revenue for them or not revenue for them. If you had, where was I going here? If you had a pay per view at 80, you know, at an $80 price point, let's say you sell a million buys worldwide, you have $80 million in gross revenue. Maybe that's that one event is worth it. While you still get the reach benefit of exposing those 11 others or something like that. And we really don't know what WWE's pay per view market would be because we haven't seen it in a decade. Right. And I wonder on one hand, right, the cats out of the bag, people are used to paying $10 a month to get the pay per views. They're going to be upset if they're going to be asked to pay 60 or 70 or maybe even more for pay per views now. WWE, as far as total viewers watching the product, like on Ron SmackDown each week, is down as has significantly fewer total viewers than they did back when they still like pay per views. Now, at the same time, you've also got a lot of people, a lot more people are used to watching pay per views, a lot more people are used to watching backlash and money in the bank and hell on a sale and whatever annual events that you have. Because they're used to watching them. To add what their pay per view demand was just before the network launched in 2013. This number right here for people watching in video, this is the number of global buys and thousands. So we have Royal Rumble, which was the second to last pay per view that was exclusively on pay per view, 517,000. But the B pay per views before it were under 200,000. Hell in a sell to 2, 2, 32, battle grounded 119, SummerSlam did 332. It's to give you some idea of what the pay per view demand was at the very end. And that was with considerably more people watching each week on television. But certainly, I don't know what that says about popularity in general. Right. I guess my counterpoint to argue that would be because you've now conditioned a lot of fans to watch the pay per views every month. Because they've been so easily accessible. Are those people now out of habit due to their consumption of WWE? Are they now just going to think, well, it'll be more expensive for me each month to watch it. But that's what I do. So I'm going to watch it anyway. And could you see a little bit more room for optimism for people to buy these B pay per views. And obviously, the creative plays a big role in it. I think like a show like a elimination chamber from this February, I think that probably would have done pretty well on pay per view. Relatively speaking, because the Sammys A.N. versus Roman Reigns match was highly anticipated and people really wanted to see that. Well, can WWE with Triple H as the sole leader of creative, can they find that kind of consistency where people are really invested in the B pay per views. I think it's easy for us to look at kind of historically what the B pay per views have been in the network era and say those probably wouldn't sell a lot of pay per views if they were back under the old model. But perhaps under Triple H, that's different. Okay. Our audio is okay now. I'm just realizing that we were having audio issues a moment ago. But we're apparently okay now. Yeah. I haven't changed anything. Okay. One more thing to add here is that we look at this chart here. This is the timeline of when some of these major TV deals, there's no logos here. So I don't know what we're looking at. Maybe if I pull up a different screen here to illustrate. I'm sure our team viewers will understand what each deal is based on what entity they have to deal with. Let's look at this. I'm pulling up PowerPoint now. Okay. So you can see here the NBA. Yeah, it's the next deal after the wrestling deals, but the wrestling deals are next on this chart that you show NBA UFC, WWE, A.W. The point I want to make here is that UFC, their deals, both of them, I believe, expire sometime in 2025. And that lines up fairly nicely with the timing of the expiration of the Peacock deal, which is going to expire probably in late 2026. So the cons comment a couple weeks ago to Axios that he could see a streaming deal for WWE and UFC being dealt together. This is probably why, because the timing of these two deals is nearly as Brandon Ross said, co-terminus. He introduced that word on Thursday. So the timing is close here, so maybe that makes sense for those deals to be dealt together. At least that's a leverage option for them in doing that negotiation. Just a backtrack to the viewership you guys were talking about. We have a super chat from MJ. I was very passionate about him doing some math of A.W. average buys divided by weekly membership times WWE weekly viewership. That's a good point. What are A.W. buys though? So let's say 130, let's say for a typical A.W. pay per view, especially post-CM Punk. And you want to do, like, what's the, should we measure it against P2+, should we measure it, I guess, whatever. In refactoring international buys, we're just using domestic buys. Because we're talking about ratings, we'd probably only be talking about domestic ratings. The models are also very different. A.W. has four pay per views a year, I guess five with Forbidden Door, maybe six with whatever this Wembley show ends up being. And WWE has between 10 and 12 every year. And I don't think we're talking about every pay per view for WB on paper. I think we're talking about... Right, we're talking about this model. And again, WrestleMania, plenty of people that buy WrestleMania in Royal Rumble or watch it on the streaming services are not people who are watching the show. Maybe at all. Okay. What was the average viewership for A.W. and Q1? I'm looking it up. Is it in this tab that I'm not showing right now? It is Q1, 2023, A.W. averaged 907,000 viewers. I see MJ is doing the math in the chat. 907,000 viewers, he did 125,000 buys. So that's, I guess, how many buys per viewer? So let's say 907 divided by, I'll say 130. Yeah, and I know that's a global number compared to a domestic number, but that's 930 divided by 907. That's about 14% of your... Not don't take this literally, but about 14% of your viewers are buying the pay per view. Should we...I'll put this against Raw since that's a cable show, since we're talking about dynamite, that's a cable show. And the viewership in Q1 for Raw was 1.8 million. So multiply 1.8 million and you get... Oh, Jesus. What's 14% of 1.83? It is 257,000 buys. And for, I guess, a B-paper view is how you want to apply that, because I think WrestleMania is doing a million. Yeah. Do you think WrestleMania is doing a million buys? Close to it. I think in least in the high hundreds of thousands, yes. How many WrestleMania's did a million buys? How standard was that in the past? Let's look it up at Wrestleomics.com. I have to share the screen again. I think most of them in the latter years did a million worldwide, of course. Let's look at the pay-per-view, WWE pay-per-view. And we have...let's see here. This is the last WrestleMania before the network. Did 1.1 million buys globally in 2013. That's the Roxena. Right. So those are huge events. And then the first Roxena did 1.2 million buys in 2012. And then the 2011 WrestleMania did what was even on that. That was the... Roxena and the Miss was the main event. And Taker and Shawn Michaels' retirement, 1.1 million buys. No, that would have been Taker and Shawn Michaels' retirement. That would have been... You're right. I'm sorry. Triple H versus the Undertaker. That's right. And then WrestleMania in 2010 only did 885,000 buys globally. And...have I scrolled too fast here? No. And then WrestleMania 2009 did 975,000 buys. Just short of a million. I'll do one more and stop here. And then a million buys in 2008 for WrestleMania. So that's WrestleMania 24. Yeah. Yeah, it's interesting because do you think WrestleMania, the brand of WrestleMania, is bigger now than it was 10 years ago. Yes. When they were last on pay for you. I think that's probably fair to say. Obviously it's two nights. That's... Yeah. How do you sell that? Yeah. I guess if you'd probably sell a deal or you get two nights as a package or something. Right. But still it's an enormous price point at that. Right. Probably over a hundred dollars. We talked about a million. Yeah. You know, it would be very interesting to see. I mean, I wouldn't, from a fan perspective, from a cost perspective, I would not like the idea of having to pay more money. Like I think most people would. But from like a very, like from like just a basic personal perspective, I like the idea of WWE having to actually sell each pay review, which would probably mean that they'd have to give away more matches and would feel more responsible when it comes to the product that they present on some of these pay review shows. And secondary, it would be great to have more data points on who is the draw and what events are drawing to have those. This is a paper view made event and it does well and it does much better than the paper view event last year. Last month, what does that say about these wrestlers? That's information that we used to have. It would be good for us a lot. It would be very good for us a lot. Better able to analyze who's a draw. That's the most important thing. A lot of smart people don't feel smart about their money. We have so many questions. Is now the right time to buy a house? How should I be saving to pay for college? How much do I really need to retire? And am I on track? So Morgan Stanley made a podcast to help. On what should I do with my money, you can listen in on real people asking the same questions you have and getting real answers from experienced financial advisors. Find and follow what should I do with my money to get the answers you need to feel smart about your money. Spring is finally here. Get Super Spring Savings Now at Kugland Chevrolet. Central Ohio's number one Chevy dealer. Get a new 2023 Chevy Equinox for 26-5. New 2023 Chevy Silverado Crew Cab 4x4 under 44-5. Get Super Spring Savings Now at all five Kugland Chevy locations. Find new roads at Kugland Chevrolet.com. Kugland has the car for you. It's not Central Ohio Chevy here to get retail units available. Call Rebate to the dealer. CD over details. In 2023. We do have some more Super Chats. Yeah, yeah, let's say we do these Super Chats here. This is the MJ takeaway. Maybe there'll be a segment on the show. A wrestling fan should stop pirating content because that's making WWE lose money and have a stigma that it's for lower income pirates. I don't agree with this. I think pirating is very overrated and it's a fact on business. I think it's something that sometimes gets pointed to as, oh my God, we could have made all this money if not for all these pirates. I don't think it's a zero sum game. I don't think everybody who pirated would have bought the product. And I think the volume of people who are actually pirating this content, which is illegal and all that, is relatively small. I just don't believe it's a huge factor. All right. And then Nick MP, possible the next TV deals will have a linear streaming simulcast. For example, raw on USA slash peacock and dynamite on TBS slash max. I think this is a real possibility that we're going to see, you know, as we do for a lot of, not the NBA currently, but maybe the next deal because we see it for the NFL, at least on CBS. So you can watch CBS related anytime on Paramount+. I believe the NBA was doing it yesterday. On ESPN bus. Yeah, because I was watching, I was actually watching the Celtics game on ESPN app on my Roku, which I use a cable login normally to watch and it presented me with the option where I could either watch it on ESPN. Speaking of pirating network. Or I could watch it on ESPN. Plus. So I have money in a football to do that too. Yeah. Yeah, you could. Yeah. So you could watch it on either service if you wanted to, whether you're paying for cable or whether you just have it on the streaming service. Yeah. So, and I don't know what the, we're definitely. Go ahead. I would say we were definitely seeing that. I mean, CBS, Paramount+, is, is, like you said, you can watch the icon watch CBS all the time. And how I watch CBS, if the Patriots are on WBC or local CBS affiliate, I've watched on Paramount+. Because I don't have cable. You don't have an antenna? You don't have an antenna. I don't have an antenna. I do have an antenna, but it's more for emergencies. If like I lose internet. And tennis hard work. It's hard to make those work, especially on those lower channels. Yeah. We have, I know Peacock does it all the time for a lot of their events, like, Premier League Soccer, if it's on USA. They sometimes also be streaming on Peacock. Sometimes it's exclusive to Peacock. Sometimes it's exclusive to USA. You really have to look. But I know the Olympics, I believe they did something very similar. So these streaming services are pretty much doing it with most of their live sports entities. So it would not surprise me at all if that becomes a reality. Especially if you consider the bundling of, of, you know, P, MBCU is paying for raw and they also run Peacock. So why wouldn't they dump it on there? Peacock has added CNBC. Is that true? I'm hearing a rumor in the chat. I don't know that, for the true, I don't know that much about CNBC, but I know for Paramount Plus you can watch a lot of the Paramount, uh, Columbia owned networks on Paramount Plus. It's not just CBS. Any ESPN you can, I know ESPN Plus, you can watch ESPN, you can watch ESPN news, you can watch some of the other lower tier ESPN networks. Yeah, I would expect this, maybe this is a way to make the deal more complex because they're probably not carving out. Here's our streaming rights for you to broadcast this live. And remember, they made the Hulu deal expire. They did an extension on the Hulu next day, Ross McDown deal, or not the SmackDown deal, but the Raw and I believe SmackDown is probably going to expire at the same time. In any case, those Hulu rights are going to expire at the same time that the live rights expire, so that's going to be something that they can deal as part of this live rights deal that's being discussed right now, which may have a lot of bearing on how this question plays out. Where are Ross McDown going to live, not just on traditional TV, but maybe as part of a streaming service? I don't know where SmackDown says on Fox. I mean, maybe to be Golo, but... To be is growing, it's growing. Yeah. And I'm not sure about the Max, maybe. I mean, I think that that E.W. All In UK show is going to end up on the Max is my guess, no information there. Do we have more from this, Nick Khan? I told you to have a lot to talk about today. I'll put it to the details. Nick Khan said there are more buyers than there were four years ago, five years ago. Five years ago, when we did the current deal, Amazon and Apple, this is something he said a number of times. I don't think Apple is a real buyer, but I think Amazon is a real potential bidder with this Amazon. But do you want to sacrifice the reach that you're getting with Fox? Fox is giving you $205 million plus a huge reach value. Amazon has a far weaker reach value because it's just on streaming. And I don't think Apple is going to put wrestling on Apple plus. I think that's something for other sports, but not for wrestling. And there's no issues with their relationship with Saudi Arabia as it relates to this merger. That is going forward, no problem. $100 million a year. He didn't say that. Could you see me? He also talked about UFC's potentially getting involved with Saudi Arabia. Do we hear that? I'm also mentioning that he doesn't know the specifics of their deals with Fight Island. Where's Fight Island? I don't know the particulars. Where's Fight Island? I don't know the particulars of their Fight Island Abu Dhabi deal. It's Abu Dhabi. I know it worked out quite well for them. So for us with Saudi, they've been good to us. We like to think they've been good to them. I don't know what that means. I don't know what the extent, what the Abu Dhabi relationship is. You're talking about with USC. I know it's been good. I don't know how long it is. If there's an opportunity to expand it, of course, everyone's going to be open to that conversation. Something interesting, he said, when we talk about international expansion, he talked about the WWE and the UK deal. And as we know, WWE was on Sky for a very long period of time. And that they no longer are on Sky there on BT Sport. And what is considered a downgrade of a deal, correct? Yes. And lower ratings because of it's a lower reach. I mean, Sky was on premium. I'm sure the UK fans should yell at us and remind us what the deal is. Dynamite is more highly viewed, I believe, than at least the BT Sport airing of Raw and or SmackDown. Because Dynamite is on ITV, which is a bigger network. But in this interview on the Light Shed podcast, Nick Con talked about, he mentioned being part of the negotiations, but not really being a part of the negotiations previously because he wasn't involved with WWE yet. And Nick told Vince, supposedly, that Nick had been hearing that Sky was upset that WWE didn't run the number of live events in the UK the way they wanted to. And that was one of the reasons that Sky was not interested in WWE. And then Nick said, when I got involved, when I came into the company, what did we do? We went over and we did a big show in Cardiff and it drew 65,000 people. And they're doing money in the bank in London this year. And he put that as kind of a way. He sold it as the idea that we're doing these live events because we want to be back on Sky. And we want Sky to know that we're really committed to the UK market. So yes, and they're doing money in the bank in London. And that's not something that was normal. I mean, they've never done until this, until last year, a traditional pay per view. They've done UK pay per views, but they've never done a real honest of goodness pay per view in the UK until clash of the castle. And I guess, well, some are slim 92. And now they're going to do money in the bank there as well. Those deals are coming up just after, I believe, just after the US deals as well as India. India was touched on India was a doubling of the prior deal. It went from in the prior round, I believe 28 million to what I believe is now 50 million for Sony and India. I'm not aware of this, but he alluded to some kind of merger happening with Sony and India that they have to wait to get completed. I don't know if he was referring to his own merge. I don't think so, but that has to be completed before they can talk about what their deal in India is. And India is their second biggest TV market. We talk about how huge the US rights fees are and they are huge. They're multiple times bigger than any other market. But the second biggest one is India. And he said, WWE is the second biggest sport in India. Yes, behind cricket. It's cricket. And then WWE, not wrestling, WWE. Yes. And he also put over, he said that the, was it superstar showdown? Was that the Indian TV show they tested? Superstar spectacular, I think. Yeah. Yes, spectacular. Spectacle. Spectacle was just spectacular. So he put over. Spectacle. He said, in the podcast, he said that, you know, they only, they had native Indians stars, not, you know, not just WWE wrestlers, but native Indian stars. Yes, people in the moment. Right, people in developmental. And then he says that in India, for that show, they had 25 million live viewers and 40 million viewers in total, just in India, for that one show. And I don't know if he detailed it like that in the past, but this is definitely something that he, he talked about in an earnings call after it happened. And apparently was a huge success, but it was so successful that they never did it ever guess. So this was on January 22nd, 2021. So this is before the return to touring. It raises the question, when, when are they going to try to go to India for a live event? Again, remember they did it in 2017. They tried to go to the, to a live, do live events in India. They had, they did booked to you, had to cancel one. This is in the midst of just before actually gender Mahal dropped the title when he was world champion. Remember, gender Mahal was the WWE world champion. I do remember it. Roman Reigns has had to hold the title for almost a thousand days to, to try to get the title back on, on track after that. I acknowledge him. He's done it. The, but well, Nick actually said that something that he said it like, I forget the specifics of it, but he said like once that merger with Sony six is complete, we're looking to go back to India for so for whatever reason they haven't gone back to India yet. Obviously the pandemic prevented international shows like that. Nick said that for whatever reason, it seems to be connected to the merger. I don't really know why specifically that would have to do with a live event in India, but then they're, they're definitely interested in going back. But, I mean, it's interesting thing because they're, they're getting real money from the Indian market. Like you said, it's the second largest TV deal that they have, but the, the raw numbers that he tosses out in the Indian, with the Indian market almost feel irrelevant because, and we know that from things like 25 million people watched your show, but he never did another one of them. So does it matter if 25 million people watched the show live? He never did another one of them. Obviously that wasn't a number that was big enough to support a consistent weekly show because they haven't done that. Obviously they're touring in India. Has it been successful enough to turn to lead to future tours because I'm sure if they were wildly successful, they'd be doing them more often. Yeah. It's a one hand you can't dismiss them, but there's not been a live event market for them. Yeah. So you can't dismiss the Indian markets importance to WWE because like you said, it's the second biggest television deal market. But at the same time, and let me tell you, you've been on Twitter. There's a huge W fan base apparently from India, highly engaged on Twitter, I would say. Right. In social media, we've seen those with YouTube numbers and things like that and how much they are centered around India. I know from a little bit of person experience that wrestling news websites do a lot of, get a lot of traffic from India. I'm sure we have Indian subscribers to this show. And so there is a level market there, but the way they toss around these numbers, like the viewership numbers and how many fans they have in India and they have the second biggest popular, most popular sport in India. All of that stuff kind of doesn't feel that relevant because ultimately all they're getting is the television revenue. And it doesn't seem like the India markets actually paying for anything other than that. Okay. I think that's all we have for the Nikon interview. Just to touch on that, just to go back a little bit to the Superstar Spectacle, they use 10 native Indian talents that were all under WWE contract at that time. Only five of them are now. So. Right. And we haven't seen, like I think we've seen Chanky. Is he still there? Chanky still there? Yeah. He's still dancing on like main event. But a lot of those talents that we saw, we haven't seen since like on television. Well, I think Viers and I may be again and I forget that. Okay. So, no fear. Who they refused to acknowledge had a major motion picture made about him. Well, he was just a tall, skinny baseball player. It doesn't work there. It doesn't work for them. He, but we don't see like, I remember they had like the guy who was like, he's India's first high flyer. And like, I don't think we've seen that guy ever again. I don't even know if you still with the company. Do they have any, I know they still have Zai Ali. Do they have any of the male Chinese wrestlers still in developmental? Because I know some of them have have gone back to China and have stopped wrestling. I don't know. Go, go, go. I'm trying to answer this question from MJ. Did Vince pop a rating on CNBC with his interview? I have some spreadsheets up right now. I will tell you, we need some context. I can tell you with a rating with a Viers, and now, first of all, this is, this is not an easy answer because squawk on the street is a three hour block in Nielsen. So squawk on the street on April 3rd, the day of the merger, which consisted of like 20 minutes of Vince in Ari or something like that, probably did a .03 in the demo and 289,000 viewers in that entire three hour block. Sorry, I don't have the quarter hours. The prior week, squawk on the street did a .02 and higher total viewership, 216. And then the following week, this past Monday, the 10th squawk on the street, a .04 in the demo and 210. So did Vince pop a rating, not so much that we see a discernible difference here on squawk on the street on CNBC? So thank you, MJ. But Bao was there. He is there at least. I think there's more, but he was just on NXT level up, I think. Yeah. I think the guy I was thinking of was Tian Sha, Tian Ben. Tian Bing, who was kind of like the, yeah, like they like had him, I think he had him in the Royal Rumble one year, like they really kind of tried to present him. At least, I don't go, I believe. Yeah. But that was a whole effort. And I don't know what their, like what their value was in the Chinese market. I know that's something that I was trying to do. I don't think they're even on PPTV anymore. And if they have a media deal in the Chinese market, that's active. Okay. We've had some good super chats here. If you want to put another one in, go for it. We have more to talk about the max debuted. It's not going to be HBO Max. It's going to be just the max. David Zazloff, there he is, the, the sinister minister of, of AEW standing out there on the stage introducing this is the new merged streaming service name. You're still going to be able to subscribe to Discovery Plus. Go to your household subscribers, Discovery Plus. Yeah. We love our main channel. Don't worry. If you don't want HBO Max as well, you can subscribe to Discovery Plus separately. But if you want to watch succession, you might as well, and you want to watch the Discovery Plus stuff, you might as well subscribe to the max. By the way, the upfront, there's reports from Andrews area in that this, the new Saturday night show could be announced and could happen in June. I would expect us to know by May 17th, which is when the upfronts are for WBD because that's, that is the day that you would announce a thing like that and not before then. So we'll see if that happens. If that's really the CM Punk show. There are eight WTV news, eight W all access. It's third episode, two hundred and eighty one thousand viewers. It was the least viewed of the three in the normal time slot. Of course, on the 25th, they did this sneak peak episode that had seven hundred and thirty eight thousand viewers who's coming after college basketball tournament game, March Madness. How does the question is, how does eight W all access? How does its ratings compare to power slap, which was the, you know, the show immediately proceeding all access in that time slot right after dynamite, on TBS at 10 o'clock and power slap was averaging across this one two, three, four, five, six, seven, seven, seven airings that we have here for power slap. It averaged two hundred and ninety five thousand viewers, point on nine in the demo and that is slightly higher than the most recent episode. The other two episodes did better than the average for power slap. So there's six episodes in total, I believe, so we've got three more to do a better average to keep the average above what power slap did, which I would think is a minimum expectation. So moving on to, I don't know what's next, summer slam. Vessel tickets does not have an estimate yet, but I believe there's over thirty thousand tickets distributed here so far. The general on sale was on Friday. I did manage and the only tickets that are left, this is a screenshot from me. Yesterday, so I don't know if it's changed today. I don't expect that it has. Two hundred dollars is the minimum price that's left. I looked at this on Friday, later in the day, I think, and I managed to get two fifty dollar tickets. I don't know how I did it, but I've got two fifty dollar tickets to be sitting up here in the nosebleeds. So this is going to be another monster gate and all likelihood. I noticed they're set up with a more even set up, as opposed to, if you remember summer slam last year, when they were in Nashville, they basically took everyone and moved them to the hard camp side so they couldn't film the hard camp side of the event. So the entire production team had to film the entire event without showing a whole side of the building because it was completely empty and it would have looked weird. It seems like from this setup, just from this Wrestle Tech's picture, that they have, they're walling off this back third of Fort Fields. So they're going to have a much more normal looking setup, whereas, opposed to everyone just being on one side of the building. So it seems like they're better prepared, I guess, for producing it. This is a ticket master screenshot that Wrestle Tech's got. This is for the Nashville show. So I'm guessing it's, I don't know if you can see my mouse, I'm guessing it's all of this on the lower portion of the screen here that was right. And you can see even like where the entrance ramp is. And so you can see where the screens and stuff were. They were not on the empty side of the building. They were like off to the left center of where people were sitting. And you didn't notice after a while, but I remember watching that first match on that show and just being like, it's very strange that they cannot show these camera angles from certain sides because half the building is empty. It seems like that this is a much better setup. And contrast, there's tickets on both sides here. And you can see where the stage likely is. It looks like they're probably going to have something about curtain or something up. I mean, you can see the aisle way here. It's the same sort of aisle way, this sort of L-shaped aisle way that they do, hockey stick shaped aisle way that they do for their stadium shows. Which is always kind of weird because you see like the view and you look all the way down the ramp and you just see seats, you don't actually, because it sort of hooks at the bottom there. But anyway, so SummerSlam, I don't know, let's say, I know Royal Rumble did $160 for an average ticket price live on air math. If it's probably a reasonable average ticket price to assume here, and we got the public records request for San Antonio so we know what the average ticket price was, if they do, I mean, Royal Rumble did in excess of $40,000 paid. If they do in excess of $40,000 paid again, they're going to do over $6 million for a gate. This is, I mean, SummerSlam is not as big as the Royal Rumble. Yeah, it's the number three. This is a better market for the Royal Rumble than San Antonio. It's a much larger market in Detroit and it's also much closer to other major markets. Like you said, you're coming from Buffalo. Brand in Drive. That's a feasible drive for you. Those obviously people, I'm sure coming from Toronto and the other larger cities. Cut through in the area. Ontario to get there a little faster. It's not that far from Chicago. It's certainly not that far from Cleveland or Indianapolis or Pittsburgh. So it's a much more centrally located than being in Texas and San Antonio, I would think. And I do imagine the Ford Field building is more expensive than the Alamo Dome, which I know the Alamo Dome is very cheap for building that size, which is why WWE has run there because you can obviously do a big crowd without having to pay a premium price. Ford Field is obviously a much newer building than the Alamo Dome and it's obviously... Snowpony X Silver Dome. More active, for sure. It's not the Pontiac Silver Dome. So what will they announce? They did WrestleMania. What will they announce for an attendance? The Trump Mania, not the Trump Mania book by Lavi Marlin. No, the Trump WrestleMania in 2007, WrestleMania 23. They announced 80,103. So I imagine they will not announce a number larger than that because it's WrestleMania. And they're not in excess of 15 or 20% of the paid. Right, and what do we expect to pay to be, maybe 40, 45,000? I would go 40 to 50, so we're certainly in that range. Right. Well, if WrestleMania had a much larger setup, I think, than this show is going to have, and what do WrestleMania do for paid right around probably 60,000? This WrestleMania? Yeah, mostly WrestleMania. Luckily, I have the press release right here. No, no, no, no, no WrestleMania this year. What's the question about WrestleMania for this year? How many paid do you think WrestleMania? I know that both nights, maybe there was a little discrepancy, but how many paid did WrestleMania do this year? Probably around 60,000? Probably. They did about 66,000. Both nights with tickets distributed, I think about 6,000 comps or so. Maybe more because the silly market. Again? 66. 66. I would say it's just knock off like 5 to 10%, so you want like per night. I'm just throwing out. I'm just comparing WrestleMania, which had like, I assume. I assume, yeah, I assume Sofia Stadium has about is around the same size as Ford Field. And I'm also assuming that more tickets were made available for WrestleMania than Ford Field. Seems like Ford Field has a more conservative setup, which makes sense because it's under slam and not wrestling. And that could change if the demand, you know. Right, and Detroit has always been pretty much forever. Since Paul Orndorf. And since Paul Orndorf? He popped a territory, the big event with Hulk Hogan in the 80s. I was in Toronto. Sorry. Am I thinking? I mean, I was thinking about the chic and calm. Big time wrestling. Oh, chic. Territory. After he popped it. After 30 years of success there, he found the fact that. But Detroit's always been a strong wrestle. WWE markets even been a strong AEW market from, you know, Dynamite Stadium. And at the Little Seasures Arena, I did like one of their biggest crowds ever. One of the biggest things of that nature. Yeah. One of the very few cities that had a TNA team were being on. And Detroit. Yeah. It's always been a great wrestling city. And like I said, it's accessible. Yeah, we have honored it. Well, two of you. Yeah. So I assume them to do. It made a lot of sense. And because I'm surprised they haven't gone back. I know Detroit is not the most glamorous market to be in for like WrestleMania compared to like Los Angeles, or like it doesn't have the party atmosphere of a place like New Orleans. But there's just a lot of time. They have a note for the Dynamite in Detroit on May 10th right now. Right. Which is good by Dynamite standards recently. Yeah. But I've like it's so Detroit is not like the sexiest market, but they have a great venue. It's a very small, rolled out region as I've learned from Detroit area. Yeah. Looking at a hotel. Yes. It's no Montreal. That's for sure. But it's um, it's always been a strong market. I'm surprised this is only the second major event for field is held for WWE. Um, and just looking back on the press release, this is what everybody is tuning in for the retrospective look at press releases from 2007. Look at all these details that they gave in this press release in 2007 just after WrestleMania it happened. Uh, 2.1 million pay per view buys they were explicit. Um, in excess, in excess of $24.3 million. So they even, they told you the number of buys. They told you how much money they grossed in pay per view. They told you this was the highest grossing one day event live event in WWE history grossing more than $5.38 million in ticket sales. So they told you the gate down to the second decimal, uh, in the tens of thousands merchandise sales for the venue, 1.6 million per cap of $21 and then W shop generated another almost $400,000. Look at all these details. This is not the level of detail that we get today. They did reverse trend and announced the WrestleMania gate, $21.6 million. So um, but that was the first time in a long time that they gave us an actual numerical detail. Uh, in WrestleMania 23, I don't know what the actual paid attendance for that show was, but that was probably the biggest paid attendance for a WWE show. I don't know if it was bigger than WrestleMania 17 at the Astro Dome. I feel like it probably was. Um, and if it was bigger than that show, then that makes that probably make it the biggest paid attendance for WWE event. WrestleMania getting a quick Google search. Nah, never mind. That's not the wrong of that. I'm just thinking raw attendance numbers. Yeah. Like at least a decade probably. If it's bigger than WrestleMania 17. Yeah. I'd have to look at that pro wrestling history dot com has it. Um, so we have more. Well, there's another stadium show in August on August 27 tickets go on sale on May 5th. I was a total Wrestle fix. You're going to have to get up at four AM to track that, that live on sale because in the UK time when tickets go on sale, it'll be four AM US Eastern. Um, are you saying that Russell ticks is on the US Eastern time? I believe so. Yes. I'm not Russell ticks though. Just saying spell in low on the little details about their identity. Um, Pete Bensire has learned that eight of you has exceeded 50,000 pre sale registrations for all in, in London at Wembley Stadium. Um, is this good news or is, is it, uh, you know, is this too many pre registrations? I think it's safe to say Brandon that each person, uh, that has pre registered is probably going to buy about two and a half tickets on average. So I, I assuming this is going to have an event of, uh, attendance of 150,000. Yes. Not everyone who pre registers will buy a ticket. However, most people buy a ticket will buy more than one ticket. Uh, so I would say, uh, you might be selling 50,000. I have absolutely no idea what the show is going to do. I don't think, I think most people who are saying that they have an idea or not, don't, uh, it would almost no figure would surprise me. I wouldn't surprise me if they did a lot less than 50,000. We wouldn't surprise me if they did like, it wouldn't really surprise me that much if they did like 8,000. I know that's like would be a terrible number and I, and I would expect them to do more, but like I'm kind of ready for any number. I have no idea what the show is going to do. Absolutely no idea. Brandon, you mentioned that if they do 50,000, it's kind of a big deal. It's kind of a milestone for them. I think anything over 40 really would be a huge deal for them. It's biggest branding event. This will be regardless of whatever they make or don't make in this event directly. I think there's a huge marketing value in having this enormous crowd in the UK. The biggest WCW attendance figure that exists where people didn't have weren't told by government order to attend is I think it's 41,000 for the Georgia Dome show. Might be a little bit under that. If they beat that, I mean you've got the biggest show, a page show in modern wrestling history that wasn't run by WWE. If you beat that total, you'd probably have to go back to like George, not George, Jim Londo's in the 1930s in Athens, Greece against Colo Qorani doing allegedly a soft top of your head. I was looking at this the other day. That's a famous event. It was in Pantheonocchio Stadium, Pantheon, Varek Stadium in Greece, the Olympic Stadium in Greece. He did a couple of stadium shows in Greece that did over 50,000 people. Those would be the biggest non-WW shows ever based on attendance. And once you want to talk about the great gamma doing 200,000 people at some show in Pakistan around the turn of the century, which probably isn't real. Let's figure this out. I've got the pro wrestling history dot com Excel spreadsheet. A famous Excel spreadsheet, by the way. I've looked at this a million times. We want to know WCW's big, will do we wrestle me in 17 also in a second? But what is WCW's biggest attendance according to this spreadsheet? This is pay-per-view buys. I'm sorry. Oh, wait a minute. It's also in here. TV crowd crowd. Okay. We want, because there's multiple tabs here, of course. I forgot. I haven't been in the spreadsheet in a little while. WCW. Let's select WCW. Not double double C. Where's W? There it is. Okay. And we want a sort by attendance. Largest to smallest. The Georgia Dome. 41, 412. It's probably originally sourced from the observer. That's the, that is the Hogan and Goldberg match in the Georgia Dome. Right. On, on, like what, a six-day bill or whatever? Yeah. Yeah. They probably looked it on the prior nitro. Yeah. I mean, they did. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm not kidding here. Yes. And we want to know WrestleMania in WrestleMania 17, right? Just if you look at all the WWE events, yeah, by year, we can figure that out. What's this here? The Astro Dome. 67,925. So almost 68,000. And a $3.5 million gate. Which, which how does that compare to the, the Trump gate? Is it even? I'm sure the gate is larger for the Trump shows. I don't think it's, I don't think there's, I don't see a 2007 in here. So maybe it doesn't have it. But we just did just mention what it, what it was. Right. It's in the slides. It's on the press release. Yeah. My point was that was just that WrestleMania 23 show. It's not really relevant now, but it was, it was like the biggest, I think it would be their biggest, you know, paid attendance show since. Over five, you wrestle me. Trump show. Yeah. And three WrestleMania three. Four, 70. Anyway, yeah. And not that it's particularly insightful to compare dollar values that are many, many. Right. Back to the pre-registered notes. I know I think Mike Johnson had it at over 50,000 pre-registered recently. In the Observer this week, Meltzer mentioned that the WWE clash at the Castled show by the time tickets went on officially, went on sale, or maybe once the pre-sale officially started that they did, I think they had 85,000 people signed up for pre-sale codes. And I think they sold something like 35,000 during the pre-sale or first day or something like that. So if you want to do a little bit of that. I would suggest that a big factor in, in the conversion there is, are the ticket prices for clash with Castle. Correct. Now, what point the price is it going to be for this all in show as far as I know? Well, Dave had some figures in the Observer. And he mentioned that, like, right? He said, if you, everyone remembers that in immediate, as soon as those tickets went on officially went on sale, everyone was like, oh my God, I can't believe how expensive those tickets are. And people feeling, you know, so a lot of people probably signed up, shocked at how expensive tickets were, didn't end up going. I don't expect these A&B ticket prices to be nearly as high as clap. Yeah, Dave had ringside seats for the Wembley Stadium show for a W. I believe he said the most expensive seats were 600 pounds, Sterling, which I think translates roughly to like $750. It might be a little bit more, might be closer to a thousand. But by comparison, the ringside seats for the clash to Castle show were 4,500 pounds, Sterling. And sometimes more expensive than, or nine times more expensive than the AEW ringside tickets. And outside of that, AEW has a lot more, the Wembley Stadium show seems to have a lot more tickets that are for under $100. So the AEW show is going to be much more affordable. They might not do as big of a gate, even if they do a bigger crowd. But it seems to be the goal seems to be to draw as big of a crowd as possible as opposed to giving it the biggest gate as possible. Yeah. But yeah, MJ asked a real quick question about the clash. He goes, how did the clash work? They got paid to go and made the gate. Was that a bought show clash of the castle? They got a government subsidy from the local government in Wales. There's an article from local media in Wales that tried that asked the government what the subsidy value was and the government would not disclose it because of competitive bidding process. But they made $8 million is what they reported in their international ticket revenue line in that corridor. And there's only one event that was a non domestic event and that was clash castle. So they made the question is, is the subsidy included in that $8 million? I don't know. But they made $8 million in revenue off of that event, certainly just in ticket, just in, I mean, not including merch and may or may not include subsidy. Yes, these cities and areas are paying with the idea that they will bring tourists to the region and that will be beneficial to their tax basis. They stay at local hotels, you got local restaurants and that's the reason they ran in Cardiff. It wasn't because, you know, I'm sure if there was up to them, they would have liked to have run one place stadium. It's a bigger venue. It's more prestigious venue and London is an easier place for people in Europe to get to think Cardiff. But Cardiff was the one that offered them the spot to go and to Puerto Rico. Have you heard about the $1.8 million to do backwash there next month? Have you heard about the potential Perth Australia show? It's in the atmosphere. Yes. Right. I would expect it to happen. Which would be very interesting because if you were to run a show in Australia and you would not want to run it, Perth to any listeners from Perth, Perth is on the complete opposite coast of like all of the other major cities in Australia. It's kind of like it is a sizable, I believe the metro area as well over a million people. But it is on the western coast of Perth of Australia and would be right up to be much harder to, it's a very isolated metro area. It's basically what I'm saying as opposed to if you were to run it in Melbourne, a city which are not only much larger metro areas but also probably easier to access than Perth. If Perth is willing to pay to have WWE come there, oh, got a map of Australia right here. If you see out in the western Australia territory, you can see Perth. But Perth is really isolated compared to the southeastern coast of Australia. Yes. Yes. Sydney, Melbourne, over on the east coast. Basically everyone that's not from Perth that would want to go to that, assuming you're running a stadium show would have to fly. And Australia is not a small country. It's not like you can drive from... No, it is roughly the size of the United States. So the difference between Perth and say Melbourne is probably similar to the distance between like Tampa, Florida and San Diego, California. We, AC mentioned in a chat and I checked that because the DZOM reporting on it, just to go back to the AWOLN. Live Nation mentioned to the customers that we're looking at 30 pounds to 500 pounds for tickets. Great. So... Yeah, so that seems similar. Day now. Day and half. Right on. I'm thinking about driving from Melbourne to Perth. It's a day and a half drive, just in driving time. Interesting. Right, so we're talking about in Adelaide is a little bit closer than Melbourne is. But I would think even so, you're going to have people traveling from other big cities in Australia to go to Perth if that's a... No, that happens, if it's a huge amount. Right, and that's the idea and I'm sure Perth is not... But if you were like, I want to run an event in Australia and we're only going to pick one city where we can run a stadium event and they have already run a stadium event that was wildly successful in Melbourne a few years ago, that was WWE superstar showdown. You probably wouldn't run it in Perth, but because Perth is the Western Australian province of the city of Perth is willing to give WWE money to have this event, there they go. They're going to be in Perth. They're not going to be in Sydney, they're not going to be in Melbourne, just like they were in Cardiff and they weren't London. Okay, I think that's all we have. Unless you want to exercise Cody issues and CM Punk issues, which I'm okay not doing. So far I've been going to... I'm okay not talking about CM Punk for once. We'll see what happens. Yes. Sure, next week we'll have a lot... We might have a lot more to talk about in the coming weeks that we do right now. Yes. I'll do my plug then. On patreon.com slash Wrestleomics we have a new merchandise report that I put out on Friday that I'm seeking feedback on to see if this is something that is a good report in that I'm scraping WWE shop, shop AEW, and P2E keys every day to look at what their top sellers are. The top sellers of the prior week, seven days before Friday, L.W.O. which I saw there's some aggregators that picked up that L.W.O. merch is appearing to do quite well. At least in the week leading up to this past Friday and FTR, the top sellers on AEW shop and PWTs this past week. There's also some core hour reports that are up there for subscribers as well as all the usual TV ratings and the huge spreadsheet and the Thursday 30, Wrestleomics 30, and slides as well. Anything you guys want to plug or bring up? Just the Gentleman's Wrestling podcast. That's my show. It's part of the Voices of Wrestling Network. You can get it anywhere that you get your podcast from. Again, the Gentleman's Wrestling podcast, my last episode was recorded last week, kind of recapping WrestleMania weekend and kind of talking about the decision to have Roman Reigns beat Cody Rhodes and kind of the reaction to that and why I don't think it was that good of an idea. Is that the right decision? Or the perfect decision? You know, we're getting a few weeks removed now, so we're going to get a little bit more information and data to see if beating Cody Rhodes or WrestleMania has a negative impact on WWE business. Totally unrelated. Who did you want to see win that match? Who did I want to see win the match? I'm not emotionally invested in WWE's product at all. So I don't really care. I wasn't rooting for Cody to win the match. I think Cody was the right business decision to have win that match, but I wasn't rooting for Cody to win the match. When Roman won, I was more entertained by Roman winning because he was shocked that Roman won in fact. If it were up to me, I would have put over Cody because I think he had earned it in the certainly in the business results that I saw leading up to the show in terms of merchandise terms in terms of the quarter. I'm in the same boat, but I wasn't super shocked. I would have said there's a 60-40 chance Cody wins going into the show. I was pretty sure. But then when he lost, for me from my pure entertainment perspective, it's much funnier that Cody lost and we had all these takes and Triple H has to answer during the press conference. The first question he gets asked is why did Cody win and the people trying to justify it. It's much funnier that way for me and in that way more entertaining than if just Cody wins, which is the smart right business decision. But as someone that again is not emotionally invested at all in these characters or anything like that, Roman winning in the kind of fallout from that, the conversation that comes from that is more entertaining to me and more interesting in a lot of ways than just Cody winning. Okay, that's all? That's all. I think that's it? That's all. Okay, thanks everybody for tuning in. We'll be back on Thursday for subscribers and we'll be porting throughout the week TV ratings and things of that nature. Thanks for listening. Talk to you next time. Bye. 92% of households that joined Peloton early in the year are still active a year later. Because of cycling? We also have a treadmill and Peloton guide. Guide the thing that counts your reps? Yeah. It turned your TV into an AI-powered personal trainer. Even with training programs like a Stronger U, Peloton Guide takes all the guesswork out of working out. 92% stick with it. So can you. Try Peloton, Tread, Guide or Bikes risk free with a 30-day home trial. New members only, not available remote locations. See additional terms at 1peloton.ca slash home dash trial. Spring is finally here. Get super spring savings now at Coglin Chevrolet. Central Ohio's number one Chevy dealer. Get a new 2023 Chevy Equinox for 26-5. To 2023 Chevy Silverado Crew Cab 4x4 under 44.5. Get super spring savings now at all five Coglin Chevy locations. Find new roads at Coglin Chevrolet.com. Coglin has the car for you. Made not central Ohio Chevy. You're going to get retail units. All rebates video are CD over details. In 4.3. A lot of smart people don't feel smart about their money. We have so many questions. Is now the right time to buy a house? How should I be saving to pay for college? How much do I really need to retire and am I on track? So Morgan Stanley made a podcast to help. On what should I do with my money, you can listen in on real people asking the same questions you have and getting real answers from experienced financial advisors. Find and follow What should I do with my money to get the answers you need to feel smart about